Why is Cannabis still illegal?
Discussion
http://youtu.be/MIAJemmO-bg
Quote from brass eye which seemed appropriate given the topic being discussed.
Quote from brass eye which seemed appropriate given the topic being discussed.
Eric Mc said:
I'm afraid we just don't know these things. If you make something that has been illegal for a long time suddenly legal - the follow on consequences are just unknowable. Will society be better or worse as a consequence - anyone who say they knows the answer is either clairvoyant, deluded or stupid.
Or too blinkered in there opinions to research the answers. Try asking the Authorities in the USA. The use of both recreational and medicinal marijuana has been entirely legalized in the states of Colorado, Washington, Alaska and Oregon. The cities of Portland and South Portland in Maine fully legalized marijuana for both medical and recreational use. The District of Columbia has fully legalized recreational and medical marijuana. They may have the answers. I know that if I had kids, I'd be much happier with them going to a friends house, staying in and smoking weed, than going into town on a Friday night to drink 10 pints of lager and half a bottle of vodka.
Well, to be honest, I have no intention of ever partaking in these substances and (thankfully) as far as I know, none of those who I have been responsible for have ever indulged either. The one thing I DO know is that the son of a good friend of ours who was a thoroughly likable and pleasant chap disintegrated totally following a period where he over indulged and it effectively ruined his life and prospects.
So, I may be a bit biased.
I am sure those US states will eventually provide some sort of data as to whether life is better for their citizens now that they can get stoned as and when they want to.
My basic view is that drugs - of all sorts - are detrimental to society. Arguing that the currently legal drugs are more harmful and therefore less harmful drugs should be legalised is a really, really strange argument to use.
It's a bit like saying, "Look, the lions have already escaped from the zoo, we might as well release the tigers and the panthers too".
So, I may be a bit biased.
I am sure those US states will eventually provide some sort of data as to whether life is better for their citizens now that they can get stoned as and when they want to.
My basic view is that drugs - of all sorts - are detrimental to society. Arguing that the currently legal drugs are more harmful and therefore less harmful drugs should be legalised is a really, really strange argument to use.
It's a bit like saying, "Look, the lions have already escaped from the zoo, we might as well release the tigers and the panthers too".
Eric Mc said:
Well, to be honest, I have no intention of ever partaking in these substances and (thankfully) as far as I know, none of those who I have been responsible for have ever indulged either. The one thing I DO know is that the son of a good friend of ours who was a thoroughly likable and pleasant chap disintegrated totally following a period where he over indulged and it effectively ruined his life and prospects.
So, I may be a bit biased.
I am sure those US states will eventually provide some sort of data as to whether life is better for their citizens now that they can get stoned as and when they want to.
My basic view is that drugs - of all sorts - are detrimental to society. Arguing that the currently legal drugs are more harmful and therefore less harmful drugs should be legalised is a really, really strange argument to use.
It's a bit like saying, "Look, the lions have already escaped from the zoo, we might as well release the tigers and the panthers too".
Do you mean also subscribe by the doctor's drugs? Have you ever been in severe pain or suffer with a disability where drugs make live a bit more bearable.So, I may be a bit biased.
I am sure those US states will eventually provide some sort of data as to whether life is better for their citizens now that they can get stoned as and when they want to.
My basic view is that drugs - of all sorts - are detrimental to society. Arguing that the currently legal drugs are more harmful and therefore less harmful drugs should be legalised is a really, really strange argument to use.
It's a bit like saying, "Look, the lions have already escaped from the zoo, we might as well release the tigers and the panthers too".
Don't judge you might need help one day.
Eric Mc said:
My basic view is that drugs - of all sorts - are detrimental to society. Arguing that the currently legal drugs are more harmful and therefore less harmful drugs should be legalised is a really, really strange argument to use.
All drugs may well be fundamentally detrimental to society. People will inevitably take drugs. It's a case of if we want some benefits as well as the harm. We regulate behaviour to prevent harm to society e.g. we prefer people not to attack one another so don't allow people to assault one another. This prohibitive approach works better than allowing everyone to do whatever they want to one another. We can clearly see that there's less harm to society by this approach.
It isn't the same with drugs. Simply banning them doesn't make society better, it leaves enormous funds within the hands of organised crime.
With prohibition, we only receive the negatives including the greater negatives of organised crime.
