Why is Cannabis still illegal?
Discussion
Apologies to anyone who this thread has upset. It's obviously a stressful topic to those who have had family and friends affected.
My view is that the 'war on drugs' has just furthered the problem it tried to remove, and criminalised many good people.
Now the petition to legalise cannabis has passed 100k, like many I'm hoping that the government will finally listen to us and assess whether the last 40 odd years has actually achieved anything positive, and have the spine to make the correct decision.
The burning conservative case for legalising cannabis
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jul/...
A year after marijuana legalisation in Colorado, 'everything's fine' confirm police
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/a...
The economic case for legalising cannabis
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/11446882/Th...
My view is that the 'war on drugs' has just furthered the problem it tried to remove, and criminalised many good people.
Now the petition to legalise cannabis has passed 100k, like many I'm hoping that the government will finally listen to us and assess whether the last 40 odd years has actually achieved anything positive, and have the spine to make the correct decision.
The burning conservative case for legalising cannabis
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jul/...
A year after marijuana legalisation in Colorado, 'everything's fine' confirm police
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/a...
The economic case for legalising cannabis
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/11446882/Th...
Edited by anonymous-user on Tuesday 4th August 07:30
Esseesse said:
IIRC the sentence for possession can be as much as 2 years, ever heard of anyone getting any more than a slap on the wrist? They could stop it and use would go down if they started locking up people and handing out criminal records.
ETA: I've just read the maximum sentence for possession is 5 years and an unlimited fine.
Is it not better to help users, if you think they have a problem. If the law does more harm to the user, than the drug, then how does that help? What do you think locking them up will achieve?ETA: I've just read the maximum sentence for possession is 5 years and an unlimited fine.
Esseesse said:
JS748 said:
Is it not better to help users, if you think they have a problem. If the law does more harm to the user, than the drug, then how does that help? What do you think locking them up will achieve?
Sentencing that acts as a deterrent is out of vogue at the moment, but it helps by making people consider the consequences before they act. Such a law would not do more harm than the drug IMO, quite the opposite.Esseesse said:
JS748 said:
Esseesse said:
JS748 said:
Is it not better to help users, if you think they have a problem. If the law does more harm to the user, than the drug, then how does that help? What do you think locking them up will achieve?
Sentencing that acts as a deterrent is out of vogue at the moment, but it helps by making people consider the consequences before they act. Such a law would not do more harm than the drug IMO, quite the opposite.Portugal has decriminalised all drugs, drug use has gone down. Prohibtion does not work in even the most severe countries, is it not time to try another option, looking to countries that have seen positive results from decriminalisation?
Blue Cat said:
Make it legal and I can see loads of new users causing all types of problems, rather like just taking away speed limits and trusting people to drive sensibly.
Why? It's not like it's hard to buy now, is it? Anyone who wants cannabis now, will find it. Would it not be better if they bought regulated cannabis with labelled THC levels? Plus if you buy from a legal store, they will not have other more dangerous drugs for sale. Blue Cat said:
JS748 said:
Blue Cat said:
Make it legal and I can see loads of new users causing all types of problems, rather like just taking away speed limits and trusting people to drive sensibly.
Why? It's not like it's hard to buy now, is it? Anyone who wants cannabis now, will find it. Would it not be better if they bought regulated cannabis with labelled THC levels? Plus if you buy from a legal store, they will not have other more dangerous drugs for sale. RichB said:
Forgive me for having a jaundiced view.
you are right it f
ks peoples head up, I've smoked on and off 15 years, maybe 20-30 joints a year. if i smoked everyday it would be bad, same as alcohol use messes you up if you over consumption. I've seen the effects as well on over consume as well, but doesn't put me off. proper weed licenses issued by doctors and similar system to US, would bring it to proper terms.Edited by The Spruce goose on Thursday 30th July 13:08
AJS- said:
I am at heart libertarian on drugs. Up to the individual. However Peter Hitchens is very interesting on this.
The amount of spree killers and even Jihadists with a history of cannabis use seems worth investigating.
Speak to anyone who's tried cannabis, and likely the last thing they're plotting is a murderous rampage through the streets, well maybe attack a pizzeria and eat a pizza to death. Hitchens and the mail will try to find any connection they can. I read some crap in the mail a while ago, and the headline was trying to pin the blame on cannabis. Yet when you read the whole article, and the judge mentioned the psychiatric assessment it was blamed on amphetamine use with no mention of cannabis! The amount of spree killers and even Jihadists with a history of cannabis use seems worth investigating.
When such a large percentage of a population uses a substance. When something bad happens, it's very easy to make a connection to a widely used substance, but what about the millions who use it and live their lives without causing any trouble. My opinion is that people with mental illness will go off the rails anyway, whether they use alcohol, drugs, gamble or read hateful articles in cheap newspapers – wonder how many they've killed?
JS748 said:
AJS- said:
I am at heart libertarian on drugs. Up to the individual. However Peter Hitchens is very interesting on this.
The amount of spree killers and even Jihadists with a history of cannabis use seems worth investigating.
Speak to anyone who's tried cannabis, and likely the last thing they're plotting is a murderous rampage through the streets, well maybe attack a pizzeria and eat a pizza to death. Hitchens and the mail will try to find any connection they can. I read some crap in the mail a while ago, and the headline was trying to pin the blame on cannabis. Yet when you read the whole article, and the judge mentioned the psychiatric assessment it was blamed on amphetamine use with no mention of cannabis! The amount of spree killers and even Jihadists with a history of cannabis use seems worth investigating.
When such a large percentage of a population uses a substance. When something bad happens, it's very easy to make a connection to a widely used substance, but what about the millions who use it and live their lives without causing any trouble. My opinion is that people with mental illness will go off the rails anyway, whether they use alcohol, drugs, gamble or read hateful articles in cheap newspapers – wonder how many they've killed?
"99% of murderers eat eggs. Therefore, eggs make you murder people."
Prohibition doesn't work. It just leaves enormous amounts of money in the hands of serious and organised criminals. The state should have a limited say as to what people put in their own bodies, with the balance of the wider protection of society.
Cannabis is a good one to consider first, because some states in the US are already going down the road so we can use their results and experience to make a judgement ourselves.
Richard Brunstorm, the CC who most people hate, was very 'radical' on the issue for someone in his position: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/7038552.stm
Cannabis is a good one to consider first, because some states in the US are already going down the road so we can use their results and experience to make a judgement ourselves.
Richard Brunstorm, the CC who most people hate, was very 'radical' on the issue for someone in his position: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/7038552.stm
mph1977 said:
The suggestion that legalisation removes serious and organised crime from the supply of products is a fallacy as can be seen by ther issues with counterfeit, smuggled and illicitly prtoduced alcohol and tobacco products.
It won't remove it, but it'll greatly reduce it. The counterfeit issues with those two legal substances are relatively minor and they bring in over £30 billion per year to the treasury directly, and many billions more indirectly e.g. the income tax from all those employed / who benefit from the substances. Whereas with cannabis all the money is in the hands of criminals.
Eric Mc said:
How do you define better?
Money not going to the most serious harmful criminals in the country for an activity that'll never go away. The money, that will inevitably flow, going to the treasury is better. 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.
vetrof said:
If only there were some way of being to get exactly what you want when you want it. Suprisingly, to some people, when i smoke I very rarely want to get 'off my head'.
This is what makes me chuckle, the assumption that everyone will smoke until they cannot function. Smoking TOO much isn't actually a very pleasant feeling, much the same as if you neck a bottle of whisky.
When my dad found out I smoked we had a chat about it, when I pointed out that he came home and had 2 whiskys of an evening (nearly every evening) not to get drunk but just to have a nice little drink at the end of a hard day and my smoking was exactly the same as that he understood better. The fact I had been doing it for a while before that and he hadn't noticed also allayed any fears about me smoking myself into a gibbering wreck.
Nowadays I sometimes do and sometimes don't, we generally head to Dam a couple of times a year for a weekend as well as its nice to choose the strain (and effect) that you want
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.
vetrof said:
FredClogs said:
If something is distasteful and undesirable in civil society
What is distasteful and undesirable about cannabis use? Who decides? I know you are a boxing & MMA fan, plenty of people think they have no place in a civilised society. Ban them too?Short sighted government; many of my old school friends are long term users (8+years) and of those I still speak too all manage to hold down decent jobs, drive nice cars, lead a decent lifestyle but enjoy Cannabis whether its in the week or at the weekend - none are mentalists nor turned to Heroin because its a 'gate way' drug.
Why isn't Alcohol or Tobacco banned or maybe Cocodamol all have the potential to be abused and therefore could be gateway drugs.
Its the same with anything, the end user needs to be responsible enough to NOT abuse the substance, to understand the severity of abuse and the potential impact on you / your family / others of that abuse.
It will happen eventually, a question of when not if.
Why isn't Alcohol or Tobacco banned or maybe Cocodamol all have the potential to be abused and therefore could be gateway drugs.
Its the same with anything, the end user needs to be responsible enough to NOT abuse the substance, to understand the severity of abuse and the potential impact on you / your family / others of that abuse.
It will happen eventually, a question of when not if.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff