Legalise cannabis?

[Steven]

1 hour ago, Buce said:

 

The Tory's voter base is traditional and reactionary.

... and slowly dying off. 

[Buce]

4 minutes ago, Steven said:

... and slowly dying off. 

 

Is it really awful of me to be glad about that?

[Guest MattP]

1 hour ago, Buce said:

Is it really awful of me to be glad about that?

Heard the same 20 years ago, if there is one thing the left continues to do so well it's create new Tories whenever they get put in charge of anything.

[Innovindil]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44526156

 

"It's time to acknowledge facts, and to embrace a decisive change that would be economically and socially beneficial, as well as rather liberating for Conservatives in showing sensible new opinions are welcome."

 

[Bellend Sebastian]

3 hours ago, Innovindil said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44526156

 

"It's time to acknowledge facts, and to embrace a decisive change that would be economically and socially beneficial, as well as rather liberating for Conservatives in showing sensible new opinions are welcome."

 

Sick of damn hippies like William Hague telling us what to do.

 

Get a shower and a job, Hague!!! And a haircut!!!

 

But at least he's acknowledging the current rules, from whatever angle you look at them, don't work. In fact, it's difficult to know what the point of them is these days. When you have people openly smoking it in busy public places (which I don't endorse, by the way) it's safe to say any deterrence value has pretty much gone

 

 

 

[Vacamion]

 

There’s no way anything will come of this. They are just teasing.

 

The Nanny Staters, the people who want to control what goes on between other people’s ears, the religious, the ignorant and the prudish will weigh in against it and cannabis prohibition will continue.

 

For now, if you want to avail yourself of a plant which grows naturally, and the use of which does not harm others, you will have to illegally cultivate it yourself, or buy it (at god knows what strength) from a production chain which originates from and generates income for organised criminal gangs, or come back on the “Big Spliff Bus” from Amsterdam with it stored in “Papillon’s purse”, hoping that the sniffer dogs don’t get at you...

 

Screw this backward country.

[Webbo]

17 minutes ago, Vacamion said:

 

There’s no way anything will come of this. They are just teasing.

 

The Nanny Staters, the people who want to control what goes on between other people’s ears, the religious, the ignorant and the prudish will weigh in against it and cannabis prohibition will continue.

 

For now, if you want to avail yourself of a plant which grows naturally, and the use of which does not harm others, you will have to illegally cultivate it yourself, or buy it (at god knows what strength) from a production chain which originates from and generates income for organised criminal gangs, or come back on the “Big Spliff Bus” from Amsterdam with it stored in “Papillon’s purse”, hoping that the sniffer dogs don’t get at you...

 

Screw this backward country.

I don't want to legalise cannabis because it causes mental illness. You might call that prudishness or religioness but I call it natural concern for others.

 

Deadly nightshade is a natural plant, put some of that in a brownie and see how much fun you have.

 

As for funding criminals the answer is simple, stop giving them your money, don't buy the stuff.

 

Nobody is against medicinal use where there is a proven benefit.

[thebartonfox]

5 minutes ago, Webbo said:

I don't want to legalise cannabis because it causes mental illness. You might call that prudishness or religioness but I call it natural concern for others.

 

Deadly nightshade is a natural plant, put some of that in a brownie and see how much fun you have.

 

As for funding criminals the answer is simple, stop giving them your money, don't buy the stuff.

 

Nobody is against medicinal use where there is a proven benefit.

It's thought it can increase the chance of problems for those who are already predisposed to suffering with mental illness, there's a difference.

[Buce]

10 minutes ago, thebartonfox said:

It's thought it can increase the chance of problems for those who are already predisposed to suffering with mental illness, there's a difference.

 

As can alcohol but that’s conveniently ignored. 

[Vacamion]

6 minutes ago, Webbo said:

I don't want to legalise cannabis because it causes mental illness. You might call that prudishness or religioness but I call it natural concern for others.

 

Deadly nightshade is a natural plant, put some of that in a brownie and see how much fun you have.

 

As for funding criminals the answer is simple, stop giving them your money, don't buy the stuff.

 

Nobody is against medicinal use where there is a proven benefit.

 

The deadly nightshade part of your post just makes me embarrassed for you.  If that’s how you want to engage with the arguments, fine, your input can be judged by those who read it accordingly.

 

“It causes mental illness”.

 

Maybe.

 

Maybe super strength criminally produced skunky stuff does.  When 14 years olds take it.  All day every day. And they were predisposed to such issues.

 

Maybe.

 

But that’s precisely the situation you end up with when you don’t regulate, ensure quality and strength, sell to adults and educate.

 

Nothing is without risk.  If people want to run the health risks, as they do with burgers, beers and cigs, that should be their choice, not yours.

 

The prohibitionists can’t leave others in peace to consume it, they have to Nanny State them, and call it “concern”.

 

And your observations about me personally are wholly incorrect.  I am not giving money to anyone on this score.  Haven’t been a regular smoker for a good few years, but I still think the law is an ass here.

[whoareyaaa]

34 minutes ago, Webbo said:

I don't want to legalise cannabis because it causes mental illness. You might call that prudishness or religioness but I call it natural concern for others.

 

Deadly nightshade is a natural plant, put some of that in a brownie and see how much fun you have.

 

As for funding criminals the answer is simple, stop giving them your money, don't buy the stuff.

 

Nobody is against medicinal use where there is a proven benefit.

So the millions, soon to be billions going into lab testing in the US which is way more advanced than studies here that proves it has medicinal uses isn't enough proof I don't know what is?

Edited 19 June 2018 by whoareyaaa

[Webbo]

10 minutes ago, Vacamion said:

 

The deadly nightshade part of your post just makes me embarrassed for you.  If that’s how you want to engage with the arguments, fine, your input can be judged by those who read it accordingly.

That was in reply to "if you want to avail yourself of a plant which grows naturally,". The fact that it grows naturally is irrelevant.

10 minutes ago, Vacamion said:

 

“It causes mental illness”.

 

Maybe.

 

Maybe super strength criminally produced skunky stuff does.  When 14 years olds take it.  All day every day. And they were predisposed to such issues.

 

Maybe.

 

But that’s precisely the situation you end up with when you don’t regulate, ensure quality and strength, sell to adults and educate.

 

Nothing is without risk.  If people want to run the health risks, as they do with burgers, beers and cigs, that should be their choice, not yours.

 

The prohibitionists can’t leave others in peace to consume it, they have to Nanny State them, and call it “concern”.

Nobody knows if they're predisposed to these things until they try this stuff. If people buy skunk now, why would they stop if the weaker stuff is legalised?

I get the nanny state argument and I have some sympathy for it but mental illness doesn't just affect the people who take the drug. It affects the dependants, family friends, it costs the country to look after these people.

10 minutes ago, Vacamion said:

And your observations about me personally are wholly incorrect.  I am not giving money to anyone on this score.  Haven’t been a regular smoker for a good few years, but I still think the law is an ass here.

That wasn't aimed specifically at you.

[Webbo]

5 minutes ago, whoareyaaa said:

So the millions, soon to be billions going into lab testing in the US which is way more advanced than studies here that proves it has medicinal uses isn't enough proof I don't know what is?

 

I'm saying it should be allowed if it's proven to be effective, same as any other medicine. What's your point?

[whoareyaaa]

Just now, Webbo said:

I'm saying it should be allowed if it's proven to be effective, same as any other medicine. What's your point?

fair enough you sounded as though you was saying there was hardly any proven benefits, there's loads. 

[Webbo]

The argument about alcohol is also a bit strange. Alcohol is harmful therefore lets legalise more harmful stuff? I don't see any logic in that.

[Guest Foxin_mad]

I think with the numbers that a clearly now doing it. The fact that policing it is failing. The fact that it is given much evidence seemingly as lesser drug than alcohol or nicotine/tobacco. 

 

The best option is to legalise, regulate and tax it.

 

 

[Innovindil]

1 minute ago, Webbo said:

The argument about alcohol is also a bit strange. Alcohol is harmful therefore lets legalise more harmful stuff? I don't see any logic in that.

The argument is alcohol has been proven to be more harmful than cannabis, yet it's still legal. 

 

It's hypocritical in the extreme. 

[Webbo]

Just now, Innovindil said:

The argument is alcohol has been proven to be more harmful than cannabis, yet it's still legal. 

 

It's hypocritical in the extreme. 

More people drink than take drugs of course there's going to be more cases of harm.

[Vacamion]

 

Why not let adults choose whether to run the health risks?

 

How can you justify the neurochemical enjoyments of an adult cannabis user being yours, or the State’s, business?

[Detroit Blues]

4 minutes ago, Webbo said:

The argument about alcohol is also a bit strange. Alcohol is harmful therefore lets legalise more harmful stuff? I don't see any logic in that.

There are a lot of other drugs that are legal. Alcohol, Caffeine, Nicotine, Pharmaceutical drugs, etc. When you consider all of these drugs have potential harmful side effects, you must consider why one of them is considered legal and another is not. 

 

 

 

[Webbo]

12 minutes ago, Vacamion said:

 

Why not let adults choose whether to run the health risks?

 

How can you justify the neurochemical enjoyments of an adult cannabis user being yours, or the State’s, business?

Because the state has to pick up the tab to treat the consequences.

[Innovindil]

6 minutes ago, Webbo said:

Because the state has to pick up the tab to treat the consequences.

I can guarantee that we spend more policing and jailing cannabis users than we do on treating the side effects of use. I'd imagine that in addition to not having to spend that money, having a tax on it would cover the cost of treatment many times over. 

[Webbo]

5 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

I can guarantee that we spend more policing and jailing cannabis users than we do on treating the side effects of use. I'd imagine that in addition to not having to spend that money, having a tax on it would cover the cost of treatment many times over. 

We don't though, do we? The police hardly ever lock up users.

[Vacamion]

11 minutes ago, Webbo said:

Because the state has to pick up the tab to treat the consequences.

 

Leaving aside the fact that many many people use cannabis in private with no ill effect on them and no resultant call on the State’s resources, and that legalisation and quality and strength control, etc etc would reduce harms... 

 

Will you also be barring access to the NHS for fatties, smokers, survivors of self harm and alcoholics, then?

[Vacamion]

Just now, Webbo said:

We don't though, do we? The police hardly ever lock up users.

 

If I grew it in my house or garden, for purely personal use, pretty sure the agents of the State would take an interest.