[PZXjoe]

I have checked a few sites on the net and so far I know that the proceedings are similar in France and Belgium. A Belgian official website put its stance clearly : "changing name is a favour, not a right". In both countries you have to apply to several offices, state the reason(s) why you want to change your name and wait for the decision of the judge. It seems easier for people with foreign sounding name to change so that they can adapt more easily. I have heard of several cases of people of Moroccan or Algerian origins being discriminated when they apply for a job just because their name is Mohamed Abdulah or the like.

[retyopj]

Interestingly enough I'm for legalization of drugs too.

Banning alcohol didn't work and only made the mob richer so I'm for taking away drug money out of the gangs pockets.

Legalization will provide a safe supply compared to what you buy on the street, you never know if you're getting good smak or watered down sh_t.

Also, beyond quality control you can limit the power of what people take.

DO I support drugs. I've tried pot a few times. It wasn't my thing. I'd prefer a society without them actually. But, I also understand that reality is something we need to face.

@ safety
I've never heard of an accident involving weed. While drunk driving we see almost every night non TV. I bet that weed would prevent a lot of the postal shootings in the states too since it's a great way to relieve stress.

@ name change in Japan
Is virtually impossible. There been cases were Grandpa register's a new born's name as "Toranosuke" while the parents were thinking of something like "Riki" the problem is that only a hanko (seal) is used and the document becomes binding. Lawyers and Judges need to brought in to fix it for a nice healthy fee.

Hmm, Deed Poll ... sounds like an interesting idea.

[Ivanaishere]

Thomas, I totally agree with you.

Of course, I am in favour of a government type that provides health insurance, even free public health care, and social security. These are things the state can do to help, but I would also be grateful if they helped people in giving them the freedom to choose how they live their lives, what they consume and even to **** their health up if that's what they want - as long as it doesn't infringe on other's people liberty...

Another thing that I find an unacceptable breach in human liberties is how most governments make it difficult or near impossible to change your name. In the UK, anybody is free to call himself whatever they want and change name as many times as they want. The easiest legal way to do it is by deed polls. Unfortunately, very few non English speaking countries admit name changes by deed polls or without passing through long tedious and costly juridical procedures, that might not even be granted if you don't have a good reason (such as ridiculous name, etc.). In the US, I have read that it was usually possible by petition (brought to a judge), but much easier in some states than in others. Why should every region (inside the US, EU...) have so different laws on such basic rights is still a mystery for me.

[interbaoui]

It seems to be a common trend nowadays to decriminalize/legalize so-called soft drugs (such as cannabis). It's certainly a step in the right direction. In most European countries drug offences involving cannabis are no longer prosecuted, as long as the amount in question can still be justified for personal consumption. From a criminal (and perhaps medical) point of view, cannabis is certainly less dangerous than alcohol which means that the amount of crimes committed under the influence of grass is marginal compared to alcohol-related crimes.

So, like homeopathy, some substances are apparently good for the body at small dose, but poisonous/toxic at higher dose. Take our neighbour: she's 97, smoked until her eighties and still has her daily glass of wine. However, I'm generally a bit sceptical when it comes to homeopathy, as it *seems* to be based on nothing else than placebo effect.

I know it's off topic, but the delicate question is how to deal with hard drugs (cocaine, heroine, "new drugs"). Continue the hard stance or try to decriminalize as well under strict governmental control?

[orbidewa]

Hi Maciamo! I agree with you on this one. And here is an article with respect to the issue in the U.S.:

Once-Secret "Nixon Tapes" Show Why the U.S. Outlawed Pot
Kevin Zeese, AlterNet
March 21, 2002
Viewed on March 29, 2002

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Thirty years ago the United States came to a critical juncture in the drug war. A Nixon-appointed presidential commission had recommended that marijuana use not be a criminal offense under state or federal law. But Nixon himself, based on his zealous personal preferences, overruled the commission's research and doomed marijuana to its current illegal status.

This newly revealed information comes from declassified tapes of Oval Office conversations from 1971 and 1972, which show Nixon's aggressive anti-drug stance putting him directly at odds against many of his close advisors. Transcripts of the tape, and a report based on them, are available at www.csdp.org.

Congress, when it passed the Controlled Substances Act in 1970, temporarily labeled marijuana a "Schedule I substance" -- a flatly illegal drug with no approved medical purposes. But Congress acknowledged that it did not know enough about marijuana to permanently relegate it to Schedule I, and so they created a presidential commission to review the research and recommend a long-term strategy. President Nixon got to appoint the bulk of the commissioners. Not surprisingly, he loaded it with drug warriors. Nixon appointed Raymond Shafer, former Republican Governor of Pennsylvania, as Chairman. As a former prosecutor, Shafer had a "law and order," drug warrior reputation. Nixon also appointed nine Commissioners, including the dean of a law school, the head of a mental health hospital, and a retired Chicago police captain. Along with the Nixon appointees, two senators and two congressmen from each party served on the Commission.

The Shafer Commission -- officially known as the National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse -- took its job seriously. They launched fifty research projects, polled the public and members of the criminal justice community, and took thousands of pages of testimony. Their work is still the most comprehensive review of marijuana ever conducted by the federal government.

After reviewing all the evidence, these drug warriors were forced to come to a different conclusion than they had at first expected. Rather than harshly condemning marijuana, they started talking about legalization. When Nixon heard such talk, he quickly denounced the Commission -- months before it issued its report.

As a result of Nixon's public rebuke, Shafer met with the President. The Commission was upset, and the purpose of the meeting was to reassure them. But Nixon didn't budge. Instead, he warned Shafer to get control of his commission and avoid looking like a "bunch of do-gooders" who are "soft on marijuana." He warned Shafer that the Commission would "look bad as hell" if it came out with recommendations different from the direction of Congress and the President.

During their meeting, Shafer reassured the President that he would not support "legalization," even though there were some on the Commission who did. He told Nixon they were looking for a unanimous recommendation. Nixon warned Shafer that he "had very strong feelings" on marijuana. Nixon and Shafer also discussed Shafer's potential appointment to a federal judgeship.

But in the end, the Shafer Commission issued a report that tried to correct the "extensive degree of misinformation," to "demythologize" and "desymbolize" marijuana. They reported finding that marijuana did not cause crime or aggression, lead to harder drug use or create significant biochemical, mental or physical abnormalities. They concluded: "Marihuana's relative potential for harm to the vast majority of individual users and its actual impact on society does not justify a social policy designed to seek out and firmly punish those who use it."

The most important recommendation of the Commission was the decriminalization of possession or non-profit transfer of marijuana. Decriminalization meant there would be no punishment -- criminal or civil -- under state or federal law.

Nixon reacted strongly to the report. In a recorded conversation on March 21, the day before the Commission released its report, Nixon said, "We need, and I use the word 'all out war,' on all fronts ... we have to attack on all fronts." Nixon and his advisors went on to plan a speech about why he opposed marijuana legalization, and proposed that he do "a drug thing every week" during the 1972 presidential election year. Nixon wanted a "Goddamn strong statement about marijuana ... that just tears the ass out of them."

Shafer was never appointed to the federal court.

Nixon's private comments about marijuana showed he was the epitome of misinformation and prejudice. He believed marijuana led to hard drugs, despite the evidence to the contrary. He saw marijuana as tied to "radical demonstrators." He believed that "the Jews," especially "Jewish psychiatrists" were behind advocacy for legalization, asking advisor Bob Haldeman, "What the Christ is the matter with the Jews, Bob?" He made a bizarre distinction between marijuana and alcohol, saying people use marijuana "to get high" while "a person drinks to have fun."

He also saw marijuana as part of the culture war that was destroying the United States, and claimed that Communists were using it as a weapon. "Homosexuality, dope, immorality in general," Nixon fumed. "These are the enemies of strong societies. That's why the Communists and the left-wingers are pushing the stuff, they're trying to destroy us." His approach drug education was just as simplistic: "Enforce the law. You've got to scare them."

Unfortunately, Nixon did more than just "scare them," whoever they were. His marijuana war rhetoric led to a dramatic increase in arrests. One year after his "all out war" comments, marijuana arrests jumped to 420,700 a year -- a full 128,000 more than the year before. Since then, nearly 15 million people have been arrested for marijuana offenses.

For thirty years, the United States has taken the path of Nixon's prejudice and ignored the experts. We now have the largest prison population in world history, and drug problems are no closer to solved. Indeed, plenty of evidence indicates that drug-related problems are worse than ever.

It did not have to be this way. At the same time that the Shafer Commission issued its report, the Bain Commission in Holland issued a report that made similar findings and recommendations. In Holland, they followed the advice of their experts. Thirty years later Holland has half the per-capita marijuana use as the U.S., far fewer drug-related problems and spends much less on drug enforcement. With statistics like that, it's no wonder that most of Europe is going Dutch. Just last week a British Commission issued a Shafer-like report, indicating that the U.K. is moving in the Dutch direction.

It is not too late for the U.S. to move to a more sensible path. We are approaching three quarters of a million marijuana arrests annually. Every year that the U.S. fails to adopt a policy based on research, science and facts we destroy millions of lives and tear apart millions of families.

Where will we be in another thirty years if we don't change course and make peace in the marijuana war? Now that we know the war's roots are rotten -- and after we've lived through the decades of damage and failure it has produced -- we should face the facts. The thirty-year- old recommendations of the Shafer Commission are a good place to start.

Kevin Zeese is the president of Common Sense for Drug Policy (www.csdp.org).

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Reproduction of material from any AlterNet.org pages without written permission is strictly prohibited. © 2001 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.

[Deseassaugs]

Should never be ilegal form the start, hope it becomes legalised, it haves amazing properties if used right

[johnlohanmclee]

Go for Illegal!!
I made a thread about on the french forum:
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?t=8019

[Uttephabeta]

I don't smoke, nore drink much (only social) but I think it should be the user's choice. Your body, your choice what you do shouldn't be stopped and controlled by someone else unless it is harming others!

I also think it would help the situation, take for example prostitution in the U.S. and then prostitution that is being helped out by amsterdam, etc. Look at how much more control they have over the situation when it is helped instead of banned.

[Soulofpostar]

If it's for medical reason, so be it. Otherwise, it cannot be used. And for the medical reason case, every patient will have to be supervised very carefully that they don't traffick it. It needs to also be in tablets, and not in leafs, some which may be laced. NO EXCEPTIONS.

[mnhloot]

I think my home province of BC is leaning towards legalizing pot so they can tax the crap out of it. The law is very lenient here. They just go after the grow-ops, they don't care too much about the dealers/smokers.

[MexicoCity]

On the point about Cannabis, I also feel that it should be legalized. Just because it will become legal, it wont mean that everybody will start to smoke it and get hooked on it. When something is illegal it has a certain appeal to it. You want to do what you are prohibited. Also, on Hard drugs, whatever that means, I think it would be better if the Gov regulated their sale as well. So, if one wants to buy extcasy, he can go to a state-owned facility and buy it. At least in this way, he can receive info on the potency and effects of the drug, and not just buy anything in random out in the street that he has no idea how it has been "cut" or with wat.

[Unwiseevove]

Yes, it should be legal, considering it's safer than Alcohol. How many deaths/injuries/addiction problems are there per year because of alcohol? fights, drink driving, etc etc....it just doesn't compare to cannabis.

Cannabis makes you feel more relaxed and laid back, while alcohol just makes you unstable.

Then again, I'm not too keen on the idea of youths going round smoking it all the time, because it can make you do stupid things, even if less so than alcohol.

[JackieC]

Then again, I'm not too keen on the idea of youths going round smoking it all the time, because it can make you do stupid things, even if less so than alcohol.

And not just make you do stupid things, but it can make you stupid.

[outfinofulpv]

haha, yeah I've met quite a few people who smoke it waaaay too much and live their lives in a kind of constant trance. Maybe that's going a bit too far

[ArrichMer]

I'd say that it is.

[YonkFiorc]

the person who feels they can't live without the drug, but can't come up with the money legally, to buy it. I don't want to be their victim when they steal, rob, or even kill to get the money they need. I'm not to sure I want to depend on someone who is stoned to provide a service for me either? Would you want a paramedic trying to save your life or driving you in an ambulance at high speed while stoned? I think if pot were as available as alcohol we
would double our problems we now have with booze alone!

Frank

[StoyaFanst]

I doubt it. People are using it anyway. It's not like whether it's legalized will change that all that much. Even during prohibition I'm sure there were people who went to work drunk.

[ivandiadser]

I still think one of the greatest jokes in America is that alcohol and tobacco are legal and cannabis isn't. The same thing applies to ephedra.



Too many people fear what they don't understand. You can't buy ephedra, but there are drive-thru booze stores?

[Cgnebksb]

I'm all for it...not that I smoke but it would be a good time out after work. Head to the local pub and light one up.

Seriously, I agree...what's the difference if tobacco and alcohol are legal? Just put an age restriction on it like 21 to 25 and laws about working under the influence of it.

[Zugaxxsn]

the bill of rights is written on the stuff