Why is Cannabis still illegal?
Discussion
Axionknight said:
vetrof said:
Axionknight said:
Affects everybody the same, does it?
Good point, precisely why a blanket 'drugs are bad' narrative is ridiculous.Weed is fine for some people, I'd very well imagine, but bad for others, just like booze. Wolves was making a (sarcastic, I believe) point that very successful people had smoked weed in the past so it therefore could not be used as an excuse by ne'er do wells who smoke it.
Edited by Axionknight on Monday 3rd August 14:30
Ali G said:
He may well have done - and the topic is 'Why is Cannabis still illegal?' Not 'Why is ecstasy still illegal'
Sorry forum police - the discussion, over several pages, has meandered - there was a discussion about ecstasy, another relatively harmless drug unfairly prohibited and DragonCaviar posted an informed opinion in response to someone else. Quite how that justifies abusing him by calling him a t
t I don't know. Ali G said:
Apparently, ecstasy has been the cause of a few deaths - you may choose to disagree.
I don't. MDMA kills usually a single-didget number of people a year. In most of these cases, PMA, a similar but stronger and more toxic substance, has been the cause. It also takes longer to take effect than MDMA which means people think it hasn't worked and taken more. Legalisation would ensure PMA is not present in MDMA (or other substances) and significantly reduce its impact. It is impossible to make a logical and reasoned argument that suggests legalisation wouldn't minimise the number of deaths cause.Ali G said:
And for all those who wish to do recreational drugs- just get on with it! And accept whom you are funding.
I don't 'accept who I am funding' for two reasons. The first is that the cannabis I buy has no crime related to it (other than its cultivation and sale). Clearly, the purchase of heroin and cocaine, for example, has a particularly blood history behind it, which brings me onto my second reason. We should accept it because we can change it - it is perfectly possible to produce these drugs without criminal enterprise, murder and exploitation behind them and that is through legalisation and regulation of their manufacture. Ali G said:
From my perspective - what adults wish to by themselves (which presumes a certain level of competence and self-awareness) - or by or with other adults - is a matter for themselves - providing it HAS NO NEGATIVE IMPACT ON ANYONE ELSE.
I agree - legalisation of recreational drugs reduces/eliminates the harm the recreational drugs trade does to others. For example, a few weeks ago I shared some magic mushrooms, grown in somebody's kitchen, with some friends - there was no harm done to anyone else, it was just some adults making a decision as to what to do with their own bodies - had I been caught with them, I'd have been facing a maximum sentence of life in prison. I can see absolutely no justification for that and I'd love to see you make the case for it. Ali G said:
And again 'Do What Ya Wanna Do' - and accept whatever consequences there may be down the road.
But why should we accept the legal consequences? If you applied that argument to everything, we'd never see any changes in legislation - would you have told gay men in the 1950s that they're free to have sex with other men but they should accept if caught they'll go to prison for it? Would you have told black people they're free to sit at the front of the bus but should accept being arrested for doing it?Ali G said:
I seek no approval from anyone other than myself - I infer from you and your ilk that you do wish approval through state endorsement through legalisation - and all that that would entail.
I don't seek approval. I seek the ability to do as I wish with my own body without criminal consequence. Ali G said:
I would legalise the use of the lot - and support the principle of 'caveat emptor' - much squealing from all sides would then ensue - particularly if the sources were found to be 'illegal'.
I don't get this? Do you mean you'd decriminalise use but keep the sale illegal?Either - total ban on drugs (no class a,b,c) or legalise cannabis or marijuana but everything else is totally banned (again no a,b,c)
Allowing cannabis or marijuana possession to have a blind eye turned to it isnt helpful as you'll be OK to possess it in some places and not in others.
Anyway, cannabis or marijuana normally needs tobacco to be smoked which in itself is cancerous st.
It definitely is a gateway drug in its current form of legality because it teaches you how to obtain drugs illegally and mixes the buyer with drug dealers. The dealers ( depending on their experience and inclination) have access to all other drugs so they may see if you "want" to try something (more profitable), alternatively if curiosity takes the buyer then they may ask for something else.
The point is once you start buying drugs then you are in the company of drug dealers and drug users, they dont give a fk about your well being, only their profits and getting high (towlie).
Allowing cannabis or marijuana possession to have a blind eye turned to it isnt helpful as you'll be OK to possess it in some places and not in others.
Anyway, cannabis or marijuana normally needs tobacco to be smoked which in itself is cancerous s
t.It definitely is a gateway drug in its current form of legality because it teaches you how to obtain drugs illegally and mixes the buyer with drug dealers. The dealers ( depending on their experience and inclination) have access to all other drugs so they may see if you "want" to try something (more profitable), alternatively if curiosity takes the buyer then they may ask for something else.
The point is once you start buying drugs then you are in the company of drug dealers and drug users, they dont give a f
k about your well being, only their profits and getting high (towlie).Eric Mc said:
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.
Would you apply the same logic to skiing? Motorcar racing? Both those activities are more likely to result in a cost to the taxpayer (through the NHS) than smoking cannabis. Eric Mc said:
Legal drugs have the same effect as illegal drugs. Drugs is drugs after all - only they would probably be even more widespread - so more damaged and wrecked lives for the taxpayers to pick up the tab.
I'm not saying taxpayers SHOULDN'T fund all these bills by the way. I'm just pointing out that they will.
Firstly, legal drugs DO NOT have the same effect as legal ones - would you rather take an aspirin that had been knocked up in a dirty lab in the jungle somewhere, transported half way around the world inside someone's anus and then cut with whatever the end dealer could lay his hands on or would you rather it came from Glaxo who operate in a tightly regulated environment? I'm not saying taxpayers SHOULDN'T fund all these bills by the way. I'm just pointing out that they will.
Your assertion that they would probably be even more widespread flies in the face of available evidence. Decriminalisation of use in Portugal has meant drug use is lower there than the European average, declined in those aged 15-24, addiction is down, the number of people contracting AIDS has fallen from 1,016 to 56 between 2001 and 2012, deaths due to drug use have decreased significantly – from approximately 80 in 2001, to 16 in 2012. In Colarado, where they legalised cannabis, according to the state’s department of revenue, the first ten months of legal marijuana sales have resulted in nearly $40 million in tax revenue. The city of Denver saw a decrease in violent crime rates in the first 11 months of 2014, following a similar trend in 2013. Statewide traffic fatalities continue to decline, according to the Colorado Department of Transportation. Upwards of $8 million has been allocated to fund youth education and drug prevention efforts. And the state is enjoying economic growth and the lowest unemployment rate in years.
hman said:
Either - total ban on drugs (no class a,b,c) or legalise cannabis or marijuana but everything else is totally banned (again no a,b,c)
Allowing cannabis or marijuana possession to have a blind eye turned to it isnt helpful as you'll be OK to possess it in some places and not in others.
Anyway, cannabis or marijuana normally needs tobacco to be smoked which in itself is cancerous st.
Cannabis does not need tobacco to be smoked, that is entirely erroneous. It is a straight up choice to use it in a joint or not.Allowing cannabis or marijuana possession to have a blind eye turned to it isnt helpful as you'll be OK to possess it in some places and not in others.
Anyway, cannabis or marijuana normally needs tobacco to be smoked which in itself is cancerous s
t.Out of interest - why do you think it's ok to legalise cannabis but not equally unharmful drugs such as MDMA or Magic Mushrooms?
doogz said:
When was the last time you even heard about a stoner getting into a fight?
A well known side-effect of ongoing use is paranoia which, in some people, can result in aggression. I have witnessed this.For balance and clarity, I would certainly agree that incidence of alcohol related aggression and violence is far higher - the correlation higher IMHO - and also that I've known people who've used cannabis regularly and not had any psychological effects.
BJG1 said:
hman said:
Anyway, cannabis or marijuana normally needs tobacco to be smoked which in itself is cancerous st.
Cannabis does not need tobacco to be smoked, that is entirely erroneous. It is a straight up choice to use it in a joint or not.t.BJG1 said:
In Colarado, where they legalised cannabis, according to the state’s department of revenue, the first ten months of legal marijuana sales have resulted in nearly $40 million in tax revenue.
I'm not in agreement with the whole "legalise and tax it" angle, seems to me you could apply that to any illegal activity - pick any law, hyperbole yourself to a frenzy. If something is distasteful and undesirable in civil society surely taxing it (presumably to subsidise tax cuts for the rich - that's what is most likely to happen) doesn't seem a satisfactory "solution" to me. I'm not an ideologue but shouldn't we start, when wanting to create improvements and changes to our society, to have some sort of ideal at the core of it? Digga said:
well known side-effect of ongoing use is paranoia which, in some people, can result in aggression. I have witnessed this.
Nope, this is not a well known side-effect. THC, whilst in your system, can cause paranoia. There has not been a study which has established a causal link between cannabis use and paranoia whilst not under the influence of cannabis. BJG1 said:
Digga said:
well known side-effect of ongoing use is paranoia which, in some people, can result in aggression. I have witnessed this.
Nope, this is not a well known side-effect. THC, whilst in your system, can cause paranoia. There has not been a study which has established a causal link between cannabis use and paranoia whilst not under the influence of cannabis. When I gave up toking this was the main reason, I was getting increasingly paranoid, both when high and in every day life. My missus helped me rationalise some of the paranoia I was having and it lasted a good 12 months or so (decreasingly) after I gave up.
You could say that being high heightens the senses and rather than making one paranoid just makes you more aware to your surroundings and interactions - but it doesn't really matter what's going on if you can't sit in a room with people or in a busy place in comfort.
FredClogs said:
Are you talking about me?
When I gave up toking this was the main reason, I was getting increasingly paranoid, both when high and in every day life. My missus helped me rationalise some of the paranoia I was having and it lasted a good 12 months or so (decreasingly) after I gave up.
You could say that being high heightens the senses and rather than making one paranoid just makes you more aware to your surroundings and interactions - but it doesn't really matter what's going on if you can't sit in a room with people or in a busy place in comfort.
I'm sorry to hear about the problems you've had but your anecdotal evidence doesn't really make any difference - no causal link has been established. If we accepted this sort of standard of evidence we'd be dishing out homeopathic remedies to cure cancer. I'll use the same argument with people that have suddenly decided weed is a cure for every fWhen I gave up toking this was the main reason, I was getting increasingly paranoid, both when high and in every day life. My missus helped me rationalise some of the paranoia I was having and it lasted a good 12 months or so (decreasingly) after I gave up.
You could say that being high heightens the senses and rather than making one paranoid just makes you more aware to your surroundings and interactions - but it doesn't really matter what's going on if you can't sit in a room with people or in a busy place in comfort.
king disease on the planet as well, based on junk-science. 
I have known people from all sorts of backgrounds and with all sorts of lives who regularly enjoy using cannabis. Some of them wealthy, with demanding jobs, some of them lazy bums, some of them just ordinary joes with ordinary working lifestyles. Some of them no doubt abuse it. One of them is the dope equivalent of a binge drinker, who will buy a large amount at once and then spend his time completely monged until it runs out. It's not good for him, it exacerbates his existing neuroses, but he's an adult acting of his own free will, it's his choice.
I think that if you want to restrict the freedoms of adults, it is up to you to justify it - not up to others to defend that freedom. I don't see that there is a strong case for restricting cannabis. Nor, for that matter, many other recreational drugs. The strongest argument prohibitionists can put forward for restricting a substance is the risk of dependence, and that risk is not high for cannabis.
I think that if you want to restrict the freedoms of adults, it is up to you to justify it - not up to others to defend that freedom. I don't see that there is a strong case for restricting cannabis. Nor, for that matter, many other recreational drugs. The strongest argument prohibitionists can put forward for restricting a substance is the risk of dependence, and that risk is not high for cannabis.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff