LOL, what part of the UK are you taking that from?
a middle-class bit of london; not that we don't have our fair share of crime, but it's not exactly hackney. the point is that you probably aren't going to come across someone with a gun. that's my point. scrotey oiklets with hoodie tops may be a nuisance, but they can be dealt with perfectly effectively by unarmed police.
I "kind of" own an illegal firearm and know at least 16 others that carry firearms on them or in the cars/houses. Heck I even know two arms dealers..... It is a problem here just as it is anywhere else... you just ain't looking in the right place...
i don't think i want to look in the "right place". as i understand it, you're ex-army, right? so presumably you are a trained weapons user and, as such, can be trusted to behave responsibly and act with respect, rather than leave the thing lying around, or wave it at people for no good reason. i have far less of a problem with that, as i know plenty of army people, both here and in israel, who know that a personal firearm is a responsibility, not (as in the US) a "right", which is something that doesn't make sense to me. and, as someone with army connections you would know people who are still "in the business". that all makes sense. the thing is, it's still illegal and that is still a problem. i'd like to know - do you think you *need* it? if so, why? are you forced to live where you are? do people *know* you have one and that's what you're relying on? either way, you're not talking about a situation that i would consider exactly common for the UK in general, or at any rate outside inner-city estates. maybe i'm naive, but i'd like it if it stayed that way.
like i say, firearms are different; the reason they are associated with drugs is because drugs are illegal. otherwise, you'd have a lawyer instead of a gun. (although sometimes i think guns are cheaper and faster, eh)
I mean, what would society look like then?
more like holland than colombia, i suspect. after all, what you're doing is making it possible for me to buy my 'happy powder' on my credit card at the off-licence or whatever (or indeed somewhere where i can be asked for proof-of-age), rather than having to buy cash from a criminal, with the associated risk.
I have heard the argument before, that if pot were legalized, fewer people would use it because it would no longer be "exciting," or whatever. Then again, if I am reading correctly here, there are those who no longer partake, that might resume if it were legal, so potentially there could be more people "under the influence."
i don't buy the "exciting" argument. there is an entire marketing industry (all paying tax, pension contributions and sueable) whose job it is to convince you that it is exciting to drink beer (and, indeed eat chocolate and rub face cream on your arse) - the point is that its very participation in the system "corrupts" it - it is forced to change to stay competitive. how many drug dealers would welcome being undercut by a supermarket? i mean, how would they win a turf war?
How and should the government tax and regulate the industry and sale?
the same way they do the tobacco and alcohol industries. these are recreational chemicals. the liability issues are dealt with by the risk and legal sectors, the quality assurance by pharma and manufacturing, but the police still arrest you for drunk driving or high trading. it is also arguable that if something is legal, you can hardly argue that you were forced to interact with criminals - thus placing the burden of responsibility back onto the individual where it belongs. and profitable?? do me a favour. look at how chocolate is marketed and tell me hash couldn't be marketed the same way. "fresh from the foothills of the himalayas...."
If there is such a public acceptance, why is government still hesitant to change the laws?
in the UK, they're scared of people accusing them of being soft on crime. instead of which, we ought to accuse them of being economically irresponsible and wasteful of the public purse.
Does any of this impact our standing in the eyes of G!D? Because something is legal does not make it intrinsically moral.
i am commanded to drink wine as part of my religious observance. i am not commanded to drink excessively (apart from on purim and pesach) but neither would i be free from censure if i smacked someone in the gob because i was shite-faced and lairy. as i say, the responsibility remains with the free-will. saying "i was mullahed" isn't an excuse.
Even those under the influence of legal prescriptions?
that i would say is more of a case by case thing. the essential thing is that if you have free will and choice, you should use it for good. there is no sin without free will.
Are dealers accountable for the lives they affect, just as business is supposed to be?
absolutely - except they can't, practically speaking, be held accountable at present, which legalisation would change. quite apart from the fact that paying tax is not something they really want right now.
Should a dealer be held accountable for the accidental death of a patron who, arguably, misuses a product? To what extent? (monetary like a business, or manslaughter or worse as an individual?)
nobody forced you to smoke. nobody forced you to drink. nobody forced you to get in that car. the "misuse" of a product is a smoke screen - is it "misuse" of kleenex if i stuff it in someone's mouth till they choke? is it "misuse" of a car if i run someone over - and, more to the point, is it the manufacturer's fault? surely not, unless there is an actual design flaw.
prostitution is another case in point. i don't like it, but nobody is forced to go to a prostitute. and should prostitutes not be entitled to the protection of the law and the medical establishment as much as, say, stuntmen?
b'shalom
bananabrain
LOL.
