Legalise cannabis?

[Guest MattP]

Said it before and I'll say it again.

The argument for legalising cannabis has to be better than alcohol is legal. If alcohol came on the market now it wouldn't be but it's ingrained in our culture.

[Rincewind]

smokers.

cigarette smoke is the residue of your pleasure. It permeates the air, my hair and clothes, not to mention my lungs. This takes place without my consent. I have a pleasure- i like a beer now and again. The residue from my pleasure is urine. Would you mind if i stand on a chair and piss on you without your consent??

[Steven]

People are capable of moderating their own consumption if they want to now why would legalising it make that more likely.

 

 

And when you try to moderate someones consumption who doesn't want it moderated what do you think will happen?

 

So we should have alcohol and tobacco sales on a totally unrestricted basis and leave it up to individuals to decide what and how much to consume? Why doesn't this logic apply to other substances such as cannabis? If you believe people can decide for themselves what to consume and how much, why does this not apply to all substances?

[Guest MattP]

So we should have alcohol and tobacco sales on a totally unrestricted basis and leave it up to individuals to decide what and how much to consume? Why doesn't this logic apply to other substances such as cannabis? If you believe people can decide for themselves what to consume and how much, why does this not apply to all substances?

Errrr it does doesn't it?

[Steven]

Errrr it does doesn't it?

So you believe all substances should be legally and freely available. :xmasbiggrin:

[sphericalfox]

So you believe all substances should be legally and freely available. :xmasbiggrin:

 

Only the ones that boost his ego, and don't make him self-reflect. 

[Guest MattP]

So you believe all substances should be legally and freely available. :xmasbiggrin:

As I've said before I'm not sure on this issue but think the reasoning for legalisation needs to be presented better.

Consenting adults can do what they want as far as I'm concerned, I hate the fact we have created a society where instead of demanding personal responsibility people queue up to offer excuse after excuse for wrongdoing.

Only the ones that boost his ego, and don't make him self-reflect.

You're a bigger bitch than Brian Dowling.

[Webbo]

You never know what you are getting if you obtain cannabis from a criminal, a stranger on the street or even from a "friend of a friend".

Of course THC content varies by type of material (oil, hash or weed), but you can't tell from looking (or smelling) what the THC content is. If it was licensed for sale as "X%" (like alcohol is) people would be able to moderate their intake far more than is currently the case.

Without wishing to bang on about alcohol, the example to consider is that illegally produced alcohol (moonshine, illicit voddy etc) is ths stuff that sends people blind(as opposed to, say "Russian Standard") because people just don't know what's in stuff that isn't controlled.

So the people who smoke it now, knowingly breaking the law, who tell us all that it's harmless and less dangerous than alcohol and the govt is lying to us, will embrace the chance the chance to smoke weaker govt approved cannabis?

[Webbo]

So we should have alcohol and tobacco sales on a totally unrestricted basis and leave it up to individuals to decide what and how much to consume? Why doesn't this logic apply to other substances such as cannabis? If you believe people can decide for themselves what to consume and how much, why does this not apply to all substances?

I understand the libertarian argument and I have some sympathy with it but if we're being practical instead of ideological you have to recognise that legalising drugs will create more addicts, more mental illness and will make life worse for a lot of people. 

[Carl the Llama]

So the people who smoke it now, knowingly breaking the law, who tell us all that it's harmless and less dangerous than alcohol and the govt is lying to us, will embrace the chance the chance to smoke weaker govt approved cannabis?

Rubbish point.  The stuff on sale in the Netherlands, while not technically "govt approved", is plenty enough motivation for me to make a monthly visit to stock up instead of buying it around the corner from some shady fellow.

[AndWhat?]

I understand the libertarian argument and I have some sympathy with it but if we're being practical instead of ideological you have to recognise that legalising drugs will create more addicts, more mental illness and will make life worse for a lot of people.

Think you need to read up on Portugal and what happened there when they decriminalised most drugs.

[Guest MattP]

Think you need to read up on Portugal and what happened there when they decriminalised most drugs.

 

It's still up for debate that one.

 

Deaths from drugs actually increased since they decriminalised it despite what you might read in the Guardian.

 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/ondcp/Fact_Sheets/portugal_fact_sheet_8-25-10.pdf

 

 

Drug-induced deaths, which decreased in Portugal from 369 in 1999 to 152 in 2003,

climbed to 314 in 2007 – a number significantl

y higher than the 280 deaths recorded

when decriminalization started in 2001

 

 

 

References at the bottom of the sheet.

No idea what has happened to that quote, something has completely duddled by the looks of it.

[James.]

I understand the libertarian argument and I have some sympathy with it but if we're being practical instead of ideological you have to recognise that legalising drugs will create more addicts, more mental illness and will make life worse for a lot of people. 

 

This pretty much sums up why I avoid this debate (or at least try, I know I've posted a few times). Just strikes me as a bunch of lazy assumptions without really understanding the legislation argument or providing any evidence.

 

Anyway I'll preempt the obvious retort and direct anyone that's interested to have a look at the following link. Transform can argue the point far better than me.

 

http://www.tdpf.org.uk/

[Webbo]

This pretty much sums up why I avoid this debate (or at least try, I know I've posted a few times). Just strikes me as a bunch of lazy assumptions without really understanding the legislation argument or providing any evidence.

 

Anyway I'll preempt the obvious retort and direct anyone that's interested to have a look at the following link. Transform can argue the point far better than me.

 

http://www.tdpf.org.uk/

Until there's a change in the law it's all assumptions from both sides. If you quote a pro drugs lobby then obviously they will tell you who how everything will get better but that's based on assumptions too.

[Guest MattP]

This pretty much sums up why I avoid this debate (or at least try, I know I've posted a few times). Just strikes me as a bunch of lazy assumptions without really understanding the legislation argument or providing any evidence.

 

Anyway I'll preempt the obvious retort and direct anyone that's interested to have a look at the following link. Transform can argue the point far better than me.

 

http://www.tdpf.org.uk/

 

I'll have a read of that later proerly and they seem to have a lot of people who seem to support the cause who I agree woth a lot as well.

 

Only thing I don't like is the term "war on drugs" - we have never had a war on drugs here, go to Abu Dhabi or Dubai and people will see what a real "war on drugs" is.

 

We sort of have this half arsed here nor there approach that I agree needs to be sorted. I dont think drug users should go to prison at all but giving people a caution for possessing class a drugs isn't a war on it.

[sphericalfox]

As I've said before I'm not sure on this issue but think the reasoning for legalisation needs to be presented better.

Consenting adults can do what they want as far as I'm concerned, I hate the fact we have created a society where instead of demanding personal responsibility people queue up to offer excuse after excuse for wrongdoing.

You're a bigger bitch than Brian Dowling.

 

Jeez sounds like someone hasn't had their fix...

[ADK]

I do think if we legalised it, consumption would increase dramatically.

[RobHawk]

I'll have a read of that later proerly and they seem to have a lot of people who seem to support the cause who I agree woth a lot as well.

 

Only thing I don't like is the term "war on drugs" - we have never had a war on drugs here, go to Abu Dhabi or Dubai and people will see what a real "war on drugs" is.

 

We sort of have this half arsed here nor there approach that I agree needs to be sorted. I dont think drug users should go to prison at all but giving people a caution for possessing class a drugs isn't a war on it.

I think the war on drugs in more an american thing personally! They have wars on anything over their!

[lavrentis]

I do think if we legalised it, consumption would increase dramatically.

 

To be fair it's widely used as it is, I think the people who would admit to pollsters they smoke it would increase dramatically.

[Carl the Llama]

I'll have a read of that later proerly and they seem to have a lot of people who seem to support the cause who I agree woth a lot as well.

 

Only thing I don't like is the term "war on drugs" - we have never had a war on drugs here, go to Abu Dhabi or Dubai and people will see what a real "war on drugs" is.

 

We sort of have this half arsed here nor there approach that I agree needs to be sorted. I dont think drug users should go to prison at all but giving people a caution for possessing class a drugs isn't a war on it.

We may not have violent gun stand-offs or cartel leaders beheading their enemies, but if you ran a low-key grow-op for yourself and a few friends and came home one day to find your front door busted in and a team of police officers packing up all your hardware which you paid for out of your own hard earned cash working a perfectly legal job because a helicopter patrolling the skies for signs of drugs happened to pick up the heat signal in your attic you'd feel somewhat differently.

[AndWhat?]

It's still up for debate that one.

Deaths from drugs actually increased since they decriminalised it despite what you might read in the Guardian.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/ondcp/Fact_Sheets/portugal_fact_sheet_8-25-10.pdf

References at the bottom of the sheet.

No idea what has happened to that quote, something has completely duddled by the looks of it.

That quote doesn't seen to agree to the argument though.

In 1999 when drugs weren't decriminalised there were 369 deaths. In 2003, 2 years after the new laws came in only 152 deaths, so looked like it was working. Then in 2007 they had 55 less deaths than 1999 before the decriminalisation.

Seems like they are picking and choosing figures and putting them where they want to help their argument.

To be fair though, it's fact that not 1 of those deaths were caused by weed.

Edited 3 January 2014 by AndWhat?

[James.]

Until there's a change in the law it's all assumptions from both sides. If you quote a pro drugs lobby then obviously they will tell you who how everything will get better but that's based on assumptions too.

 

Yes of course but if you actually read their argument it goes a little bit further than just stating with absolutely no evidence, reasoning or justification that legalising would "create more addicts and mental illness".

 

To be honest if often feels that regardless of what you put in front of some people they have made their mind up about drugs based on a lot of misinformation and scaremongering in the press and from their own prejudices.

[Webbo]

 

 

To be honest if often feels that regardless of what you put in front of some people they have made their mind up about drugs based on a lot of misinformation and scaremongering in the press and from their own prejudices.

That works both ways too.

[Guest MattP]

We may not have violent gun stand-offs or cartel leaders beheading their enemies, but if you ran a low-key grow-op for yourself and a few friends and came home one day to find your front door busted in and a team of police officers packing up all your hardware which you paid for out of your own hard earned cash working a perfectly legal job because a helicopter patrolling the skies for signs of drugs happened to pick up the heat signal in your attic you'd feel somewhat differently.

 

If you did then you should look at what punishment you would receive in Saudi Arabia for doing such a thing and again you might feel maybe this "war on drugs" in the UK isbn't so bad after all.

That quote doesn't seen to agree to the argument though.

In 1999 when drugs weren't decriminalised there were 369 deaths. In 2003, 2 years after the new laws came in only 152 deaths, so looked like it was working. Then in 2007 they had 55 less deaths than 1999 before the decriminalisation.

Seems like they are picking and choosing figures and putting them where they want to help their argument.

 

Absolutely and both sides seem to be doing that.

[Carl the Llama]

If you did then you should look at what punishment you would receive in Saudi Arabia for doing such a thing and again you might feel maybe this "war on drugs" in the UK isbn't so bad after all.

 

Absolutely and both sides seem to be doing that.

I conceded in my first sentence that it isn't as bad as elsewhere, but when your argument is "at least it's not as bad as..." then you're tacitly admitting that yes, it is wrong, and being relatively less bad doesn't mean we shouldn't try to stop it.