
Are there any that have actually had any impact?
( , Mon 27 Jul 2015, 16:32, Reply)

And with America falling over itself to legalise it there's a hope.
( , Mon 27 Jul 2015, 16:37, Reply)

Whilst I do believe some form of legalisation will be in place at some point, I doubt the ability of online petitions to do anything in regards to changing law. In fact I doubt their ability to do anything.
( , Mon 27 Jul 2015, 16:41, Reply)

The US and other Americas have pretty much forced their hand.
Just hoping for some common sense here, not expecting it to happen tomorrow though.
( , Mon 27 Jul 2015, 16:50, Reply)

Ahh the good ole USA, making it so that you have to be a millionare to even apply for the license to own a shop selling the stuff.
Keeping all the money raised from weed firmly in the 1%'s pocket.
( , Mon 27 Jul 2015, 17:47, Reply)

Once a critical mass of people decide a law should not be followed it stops working.
A petition is just a visual indicator on how close to that point we are.
Also
www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jul/24/durham-decriminalised-cannabis-california-colorado-legalisation
( , Mon 27 Jul 2015, 16:39, Reply)

How's that gone, sweetcheeks?
( , Mon 27 Jul 2015, 16:44, Reply)

is that loads of people smoke cannabis without causing trouble therefore criminalising cannabis use is counterproductive and pointless.
For the "bring back the death penalty" petitions to have the same weight you would need a significant population of otherwise productive members of society who spent their weekends forming lynch mobs and reducing the suspected burglar population.
I'm not saying asking for the return of hanging won't work but you have to put in the ground work first.
( , Mon 27 Jul 2015, 16:48, Reply)

your experience with regular cannabis users differs from mine, which is fair enough. I'm afraid to say the ones I employed (usually very briefly) were totally stereotypical. When they turned up for work, that is.
( , Mon 27 Jul 2015, 16:59, Reply)

Hard working clever people who enjoy a reefer. And then there's my mate "Shaun".....
( , Mon 27 Jul 2015, 17:04, Reply)

experience is wide open to question, as for all I know half my town are pot users but don't show it. But I don't like the 'harmless' argument, as I think we probably know some one who it has harmed very much indeed, and sometimes their families.
( , Mon 27 Jul 2015, 17:28, Reply)

Those who don't have a problem seem less inclined to share their habit with others, maybe due to the stigma attached with use.
( , Mon 27 Jul 2015, 18:28, Reply)

it does impare skills. That is kind of the point of it as I understand, so I think the stigma is justified. I don't care if my local pub DJ smokes it, but the pilot of a 747 is a different matter, if I wanted to fly on it.
Or if I was on trial for a murder I didn't commit, and my defence counsel and the Judge both enjoyed an 'out of hours' recreational spliff, as did half the Jury. I'd prefer they didn't, to be honest. As I think would most people. And if most people agree, it isn't stigma.
( , Mon 27 Jul 2015, 19:29, Reply)

( , Mon 27 Jul 2015, 19:46, Reply)

I'd prefer they did neither, wouldn't you? Just because one is legal and one isn't, what does that have to do with my scenario?
I wouldn't want a drunk or a pot head as my defence lawyer. Does the fact that it is legal to be a drunk therefore make being a pot head ok too?
( , Mon 27 Jul 2015, 19:53, Reply)

That was my experience anyway.
It'll be nice to have the choice without fear of arrest and the problems a criminal record can cause.
( , Mon 27 Jul 2015, 20:13, Reply)

I find interesting about the whole debate. Drug users from all walks of life claim it is recreational, just a bit of fun, and yet risk this legal threat that could ruin careers and families from a prosecution. Apparently, this 'bit of relaxation' is worth the risk of a jail term. I don't buy that.
Driving at 100 mph on my local street would be great fun, and I reckon I, and my car, could handle it. But I can't do it. It is illegal. So I don't.
The fact so many people are willing to break the drugs laws on something they could 'take or leave, it's just fun' suggests it is more than that. It is a dependency masking real issues that they ought to address.
( , Mon 27 Jul 2015, 20:25, Reply)

If you were in the car with a joint that would be something, but there are already laws about that.
( , Mon 27 Jul 2015, 21:25, Reply)

Why would you feel justified to do one but not the other? Both are fun. Both are potentionaly life changing to you and others around you.
My only guess is that one is a need, the other a thrill.
( , Mon 27 Jul 2015, 21:50, Reply)

Because one has the potential to directly harm others and the other doesn't.
Life changing? Try life ending.
( , Mon 27 Jul 2015, 22:26, Reply)

too stoned to look after her children? I call that direct harm.
( , Tue 28 Jul 2015, 0:42, Reply)

Same as drinking or taking any substance. What people do in their own time should be up to them really. I don't see it as an issue
( , Mon 27 Jul 2015, 19:54, Reply)

you haven't met the people I sometimes have. I have never caught anyone smoking or drinking at work. But I've had to let them go because of the state they are in the day after. Their own time impacted on mine. I sound a horrid boss but I'm cuddly really.
( , Mon 27 Jul 2015, 20:02, Reply)

if someone is incapable of doing job whatever the reason then it needs dealt with, for sho
( , Mon 27 Jul 2015, 20:07, Reply)

Purely for that shambolic statement.
( , Tue 28 Jul 2015, 0:02, Reply)

I let people go because they turned up for work unable to do their job. I don't see that as unfair.
( , Tue 28 Jul 2015, 0:46, Reply)

If not, how do you know that the guys who you haven't fired don't smoke it?
( , Mon 27 Jul 2015, 17:50, Reply)

my argument isn't watertight. But I have always made it my business to get to know my colleagues and employees as well as possible and comfortable. There might be many, for whom doing it does not affect their work. I'm simply saying there are plenty I has come across where it does.
( , Mon 27 Jul 2015, 18:01, Reply)