Legalise cannabis?

[flowwolf]

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

 

 

Or the majority is right and I just happen to agree with them.

[theessexfox]

Or the majority is right and I just happen to agree with them.

You think we should legalise cannabis? 

[flowwolf]

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.

 

 

All very well and good. But it matters not because the legalisation of cannabis is not on any governments agenda and never will be as long as it would lose voters.

[flowwolf]

 

Sorry I missed your point ?

[flowwolf]

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.

 

 

As I said before I am not defending alcohol , that genie is already out of the bottle . What I am saying is why legalise something that is just a destructive as alcohol that's all.

[flowwolf]

You think we should legalise cannabis? 

 

Yes and heroin and child pornography.

[leicsmac]

Yes and heroin and child pornography.

 

I think perhaps you are obfuscating the point?.

 

The fact that you disagree with the legalisation of cannabis puts you in a minority according to most polls, including the one that has been stated above. So you agree with the minority, not the majority.

 

However I do think you're right in that it is true that no Government will probably have cannabis legalisation as part of their agenda (despite the fact that it may well pass) for a variety of different reasons.

[flowwolf]

I think perhaps you are obfuscating the point?.

 

The fact that you disagree with the legalisation of cannabis puts you in a minority according to most polls, including the one that has been stated above. So you agree with the minority, not the majority.

 

However I do think you're right in that it is true that no Government will probably have cannabis legalisation as part of their agenda (despite the fact that it may well pass) for a variety of different reasons.

 

Ok I will settle for being half right.

[inckley fox]

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

 

Erm, no it isn't.

 

Unless you think that (a) The government's economic record is popular or (b) that the phone-hacking scandal has made the government more popular.

 

You accept one sensational, unpopular headline which reflects badly on you, in order to take front page space away from another which reflects even worse.

 

That's what diversionary policy largely consists of, and has throughout history. As I said, the Russo-Japanese War was another example and some have argued that the foreign policy of Bush / Blair was another.

Edited 9 June 2013 by inckley fox

[Steven]

'The worst case of scientific censorship since the Catholic Church banned the works of Galileo': Scientists call for drugs to be legalised to allow proper study of their properties

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/the-worst-case-of-scientific-censorship-since-the-catholic-church-banned-the-works-of-galileo-scientists-call-for-drugs-to-be-legalised-to-allow-proper-study-of-their-properties-8654514.html

[flowwolf]

I think perhaps you are obfuscating the point?.

 

The fact that you disagree with the legalisation of cannabis puts you in a minority according to most polls, including the one that has been stated above. So you agree with the minority, not the majority.

 

However I do think you're right in that it is true that no Government will probably have cannabis legalisation as part of their agenda (despite the fact that it may well pass) for a variety of different reasons.

 

Never take any notice of polls , they never account for society as a whole. They target the group they want to target to get the answers they want accordingly. Would you care to list those ( variety of different reasons ) ? I would be interested to know what they are. Thanks.

[flowwolf]

'The worst case of scientific censorship since the Catholic Church banned the works of Galileo': Scientists call for drugs to be legalised to allow proper study of their properties

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/the-worst-case-of-scientific-censorship-since-the-catholic-church-banned-the-works-of-galileo-scientists-call-for-drugs-to-be-legalised-to-allow-proper-study-of-their-properties-8654514.html

 

 

Don't think anyone is going to take notice of a Nutt who was dismissed from his office do you ?

[Carl the Llama]

Don't think anyone is going to take notice of a Nutt who was dismissed from his office do you ?

I see what you did there.

 

I'm a big fan of Nutt because the man doesn't let irrational political decisions and scapegoating stop him from asserting his scientifically backed claims.  The fact that he was dismissed for providing scientific evidence which was inconvenient to the government's position on the matter says it all really.  Makes you wonder how much the alcohol corporations are slipping into the pockets of legislators.

[LestaFox92]

MDMA legal now that would stop wars XD

[Guest MattP]

Why is alcohol always the comparison?

 

Believe me if that came on the market now as something new it wouldn't be legal. It's there because it's ingrained in society.

[Charl91]

Why is alcohol always the comparison?

 

Believe me if that came on the market now as something new it wouldn't be legal. It's there because it's ingrained in society.

 

That's true. It's so much more dangerous than many illegal drugs. Even worse, it makes fat people seem attractive.

[flowwolf]

I see what you did there.

 

I'm a big fan of Nutt because the man doesn't let irrational political decisions and scapegoating stop him from asserting his scientifically backed claims.  The fact that he was dismissed for providing scientific evidence which was inconvenient to the government's position on the matter says it all really.  Makes you wonder how much the alcohol corporations are slipping into the pockets of legislators.

 

 

Hmm never thought of it that way.   thanks.

[flowwolf]

Why is alcohol always the comparison?

 

Believe me if that came on the market now as something new it wouldn't be legal. It's there because it's ingrained in society.

 

 

I think we have both said this time and time again on here matt, but no one seems to be listening. Perhaps they are on drugs ?

Edited 12 June 2013 by flowwolf

[Steven]

 

Why is alcohol always the comparison?

 

Believe me if that came on the market now as something new it wouldn't be legal. It's there because it's ingrained in society.

As were/are other drugs before they were criminalised. The reason why it is used as a comparison because it is so dangerous and unlike other less dangerous drugs, is not criminalised. There is no logical reason for this.

[lavrentis]

MDMA legal now that would stop wars XD

 

Everyone would go crazy

[Guest MattP]

 

As were/are other drugs before they were criminalised. The reason why it is used as a comparison because it is so dangerous and unlike other less dangerous drugs, is not criminalised. There is no logical reason for this.

 

That's just not true though is it?

 

Give a single drug in history that has been ingrained into our society as much as alcohol is? How many people drink? 96-97% of the population? No drug has ever came anywhere near that.

 

Despite what a lot of people think it's not actually that normal for everyone to see people smoking drugs most days, certainly not where I live anyway.

Edited 12 June 2013 by MattP

[flowwolf]

And in any case as Churchill once said , I have taken more out of alcohol than alcohol has taken out of me.

[Carl the Llama]

That's just not true though is it?

 

Give a single drug in history that has been ingrained into our society as much as alcohol is? How many people drink? 96-97% of the population? No drug has ever came anywhere near that.

 

Despite what a lot of people think it's not actually that normal for everyone to see people smoking drugs most days, certainly not where I live anyway.

You're not far off.  It's more like 85-90%, but that's still the vast majority.

 

Which sort of makes the point for me.  If society can function with that many people consuming the worse drug, surely it would get by fine with legal cannabis?  (I say it as though it's hypothetical, but we already know - thanks to other nations - that it's a certainty.  We'd be fine.)

Edited 12 June 2013 by Carl the Llama

[Guest MattP]

You're not far off.  It's more like 85-90%, but that's still the vast majority.

 

Which sort of makes the point for me.  If society can function with that many people consuming the worse drug, surely it would get by fine with legal cannabis?  (I say it as though it's hypothetical, but we already know - thanks to other nations - that it's a certainty.  We'd be fine.)

 

You think we are funtioning that well as a society with it?

 

Our town centres at night become no go zones due to the booze culture we have (I know as I partake in it), we have thousands of deaths on the road due to it, most domestic violence results from use of it. Untold people have criminal records because of actions that have committed on it.

 

As for cannabis being openly avaliable in just ten years I think you can tell the difference in Amsterdam to how much of a zomified shithole it has become now.

 

I'm not against it and I wouldnt try and stop someone smoking it, just seeing what it has done to some of the people I care about it's hard for me to justify legalising it.

[LestaFox92]

You think we are funtioning that well as a society with it?

 

Our town centres at night become no go zones due to the booze culture we have (I know as I partake in it), we have thousands of deaths on the road due to it, most domestic violence results from use of it. Untold people have criminal records because of actions that have committed on it.

 

As for cannabis being openly avaliable in just ten years I think you can tell the difference in Amsterdam to how much of a zomified shithole it has become now.

 

I'm not against it and I wouldnt try and stop someone smoking it, just seeing what it has done to some of the people I care about it's hard for me to justify legalising it.

 

The thing is people are going to abuse alcohol or weed if it's legal or not. to much of anything isn't good for a person atleast with legalisation people might be able to make a educated decesion on it.