Legalise cannabis?

[Harry - LCFC]

2 men die taking an illegal drug so it's the govt fault for not making it legal?

 

How about not taking drugs in the first place?

 

A quick read of the first paragraph would tell you that this incident would not have happened if ecstasy was sold in a regulated market. Consumers would have had proper information about what they were buying and wouldn't have made the mistake they did.

 

You can argue that people shouldn't buy in such a risky market anyway but, in this case, they didn't choose to take something they knew would probably kill them. If they did you could put all the responsibility on them, but they didn't.

[Webbo]

A quick read of the first paragraph would tell you that this incident would not have happened if ecstasy was sold in a regulated market. Consumers would have had proper information about what they were buying and wouldn't have made the mistake they did.

 

You can argue that people shouldn't buy in such a risky market anyway but, in this case, they didn't choose to take something they knew would probably kill them. If they did you could put all the responsibility on them, but they didn't.

There's always that chance. If they hadn't took it they'd still be alive. Best to leave it alone in the first place.

[Harry - LCFC]

There's always that chance. If they hadn't took it they'd still be alive. Best to leave it alone in the first place.

 

Sure, it's a silly decision either way. But it's still the case that the risk they took was greater than the risk they thought they were taking. Government policy is the reason for this misinformation.

[James.]

There's always that chance. If they hadn't took it they'd still be alive. Best to leave it alone in the first place.

 

Pretty facile argument. We've been getting off our heads for thousands of years and millions of people will continue to do so every week.

[lavrentis]

Webbo, do you think alcohol should be banned?

[Webbo]

Pretty facile argument. We've been getting off our heads for thousands of years and millions of people will continue to do so every week.

 

 

Webbo, do you think alcohol should be banned?

I drink but I don't take drugs. If I drank so much I made myself ill I wouldn't blame the govt.

[James.]

I drink but I don't take drugs. If I drank so much I made myself ill I wouldn't blame the govt.

Yes but the only reason you don't get ill is because you buy alcohol in a tightly regulated environment where you know exactly the strength and quality of what you put in your body...

[Carl the Llama]

I drink but I don't take drugs. If I drank so much I made myself ill I wouldn't blame the govt.

[Webbo]

Yes but the only reason you don't get ill is because you buy alcohol in a tightly regulated environment where you know exactly the strength and quality of what you put in your body...

People still make themselves ill from legal alcohol.

[Vacamion]

People still make themselves ill from legal alcohol.

And, indeed from suntanning and motor racing.

What business of the State's should it be what one ingests in private (other than the archaic Judeo Christian notion of 'sin') if it harms no others?

The Nanny State can do one...

[Webbo]

And, indeed from suntanning and motor racing.

What business of the State's should it be what one ingests in private (other than the archaic Judeo Christian notion of 'sin') if it harms no others?

The Nanny State can do one...

If one of my children died from the use of drugs it would harm me.

[Carl the Llama]

 

I drink but I don't take drugs. If I drank so much I made myself ill I wouldn't blame the govt.

 

People still make themselves ill from legal alcohol.

Exactly, people abuse shit regardless but at least you get to safely consume the alcohol that you like to drink knowing you won't get in trouble if you aren't an idiot.

 

I like a Duvel or what have you as much as the next man but I won't drink shit like Carling, and what I drink very much depends on the situation I'm drinking in. I imagine we're very similar in that respect.  The same logic can apply to cannabis in my experience: You eventually learn which strains you prefer the flavour and effects of, and when's better to use them - So you might keep a pure Indica strain for bedtime spliffs, or you might find that you think Jack Herer goes particularly well with tea but you prefer to smoke some Santa Maria with your coffee.

Just as you enjoy your alcohol despite all the idiots who don't know their limits, I shouldn't be disallowed this indulgence just because people are worried that somebody might smoke themselves to death however that would happen.

 

 

If one of my children died from the use of drugs it would harm me.

And the point is they wouldn't if the markets were controlled like with alcohol which happens to be a pretty toxic drug itself.  As long as they are sensible about it like you and I anyway.

[Webbo]

I'm not telling you how to live your life. If you think that drugs should legalised then you're entitled to your opinion. I don't and I haven't heard a convincing argument to the contrary.

[Carl the Llama]

I'm not telling you how to live your life. If you think that drugs should legalised then you're entitled to your opinion. I don't and I haven't heard a convincing argument to the contrary.

To be fair I thought the whole "not obliging the public to unknowingly gamble with their lives", "regulate and tax", and "lower relative personal and social harm compared to alcohol" arguments made over the course of this thread were pretty convincing arguments for.  I'm frustrated because for your talk of convincing arguments, you haven't actually given one yourself other than voicing a stereotypical Daily Mail phobia of loosely defined 'drugs' which kill all the children.

Edited 5 January 2015 by Carl the Llama

[Webbo]

To be fair I thought the whole "not obliging the public to unknowingly gamble with their lives", "regulate and tax", and "lower relative personal and social harm compared to alcohol" arguments made over the course of this thread were pretty convincing arguments for.  I'm frustrated because for your talk of convincing arguments, you haven't actually given one yourself other than voicing a stereotypical Daily Mail phobia of loosely defined 'drugs' which kill all the children.

Oooh you dropped the Daily Mail bomb, that's taught me a lesson.

 

 

I've 72 posts in this thread most of which give argument against legalising drugs, if you're not convinced fair enough,I won't get mardy about it.

[Carl the Llama]

Oooh you dropped the Daily Mail bomb, that's taught me a lesson.

 

 

I've 72 posts in this thread most of which give argument against legalising drugs, if you're not convinced fair enough,I won't get mardy about it.

Good because I do think you're a nice bloke.  Unfortunately I also think you're spectacularly wrong on this subject and lack to tact to be less blunt about it (pun not intended).  Now if you'll excuse me I have a date with some Deep Space 9 episodes and a spliff or two of Northern Lights.  I'll try not to kill any children while I'm at it. 

[lavrentis]

Think all Webbo needs is a spliff

[Webbo]

Think all Webbo needs is a spliff

My body is a temple.

[lavrentis]

My body is a temple.

 

 

[DennisNedry]

I don't really know much about the harm weed causes to the body, but I know from the limited experiences I've had with it you feel a lot better the next day than if you've had a lot to drink.

[Vacamion]

If one of my children died from the use of drugs it would harm me.

Are you talking about death from Cannabis?

Not aware that was a thing. Ever.

By all means show me some evidence it *is* a thing.

I appreciate that some of the super skunks can damage young brains in some circumstances, but no one is advocating legalisation with no age limit.

By the way , one of the reasons that super skunks are so prevalent is the illegality - the handy analogy is that you never saw a prohibition era speakeasy selling brown ale rather than super strength hooch.

I think kids should be left out of the debate.

[Webbo]

Are you talking about death from Cannabis?

Not aware that was a thing. Ever.

By all means show me some evidence it *is* a thing.

I appreciate that some of the super skunks can damage young brains in some circumstances, but no one is advocating legalisation with no age limit.

By the way , one of the reasons that super skunks are so prevalent is the illegality - the handy analogy is that you never saw a prohibition era speakeasy selling brown ale rather than super strength hooch.

I think kids should be left out of the debate.

My kids will still be my kids when they're in their 20s and 30s and I'll still worry about them.

 

Do you think people who take super skunk now will stop taking it should cannabis become legal? Do you think that people who are happy to buy from thugs, murderers and extortionists now are desperate to buy from a legal source? 

 

You mention prohibition, since it was abolished has organised crime declined, are there less alcoholics, less deaths from alcohol, are there less crimes involving alcohol?

 

Has there ever been any precedent in history of something becoming easier available, safer (presumably), cheaper (it would have to be to undercut the dealers, or the dealers would have to undercut the govt) and more socially acceptable without it becoming more widespread?

 

You might think it's harmless, it certainly doesn't do you any good. I'd rather we had as little drug taking as possible, imo.

[Vacamion]

My kids will still be my kids when they're in their 20s and 30s and I'll still worry about them.

Do you think people who take super skunk now will stop taking it should cannabis become legal? Do you think that people who are happy to buy from thugs, murderers and extortionists now are desperate to buy from a legal source?

You mention prohibition, since it was abolished has organised crime declined, are there less alcoholics, less deaths from alcohol, are there less crimes involving alcohol?

Has there ever been any precedent in history of something becoming easier available, safer (presumably), cheaper (it would have to be to undercut the dealers, or the dealers would have to undercut the govt) and more socially acceptable without it becoming more widespread?

You might think it's harmless, it certainly doesn't do you any good. I'd rather we had as little drug taking as possible, imo.

Didn't really want to discuss what your kids might or might not do, but if/when they are adults one presumes they will make their own choices.

In answer to your questions:

Yes I think if there were a range of legally available strains less potent than superskunk, some people, connoisseurs (like with beers or spirits) would choose their cannabis according to taste.

I concede that some people would head straight to skunk, but they are doing that anyway under the current set up.

A lot of pot smokers have to take whatever they can get just now. Taking it from criminals who are not interested in their punters as "customers" is the worst of all worlds.

The same arguments apply to other drugs, too.

Yes, I think many pot smokers hate the way they currently have to source their pot and would prefer a "Denver" option to taking a chance with strangers who often turn out to have other criminal interests.

Prohibition of alcohol was a stupid idea, evidenced by the fact it was soon overturned.

If people are going to drink (for which read "smoke") anyway, regardless of the risks, I think it's better to have legal, regulated supply rather than moonshine (for which read "superskunk" or "deadly eckies") supplied by criminals.

Even if use became more popular, I think the net harm would be reduced.

We''ve not even touched on adult humans ingesting what they want to and harming no others, the notions of "sin" behind the current law, the massive harm caused by criminalizing, prosecuting and imprisoning people for ingesting a plant, etc etc.

I think the "war on drugs" and the current set up are madness and only increase harm and misery.

I say this as someone (Xmas 2013 apart, ahem ) who hasn't touched the stuff for years.

[Steven]

Colorado is making so much money from cannabis it's having to give some back to citizens

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/colorado-is-making-so-much-money-from-cannabis-its-having-to-give-some-back-to-citizens-10020466.html

[DB11]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-29859758

 

I wonder if in the months since cannabis cautions were scrapped possession of cannabis figures have suddenly decreased? Are people using less cannabis now... or is it not worth the time and effort to haul people before the courts for a joint?