ummm…I have been reading but this is my first post. 
I am moving to TW this summer. I wonder how common marijuana is. I don’t have any plan to procure any given the language barrier although it might be fun to smoke some. Do you think TW will legalize it any time soon?
Holy Cow! No smoke for me in Taiwan. I am screwed. Maybe I shouldn’t come at all.
Thanks for the carpal tunnel, MT. :fume:
Enlightening. Thank you. I agree that the tobacco/alcohol lobby wouldn’t want any other legal drug. Makes sense.
As a parent, I really wouldn’t mind if all drugs were illegalized including booze and tobacco. I know that ain’t happening. I can only hope, that my children go through life like us, not knowing where and when the drugs come from, who procures it, and how to use it. (Ignorance is bliss or ecstasy in this case 
). As puritanical as it seems, I think we are better off with drinking age limits and restrictions on cigarette smoking.
[quote=“Mother Theresa”]
But, I’m still pleased to see the movement towards legalization, as (a) it’s hypocritical to allow use of tobaco and booze but lock people up for pot, and (b) I believe people shoudl learn to take responsibility for living their lives responsibly rather than having some puritanical nanny state dictating to us regarding personal choices.[/quote]
I would disagree as there are movements to ban smoking tobacco (singapore /california progressing the most with taiwan wanting to follow, wasnt that why the recent smoking ban was introduced with such a flmisy definition with some people thinking smoking WAS banned!). Therefore, if tobacco was criminalised, would you still support legalization for MJ? Further, your first paragraph seemed to be one of the main resaons against legalization - putting control of our socieites mental/physical health in big-corps who care abou profits and not people.
Im with Divea on this, I am not anti-drugs or drug users per se, but I dont think they provide any benefits to society, JUST like alcohol and cigarettes. Therefore in a truly progressive society surely drug use should be banned. Many who have read 'brave new world" and the recounts of “Soma” may also agree that drugs are generally social suppressents used to force people down the social ladder and prevent them seeking social justice.
How many people have I seen messed up by drugs, too many and all the following were before these people were 22, two close friends died in school, 1 heroin 1 coke, add in the people who failed school and dropped out of college due to “recreational drug use” minimum 3 (others were combinations), 1 heronin addict carving out a life of crime at juvenile, then seeing a friend on e/x scratch through her leg in a taxi till there was blood pouring out (scar remains), temporary blindness, stupidification, ‘dangerous behaviour’ (jumping off bridges, swimming in open ocean (with rip tides), going home with random “dodgy” strangers, forgetting to use protection…).
I personally feel that when you reach a certain age the drugs lose their appeal since they are all stimulated false emotions, laughing, but its not funny, happy, but your not happy, talkative, but youre talking bullshit to losers… Then you realise there are better things to spend money on and routes to find true laughter, happiness and discussion topics to engage in.
Would I be happy to see TW legalise drugs, no. Keep them illegal, keep it zero tolerance and allow our children to grow up and our elderly to grow old in safe secure environments where they can develope THEIR personalities and walk down the streets without being threatened.
If anyone wants to sell/take drugs then they are 100% informed of the risks and locking them up, ESPECIALLY when they are not citizens is the correct course of action. All these people asking for soft sentences have to ask themselves about equivalent legal situations. you want the drunk driver who ran over your best mate to be given a soft sentence (he was high, its oK, he was having fun)?
In regards to “alowing peoiple to dictate their own choices”, do addicts have freewill? Do people who are high on drugs think muchj at all? Most people have already stated in this and the dope and coke threads that the “guys were probably too high to do it discretely”… sure sounds like people are exercising their “freedoms”. Then, what about the victims of these crimes? Where are their freedoms? Have you walked through the estates with bad “drug problems”? I have, Ive been in their houses and interviewed the people and there is fear and paranoia. … That sure sounds like a free fair and open system.
Well, I have to disagree on this one. Take some real psychedelics and you will see the world very differently. I know a lot of skeptics who think that psychedelics is just some Hallucinogens which gives you brain diarrhea but quickly changed their minds after they tried it. I don’t recommend people using it for recreational purpose because it can give you brain damage, but it benefits people to try it at least once. I suspect early Christians spike their holy communion wine with psychedelics. A lot of scholars are saying that.
That’s a pretty selfish thing to say. “I don’t think they provide any benefits, so others who think they do should be prohibited from using them.” Wouldn’t it make more sense to say, “I don’t think they provide any benefits, so I will choose not to partake.”
I, for one, enjoy pouring myself a glass of scotch when I come home from a long, stressful day in the office, or having a large Taiwan beer with a nice dinner on Friday night to celebrate the end of the week, or sharing a bottle of wine with my wife over a special dinner. I don’t get shitfaced, throwup, act like a fool and pass out. I just enjoy a little alcohol now and then, in moderation. If others don’t, that’s fine; they needn’t partake. But millions would take to the streets to raise hell if the govt tried to take that simple, harmless right away (as happened almost a century ago).
Frankly, I have trouble seeing why one shouldn’t be able to substitute “smoke a bowl” or “light up a doobie” for each of the references to alcohol in the above paragraph.
Brave New World was an entertaining novel written 80 years ago. It may contain some valuable insights, but I disagree that drugs are “used to force people down the social ladder…” Drugs are mostly used by choice. Sure, there’s marketing and addiction, but ultimately the user decides whether to partake or not. If I have a drink after work, no one’s forcing me to do that and it doesn’t push me down any ladder. It’s a completely voluntary consensual act. If I were to torch up a doobie it would be the same. And, if I had a problem with psycological dependency, it would be my responsibility to keep that problem in check, just the same as compulsive eaters, shoppers, TVaholics, masturbators, and everyone else must do. Sure, anything can be a problem in excess, but (provided I’m not hurting anyone) I don’t want to live my life based on your morality. No offense intended. Nor would I want to force you to live in accordance with my personal standards.
What forces people down the social ladder much faster than anything else is a pissy conviction for a relatively harmless drug.
The problem with this assumption is that the parents of children growing up in El Paso, Texas or Phoenix, Arizona would know that police telling them there streets are safe is a crock of shit. Phoenix is the kidnap capital of the United States - the literal frontline of the drug war. In the 1990s with the beginning of Plan Colombia and an increased cooperation between the U.S. and Colombian government,not to mention the decrease in the size and territory controlled by the FARC, the drug war moved to Mexico right on the doorstep of the United States. Juarez just acrossed the border from El Paso has more murders per capita than Baghdad and is by far one of the most dangerous cities in the world.
Basic rules of economics apply here regardless of any legal barriers. When there is demand, then there will be supply. We have already failed in the experiment to eradicate a human vice during the acohol prohibition of the 1920s. During that era we saw a drastic increase in the amount of organized crime and political corruption. This is the era of the origin of the word "copper" for cop/police, meaning a police officer was worth no more than a copper penny, and of course the most corrupt President in the history of the United States, Warren G. Harding.
At the end of the prohibition era all that money that was funded into the prevention of people drinking alcohol was set for a huge budget cut. So how did law enforcement officers keep their jobs and their inflated budget? Simple - find a new target. Marijuana was the chosen alternative during the prohibition era yet still never obtained the popularity that alcohol held when it was legal or illegal. So first alcohol companies eager to enter back into the market along with industrialists like Dupont who wanted to compete against the strength of the hemp (a product from the male marijuana plant) cottage industry funded a racist campaign to mariginalize marijuana. First they started in New Orleans with the African-Amercian Jazz musicians and accounts of smokers raping and murding after indulging in marijuana. Then came the attack against the Mexicans in the southwest where it was actually first made illegal. The media campaign on the dangers of marijuana have continued to this day eventhough the media has disposed of the racial undertones. Instead the media/government campaigns have resorted to other tactics such as the gateway drug rumor or the most recent claiming that by buying any drugs your money is killing babies in Colombia. While there is truth that drug money fuels drug cartels, the irony is that through prohibition governments are giving drug cartels the go-ahead.
When drugs become illegal then the means by which to obtain them also become illegal as well as the enforcement of distribution and the resolution of disputes between sellers. People turn to violence because there is no legal recourse. The black market inflates prices and the dealers line their pockets. Through government regulation of drugs you will in effect undercut any power that the dealer previously had. But alas, we now have an entrenched private prison industry and an inflated bureaucracy devoted to prohibition. There is simply too much money to be made on all sides for drugs to ever be made legal. But you can going on thinking your kids are safe and others will keep getting rich.
