Legalise cannabis?

[flowwolf]

I would be happy for the merits of decrminalisation of cannabis to be discussed without reference to alcohol.

By the same logic, people shouldn't constantly bring up hard drugs, 'gateway drugs' and the like when we are discussing cannabis.

I hope it goes without saying that it is incorrect and unrepresentative to base your concusions on the unfortunate experience of one individual.

Those of you who don't want cannabis legalised - we're not forcing you to take it.

Why can't you agree that those who DO want to enjoy it should be allowed do so, if it is their adult choice to partake?

 

 

Because as a democracy which we all have to live in , the majority do not want legalisation of drugs of any kind. forget the alcohol argument that genie is already out of the bottle. Therefore if you live in a society where the majority has the say in these matters you have to live by those rules same as anyone else. And the truth is the majority do not want a free for all on drugs it's as simple as that.

[flowwolf]

Been a regular user since I was 15. This week I'm finishing my Master thesis. It affects people differently, blanket statements like that are far less applicable to cannabis than alcohol.

 

Ok I understand that it is ok for you as an individual.You have demonstrated that you are capable of managing it . But by your own admittance  it affects people differently and I would say you are in the minority who can handle it long term. You only have to look at the low lives you see in the street wandering around smelling like a urine soaked bonfire to know it's not good for society.

[Vacamion]

Because as a democracy which we all have to live in , the majority do not want legalisation of drugs of any kind. forget the alcohol argument that genie is already out of the bottle. Therefore if you live in a society where the majority has the say in these matters you have to live by those rules same as anyone else. And the truth is the majority do not want a free for all on drugs it's as simple as that.

Which referendum are you basing this on?

It's pure supposition on your part.

Your point also says nothing about the benefits or otherwise of legalisation. Essentially, you are saying that the law is the law and will always be so.

I thought the whole point of this thread was a discussion of the merits or otherwise of changing the law on cannabis.

[flowwolf]

Which referendum are you basing this on?

It's pure supposition on your part.

Your point also says nothing about the benefits or otherwise of legalisation. Essentially, you are saying that the law is the law and will always be so.

I thought the whole point of this thread was a discussion of the merits or otherwise of changing the law on cannabis.

 

What referendum ? This is a democracy , you vote for your local MP who then acts and votes on your behalf by his / her own volition . Can you see any local MP come election time saying " vote for me and I shall do every thing I can to ensure cannabis is decriminalised " ? it's simply not going to happen , they would be out of a job no question about it.

 

What possible benefits could society as a whole gain from legalising another drug just as addictive and harmful as alcohol ? and please don't come up with the tax/ duty argument because the drug pushers would always make it cheaper to buy from them. It would also send out the message to young people that it's ok now to smoke cannabis because the government thinks is ok.

[Vacamion]

What referendum ? This is a democracy , you vote for your local MP who then acts and votes on your behalf by his / her own volition . Can you see any local MP come election time saying " vote for me and I shall do every thing I can to ensure cannabis is decriminalised " ? it's simply not going to happen , they would be out of a job no question about it.

What possible benefits could society as a whole gain from legalising another drug just as addictive and harmful as alcohol ? and please don't come up with the tax/ duty argument because the drug pushers would always make it cheaper to buy from them. It would also send out the message to young people that it's ok now to smoke cannabis because the government thinks is ok.

The reason I asked about a referendum is because you asserted that a majority of people would vote against ending prohibition of cannabis.

You asserted this without evidence.

I disagree.

I think you underestimate how popular cannabis is. How many middle class people who hold down jobs and pay taxes enjoy using it in private and are needlessly criminalised. They are not the 'lowlife' you characterise.

If presented properly I think the case is convincing and I would consider giving my vote to a political party which promised to end cannabis prohibition.

I'm sure you don't agree but I for one would like to see people given a choice.

[Guest ttfn]

Why stop at cannabis? Where does the line get drawn?

[Rincewind]

'I'm right so the majority agree with me'

[Webbo]

I would be happy for the merits of decrminalisation of cannabis to be discussed without reference to alcohol.

By the same logic, people shouldn't constantly bring up hard drugs, 'gateway drugs' and the like when we are discussing cannabis.

I hope it goes without saying that it is incorrect and unrepresentative to base your concusions on the unfortunate experience of one individual.

Those of you who don't want cannabis legalised - we're not forcing you to take it.

Why can't you agree that those who DO want to enjoy it should be allowed do so, if it is their adult choice to partake?

You say you're only talking about cannabis but surely that last statement could apply to any drug?

[AdamN]

This is why you can't trust experts. If the evidence doesn't fit the theory you just ignore it.

 

One piece of anecdotal evidence isn't the basis for an entire argument. However, if it is, then I can take my own personal experiences of weed and tell you that casual use won't turn you into a dribbling vegetable who can't function in society, nor would my use increase should it be legalised. I've only ever smoked it occasionally in a social setting where it's been offered to me, and I can't ever see myself going out of my way to get some, legal or not. 

[Carl the Llama]

I cannot for the life of me get my head around the "alcohol's legal so lot should be too" argument.

Cannabis has got the potential to fvck people up, as does alcohol. Alcohol shouldn't be legal but it is. Rightly or wrongly it is ingrained in our culture as a nation and is used as a crutch by many (myself included at times). That it is not legal is not a good thing.

But that has nothing whatsoever to do with the legalisation of cannabis. Each case should be judged on its own terms.

What does society have to benefit from cannabis being legal? Why can't you just accept its illegal for many reasons, jamesmilner's sad example above being one?

Agree entirely.  Substance laws should be based on what can scientifically be shown to be its effects on the user, society and the economy.  Not wild generalisations based on that one guy you know.

 

Apart from the numerous stated and re-stated examples of it reducing abuse levels and providing public income?

 

What reasons are those? As far as I'm aware, the criminalisation of the substance had little to do with evidence and more to do with an Egyptian delegate at the 1928 International Drugs Convention in Geneva pushing heavily for its criminalisation.  What was the reason for its prohibition in Egypt prior to the convention?  Islamic law.

[inckley fox]

Because as a democracy which we all have to live in , the majority do not want legalisation of drugs of any kind. forget the alcohol argument that genie is already out of the bottle. Therefore if you live in a society where the majority has the say in these matters you have to live by those rules same as anyone else. And the truth is the majority do not want a free for all on drugs it's as simple as that.

 

Well a YouGov poll just over six months ago (in conjunction with that bastion of tolerance The Sun) found that 60% support legalisation, so you're not necessarily right there.

 

However, it seems to me that when people lose an argument about the rights and wrongs of something, they resort to the 'well everyone agrees with me' argument.

 

But you've confused representational democracy with mob rule. The Civil Rights movement would never have won had it not had consideration for a noisy minority. And in Britain our land would look very different were we to do everything by majority consensus. Thankfully we don't do things that way, because otherwise it would be illegal to be a Muslim or a Gypsy, illegal to wear hoodies, illegal to hold a rock concert, illegal to ride a bike on the road, to study Social Sciences, to get fat, to be unemployed, to be gay, to smoke cigarettes, to busk...

 

Either way, the majority don't agree with you. So no, it's not as simple as that and, in response to your previous points, yes you can do comparisons from one country to another (do you seriously think we don't look at how other nations handle major issues, and which measures work / don't work?). The truth is that cannabis legalisation has never been associated with high crime figures, nor even high cannabis use. And high cannabis use in a country isn't associated with high crime figures either.

 

In Britain more people use cannabis than in countries where it's partly decriminalised, so the message is clear: If you despise cannabis, those that take it and the effect it has on them then criminalisation doesn't make sense. And if you don't have anything against the third of young people that have tried it, or the half a million plus who use it regularly, then it doesn't make sense either.

[Steven]

What referendum ? This is a democracy , you vote for your local MP who then acts and votes on your behalf by his / her own volition . Can you see any local MP come election time saying " vote for me and I shall do every thing I can to ensure cannabis is decriminalised " ? it's simply not going to happen , they would be out of a job no question about it.

 

What possible benefits could society as a whole gain from legalising another drug just as addictive and harmful as alcohol ? and please don't come up with the tax/ duty argument because the drug pushers would always make it cheaper to buy from them. It would also send out the message to young people that it's ok now to smoke cannabis because the government thinks is ok.

[Rincewind]

TBH it would be a brave Government that brings in reform of this scale. The media would love it and stir up outrage with the public

At least it would take the attention off other issues.

[Carl the Llama]

TBH it would be a brave Government that brings in reform of this scale. The tabloid media would love it and stir up outrage with the public

At least it would take the attention off other issues.

Fixed.  I've seen a fair few media outlets calling for reconsideration of the laws.

[ealingfox]

Ok I understand that it is ok for you as an individual.You have demonstrated that you are capable of managing it . But by your own admittance  it affects people differently and I would say you are in the minority who can handle it long term. You only have to look at the low lives you see in the street wandering around smelling like a urine soaked bonfire to know it's not good for society.

 

But so does alcohol, and what proof do you have that said low-lives are in the position they are in because of cannabis? I think it's far more likely that alcohol abuse has put them there, or a hyper-addictive drug habit.

Edited 9 June 2013 by ealingfox

[inckley fox]

I cannot for the life of me get my head around the "alcohol's legal so lot should be too" argument.

Cannabis has got the potential to fvck people up, as does alcohol. Alcohol shouldn't be legal but it is. Rightly or wrongly it is ingrained in our culture as a nation and is used as a crutch by many (myself included at times). That it is not legal is not a good thing.

But that has nothing whatsoever to do with the legalisation of cannabis. Each case should be judged on its own terms.

What does society have to benefit from cannabis being legal? Why can't you just accept its illegal for many reasons, jamesmilner's sad example above being one?

 

You asked 'why draw the line at cannabis?' Well in Portugal they didn't and they have, per capita, half the number of drug users that Britain has. Managing drugs, decent rehabilitation, re-focusing police resources and putting drug dealers out of business by legalisation are all possibilities. Government health advisors keep irritating the government by telling them that this would work, and the government has to keep replacing them with people who will agree with what they want them to say. And then they don't.

 

Again you are confusing the argument as to whether smoking cannabis is a good thing (if we pool mental health risks and general health risks together, then I don't believe it's any better than drinking a lot or eating too much sugar, salt or too many beefburgers), with the argument as to whether it should be decriminalised / legalised.

 

And society has plenty to gain. In America it was estimated that legalisation in Washington would reduce spending and increase tax revenue by 0.5% (this was an estimate by critics of legalisation). Police can focus on targeting harder drugs. Casual dealers who depend on pot for their pocket money go out of business. 500,000 people are decriminalised in the eyes of the law (and, remember, it has been proven that people who consider themselves to be 'criminals' are more likely to behave like criminals). On top of this there is no evidence from other countries to suggest that more people will smoke pot, or drug-related crime will rise.

 

As for the mental health risks. The only evidence for this is among smokers of 'skunk', which does not have sufficient quantities of CBD to counteract the THC. Legalisation - and regulation - would obviously handle this. On the other hand, cannabis has also been shown to have positive mental health effects (in the alleviation of bipolar depression symptoms, paranoid schizophrenia symptoms and a 10% reduction in the suicide rate among people who are treated with it). So I'd say that the 'mental health' counter-argument works for and against. But, seeing as we won't have any more cannabis smokers on our hands anyway, it's barely relevant.

[ealingfox]

Also I don't know if it has occurred to anyone that legalisation would have an indirect effect on Leicester and by association Leicester City. Legalisation of cannabis would mean that sales and consequently shares in Walkers go through the roof, making the company far richer and more powerful. Walkers then use this money and power and invest in the local economy and pump it into Leicester City. We repay our debts and have much more money to spend, even under FFP, because of Walkers' investment.

 

[Webbo]

TBH it would be a brave Government that brings in reform of this scale. The media would love it and stir up outrage with the public

At least it would take the attention off other issues.

Do something unpopular to distract people from the unpopular things you do? Genius.

[inckley fox]

But so does alcohol, and what proof do you have that said low-lives are in the position they are in because of cannabis? I think it's far more likely that alcohol abuse has put them there, or a hyper-addictive drug habit.

 

The comparison with alcohol is far more relevant these days than ever before. When I was a teenager, thirteen years ago, I was told by the doctor to 'average' no more than eleven or twelve pints a week. He also told me to try a red wine with my meal instead of a pint, because it is 'the only food supplement in the world that is proven to be good for your health'.

 

Previously the comparison between alcohol and cannabis focused on them both being psychoactive drugs, and alcohol having a worse impact on social problems.

 

Now the comparison should look at how successive governments have attempted to underline the health risks of these substances. Cancer rates have surged over the past four decades and continue to year on year, despite massive percentage drops in the number of cigarette smokers and alcohol drinkers, and greater dietary awareness. It amazes me that more people don't ask why 'alcohol related deaths' are rising, while alcohol consumption isn't.

 

The problem is that many of these deaths are 'alcohol associated' but not necessarily caused by alcohol. For instance a drinker who suffers from colon cancer goes towards the statistics, whether we can establish that alcohol was to blame or not. And this is the problem with advice on cannabis too. Increasingly people become convinced that the government are hellbent killjoys, and as a result we do our 'own' research.

 

Today it was revealed that two drinks per year should be the maximum. Cancer rates from drinking are on the up. 4500 people died from alcohol-associated causes last year.

 

But hold on - 75% of adults (according to one recent study) drink above the recommended amount. What - thirty million people? And 4500 of them die a year as a result. Many of those deaths are from accidents / cirrhosis / alcohol poisoning etc., so it's not unreasonable to assume that your chances of dying from cancer as a result of over-drinking are in the region of 15000 to 1.

 

When I see the cannabis-related scaremongering (including those long since disproven assertions that one reefer is equivalent to twenty cigarettes), I think of the alcohol-related scaremongering. And I can't help but wonder why it happens. Is it the old Orwell theory that there is nothing more dangerous to a government than people getting together and having a good time?

[inckley fox]

Do something unpopular to distract people from the unpopular things you do? Genius.

 

There are plenty of historical precedents you know.

[Webbo]

There are plenty of historical precedents you know.

Can't think of any off hand myself.

[Lasty]

Potheads, please. It isn't ever going to be legalised.

Get. Over. It.

[inckley fox]

Potheads, please. It isn't ever going to be legalised.

Get. Over. It.

 

Is that picture of Oasis ironic?

 

I'm most definitely not a pothead, but in my lifetime the heir to the throne has said he supports its use for medical purposes, it's been briefly downgraded, decriminalised for medical purposes, fully legalised in parts of the USA, decriminalised in Portugal, partially decriminalised in Spain and discovered to be useful for the treatment of some medical conditions. Government health advisors repeatedly call for its legalisation and our current PM has refused to deny having taken it.

 

If that can happen in a little over thirty years, then it's quite possible it will be legalised in the next thirty. And besides, people aren't arguing that it 'will' be legalised, they are arguing that it 'should' be legalised. There's quite a difference.

[inckley fox]

Can't think of any off hand myself.

Have you never heard of 'diversionary policy' before? It's one of the oldest political tricks in the book. Try starting with the burning of the Reichstag or the Russo-Japanese War and going from there. Politicians are frequently happy for bad news to fill the newspapers if it means keeping attention away from something even worse (it has been widely suggested, for instance, that the Conservatives are not nearly as worried about the phone hacking scandal as Labour are, and are quite happy to see this in the newspapers at the expense of our economic problems).

[Webbo]

Have you never heard of 'diversionary policy' before? It's one of the oldest political tricks in the book. Try starting with the burning of the Reichstag or the Russo-Japanese War and going from there. Politicians are frequently happy for bad news to fill the newspapers if it means keeping attention away from something even worse (it has been widely suggested, for instance, that the Conservatives are not nearly as worried about the phone hacking scandal as Labour are, and are quite happy to see this in the newspapers at the expense of our economic problems).

That's different from making yourselves unpopular to distract from your own unpopularity.