Why is Cannabis still illegal?
Discussion
Foppo said:
What inpact is marihuana on society in comparison with alcohol and tobacco use?
The war on drugs is wasted the Dutcch realised that years ago.There is never a perfect solution but better legalise than the other way round.
Prostitution the same solution legalise create safe areas and argue about morality after.
And Holland now has less drug issues than it used to?The war on drugs is wasted the Dutcch realised that years ago.There is never a perfect solution but better legalise than the other way round.
Prostitution the same solution legalise create safe areas and argue about morality after.
The smoking aspect should be ignored in these debates as vaporising gadgets have come on a long way. There is no need to inhale combustion products.
The dominance of super strong skunk varieties is mostly down to the fact that the indica plants are a lot more compact, and so cultivation can be far denser than the sativa plants that give the cerebral high.
It's very likely that the people who "go nuts" or are a bit "fragile" would always be so even without any other influence. It's like everything else in life. Moderation is key, and to some people this is an alien concept...
The dominance of super strong skunk varieties is mostly down to the fact that the indica plants are a lot more compact, and so cultivation can be far denser than the sativa plants that give the cerebral high.
It's very likely that the people who "go nuts" or are a bit "fragile" would always be so even without any other influence. It's like everything else in life. Moderation is key, and to some people this is an alien concept...
Eric Mc said:
Foppo said:
What inpact is marihuana on society in comparison with alcohol and tobacco use?
The war on drugs is wasted the Dutcch realised that years ago.There is never a perfect solution but better legalise than the other way round.
Prostitution the same solution legalise create safe areas and argue about morality after.
And Holland now has less drug issues than it used to?The war on drugs is wasted the Dutcch realised that years ago.There is never a perfect solution but better legalise than the other way round.
Prostitution the same solution legalise create safe areas and argue about morality after.
I don't know either.
But making comments on the lines that the world would be a better place with MORE drugs being legally available is, I think, a symptom of extreme wishful thinking.
(Or perhaps a fondness for a particular drug that isn't currently legal by those making the comment).
But making comments on the lines that the world would be a better place with MORE drugs being legally available is, I think, a symptom of extreme wishful thinking.
(Or perhaps a fondness for a particular drug that isn't currently legal by those making the comment).
Eric Mc said:
I don't know either.
But making comments on the lines that the world would be a better place with MORE drugs being legally available is, I think, a symptom of extreme wishful thinking.
It's not more drugs, it would be the same amount of drugs but from different sources.But making comments on the lines that the world would be a better place with MORE drugs being legally available is, I think, a symptom of extreme wishful thinking.
If anyone is even slightly interested they can find drugs very quickly, and I've never come across anyone who wouldn't try something on the basis it's illegal. Want it or don't want it, legality doesn't come into it. Everything's available, everywhere.
Turning it around, is the war on drugs winnable? Do we get value for money in terms of policing, court time, low level crime etc?
The demand isn't going away. The supply isn't going away. It's obvious to me it would be best to take some sort of control (and take some money).
The war is lost. Politicians know it but we need one with the balls to admit it.
Eric Mc said:
Driller said:
I don't smoke cannabis (or drink much) but I believe that what you do with your own body, including what you put in it, is your business and nothing to do with anybody else including the government.
Unless it has a detrimental effect on those around you and society in general - because in most cases it's you and me (as taxpayers) who end up funding the wreckage left by the miscreant.Alcohol and tobacco are vey potent drugs that can have awful effects on those/society around the user in the worst cases but most users will not have any effect on others at all.
By the same logic you would ban people from owning kitchen knives.
People genuinely don't realise how strong and dangerous a drug alcohol is, I've done most recreational drugs in my life, weed, Shrooms and MDMA for example and I've never felt more out of control of myself or done things I'm more ashamed of when drunk. Class A substances have never had me lying in a pool of my own sick, getting in a fight or even given me a comedown anything as like as bad as a particularly nasty hangover. For me alcohol is second only to heroin in how dangerous abusing it can be - and that may only be because I've never tried smaxk
Eric Mc said:
And Holland now has less drug issues than it used to?
Yes. Dutch people experiment with, or consume on a regular basis, less drugs than we do in Britain, or the US; Where it is (or was until very recently in certain states) illegal. There is clear and objective data to show that the pragmatic Dutch approach reduces "drug issues".Maybe I'm wrong but my brother asked me if I knew anyone who could get some because he said it would help him relive his crumbling vertebrae pain ...His doctor said apparently.
I didn't get any for him because I felt he would become relying on me to supply an illegal drug , hence I would become his dealer.
There is alternatives to cannabis on the NHS but not as effect
ive. .It seems.
Legalise it and maybe it will help a lot of normal people from suffering.
I didn't get any for him because I felt he would become relying on me to supply an illegal drug , hence I would become his dealer.
There is alternatives to cannabis on the NHS but not as effect
ive. .It seems.
Legalise it and maybe it will help a lot of normal people from suffering.
The Government is there to provide restrictions on things people can't be bothered to learn about.
That is why pressure works but it only works in numbers.
Numbers only work when people learn and have their own understanding from their own perspective.
Put the Daily Mail down and hunt out sources to make an actual informed opinion.
I believe that education (actual learning - not forced indoctrination) is the only humane way to let society decide what is best for itself.
That is why pressure works but it only works in numbers.
Numbers only work when people learn and have their own understanding from their own perspective.
Put the Daily Mail down and hunt out sources to make an actual informed opinion.
I believe that education (actual learning - not forced indoctrination) is the only humane way to let society decide what is best for itself.
Edited by remkingston on Sunday 2nd August 22:38
The problem is too many people believe this:
yet nobody seems able to provide any scientific evidence to back it up, only "my child/relative/friend/dog's f
k-buddy" once smoked weed and now they rock themselves to sleep with one eye open.
Alcohol is by far and away the most damaging (due to it's widespread availability) drug, backed up by any number of scientific studies, yet nobody suggests banning that do they? I'd also wager most of the people bleating about what somebody else should or shouldn't be allowed to put into their own body are not teetotal either. Hypocrisy much?
yet nobody seems able to provide any scientific evidence to back it up, only "my child/relative/friend/dog's f
k-buddy" once smoked weed and now they rock themselves to sleep with one eye open.Alcohol is by far and away the most damaging (due to it's widespread availability) drug, backed up by any number of scientific studies, yet nobody suggests banning that do they? I'd also wager most of the people bleating about what somebody else should or shouldn't be allowed to put into their own body are not teetotal either. Hypocrisy much?
BJG1 said:
People genuinely don't realise how strong and dangerous a drug alcohol is, I've done most recreational drugs in my life, weed, Shrooms and MDMA for example and I've never felt more out of control of myself or done things I'm more ashamed of when drunk. Class A substances have never had me lying in a pool of my own sick, getting in a fight or even given me a comedown anything as like as bad as a particularly nasty hangover. For me alcohol is second only to heroin in how dangerous abusing it can be - and that may only be because I've never tried smaxk
I'm teetotal because I have to be. I'm alcohol intolerant. When I was diagnosed as such, in April 1979, I was a bit miffed, although my doctor, tee-total for religious reasons, explained it this way: it is one or more of the many poisons in alcoholic drink that I react to. But then, so does everyone else. To some others, the damage is not quite so apparent so early.I looked it up, a lot harder in those pre-internet days. It quite shocked me just how bad alcohol was for you, even ignoring the behavioural aspects.
It's a dreadful poison which does a lot of harm to the body, and this is entirely without any cognisance of the behavioural aspects, which are easier to see.
There was a ban on experimenting with cannabis, despite it being known that it consisted of various products which were, to say the least, efficacious. There was political influence in order to back up the 'war on drugs'.
The problem was that it could not be copyrighted so the big pharma could not make money out of it, or that is one interpretation. I'm not sure that is correct as it would require politicians to be more concerned about money being paid to them than the health of the nation. Highly unlikely of course.
The experiments around the world with the lack of prosecution for possession and low level cultivation of cannabis have had largely positive results. The benefits have been varied.
The experiments around the world with legislation restricting access to various drugs has failed. If you want drugs, you can get them. The benefits have been few, and even these are arguable.
If you look at drugs control in a pragmatic way, or in a benefit/cost basis, then the best course of action is quite clear I think.
If a 44-year experiment fails and actually increases the problem it was meant to solve, as well as causing all sort of additional problems, then sooner or later you will have to try something else.
Centurion07 said:
Studio117 said:
People say that alcohol's a drug. It's not a drug, it's a drink!
Lolz. Assuming you're actually serious, this is the kind of retarded, hypocritical thinking that is the barrier to legalisation.alcohol is a substance which alters the way the body works , you could stretch the definition of 'psychoactive' substance to cover the effects of alcohol ...
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff