Swiss legalize heroin but not marijuana

Interesting story

That's...strange.

As is the part where the article suddenly veers off into talking about prosecuting child pornography. Wha?

Not seeing anything strange about it. The idea that heroin has been legalised in Switzerland is silly not what's actually happening. This is - as the right-wing idiot who was quoted said - a damage-limitation exercise, aimed at getting existing addicts to function as useful members of society. Nothing in that is inconsistent with Swiss rejection of liberalisation of cannabis laws. In fact, it seems like an entirely sane and pragmatic response to an existing problem. What's strange?

Because surely if limited, "medicinal" use of a seriously addictive hard drug like heroin can be acceptable, then at the very least medicinal marijuana ought to be okay. It doesn't carry anything like the risks.

But I suppose that's probably not what was being proposed.

I don't think that was what was proposed. It doesn't seem to have been the perception of the voters, from the OP's link.

The vote on that measure (change statute of limitations on kiddy porn from 15 years to infinity) was on the same ballot, which is why it was reported. Nothing odd about that.

On the whole it was progress, but I think they worry to damn much about the opinion of other nations.

It's Switzerland . . . their whole economy is based on other nations: Banking, tourism, chocolates, clocks, Swiss Army Knives . . .

Watches, gold, heroin..

And they did not let women vote till some time in the 1960s, and had it as a legal requirement that all men have full auto firearms in their homes along with a large amount of ammo, and then had a very low crime rate too, adding insult to injury.

Why should the Swiss give a crap about the opinions of others who cannot stay out of wars and have broke ass economic systems, and criminal justice systems?

The Swiss have not been in a war for over 400 years IIRC, and have a remarkably stable economy, and very, very low crime rate. They should not be at all concerned about the opinions of others who are not doing so well in such areas.

And yet, they are.

True, but I think they are being foolish for giving a damn. If it ain't broke, don't fix it!

So why not legalize marijuana too? One quote within the article talked about the Netherlands.... if you have an economy based on other nations, including tourism, then wouldn't you want people to come in and spend money? People go to places like Amsterdam b/c it is legal to smoke there. Just like people go to Vegas b/c they can gamble there.

Well, you could see it as a different sort of tourist. Someone goes to Amsterdam to smoke. Someone goes to Geneva to hide their money/art/other objects of value. But that's just a guess.

You don't recall correctly, sad to say. If nothing else, the Swiss were involved in the Napoleonic Wars, which were certainly more recent than 400 years. Without looking anything up (because I'm too fucking lazy) I believe the concept of permanent Swiss neutrality was established by the Congress of Vienna immediately after those ended (1815 or so). Ok, enough off topic on that.

Hmm, I just wondered about the following question. If some anonymous "Johan Cannabis Seed" were to sew the pasture lands and slopes of the Swiss country side and the seeds grew into healthy plants, would it be ethical to eradicate them simply because a person could potentially use the plant for prohibited means?

For those not in the know, a Swiss federal ethics commission recently determined to, "unanimously consider an arbitrary harm caused to plants to be morally impermissible. This kind of treatment would include, e.g. decapitation of wild flowers at the roadside without rational reason." Granted, the Swiss commission was convened to determine the ethicacy of biotechnology involving species of plants (in regards to genetic manipulation, patenting and ownership of plants), but obviously they did not arrive to their decision to protect plants for their own sake by discounting any "arbitrary harm" committed against individual plants themselves... Point being, a plant in an of itself isn't bad, but any human interaction resulting in manipulation or destruction of them is. Already, hemp has become a widely accepted crop in Switzerland and it's one of the most lax in defining a difference between low cannabinoid producing strains of cannabis (hemp) and those of with high THC content.

It will be interesting to see how they deal with this because the plant in and of itself is not criminal, possession and or cultivation may not be either, unless someone is caught in the act of using, authorities will have to determine that someone had specific intent to use the plant for illegal means if charges are brought for possession (I think).

Some Swiss citizens are worried about the burgeoning cost of heathcare for the country under the new heroin treatment program which adds an additional $22 million to the mandatory health care program. Ironically, they could quickly offset that pittance by decriminalizing marijuana and taxing its sales... Sounds like a no-brainer to me, but eh, the stigma of Reefer Madness rages on.

As for the legality issue. I imagine it would depend on how it was broken down. If someone just has the buds (for the uninitiated, the smokeable part) rather than the whole plant or the stems/stalks which would be used for more industrial purposes, then I'm sure they would be able to use that as evidence for drug possesion. Whether or not they would do this is a whole other story. Particularly with the relatively lax marijuana laws in Europe in general.

ps. i love the idea of Johan Cannabis Seed.

Some stoned dude, skipping around the countryside; sowing the cannabis seeds from a hemp bag at his side, wearing a lampshade on his head...

Its really about the most beautiful thing I can think of.