There are numerous Canadians and Saffies in Taiwan that have come from disadvantaged backgrounds, slugged their way through 4 years or more of university while working menial service-based jobs to get them through, and continue to work week after week to make a decent but average foreigner income in Taiwan. Why should these people have their image tarnished by people that take short cuts? People that either lied about their educations or engage in illegal activities to pay for a lifestyle they wouldn’t otherwise be able to afford. As far as I’m concerned, this (Taiwan) is a culture that values humility. If some pusher is ‘pimpin’ with the flashy clothes, ‘Sonny Crocket and Rico Tubbs’ condo, and the sexy girl entourage, they are asking to be noticed and this also means trouble.
My sympathies are with people that have worked to rise up the ladder the legitimate way or people that work hard just to remain in the spot they’re in.
[quote=“Joeman_0”][quote=“itakitez”]
Im with Divea on this, I am not anti-drugs or drug users per se, but I don’t think they provide any benefits to society, JUST like alcohol and cigarettes. Therefore in a truly progressive society surely drug use should be banned. Many who have read 'brave new world" and the recounts of “Soma” may also agree that drugs are generally social suppressents used to force people down the social ladder and prevent them seeking social justice.
[/quote]
Well, I have to disagree on this one. Take some real psychedelics and you will see the world very differently. I know a lot of skeptics who think that psychedelics is just some Hallucinogens which gives you brain diarrhea but quickly changed their minds after they tried it. I don’t recommend people using it for recreational purpose because it can give you brain damage, but it benefits people to try it at least once. I suspect early Christians spike their holy communion wine with psychedelics. A lot of scholars are saying that.[/quote]
First up, this doesnt even bare commenting on - i would not recommend you come to Taiwan, try Thailand/Laos/Cambodia and see some of the results of “psychedelics”
Just remember what the doormouse said.
Well instead of attacking the easy targets, why don’t you respond to what I just posted for you, Itakitez.
Feed her head?
Feed her head?[/quote]
Something like that.
There are numerous Canadians and Saffies in Taiwan that have come from disadvantaged backgrounds, slugged their way through 4 years or more of university while working menial service-based jobs to get them through, and continue to work week after week to make a decent but average foreigner income in Taiwan. Why should these people have their image tarnished by people that take short cuts? People that either lied about their educations or engage in illegal activities to pay for a lifestyle they wouldn’t otherwise be able to afford. As far as I’m concerned, this (Taiwan) is a culture that values humility. If some pusher is ‘pimpin’ with the flashy clothes, ‘Sonny Crocket and Rico Tubbs’ condo, and the sexy girl entourage, they are asking to be noticed and this also means trouble.
My sympathies are with people that have worked to rise up the ladder the legitimate way or people that work hard just to remain in the spot they’re in.[/quote]
On the face of it, a reasonable argument, except, well except when you analyse it you see what a crock of shit it really is.
Let me guess, you write dross for politicians hoping to hoodwink suburban dweebs, or are you just fairly mediocre at mimicking the style?
That’s a pretty selfish thing to say. “I don’t think they provide any benefits, so others who think they do should be prohibited from using them.” Wouldn’t it make more sense to say, “I don’t think they provide any benefits, so I will choose not to partake.”
I, for one, enjoy pouring myself a glass of scotch when I come home from a long, stressful day in the office, or having a large Taiwan beer with a nice dinner on Friday night to celebrate the end of the week, or sharing a bottle of wine with my wife over a special dinner. I don’t get shitfaced, throwup, act like a fool and pass out. I just enjoy a little alcohol now and then, in moderation. If others don’t, that’s fine; they needn’t partake. But millions would take to the streets to raise hell if the govt tried to take that simple, harmless right away (as happened almost a century ago).
Frankly, I have trouble seeing why one shouldn’t be able to substitute “smoke a bowl” or “light up a doobie” for each of the references to alcohol in the above paragraph.
