I don't see why cannabis is illegal. It grows naturally like any other plant. It doesn't kill anybody (not as a direct result from smoking it) and at the end of the day it's your body, you should be able to do what you want to it. Tobacco and alcohol are completely legal yet kill many people each year.
When you see people getting in fights on a night out it's pretty much due to them being drunk. When I get stoned I have a good time, don't hurt anybody and wake up the next day with no adverse effects. Why should that be illegal?
You always get the negative drug story of cannabis making people go mental and topping themselves. Those cases are few and far between. The media never publishes a positive drug story and the government will never legalise it because they have there image to consider which (to them) is far more important.
(, Thu 2 Jun 2011, 23:30, Reply)
Quite a few years back read a report that Portugal(I think)was considering legalising EVERYTHING!
They'd noticed everything wrong with drug laws and how it criminalises people..............nothing came of it though...probably told by the EEC they'd be kicked out.
(
Elvis impersonator, Thu 2 Jun 2011, 23:48,
Reply)
Erm...
Actually they did go on to decriminalize possession of drugs for personal use, with resounding success.
(, Fri 3 Jun 2011, 0:01, Reply)
Yep, and Mexico is looking to do the same.
And Godspeed to them, seeing how many hundreds of people die every year in Juarez over drugs.
(, Fri 3 Jun 2011, 0:04, Reply)
To decriminalize it for personal use would be a good thing but then, there will be the case of how much is considered for personal use. If they did legalize drugs they would end the "war on drugs" (a war which drug users are winning) which would allow money to be better spent elsewhere, make it safer for people to buy, have quality control over it and it would also create jobs.
(, Fri 3 Jun 2011, 0:10, Reply)
And the drug dealers?
do they pop down to Tesco and get a job stacking shelves? Or do they push the next level up? The really dangerous ones. There is some evidence that young people do cannabis because they shouldn't (same as why they try cigarettes). If I owned a smuggling ring importing 5 million quids worth of cannabis and then suddenly the market collapsed because Boots sell it, what would i do...? And there is clear evidence that a sizeable proportion of cocaine and herion users moved on from softer drugs. Far less start with the hard drugs.
(
TheSundaeLunch I'm a fucking shrub, alright?, Fri 3 Jun 2011, 0:20,
Reply)
There will always be people like that. Crime pays. Coffee is a soft drug. Is that a gateway drug? Why should you be labelled a criminal for smoking a joint, taking a pill or putting a needle in your vein. It's your body, what right does a politician have to say what you can put in it.
(, Fri 3 Jun 2011, 0:28, Reply)
Well; it isn't
the politician, it is 'us'. We vote them in. As for the right to self abuse, that is a thorny question indeed! Where do rights start and finnish? Should i be able to take a crap in the street? Can i stand outside your house shouting swearwords? Should i be able to live in a squatted crack den? The real world says a line has to be drawn somewhere.
(
TheSundaeLunch I'm a fucking shrub, alright?, Fri 3 Jun 2011, 0:39,
Reply)
I don't think any of those are examples of "self abuse".
You should be able to take a crap in YOUR house, shout swearwords in YOUR house, or turn YOUR house into a squatters crack den. Its your house after all. But i'd keep it off the streets if I were you.
(, Fri 3 Jun 2011, 0:43, Reply)
I knew
I was going wrong somewhere...
(
TheSundaeLunch I'm a fucking shrub, alright?, Fri 3 Jun 2011, 0:46,
Reply)
Indeed, as long as it doesn't harm or infringe the rights of other people, and those people do the same to you, where's the law got to come in?
As for crack den, it might harm your neighborhood to have crackheads scurrying in and out of your house at all hours of the day, and it might hinder your ability to keep good work habits. But if you've got all the money in the world and enough privacy that no one will notice, do whatever you want.
(, Fri 3 Jun 2011, 0:55, Reply)
The gateway drug theory...
this always seems somewhat moot for me anyway. Many people dabble in drugs without irreparably damaging themselves, it's the people who are most marginalized by society who tend to get sucked into the vicious cycle, perhaps starting off with soft drugs. But I think it is the socioeconomic conditions of these people that make these people susceptible to this, rather than the availability of soft drugs to start them off. If people want/need to get off their faces, they're going to find a way. If there's no drugs or if they never get into drugs, maybe it will be alcohol instead.
Also, I the only thing i think cannabis as a gateway drug for is tobacco.
(, Fri 3 Jun 2011, 0:41, Reply)
The primary aim of decriminalization was to reduce the marginalization of drug users and start making treatment more accessible. In countries where drug use is completely illegal many users are cut off from treatment and disease prevention (such as provision of clean needles etc.) through taboo and persecution. Since decriminalization in Portugal not only have the adverse effects of drug use been reduced dramatically, but the prevalence of drug use has also reduced. If there is less market share, there must be less dealers.
(, Fri 3 Jun 2011, 0:32, Reply)
If people are going to start using something they have never tried, solely on the basis that it's legal now and wasn't before, (and I'm talking about all substances here, not just cannabis) then they need to learn to live with the decisions they make.
And harm could be prevented by improving both the drug awareness programs and the treatment facilities to more informed and helpful positions. That needs to happen regardless. In any case I think there's no reason why any substance should be out of bounds for scientific inquiry. The less we know about a substance the more it stands to harm us through our own negligence.
Plenty of teenagers DO start with hard drugs. Just look at the kids sniffing glue, inhaling computer duster, smoking bath salts. Would those kids be doing such things if cannabis were legal? Maybe some of them would, but then that reinforces my point that awareness programs are totally insufficient right now.
(, Fri 3 Jun 2011, 0:32, Reply)
I think I made my point badly
the young won't bother with the legal stuff. That is no way to piss off Dad. Totally agree about the drug awareness stuff though.
(
TheSundaeLunch I'm a fucking shrub, alright?, Fri 3 Jun 2011, 0:44,
Reply)
I think they will and they do bother with the legal stuff.
Paint is widely available and forever will be. It reeks of desperation to try sniffing some paint and I don't believe they're doing it to piss off dad. Kids certainly think cigarettes and booze are fun, and once they start there's no way to get them to stop it, legal or illegal, taxed or untaxed.
On another note I didn't start smoking pot because it was illegal, and I did anything but rub it in my dad's face when I did it. I did it to broaden my perspectives and it worked.
(, Fri 3 Jun 2011, 0:51, Reply)
Fair enough
I know what you mean but I think you know what I mean too. Sadly I must go to bed, but I enjoyed the discussion folks! Nite; and may we cross friendly swords in the future :D
(
TheSundaeLunch I'm a fucking shrub, alright?, Fri 3 Jun 2011, 0:55,
Reply)
I believe
that they say "enough to last 10 days" counts for the max personal limit, however you are brought before a panel who decide whether to fine you, enforce counseling or other treatment or give no punishment at all. That way context can be taken into account.
BTW I assume you mean "a war which drug DEALERS are winning" not users. The decriminalization doesn't extend to dealers, so its not exactly legalization of drugs.
(, Fri 3 Jun 2011, 0:27, Reply)
ah!...didn't know THAT!..........cheers
*packs bags & sets off * :).........:In July 2001, Portugal became the first European country to formalize decriminalization of drug possession for personal use, when they introduced Law 30/2000. The law decriminalized the use, possession and acquisition of all types of illicit substances for personal use, defined as being up to ten days' supply of that substance. This was in line with the de facto Portuguese drug policy before the reform. Drug addicts were then to be aggressively targeted with therapy or community service rather than fines or waivers.[6] Even if there are no criminal penalties, these changes did not legalize drug use in Portugal. Possession has remained prohibited by Portuguese law, and criminal penalties are still applied to drug growers, dealers and traffickers
(
Elvis impersonator, Fri 3 Jun 2011, 0:29,
Reply)
That is a fair point
There is no doubt in my my mind that if alcohol had been 'discovered' last week, it would never be made legal to sell for recreational use. Tobacco I'm not so sure, because it doesn't alter the state of mind as much as the other two. If cannabis was legal, you would still need laws about driving, using machinery or looking after children, so it isn't as easy as all that. I'd not want a stoned doctor, air traffic controller, pilot, taxi driver, judge, jury, surgeon, etc.
I'm guessing banning it wholesale is a cheaper option.
(
TheSundaeLunch I'm a fucking shrub, alright?, Fri 3 Jun 2011, 0:09,
Reply)
Tobacco does cause cancer though. I agree with you on having laws implemented if it was legalised but I doubt they would be too dissimilar from alcohol laws as at the end of the day as you wouldn't want a drunk doctor, air traffic controller, pilot, taxi driver, judge, jury, surgeon etc
(, Fri 3 Jun 2011, 0:17, Reply)
Yes, tobacco causes cancer.
But rugby causes broken bones. So does horse riding. Boxing! How much do they cost that we cheerfully pay for on the NHS. I'm not sure where a line can be drawn.
(
TheSundaeLunch I'm a fucking shrub, alright?, Fri 3 Jun 2011, 0:27,
Reply)
I think the general "...under the influence" laws would cover it though.
(
TheAlmightyBeev, Fri 3 Jun 2011, 0:28,
Reply)