Legalise cannabis?

[Steven]

Yeah lets argue for legalising drugs by quoting evidence that a drug that is already legalised is costing the taxpayer billions and causing ill health a crime. Surely the only sane conclusion is we should be curbing the influence of alcohol on our culture, not throwing more drugs into the mix.

 

I agree with the first part. However if the dangers from another drug are less than that of alcohol, is it reasonable that the other drug is illegal?

[ADK]

I guess it goes back to what you believe the harmful effects are and the dangers.

 

Perhaps if we are able to reign in our alcohol culture abit then we could look at at the legality of other drugs.

 

I'm not sure cannabis is defintely less harmful than alcohol, it seems both are likely to be harmless in moderation.

Edited 6 June 2013 by ADK

[Guest MattP]

I agree with the first part. However if the dangers from another drug are less than that of alcohol, is it reasonable that the other drug is illegal?

 

It's not, but if alcohol came onto the market now it would be illegal.

 

I'm with ADK on this, just because something worse is legal isn't a reason to make something else that is potentially harmful legal.

[lavrentis]

I used to be staunch legalisation but I am not sure now. More pro choice but know how it can affect some people.

[Charl91]

Actually, I've changed my mind. Make it legal and stick a stupidly high tax on (well above the rate needed to cover the NHS costs).

Edited 6 June 2013 by Charl91

[Webbo]

Actually, I've changed my mind. Make it legal and stick a stupidly high tax on (well above the rate needed to cover the NHS costs).

If you stick tax on it people will buy it from drug dealers tax free.

[Guest MattP]

I used to be staunch legalisation but I am not sure now. More pro choice but know how it can affect some people.

I was a 'legalise everything' man in my teens until I started to see the effect it had on people you know and care about.

[theessexfox]

 I smell Anarchy! 

 

To say it is harmless is ridiculous. Like drink, it also costs the NHS millions of pounds a year, and is the starting point for many who go on to take stronger drugs. Met a good number of such people who have admitted this to me in my role within the Police.

 

Your tax revenue is flawed by the cost to the NHS, and I think your failure to comprehend this is shared by the ignorant.

So surely buying it legally would help people avoid these dodgy figures who get them into deeper drugs? 

[Vacamion]

Lets all follow the prohibition doesn't work mantra. Lets allow consenting adults to chase the dragon in the comfort of their own homes , after all what harm could it do ? and just think of the millions gathered in tax revenue . Can't think why it has not been thought of before.

 

Yeah Baby that's really Free.

 

This is better than ad hominem insults, as you are at least alluding to the issues you have with legalising it, albeit in an uneccessarily sarcastic way.

 

 

It HAS been thought of before, but there is some corrupted Judeo/Christian notion that if you enjoy yourself in private (even if, out of your own choice, you are accepting the risk of harm), God might be offended.

 

That's why there is prohibition.

 

As an aside, if people want to chase the dragon in their own homes, frankly I would let them.  If they have paid for it out of their own legally acquired funds and if they take it in private and if their use harms no one else, and if they have been made aware of the harm but still take on the risk (and don't ask the State to care for them if they become ill as a result), why not? 

 

It seems that the bottom line with anti-legalisation arguments is  "Because it's wrong"  (ie "it's a sin").

 

I think that argument doesn't stack up for Heroin, Coke, Ecstasy, and any other drug that can be taken without harming others.  I would exclude crystal meth and crack, because they have been shown to be so addictive that they probably cannot be taken in any kind of moderation and are, in themselves, harmful to others.

 

My point was mainly made about cannabis, however.

 

We are needlessly criminalising people (taking up valuable legal system resource and prison places needed for "real" criminals), the currrent arrangement does not discourage people from taking cannabis (far from it) and directs those who would like to obtain it to criminals.  The health risks exist, but cannabis is less harmful than a host of stuff which is currently legal.  I would think that fried food and ladders probably kill a lot more people than hash has ever done.

 

Of course kids with their growing brains and bodies can be harmed by it, shouldn't take it and need to be educated about the effects, but screaming "ALL DRUGS ARE BAD" hasn't worked since cannabis was made illegal in 1928 and won't work in future. 

 

Any tax paying, working adult should be able to make their own choices about what they consume if that consumption harms no one else.

 

Instead, the snooping, controlling Nanny State can't abide its citizens having unregulated fun.

 

The USA is slowly wising up to the commercial opportunities, the law can't keep up with so called "legal highs" and I sense that the current arrangement won't last. 

Edited 6 June 2013 by Vacamion

[flowwolf]

This is better than ad hominem insults, as you are at least alluding to the issues you have with legalising it, albeit in an uneccessarily sarcastic way.

 

 

It HAS been thought of before, but there is some corrupted Judeo/Christian notion that if you enjoy yourself in private (even if, out of your own choice, you are accepting the risk of harm), God might be offended.

 

That's why there is prohibition.

 

As an aside, if people want to chase the dragon in their own homes, frankly I would let them.  If they have paid for it out of their own legally acquired funds and if they take it in private and if their use harms no one else, and if they have been made aware of the harm but still take on the risk (and don't ask the State to care for them if they become ill as a result), why not? 

 

It seems that the bottom line with anti-legalisation arguments is  "Because it's wrong"  (ie "it's a sin").

 

I think that argument doesn't stack up for Heroin, Coke, Ecstasy, and any other drug that can be taken without harming others.  I would exclude crystal meth and crack, because they have been shown to be so addictive that they probably cannot be taken in any kind of moderation and are, in themselves, harmful to others.

 

My point was mainly made about cannabis, however.

 

We are needlessly criminalising people (taking up valuable legal system resource and prison places needed for "real" criminals), the currrent arrangement does not discourage people from taking cannabis (far from it) and directs those who would like to obtain it to criminals.  The health risks exist, but cannabis is less harmful than a host of stuff which is currently legal.  I would think that fried food and ladders probably kill a lot more people than hash has ever done.

 

Of course kids with their growing brains and bodies can be harmed by it, shouldn't take it and need to be educated about the effects, but screaming "ALL DRUGS ARE BAD" hasn't worked since cannabis was made illegal in 1928 and won't work in future. 

 

Any tax paying, working adult should be able to make their own choices about what they consume if that consumption harms no one else.

 

Instead, the snooping, controlling Nanny State can't abide its citizens having unregulated fun.

 

The USA is slowly wising up to the commercial opportunities, the law can't keep up with so called "legal highs" and I sense that the current arrangement won't last.

So basically what you are saying is anything goes then is it ? it's all down to personal choice and freedom. What absolute breath taking short-sightedness. Take a look at the real world. we live in a thing called society and in that society we have rules. Without a general consensus we are nothing. Thankfully you are in a minority a throw back to the sixties. We needlessly criminalise people ever day, speeding tickets parking fines etc. That comes no where near having a society hooked on hard drugs and you obviously have never had to work with the long term effects of people who's live have been destroyed by the same cavalier attitude to drugs.

Edited 6 June 2013 by flowwolf

[Vacamion]

So basically what you are saying is anything goes then is it ? it's all down to personal choice and freedom. What absolute breath taking short-sightedness. Take a look at the real world. we live in a thing called society and in that society we have rules. Without a general consensus we are nothing. Thankfully you are in a minority a throw back to the sixties. We needlessly criminalise people ever day, speeding tickets parking fines etc. That comes no where near having a society hooked on hard drugs and you obviously have never had to work with the long term effects of people who's live have been destroyed by the same cavalier attitude to drugs.

 

 

"You are in a minority throwback to the sixties" - That'll be a bit more "ad hominem" then... Speeding or parking in restricted places affects others, so there are rules to be followed.

 

In what possible way does an activity which someone carries out in the privacy of their own dwelling and which affects only them impinge on what you call "society"?

 

It just doesn't.

 

The Leviathan of the State (if you'll forgive the Hobbesian terminology) has no business intervening in peoples' private activities if these activities affect no one but those partaking.

 

I say allow them to partake.

[flowwolf]

So a society hooked on heroin does no harm ? I beg to differ and so does every state in the world , it just does.

[Vacamion]

So a society hooked on heroin does no harm ? I beg to differ and so does every state in the world , it just does.

 

 

 

Your argument proceeds from the premise that everyone wants to take heroin.

 

It just does.

[sphericalfox]

Yeah lets argue for legalising drugs by quoting evidence that a drug that is already legalised is costing the taxpayer billions and causing ill health and crime. Surely the only sane conclusion is we should be curbing the influence of alcohol on our culture, not throwing more drugs into the mix.

 

I was asked for evidence. and I provided facts. How those are then interpreted is up to the individual. The whole point is that the of the illegal drug use and the cost to the NHS, marijuana is a very small sliver of that number. Whilst it can be argued that the drug can lead to further drug use, again the proportion of this is actually lower than the Daily Fail would have you believe.

 

Alcohol, for those who were trying to be clever, and now have as much dick on their faces as Tulisa, is the NUMBER ONE DRUG OF USE, that costs the NHS the most money. Tobacco comes high after this, as both these generally align themselves with long term chronic illnesses. People can bury their heads in the sand, but the use of alcohol needs to be addressed through education. But unfortunately its a crutch drug that is socially accepted, and relied upon.

 

And the argument is not to through more 'drugs' into the mix. I believe the discussion is one particular drug, which has been proven not be as harmful as current legal drugs, and the possible legalisation of this. I guess your inference is that once that comes available that it be a free for all, and every drug, including heroin will be freely available legally and kids will be shooting up behind the bike sheds? It's the alarmists that need to have a look more closely at the facts, and actually step back and realise the damage that alcohol does, and how embedded it is within society, and how powerful the companies selling that drug have over your society.

[Guest BlueBrett]

 

 

Whilst it can be argued that the drug can lead to further drug use, again the proportion of this is actually lower than the Daily Fail would have you believe.

And the only reason it can sometimes act as a 'gateway drug' is because of the very fact that it is illegal.  If you like to get high you have to speak to a drug dealer and drug dealers often have other products that they wish to introduce you to. Plus you try a bit of weed and think 'well this is all good, why the hell is it illegal?' and that makes you question and have less respect for the legal status of other banned substances.  It's like the government are crying wolf over it.

If cannabis was legalised the whole culture surrounding it's consumption would change.  You'd have far less people smoking themselves into a stupor on their own in their bedrooms and far more 'social smoking' as people had the freedom to hang out and get high with their mates in designated public places. 

[Steven]

 

And the only reason it can sometimes act as a 'gateway drug' is because of the very fact that it is illegal.  If you like to get high you have to speak to a drug dealer and drug dealers often have other products that they wish to introduce you to. Plus you try a bit of weed and think 'well this is all good, why the hell is it illegal?' and that makes you question and have less respect for the legal status of other banned substances.  It's like the government are crying wolf over it.

If cannabis was legalised the whole culture surrounding it's consumption would change.  You'd have far less people smoking themselves into a stupor on their own in their bedrooms and far more 'social smoking' as people had the freedom to hang out and get high with their mates in designated public places.

Way too sensible for this thread.

[flowwolf]

Your argument proceeds from the premise that everyone wants to take heroin.

 

It just does.

 

 

And your argument proceeds from the premise that everyone knows what " ad hominem " means , they don't and it sucks . it just does.

[Steven]

And your argument proceeds from the premise that everyone knows what " ad hominem " means , they don't and it sucks . it just does.

 

An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an argument made personally against an opponent instead of against their argument.

[Steven]

Remember only "losers" would back drug legalisation.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/jun/08/richard-branson-decriminalise-drugs-votes

[flowwolf]

 

And your argument proceeds from the premise that everyone knows what " ad hominem " means , they don't and it sucks . it just does.

 

An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an argument made personally against an opponent instead of against their argument.

 

 

 

Thanks for that Steven. I did actually look it up but fell asleep reading it's meaning.

[DANGEROUS TIGER]

If it already costs the NHS millions of pounds a year then couldn't you argue that the tax revenue from legalised cannabis would help to reduce the overall costs?

That would go to the government, not the NHS. Also, what about the unnecessary and massive waste of time, to a more than overstretched NHS?

[DANGEROUS TIGER]

If you added all the costs of illegal drugs to the NHS, they still wouldn't add up to the costs of what alcohol costs the NHS. You sir are one of the ignorant.

The subject of alcohol, my friend, was not mentioned within the topic. I do in fact agree with your comment.

 

Thus, I suggest you stick to the topic in hand, or create your own regarding alcohol.

 

Perhaps your failure to comprehend the rudiments of a simple topic, does in fact qualify you to be called ignorant.     

[inckley fox]

In what possible way does an activity which someone carries out in the privacy of their own dwelling and which affects only them impinge on what you call "society"?

 

I tend to agree, but where do you stand on under-age porn on the Internet? The creepy old dock-end toothed perv looking up pictures of under-age girls, or exchanging them with others, isn't directly harming anyone either - should that be legal? The harm, in both cases, is done indirectly.

 

So a society hooked on heroin does no harm ?

 

I think I saw once that a third of street crime is connected to heroin use (muggings etc.). I doubt that 1% of street crime comes from cannabis use.

 

That would go to the government, not the NHS. Also, what about the unnecessary and massive waste of time, to a more than overstretched NHS?

 

Who do you think provides funding for the NHS? And it's not only revenue gained through taxation that's at stake, it's the huge resources needed by the police to combat cannabis use. And besides, cannabis use isn't statistically highest in places where it's legalised. Italy has a virtual zero tolerance policy towards cannabis possession, and has nearly three times more users than Holland, which has - in places - a very relaxed stance.

[sphericalfox]

The subject of alcohol, my friend, was not mentioned within the topic. I do in fact agree with your comment.

 

Thus, I suggest you stick to the topic in hand, or create your own regarding alcohol.

 

Perhaps your failure to comprehend the rudiments of a simple topic, does in fact qualify you to be called ignorant.     

 

 I smell Anarchy! 

 

To say it is harmless is ridiculous. Like drink, it also costs the NHS millions of pounds a year, and is the starting point for many who go on to take stronger drugs. Met a good number of such people who have admitted this to me in my role within the Police.

 

Your tax revenue is flawed by the cost to the NHS, and I think your failure to comprehend this is shared by the ignorant.

 

Are you are little retarded? Perhaps your total comprehension of a response that links directly to something you have posted constitutes the actual definition of ignorance. Now you can ignore me like fluwank, but you gots dick alls over your face like him. Enjoy. 

[Charl91]

If you stick tax on it people will buy it from drug dealers tax free.

 

Really? I wouldn't buy bottles of Vodka from guys on the street, even if they're a few quid cheaper.

 

You'd pay the extra for a product you know you can trust.