Brave New World was an entertaining novel written 80 years ago. It may contain some valuable insights, but I disagree that drugs are “used to force people down the social ladder…” Drugs are mostly used by choice. Sure, there’s marketing and addiction, but ultimately the user decides whether to partake or not. If I have a drink after work, no one’s forcing me to do that and it doesn’t push me down any ladder. It’s a completely voluntary consensual act. If I were to torch up a doobie it would be the same. And, if I had a problem with psycological dependency, it would be my responsibility to keep that problem in check, just the same as compulsive eaters, shoppers, TVaholics, masturbators, and everyone else must do. Sure, anything can be a problem in excess, but (provided I’m not hurting anyone) I don’t want to live my life based on your morality. No offense intended. Nor would I want to force you to live in accordance with my personal standards.[/quote]
I will restate that I don’t have a moral (religous or otherwise)objection to drugs per se, if the scoial negatives could be removed I would have no problem with your partaking, but the problem is you are hurting other people, your ‘harmless’ actions of smoking a doobie do have social consequences. All through the supply chain people like these guys who got banged up are all taking risks so you can have your relaxing doobie. From the farmers who grow cash crop drugs instead of food for their family through the mules who transport the drugs, neighborhood kids who are exposed to the drugs earlier and are more likely to waste their young brains on a habit to the end dealer risking 3-10 for your habit (or death penalty). You really believe all of those people are benefitting society as a whole or just your own selfish interests?
You also have the luxury of choice. Sure you say, youre not getting pushed down the ladder, but why is it that a proportionatly greater number of lower socio-economic kids start drugs earlier and ruin many of their chances of having the luxury of the choice you describe? The luxury of drug choice for the middle classes is just another form of exploitation.
For instance, that new house you bought in a nice safe area for kids to grow up in with nice tree lined streets. How would you feel if the government legalized drugs and similar to the “erogenous zones” formed a “high town” there? Since the lawyers and business execs are some of the few that can fund a regular habit, it makes most sense no. Would you stil live there? Would the area still be a 'nice safe area for kids to grow up in"? Would you protest and say “not in my back yard”? How would you feel about your daughters teacher partaking harmlessly in heroin after work? Maybe a few lines at lunch to really get the English class buzzing? On the same note, would you be ‘cool’ about your offspring smoking dope at high school? Smoking crack at weekends? You think they would still get the same grades? Therefore, is the societal contribution of one on drugs the same as one not ‘harmlessly partaking’?
Are you seriously saying you wouldnt be upset if had to watch your own son/daughter/brother/sister fall into the negative feedback of drug addiction and you would still see drugs as harmless? This is happening every day, but mainly in the poorer areas so the middle class guys are insulated from the worst of the trade and rarely see any harm in a joint.
Finally, the very fact that every drug out there suffers from major disadvantages to “the ones who cant control it” surely means scoiety benefits by everyone making their own sacrifice to forego the possible pleasures of drugs. Again, you are also in the position where if you did go too far and lost control you could probably recover by paying for rehab and get back on your feet. Are you willing to pay for these opportunities for the other, not so forunate?
Like I said before, I have not moral issue with drugs, my biggest hang up with drugs is that they are just another form of exploitation.
Getting there.
There are numerous Canadians and Saffies in Taiwan that have come from disadvantaged backgrounds, slugged their way through 4 years or more of university while working menial service-based jobs to get them through, and continue to work week after week to make a decent but average foreigner income in Taiwan. Why should these people have their image tarnished by people that take short cuts? People that either lied about their educations or engage in illegal activities to pay for a lifestyle they wouldn’t otherwise be able to afford. As far as I’m concerned, this (Taiwan) is a culture that values humility. If some pusher is ‘pimpin’ with the flashy clothes, ‘Sonny Crocket and Rico Tubbs’ condo, and the sexy girl entourage, they are asking to be noticed and this also means trouble.
My sympathies are with people that have worked to rise up the ladder the legitimate way or people that work hard just to remain in the spot they’re in.[/quote]
On the face of it, a reasonable argument, except, well except when you analyse it you see what a crock of shit it really is.
Let me guess, you write dross for politicians hoping to hoodwink suburban dweebs, or are you just fairly mediocre at mimicking the style?[/quote]
I would say many suburban dweebs these days support legalization. I’m not against it per se. Does that make me a suburban dweeb? In fact, it would create a revenue base from what is now an underground economy in many jurisdictions. And, in many respects, it is no worse than alcohol or tobacoo.
But–that is Europe and North America. The memory of the Opium War is still too fresh in the minds of most Chinese and so is colonialism for many Asians. Any North American or European that acts like ‘Superfly in Asia’ is asking for a whole lot of trouble. 
If they are into that role, why not do it at home where it would result in a penalty about 90 percent less severe? Seems like a huge gamble to me. And with any gambling or high risk situation, payoffs and penalties are big. People know the game and must be prepared for the results.