With regulation, we receive the negatives (excluding most organised crime) and receive the benefits of taxation. The money that is there and will never go away, but is put to the worst use rather than the best.
There are plenty of drugs users who don't abuse the substances and manage to live a normal life just like there are many people who drink alcohol and manage to live a normal life. With drugs being illegal we tend to see the more vulnerable people / personalities drawn to them and not the more resilient people who won't end up a mess.
It's not as simplistic as legalising everything, as addiction and harm is different for each substance, and there will be substances that probably should never be legal as the harm / benefit wouldn't be balanced / justified. But what we have now is a mess starting from classifications (A, B and C) having little correlation to harm the substances cause. Everything in this area requires a rational, harm / cost / benefit / ground-up approach to sorting the current mess we have.
Never been all that into it but used to have the odd smoke, trouble is now the little block of resin, generally not very strong has gone and it's all mega skunk, the daily mash likened it to going in an offy and them only selling special brew and other loopy juice when you just want a couple of bottles of beer, people build up tolerance and keep at it and that is when you get problems, lack of self control and common sense about it, a normal spliff a couple of times a week is ok, but some of the constructions people make are like the equivalent of a pint of spirits, tends to be some influence from stoner culture, I.e films and the Internet, rather than a nice mellow smoke a lot see it as a lifestyle choice.
loose cannon said:
Hmm cannabis resin safer than strong skunk ?
So boot polish, henna, mud, plastic, and god knows what other ground up crap is in it
Makes it far safer does it ? There's a reason people don't smoke the dirt anymore
And also this "killer skunk" is actually just a generic term for smelly weed.So boot polish, henna, mud, plastic, and god knows what other ground up crap is in it
Makes it far safer does it ? There's a reason people don't smoke the dirt anymore
'skunk' has been around since it was bred in cali in the late 70's so is by no means a modern super strength drug the daily mail make out.
Funnily enough the breeder of skunk is now part of one the largest company's legally profiteering from cannabis within the uk producing Sativex http://www.gwpharm.com/default.aspx
So growing and selling cannabis is ok if your a corporate organisation?
My neighbour had his door booted of its hinges for 2 small plants in a cupboard...lol
Eric Mc said:
Well, to be honest, I have no intention of ever partaking in these substances and (thankfully) as far as I know, none of those who I have been responsible for have ever indulged either. The one thing I DO know is that the son of a good friend of ours who was a thoroughly likable and pleasant chap disintegrated totally following a period where he over indulged and it effectively ruined his life and prospects.
So, I may be a bit biased.
I am sure those US states will eventually provide some sort of data as to whether life is better for their citizens now that they can get stoned as and when they want to.
My basic view is that drugs - of all sorts - are detrimental to society. Arguing that the currently legal drugs are more harmful and therefore less harmful drugs should be legalised is a really, really strange argument to use.
It's a bit like saying, "Look, the lions have already escaped from the zoo, we might as well release the tigers and the panthers too".
A number of points you raise. So, I may be a bit biased.
I am sure those US states will eventually provide some sort of data as to whether life is better for their citizens now that they can get stoned as and when they want to.
My basic view is that drugs - of all sorts - are detrimental to society. Arguing that the currently legal drugs are more harmful and therefore less harmful drugs should be legalised is a really, really strange argument to use.
It's a bit like saying, "Look, the lions have already escaped from the zoo, we might as well release the tigers and the panthers too".
It is a tragedy that some people react badly to drugs. But, from your own argument, the current drugs law did not stop him becoming a victim of its abuse. It is rather obvious that the drugs act has failed, at least as far as your friend is concerned.
There is ample evidence to suggest that regulating the use of soft drugs gives benefits to society. Long term, the benefits are likely to be greater.
I'm not sure that anyone has used the rather spurious argument about less/more harmful drugs. It is nothing like your zoo argument as, to prolong the rather silly analogy, that the animals are already out there. Your friend proves that. Whilst it has little relevance to the current argument, it is accepted by just about all researchers that the drugs act has generated the massive rise in availability. As indeed was predicted at the time. GB had a system that, after a fashion, worked. We have no idea whether it would have continued to do so, but we see daily that what replaced it was a complete disaster.
Much of the harm that the drugs act has done is permanent. There is no way we can go back to the 60s when availability was low and costs were high. However, to continue with a flawed system, no matter how convoluted the arguments, is absolutely stupid.
Practically, the argument is over in any case. I used to pull in drugs users quite regularly on nights. It got me off the street and it meant that I got a bit of red in my PNB for the promotion boards. However, when we were short of staff (odd, given the number that generated this concern the division never musters nowadays) I was told not to 'do your drugs searches'. Simple possession, this in the middle 80s, was seen as a bit of an indulgence.
Nowadays, with strengths being slashed, there's little chance of a punter being searched. In actuality, all that is going to happen, if possession is legalised, is that the status quo will be acknowledged.
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.
. Which incidentally has Rolf Harris in it.paranoid airbag said:
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.. Which incidentally has Rolf Harris in it.Einion Yrth said:
Soir said:
I smoked it almost daily for 17 years
It was a waste of 17 years
Ban it & ban cigs while we are at it
So, basically, because you are a gigantic fIt was a waste of 17 years
Ban it & ban cigs while we are at it
k up that legitimises interfering in other peoples lives? I'm not going to make the infamous mistake of suggesting the powerfully built director quote!
I have school friends who still smoke weed regularly who are in their 40's. Quite a few live with their parents.
Soir said:
I never suggested the years since I stopped have been a waste. I've been far more productive since then and regret the wasteful years (I'm not in a bad position now but believe I would be much further ahead than I am had I not spent time in earlier life on this crap)
I'm not going to make the infamous mistake of suggesting the powerfully built director quote!
I have school friends who still smoke weed regularly who are in their 40's. Quite a few live with their parents.
Save your breath. Steve Jobs and Bill Gates smoked weed so no matter how many fI'm not going to make the infamous mistake of suggesting the powerfully built director quote!
I have school friends who still smoke weed regularly who are in their 40's. Quite a few live with their parents.
k-ups or mental patients you know it definitely isn't the weed that's the cause.I smoked it for a few years and thought it was pretty much harmless. In fact, many of my then circle of friends thought it was pretty harmless too. As we grew up/older though, most of us stopped. The others continued and even went on to experiment with other 'highs'. Their lives and the lives of those around them, suffered as a direct consequence.
I eventually began to work as a drug referral worker and started each day meeting with people who had been arrested for drug related crime. Most of the time they too felt, that their Cannabis use wasn't an issue. Even the ones who'd committed crime either a) having used or b) to get money to buy their Cannabis. They didn't see any connection to their lack of motivation, energy or ambition. The common line was how it 'helped them stay calm or manage other issues'. More often than not, these same issues could easily be down to their consistent use of Cannabis. In my experience, regular users of Cannabis are also more likely to try other highs. Once the taboo of using a substance is broken, it becomes far easier to vary the substance and experiment.
I think there are obvious medicinal benefits for some people, but it's easy to see how the 'medicinal' card has been used and abused in the USA.
I eventually began to work as a drug referral worker and started each day meeting with people who had been arrested for drug related crime. Most of the time they too felt, that their Cannabis use wasn't an issue. Even the ones who'd committed crime either a) having used or b) to get money to buy their Cannabis. They didn't see any connection to their lack of motivation, energy or ambition. The common line was how it 'helped them stay calm or manage other issues'. More often than not, these same issues could easily be down to their consistent use of Cannabis. In my experience, regular users of Cannabis are also more likely to try other highs. Once the taboo of using a substance is broken, it becomes far easier to vary the substance and experiment.
I think there are obvious medicinal benefits for some people, but it's easy to see how the 'medicinal' card has been used and abused in the USA.
wolves_wanderer said:
Soir said:
I never suggested the years since I stopped have been a waste. I've been far more productive since then and regret the wasteful years (I'm not in a bad position now but believe I would be much further ahead than I am had I not spent time in earlier life on this crap)
I'm not going to make the infamous mistake of suggesting the powerfully built director quote!
I have school friends who still smoke weed regularly who are in their 40's. Quite a few live with their parents.
Save your breath. Steve Jobs and Bill Gates smoked weed so no matter how many fI'm not going to make the infamous mistake of suggesting the powerfully built director quote!
I have school friends who still smoke weed regularly who are in their 40's. Quite a few live with their parents.
k-ups or mental patients you know it definitely isn't the weed that's the cause.e21Mark said:
I think there are obvious medicinal benefits for some people, but it's easy to see how the 'medicinal' card has been used and abused in the USA.
So the positive reports from around the world have been understated.
http://uk.businessinsider.com/health-benefits-of-m...
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff