I think this is perfect. Make it legal but non-commercial. It should not be allowed to make a profit off of other people’s addiction and there shouldn’t be financial incentives to get people addicted as quickly as possible.
I wish they would do the same for alcohol, tobacco, gambling, etc.
I really like this. Yes, it should be everyone’s choice to consume it or not. But there really shouldn’t be commercial incentives to get people addicted and to get rich from their addiction.
Imgine the same rules applying to alcohol and tobacco… (yes you can absolutely grow tobacco in Germany).
Germany. One of the oldest populations in the world. Results for the most recent PISA study were terrible. There’s a huge shift to the political right, where even the so called social democrats call for more restrictive immigration policy, while the scientific consensus is that we urgently need mass immigration now to build a workforce that can keep the economy afloat.
Our resource used to be people, but we’re in the process of completely fucking that up. Education going downhill quickly, rapidly aging population paired with a massive push against immigration, the most important jobs having some of the worst pay and working conditions…
We’re in a race to the bottom. Japan mas have overtaken us, but we’re folfowing closely behind.
Because the protections that are in place for a very good reason, are not being implemented by those in power. I don’t know why.
No need to break the law, it’s in the German constitution:
Article 20 […] (4) All Germans shall have the right to resist any person seeking to abolish this constitutional order if no other remedy is available.
And you want to give the state the power to get rid of any group it deems undesirable?
The state already has the power to get rid of any group that seeks to destabilize our democratic system. This is a very central part of our constitution (see article 9, 18, 20 or 21). It’s basically a way to deal with the paradox of tolerance, if you’re not familiar with that concept here’s the wikipedia definition:
The paradox of tolerance states that if a society’s practice of tolerance is inclusive of the intolerant, intolerance will ultimately dominate, eliminating the tolerant and the practice of tolerance with them.
Ultimately, it is within the law to personally get rid of a group that wants to destroy our free and democratic system:
Article 20 […] (4) All Germans shall have the right to resist any person seeking to abolish this constitutional order if no other remedy is available.
This is usually interpreted as including physical violence.
I agree that ultimately, force is needed to get rid of fascism. But that doesn’t have to be physical violence, a somewhat functioning democratic system usually also has legislative force that can be used first. The German constitution was written up immediately after the horrors of the nazi regime and WWII. And it offers a lot of tools to fight fascism without physical violence. Political parties can be made illegal for example and individuals can lose their constitutional rights if they use them to destabilize the state. Of course, this won’t get rid of fascists but it may weaken them enough to not be a threat anymore.
People are protesting, among other things, for these tools to be used right now, before it’s too late and before physical violence is the only way out.
Ask the Kurds.
Also, Hamas didn’t just come up in a vacuum. People here in Germany are radicalizing because they were asked to wear masks during a pandemic and they heard that brown people are now seeking refuge in Germany. Palestinians have been suppressed, starved and killed for decades and none of the more moderate forces have been able to do anything about it. Not that Hamas would do any better, but it’s understandable that people support more radical movements when they’re literally fighting for their survival.
Slaughtering civilians is never justified. What Hamas did was horrifying and a crime against humanity. But the reason why Hamas ever got so strong in the first place has a lot to do with how Isreal has systematically oppressed and killed Palestinians for decades. And the war it is waging now against the Palestinian people is also indefensible. It should be widely condemned, any support withdrawn and Israel should be sanctioned.
I wonder what kind of storage solutions we could have today if we were investing as much into it as into nuclear fusion and fission…
People living comfortably here in Germany are flocking to extremist parties, because having to wear a mask during a pandemic or minding the rights of other people makes them feel oppressed.
The rise of Hamas was absolutely inevitable given the way people in Gaza were treated. If you’re literally fighting for survival and you realize more moderate groups are unable to change anything, you will support extremists out of sheer desparation.
Canada has free speech, just like Germany, the US or many other countries.
Free speech does not mean you cannot ever be punished for anything you say. There is no country in the world where this would be the case.
I’m willing to cover shipping cost (economy shipping, no tracking).
There are no good guys in this story.
Gambling, tobacco, alcohol and all sorts of other addictive things are for profit, so why exclude cannabis?
I would advocate for treating other addictions the same way too.
Alcohol and tobacco ads are targeting young people because they’re more likely to develop a lifelong addiction if you start them early enough. Gambling machines are set up to make people believe they can beat the system, so they stay hooked.
I just don’t think these should be legitimate business models.
I actually like it. Legalize it but make it non-commercial so nobody profits from other people’s addiction.
When you play the game of thrones, you win or you die.
There are a lot of Boeing 787 in the air at any time. You can go to flightradar24.com, click the filter icon at the bottom, add new filter, then aircraft and as ICAO code you just enter
B78*and it will show you only this aircraft type.The risk for an incident with any 787 at any time in the next few years may be higher that it should be. But the risk for one individual plane on one single flight is absolutely negligible. You’re more in danger on your way to the airport probably.