Why is Cannabis still illegal?
Discussion
FredClogs said:
Yeah, like I said above you can hyperbole this up the wazoo if you like, why not make staged pedophilia images legal and tax them? As long as it was all staged and/or computer generated, no one is getting hurt and think of the money in taxes you could raise... There is literally no downsides - right?
Caught speeding? Doing 40 in a 30 zone? It's not really hurting anyone (the vast majority of the time), society in general doesn't care and you get places quicker, why not just tax the speeders and make it more socially acceptable - That is pretty much what does happen, but it doesn't exactly hold up any sort of moral ideal.
Sometimes the law has to balance what's popular or seemingly easy or enforceable and lay down foundation stone guidelines, moral certainty in an morally uncertain world, like a parent would. I'm not going to encourage or condone my children to smoke, drink or do anything risky - I fully accept they will and probably come to no harm but the idea that they're exposed to risk because it's a good tax earner for government seems ridiculous to me.
Careful Fred, you'll run out of straw at this rate.Caught speeding? Doing 40 in a 30 zone? It's not really hurting anyone (the vast majority of the time), society in general doesn't care and you get places quicker, why not just tax the speeders and make it more socially acceptable - That is pretty much what does happen, but it doesn't exactly hold up any sort of moral ideal.
Sometimes the law has to balance what's popular or seemingly easy or enforceable and lay down foundation stone guidelines, moral certainty in an morally uncertain world, like a parent would. I'm not going to encourage or condone my children to smoke, drink or do anything risky - I fully accept they will and probably come to no harm but the idea that they're exposed to risk because it's a good tax earner for government seems ridiculous to me.
remkingston said:
SORRY DUDE! I was reading the trail of comments that led to your statement that I was replying to.
I understand your point that although a referendum could be used that actually maybe due to a lot of misinformation that has been pushed around over the years that we would be better suited by a factually based board or committee making an informed decision instead?
Haha no worries, I could definitely have been a lot clearer! I think a fact-based committee should be in charge of how legalisation works, but we should be doing it anyway as it should be a fundamental human right. I understand your point that although a referendum could be used that actually maybe due to a lot of misinformation that has been pushed around over the years that we would be better suited by a factually based board or committee making an informed decision instead?
doogz said:
Well there's a negative advert for cannabis use I suppose.
I'm pretty sure you misunderstood the question, as opposed to us misunderstanding the answer.
I didn't misunderstand the question - I was just answering it from the perspective of "what it the referendum says no" - could have been clearer though.I'm pretty sure you misunderstood the question, as opposed to us misunderstanding the answer.
hman said:
When I say cannabis - I mean resin and when I say marijuana I mean weed in the UK, it is normal to smoke both with tobacco. We are talking about the UK here so this is relevant.
Smoking a pure weed joint is fine - the problem is that in the UK, if you smoked a pure skunk joint - without any tobacco then you would feel very ill very quickly.
Some crappy low grade hashish weed would be fine though - so long as you removed all the seeds first or you'll be blimming your clothes, seats and the joint would be popping and cracking - not good.
MDMA, Mushrooms, Speed, I'm not so sure that they dont wreck your mental state through prolonged usage...
How it is habitually smoked and how it needs to be smoked are very, very different. There is absolutely no reason someone would smoke cannabis in any form with tobacco unless they want to. Smoking a pure weed joint is fine - the problem is that in the UK, if you smoked a pure skunk joint - without any tobacco then you would feel very ill very quickly.
Some crappy low grade hashish weed would be fine though - so long as you removed all the seeds first or you'll be blimming your clothes, seats and the joint would be popping and cracking - not good.
MDMA, Mushrooms, Speed, I'm not so sure that they dont wreck your mental state through prolonged usage...
You can roll a joint of strong cannabis with no tobacco and you won't be ill, trust me ;-) think of it like a bottle of whisky, if you drink the whole thing you might be ill but you can just have a few glasses. Anyway, I only smoke the finest quality weed and I never use tobacco.
FredClogs said:
Sometimes the law has to balance what's popular or seemingly easy or enforceable and lay down foundation stone guidelines, moral certainty in an morally uncertain world, like a parent would. I'm not going to encourage or condone my children to smoke, drink or do anything risky - I fully accept they will and probably come to no harm but the idea that they're exposed to risk because it's a good tax earner for government seems ridiculous to me.
They are already exposed to the risk, regardless of legality. I really don't know what's so hard to grasp about that.What you are exposing them to, through legalisation, is the fundamental right to govern your own body as you wish.
BJG1 said:
Ali G said:
Excellent point of view!
And democracy may not be subject to your will.
wtf are you on about? Democracy isn't a tangible, you can't subject it to anything. If you are talking about people, I am not attempting to subject them to my will at all, care to explain how?And democracy may not be subject to your will.
But from what I can ascertain from you posts - you may be unable to understand.
Too offensive?
BJG1 said:
How it is habitually smoked and how it needs to be smoked are very, very different. There is absolutely no reason someone would smoke cannabis in any form with tobacco unless they want to.
You can roll a joint of strong cannabis with no tobacco and you won't be ill, trust me ;-) think of it like a bottle of whisky, if you drink the whole thing you might be ill but you can just have a few glasses. Anyway, I only smoke the finest quality weed and I never use tobacco.
I would think that most people replying to this thread have toked joints of various strengths and with varying amounts of tobacco - so lets assume no-one needs help in understanding how to smoke weed and what moderation is.You can roll a joint of strong cannabis with no tobacco and you won't be ill, trust me ;-) think of it like a bottle of whisky, if you drink the whole thing you might be ill but you can just have a few glasses. Anyway, I only smoke the finest quality weed and I never use tobacco.
Anyway
Inhaling smoke of burning organic combustibles will increase your risk of developing cancer and possibly heart disease.
This is because burning organic combustibles will release hydrocarbons and free radicals both are carcinogens - you are inhaling these into your lungs, holding it there to increase the absorption rate, and then releasing them into the room where others will inhale them as well.
So tobacco or not, you are still increasing your risk of developing cancer...
hman said:
I would think that most people replying to this thread have toked joints of various strengths and with varying amounts of tobacco - so lets assume no-one needs help in understanding how to smoke weed and what moderation is.
Anyway
Inhaling smoke of burning organic combustibles will increase your risk of developing cancer and possibly heart disease.
This is because burning organic combustibles will release hydrocarbons and free radicals both are carcinogens - you are inhaling these into your lungs, holding it there to increase the absorption rate, and then releasing them into the room where others will inhale them as well.
So tobacco or not, you are still increasing your risk of developing cancer...
The post to which I was responding was asserting you couldn't smoke 'skunk' without tobacco, so apparently not everyone does know... Anyway
Inhaling smoke of burning organic combustibles will increase your risk of developing cancer and possibly heart disease.
This is because burning organic combustibles will release hydrocarbons and free radicals both are carcinogens - you are inhaling these into your lungs, holding it there to increase the absorption rate, and then releasing them into the room where others will inhale them as well.
So tobacco or not, you are still increasing your risk of developing cancer...
I appreciate that you will increase your risk, yes - but nowhere near as much as with tobacco, and of course there are ways of consuming cannabis which don't involve burning it.
Oakey said:
Of course you'd be ill after smoking a pure weed joint... you'd have just used £20's worth in one go
You don't have to smoke the whole thing and you don't need to put anything like £20 worth of weed in a rizla to smoke without tobacco. HTH.If you're paying that much for weed you need a new dealer!
hman said:
I would think that most people replying to this thread have toked joints of various strengths and with varying amounts of tobacco - so lets assume no-one needs help in understanding how to smoke weed and what moderation is.
Anyway
Inhaling smoke of burning organic combustibles will increase your risk of developing cancer and possibly heart disease.
This is because burning organic combustibles will release hydrocarbons and free radicals both are carcinogens - you are inhaling these into your lungs, holding it there to increase the absorption rate, and then releasing them into the room where others will inhale them as well.
So tobacco or not, you are still increasing your risk of developing cancer...
As a devil's advocate, there are other delivery methods. Vapourisers for one -not hot or carcinogenic, as you haven't burnt it in the classic sense. Eat it -make butter, cookies, yoghurts etc. Doesn't have to be smoked.Anyway
Inhaling smoke of burning organic combustibles will increase your risk of developing cancer and possibly heart disease.
This is because burning organic combustibles will release hydrocarbons and free radicals both are carcinogens - you are inhaling these into your lungs, holding it there to increase the absorption rate, and then releasing them into the room where others will inhale them as well.
So tobacco or not, you are still increasing your risk of developing cancer...
FredClogs said:
steveT350C said:
If I want to smoke a joint, I will smoke a joint. If I want a dab of mdma I will have a dab.
The law is irrelevant in my decision making.
I absolutely defend the sovereignty of my consciousness.
What does this even mean?The law is irrelevant in my decision making.
I absolutely defend the sovereignty of my consciousness.
Just in case: What drugs he wants to ingest is his decision and his alone. Outside factors are deemed by him to be irrelevant.
Tonsko said:
FredClogs said:
steveT350C said:
If I want to smoke a joint, I will smoke a joint. If I want a dab of mdma I will have a dab.
The law is irrelevant in my decision making.
I absolutely defend the sovereignty of my consciousness.
What does this even mean?The law is irrelevant in my decision making.
I absolutely defend the sovereignty of my consciousness.
Just in case: What drugs he wants to ingest is his decision and his alone. Outside factors are deemed by him to be irrelevant.
Tonsko said:
You really didn't understand what he said. Blimey.
OK. He didn't say it should be legal. He said that the law, whatever it said, would not alter his decision to ingest a drug if he so wanted.
Well we can all convince ourselves of one reason or another why one law or another doesn't apply to us... Hence my original question - what does this even mean?OK. He didn't say it should be legal. He said that the law, whatever it said, would not alter his decision to ingest a drug if he so wanted.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff