Legalise cannabis?

[Houdini Logic]

At the end of the day, if someone enjoys - for example - the effects of LSD and wants to partake in the comfort and the privacy of their own home, then what harm to society is making it legal for them to do so?

Because it doesn't neccessarily stay in their own home.

I know two people who's live's have been permenantly altered by taking hallucinogenic drugs - one was a friend (who also smoked far too much pot!) who went on a magic mushroom binge and ended up in a psychiatric ward. He was out and fine and working in a petrol station the last time I saw him, but he looked like a completely different guy physically and I have no idea how it has changed him mentally. Even if you look past him, think of what it must have done to his family.

[Head Honcho]

So? People go out, drunk as fucking anything, and beat the living shit out of each other, crash their cars, kill each other and cost MILLIONS yearly in damages. That isn't legal, either.

One assumes that legalization of a host of casual drugs would still make it illegal to be dangerously under the influence in public and a disturbance to your environment.

The whole alcohol v hash debate is pretty lame to be honest.

The long term effects of weed are far more dangerous than alcohol.

Weed is for the weak in my opinion.

[lavrentis]

You are right when you say it has a use in health care, as it helps kill pain, and relaxes Thus, I believe controlled use in this field, to be beneficial/.

However, other than the above, only a total idiot would support it being legalized. Have you ever had to confront people using it? Well, I have, and they generally react more violently than those who are drunk.

I went on a drugs course, when with the police, and spoke to many ex addicts and current addicts, who were given the opportunity to speak openly. Without exception, they ALL blamed the first step to becoming hard drug users, on Cannabis. I've also seen and spoken many people in rehab, and it's not nice to listen to their experiences. Many of them have literally become a shell of their former selves. Their family life has been destroyed, devastating their loved ones in the process.

ANYONE, who believes in legalizing this drug, is incapable of seeing beyond the end of their nose.Being drunk is one thing, but you cannot compare it to the dangers of smoking cannabis. I just wish that you could see the awful mess, this drug can lead to. , both physically, and mentally.

That's a first.

[Finnegan]

The whole alcohol v hash debate is pretty lame to be honest.

The long term effects of weed are far more dangerous than alcohol.

Weed is for the weak in my opinion.

It's not lame at all, it's completely and totally relevant.

The supposedly "long term effects" of marijuana are the subject of countless Chinese whispers and repeat misinformation perpetuated by ignorant tabloid media.

Numerous studies return immensely minimal long-term effects and then only really in heavy smokers.

If you take out the factors of smoking and assume, for example, Mr. X the pot user drinks or eats most of his weed then the physical effects of alcohol are infinitely more damaging.

[m00nie]

I love the notion that everyone who partakes in illegal drugs must have robbed something to get the money, not possible that they could have, y'know, a job, family etc. and just do it to relax or socially - like drinking/smoking?

where did i say EVERYONE ??? i say people DO.. and i know this from experience as i did it myself.. in my teens i was an idiot who would go and steal a car stereo, sell it to teh local 2nd hand shop and buy a drawer so its hardly like im trying to tarnish EVERYONE with the same brush. im saying though it does happen so the "in the privacy" of the home is incorrect..

<_<

Edited 14 November 2011 by m00nie

[DANGEROUS TIGER]

lol absolute fucking bullshit. You lost me then and there.

I'd like to think I'm pretty open minded and I hope my days of plugging my ears and shouting people down in a debate are over. I see my involvement in this thread continuing and I'll try my best to stay open to everyone's views.

But that's just a crock of complete wank right there. I don't care how long you spent being a PCSO or a special; there is just catergorically no way that stoners are more violent people than drunks. That's just simply, chemically, factually inaccurate.

You clearly have no idea. Try speaking to some of the doctors and nurses in A and E, like I have had to do often. Your comment is sheer, inaccurate drivel. You have no confrontational experience, so you are totally ignorant of the difference in peoples reactions,

If you choose to remain deluded, then please continue to do so.

[Houdini Logic]

"Possibly," yes, but how many alcoholics do we know between us? Or how many people addicted to fags who are burning thousands a year on their habit and ruining their health? How many people do you ACTUALLY know who are "addicted to class A drugs?" Because I know scores and scores (and scores and scores) of weed smokers for whom it HASN'T been a gateway drug and I'm sure you do too. It's really difficult to have a debate about weed and not end up plagiarising Bill Hicks because, let's face it, the man talked a lot about pot and talked a lot of sense; however, he made a very good point several times on the subject and that's that we only ever pick out the odd one or two examples where weed (or similar drugs) were damaging to people and don't ever pick out the millions of cases where it wasn't or isn't.

I have my own views on what should be done about alcohol (I didn't drink for 8 years), but I see that as a different issue simply because it's already legal and I think it's far to easy and potentially convenient for people to draw comparisons to alcohol. I see cannabis being outlawed a head start and something that should be treated differently while we're already in this position.

Surely that has infinitely more to do with the people he's friends with than the drugs he chose to take? I highly doubt he just stumbled upon a spliff at a festival, got high, and then just made an entirely new set of friends in order to seek out new drugs? That's just not how people work. If he's got himself in with a party going crowd who are happy to indulge in a variety of recreational substances then it rubbing off in him is no surprise. Had he got himself "in" with a group of my friends in London, for example, he could have gotten himself a harmless, quiet weed habit and never touched an ounce of anything stronger.

I've a whole commune of friends in Croydon, the most harmless people alive, don't drink, don't do anything hard, don't get loud or boisterous, just love a good smoke. Every party, toking away, just chilling at home after their 9 - 5s, toking away. Easy life. Just these people make a very boring "STAY OFF DRUGS!" story so, despite being a probably majority, they rarely come up in converse.

It's not what you're taking, it's who you're with. Every time.

It certainly is to do with the people he hangs out with (unfortunately my friends, so maybe I feel slightly guilty), but as I said earlier not one of them touched any other drug before cannabis - so what's to say this 'wrong' crowd would even have existed if the drug itself didn't exist? Now I appreciate that that is a fairly naive view, but I do feel that that contributes to certain cases.

I do know people who will sit around and just smoke, but I certainly would not put them in the 'probably majority, but as I've said before you can only base this on the people you know.

[davieG]

Because they like the effects? I don't understand why people feel the need to be critical, to be honest.

I'm perpetually baffled by some people's attitudes towards drugs; I especially hate comments like "why do they need X to have a good time?" from people who've never bothered (and have no interest in) trying.

I completely understand that some drugs are dangerously addictive and I've never been stupid enough in my life to mess around with the like of heroin and nor could I ever be tempted, regardless of how amazing it may or may not feel. I'm not saying that everyone should go out and take drugs and my comment about legalizing everything was (whilst partially dipping in to my personal views) mostly tongue-in-cheek.

But I really hope the future of drugs and drug enforcement is more about education and breaking down views of drugs, both naive ones from users but also some of the close-minded fear that we preach as well.

At the end of the day, if someone enjoys - for example - the effects of LSD and wants to partake in the comfort and the privacy of their own home, then what harm to society is making it legal for them to do so?

I wasn't being critical as such I'm just curious, I've just never had the urge to partake the thought of being 'out of control' just doesn't appeal same with getting blottoed on drink.

I'd much rather get into a state of enjoyment /well being through my own thoughts and actions.

I believe the body is significantly more powerful than most people realise or give credit to and has the ability though personal mind control to enable it to get similar highs that drugs are said to achieve, not that I'm that good at it. I believe this is the future and can be achieved without the use of drugs.

[Head Honcho]

lol absolute fucking bullshit. You lost me then and there.

I'd like to think I'm pretty open minded and I hope my days of plugging my ears and shouting people down in a debate are over. I see my involvement in this thread continuing and I'll try my best to stay open to everyone's views.

But that's just a crock of complete wank right there. I don't care how long you spent being a PCSO or a special; there is just catergorically no way that stoners are more violent people than drunks. That's just simply, chemically, factually inaccurate.

Violence amongst hash users occurs after the drug has worn off.

[The Doctor]

You clearly have no idea. Try speaking to some of the doctors and nurses in A and E, like I have had to do often. Your comment is sheer, inaccurate drivel. You have no confrontational experience, so you are totally ignorant of the difference in peoples reactions,

If you choose to remain deluded, then please continue to do so.

You really are a complete and utter ****wit aren't you?

Stoners are more agressive than drunks? That's "sheer, inaccurate drivel". All depends on the individual - for instance when drunk I'm still quite a calm person - but, in the main, those that are drunk are aggressive, at least more so than those who are stoned.

[Houdini Logic]

Not trying to sit on the fence, but I think that although most of the pot smokers people know couldn't be bothered to have a wash let alone a fight (that's a joke before any comments) these are the people that the Police aren't going to deal with and not the people DT is talking about.

When I was at school the biggest chav twats all smoked cannabis and they very often did get off their face and violent and I imagine these are the people DT is talking about. To be fair though, I think most of these people could have a sniff of vicks and still be a cunt

[Finnegan]

You clearly have no idea. Try speaking to some of the doctors and nurses in A and E, like I have had to do often. Your comment is sheer, inaccurate drivel. You have no confrontational experience, so you are totally ignorant of the difference in peoples reactions,

If you choose to remain deluded, then please continue to do so.

You can throw in as many syllables as you want to make yourself look intelligent, DT, it's not going to wash. Try providing some substance, eh?

There are hundreds, thousands, millions of cases of alcohol related violence and damages in cities across the nation. How many stoners do you know going on a violent rampage? Coke heads, maybe, sure - I'm not saying alcohol is the drug responsible for more confrontational reactions than any other (it probably is, but I'll remain open minded as I don't have the numbers) but weed? Shut up. It's a relaxant for God's sakes.

Next you're going to tell me you've been injured with a rolled up Guardian by a fifty year old bohemian on too much camomile tea.

And "no confrontational experience?" You don't need to be a wannabe bobby to have been pinned against a North London bar by bottle-wielding pissheads or had fireworks shot at you by drunks on the Wood Green high street; funnily enough I can't remember ever being set on by anyone with a spliff.

[Finnegan]

Violence amongst hash users occurs after the drug has worn off.

Think you'll find that eating and sleeping happens amongst hash users after the drug has worn off.

[m00nie]

Think you'll find that eating and sleeping happens amongst hash users after the drug has worn off.

"the munchies" another reason against it.. lost time the amount of times used to drive to the garage stoned to get some food.. looking back now i see how dangerous it was and how i put not only myself but others at risk too...

[Finnegan]

"the munchies" another reason against it.. lost time the amount of times used to drive to the garage stoned to get some food.. looking back now i see how dangerous it was and how i put not only myself but others at risk too...

Again, driving under the is and should always be illegal - yes, that was stupid.

That doesn't mean the drug itself should be illegal, just that you should be less of a twat whilst on it. It's not like it actually impedes your thought enough that the average person in the street is likely to see no problem driving whilst smashed. Alcohol, however...

[Houdini Logic]

"the munchies" another reason against it.. lost time the amount of times used to drive to the garage stoned to get some food.. looking back now i see how dangerous it was and how i put not only myself but others at risk too...

Also the amount of time wasted when you get home and realise you bought a copy of 'My Favourite Cat' and a wind up head torch and you need to go back again and hopefully remember some munchies this time

[Finnegan]

Also the amount of time wasted when you get home and realise you bought a copy of 'My Favourite Cat' and a wind up head torch and you need to go back again and hopefully remember some munchies this time

lol

I only see reasons 'for.'

[m00nie]

Again, driving under the is and should always be illegal - yes, that was stupid.

That doesn't mean the drug itself should be illegal, just that you should be less of a twat whilst on it. It's not like it actually impedes your thought enough that the average person in the street is likely to see no problem driving whilst smashed. Alcohol, however...

lets legalize everything then.. guns, heroin, cocaine.. and just hope people use them responsibly..

course it impedes your thought, imagine your reactions will be slower driving stoned than alcohol. think of the effects weed/drawer gives you, your mellowed, monged out.. less aware etc..

[Houdini Logic]

lol

I only see reasons 'for.'

I'm not doing myself any favours, am I...

Let's let the powers that (shouldn't) be worry about this and turn this into a thread of anecdotes

[Finnegan]

lets legalize everything then.. guns, heroin, cocaine.. and just hope people use them responsibly..

With the exception of guns, I agree.

With a few rare exceptions I'm generally for the legalization of most substances, with correct education.

course it impedes your thought, imagine your reactions will be slower driving stoned than alcohol. think of the effects weed/drawer gives you, your mellowed, monged out.. less aware etc..

Yes but you're generally more inclined to get in a car without accepting your limitations whilst drunk than whilst stoned.

I know plenty of drunks who've done some really, really, REALLY retarded things (I'm one of them - get me drunk enough and you can convince me to do basically anything for a laugh) but I don't know many stoners who become more reckless as a result of their drug of choice.

[The Doctor]

lets legalize everything then.. guns, heroin, cocaine.. and just hope people use them responsibly..

course it impedes your thought, imagine your reactions will be slower driving stoned than alcohol. think of the effects weed/drawer gives you, your mellowed, monged out.. less aware etc..

Reactions and thought are not one and the same, weed doesn't do as much as alcohol in taking away thought and common sense.

[Finnegan]

I'm not doing myself any favours, am I...

[Head Honcho]

Reactions and thought are not one and the same, weed doesn't do as much as alcohol in taking away thought and common sense.

This is a wind up right?

[Houdini Logic]

This is a wind up right?

I think they've just never had decent weed tbh

[sphericalfox]

You clearly have no idea. Try speaking to some of the doctors and nurses in A and E, like I have had to do often. Your comment is sheer, inaccurate drivel. You have no confrontational experience, so you are totally ignorant of the difference in peoples reactions,

If you choose to remain deluded, then please continue to do so.

As someone who actually has access to NHS statistical information on a daily basis, I will concur that your stories are highly unlikely, or when someone used the words stoned out of their mind, they didn't give you an accurate depiction of the assailants actual bloods. It is much more likely the person was an aggressive individuals, for which there are many in deprived areas, and/or drunk with also having indulged in smoking and/ or or illicit drugs.

As someone who actually knows the hard facts. I won't be aggressive in my response, but your picture of the nation on this particular topic is highly inaccurate.

Edited 14 November 2011 by sphericalfox