Why is Cannabis still illegal?
Discussion
AJL308 said:
wc98 said:
what has it got to do with the un what an individual country decides for its laws ? doesn't seem to be hindering canada's progress at the moment.
Because we a are party to whatever Treaty prohibits it. If we were to do it it would be a breech of international law.
AJL308 said:
Digga said:
I know quite a few people who have/do use the stuff and the majority are, to varying degrees, f
k ups. They might be quite intelligent, even hold down decent jobs, and very pleasant company but they are also fk ups - the sort of people prone to utterly stupid moments of uselessness and forgetfulness.
By no means a scientific survey, but an opinion I am not alone in sharing, despite not giving a fig about people using the stuff.
I have to agree. Of the people I know who use it any more regularly than very occasionally they generally tend to be losers and wasters. Usually state spongers in the bargain.k ups. They might be quite intelligent, even hold down decent jobs, and very pleasant company but they are also fk ups - the sort of people prone to utterly stupid moments of uselessness and forgetfulness.By no means a scientific survey, but an opinion I am not alone in sharing, despite not giving a fig about people using the stuff.
AJL308 said:
wc98 said:
what has it got to do with the un what an individual country decides for its laws ? doesn't seem to be hindering canada's progress at the moment.
Because we a are party to whatever Treaty prohibits it. If we were to do it it would be a breech of international law.wc98 said:
that is another option i don't hear being used much here. i know people make space cakes etc but looking at the states you can buy boiled sweets, chocolate etc that all contain cannabis ,surely a healthier option than smoking the stuff.
No objection to that. Means I don't have to smell it.I really don't understand the obsession with smoking it when there are numerous others was to take it. Especially as inhaling smoke seems to be introducing loads more potential health risks.
zubzob said:
Legalising would help with dosage. I was in Spain recently buying weed semi-legally ( decriminalised similar to Amsterdam ) from a weed club / coffee shop. I asked for the weakest strain, and they said it’s all strong. You just need to smoke less. No strength info. The user is in control of dosage.
Imagine buying booze illegally with no accurate percentage info? Pretty sure all the flakey fks would be drinking 60% spirits in no time
As others have mentioned, causation and correlation is not straight forward. Could be for a number of reasons, eg flakey types are more likely to self medicate with illegal drugs, and cannabis just happens to be the most common.
In any case, Alcohol, I understand is more dangerous than weed on pretty much every measure you can come up with, physical, mental, memory, social damage, professional damage. Booze is a very strong drug and if society functions with booze, we can get away with a bit of weed I'm sure.
To be pedantic, it's not at all. Compare the volume of alcohol you need to get off your tits compared with something like weed, coke or heroin. It's vastly more. It's actually a very weak drug in comparison to pretty much everything else.Imagine buying booze illegally with no accurate percentage info? Pretty sure all the flakey f
ks would be drinking 60% spirits in no timeAs others have mentioned, causation and correlation is not straight forward. Could be for a number of reasons, eg flakey types are more likely to self medicate with illegal drugs, and cannabis just happens to be the most common.
In any case, Alcohol, I understand is more dangerous than weed on pretty much every measure you can come up with, physical, mental, memory, social damage, professional damage. Booze is a very strong drug and if society functions with booze, we can get away with a bit of weed I'm sure.
Edited by zubzob on Tuesday 19th June 23:01
Derek Smith said:
jonby said:
Alcohol is addictive, it causes violence, domestic abuse, road deaths, etc
Cannabis, far less addictive than alcohol, tends incredibly rarely to lead to any kind of violence, abuse or deaths
As William Hague has said, the current laws have simply become untenable
It's only been a matter of time for some years and now there is traction in the UK, I'd be amazed if it takes long to become legal now
At least we can then educate about the different strengths, THC v CBDs, safe usage, etc.
A bit in The Times today about the Police Federation, the association of ranks below superintendent, asking for cannabis to be legalised. The reason given is that it is not being prosecuted, so legalisation by stealth, which is not an effective method of law making. From a chat I listed to by a senior officer in my local force, even if staffing levels were raised to the old levels, the emphasis for policing would not be on minor drug possession. Cannabis, far less addictive than alcohol, tends incredibly rarely to lead to any kind of violence, abuse or deaths
As William Hague has said, the current laws have simply become untenable
It's only been a matter of time for some years and now there is traction in the UK, I'd be amazed if it takes long to become legal now
At least we can then educate about the different strengths, THC v CBDs, safe usage, etc.
With this in mind, can anyone offer any light why Cameron reversed Labours bill taking cannabis from class C to B?
It seemed appropriate to me.
Fermit The Krog and Sexy Sarah said:
Indeed.
With this in mind, can anyone offer any light why Cameron reversed Labours bill taking cannabis from class C to B?
It seemed appropriate to me.
Because Theresa May wanted to as Home Secretary iirc. Very much her policy and not Cameron's, who has a liberal personal position on drugs.With this in mind, can anyone offer any light why Cameron reversed Labours bill taking cannabis from class C to B?
It seemed appropriate to me.
Davos123 said:
Fermit The Krog and Sexy Sarah said:
Indeed.
With this in mind, can anyone offer any light why Cameron reversed Labours bill taking cannabis from class C to B?
It seemed appropriate to me.
Because Theresa May wanted to as Home Secretary iirc. Very much her policy and not Cameron's, who has a liberal personal position on drugs.With this in mind, can anyone offer any light why Cameron reversed Labours bill taking cannabis from class C to B?
It seemed appropriate to me.
V6 Pushfit said:
IMHO cannabis should be Class A. It’s a gateway drug, many who use it are totally fked up and useless individuals as earlier posters have said.
Alternatively legalise it a wreck society for our grandchildren.
Gateway drug.....ked up and useless individuals as earlier posters have said.Alternatively legalise it a wreck society for our grandchildren.
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/the-pro...
Genuine question: users smoke cannabis mixed with tobacco, right? Or not, I genuinely don't know.
If the former, then legalising cannabis increases smoking (of tobacco) - this cannot be a good thing.
If the latter, is there evidence about inhaling lungfuls of cannabis smoke........cancer, heart disease, all that?
I'm guessing that smoking cannabis in any amount is bad for you........so keep the law as it is. The idea that we should all be free to do whatever we wish is just nonsense and that includes using narcotics. Society needs fewer stoners, not more.
If the former, then legalising cannabis increases smoking (of tobacco) - this cannot be a good thing.
If the latter, is there evidence about inhaling lungfuls of cannabis smoke........cancer, heart disease, all that?
I'm guessing that smoking cannabis in any amount is bad for you........so keep the law as it is. The idea that we should all be free to do whatever we wish is just nonsense and that includes using narcotics. Society needs fewer stoners, not more.
Brave Fart said:
Genuine question: users smoke cannabis mixed with tobacco, right? Or not, I genuinely don't know.
If the former, then legalising cannabis increases smoking (of tobacco) - this cannot be a good thing.
If the latter, is there evidence about inhaling lungfuls of cannabis smoke........cancer, heart disease, all that?
I'm guessing that smoking cannabis in any amount is bad for you........so keep the law as it is. The idea that we should all be free to do whatever we wish is just nonsense and that includes using narcotics. Society needs fewer stoners, not more.
People smoke it with or without tobacco. However whether it's good or bad for you is not really the argument, you could apply that logic and ban chocolate. If the former, then legalising cannabis increases smoking (of tobacco) - this cannot be a good thing.
If the latter, is there evidence about inhaling lungfuls of cannabis smoke........cancer, heart disease, all that?
I'm guessing that smoking cannabis in any amount is bad for you........so keep the law as it is. The idea that we should all be free to do whatever we wish is just nonsense and that includes using narcotics. Society needs fewer stoners, not more.
Evolved said:
gizlaroc said:
V6 Pushfit said:
IMHO cannabis should be Class A. It’s a gateway drug.
It is only a gateway drug while it is illegal. I've smoked cannabis maybe 10x. I enjoy it in moderation. I've never been tempted by speed/coke/heroin et all. Dealers could persuade certain people that they 'must try this'. A legally certified seller would have no incentive to do so. Any drug is a choice. Just because you enjoy an odd toke doesn't mean that the next step is going all Pete Docherty.
Like alcohol, junk food, fizzy drinks etc. there is ALWAYS going to be a small minority of users who cannot consume sensibly in moderation.
Banning a relatively non-dangerous (relative to alcohol for example) because a tiny number of people are stupid is overly precautionary.
Legalse, regulate, tax it.
Banning a relatively non-dangerous (relative to alcohol for example) because a tiny number of people are stupid is overly precautionary.
Legalse, regulate, tax it.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff