Should Cannabis be made legal.

lisa.c

Zulu wrote:

Well, if you want to legalise hash, you have to accept that there will be an increase in unemployment. You tax will be used to support these people.
Or if there isn't a rise in unemployment, then unemployed people who smoke hash will be lass motivated to find new work. Either way it'll absorbe some of your tax.
Again I ask the question: are you prepared to support, financally, the legalisation of hash?

zulu i love the way you qoute every one so please quote me on where i said that cannabis should be leagalised

lisa.c

god zulu your posts just get better and better..
i said i dont want them to go to drug spongers but what can i do. do you think im stupid enough that i think i can choose where my taxes go to..

Zulu

lisa.c wrote:

cannabis is a personal choice and becomming a scumbag is a personal choice. you choose to become a waster. smoking cannabis dosent make you a waster you become a waster cause thats how you want to be... i know a guy that has smoked hash every day for twenty odd years and trust me he smokes a lot about 15 to 20 joints a day and all the time he has never once chosen to become a loser and sponge of the state or even use harder drugs. he has his own buisness and works hard to provide every thing for his family. they never have to pay for a thing and holiday abroad every year....

Fair enough - you never stated you wanted it legalised, but then - I never said you did either. On the other hand, in relation to this thread, you don't appear to be against it. Your arguments tend to be pro legalisation.

By-the-by, I quote people, so then can tell where I'm comming from - as opposed to making random comments which lead to uninformed arguments.

midget lord

lisa.c wrote:

god zulu your posts just get better and better..
i said i dont want them to go to drug spongers but what can i do. do you think im stupid enough that i think i can choose where my taxes go to..

yes.

Zulu

lisa.c wrote:

god zulu your posts just get better and better..
i said i dont want them to go to drug spongers but what can i do. do you think im stupid enough that i think i can choose where my taxes go to..

Ok - just so we're all clear: You do not want to see canabis legalised. Is that correct?

lisa.c

i dont have a problem with cannabis ive lived with it all my life i dont use it cause well why would i want to. my argument was when someone mentioned that it will lead to every cannabis user progressing to harder drugs. well that statement was wrong and inaccurate. so is there a problem with me disagreeing with that...

tribble

I just made the most delicious cookies in the whole wide world...

I see this as more of a civil liberties issue.
If taking (eating/smoking whatever) cannabis does not cause harm to people other than the taker then what business does the government have banning it?
(No, that the economy would suffer is not a reason, our economy would do better if we didn't have to pay the darkies either :rolleyes: )

It can exacerbate (sp?) laziness, which is fair enough but some people simply lose all motovation leave the house - this is definatly bad, but it's an issue to be sorted out on a local level (friends, family etc) not at a governmental one.

tribble

lisa.c

to be quite frank zulu
its none of your buisness!

Zulu

Whats none of my business? :eek:
Are you ok?

swiss

Originally posted by midget lord:

Do you have any swastika tatoo's?

I invoke Goodwin's Law.

On a similar note, to all posters; keep snide comments to yourselves, ad hominem attacks are not tolerated on this board.

Originally posted by Echomadman:

I hate this fallacy, its having to buy ****e hash off scumbags that leads to harder drugs,

I don't dispute that this is a contributory factor, but there are always going to be elements in society that will seek bigger thrills, a bigger "hit" and attempt to become more "hardcore". The current situation simply makes it easier to migrate to harder substances. Who is to say this observation is a fallacy?

I don't begrudge you your smoke, the entire crux of my argument was that while in principle I have no problem with the use of cannabis, I have problems with it's abuse. For every responsible individual who is capable of differentiating the line between use and abuse there are going to be people who are unwilling or incapable of making that differentiation. My main dilemma was wondering whether it was worth sacrificing those individual freedoms if it helped stop people falling into the drugs trap, and I eventually tentatively decided that it was worth those sacrifices for the greater good.

Perhaps I need to examine the Netherlands model more closely in order to make that determination, but from what I have heard, the legalisation of drugs have created as many problems as freedoms in that country. I would not like to see the same happen here. We have a large enough criminal and drugs problem, thank you.

lisa.c

Zulu wrote:

Ok - just so we're all clear: You do not want to see canabis legalised. Is that correct?

Zulu wrote:

Again I ask the question: are you prepared to support, financally, the legalisation of hash?

its none of your business

Zulu

Zulu wrote:

Ok - just so we're all clear: You do not want to see canabis legalised. Is that correct?

HA! I got negative reputation points for this comment. :rolleyes: Good to see they are being put to use correctly. Thanks for that.

ferdi

DECRIMINALISE NOW

i am studying to better myself and to give myself a future

i work and pay my taxes

i dont ask for any money from the state

i drink once in a blue moon

i never cause any trouble to anyone

yet i am a criminal for choosing to spend my free time in a certain way

up until 1993 if someone chose to engage in homosexual activities, they were also classed as a criminal...and yet we look back at that now and think how stupid the law was in viewing gay people who wanted to express themselves in an intimate way with another human being as criminals....

people who smoke cannabis dont like the fact that they have to use dodgy methods to get it and are empowering organised criminals by buying it, if there was an alternative, most of them would take it.

once again i say - DECRIMINALISE!!!

if u want to clamp down on a drug, go after alcohol - 1 in 3 people in ireland have a somes sort of drink related problem.

Chopper

Hi Guys,

Although this is a subject dear to my heart I am not going to join in the debate here since I have been down this road many times. Needless to say I am in favor of government controls and not blanket criminalisation of the general public for what is IMHO a personal lifestyle choice.

Please refer to http://www.CannabisIreland.com/ for some interesting localised information relating to legalisation in Ireland.

¬
Chopper

Paladin

[Apologies for side note:]
Never argue with someone who ignores the very existance of punctuation, capitilisation, grammar, sense and clarity. Its makes reading threads difficult when half the posts are a strain on the interpreting centres of the brain.

For goodness sake Lisa.C (lisa.c), there is little difficult with making english text coherent without earning a Booker prize.
[/End Of Side Note]

Having been to Amsterdam I believe that comparing that model for the legalisation of cannabis to the possible reality of another country legalising cannabis is hugely misleading. Whilst it is the only real working model in the first world there are many mitigating factors that impact negatively upon the model.

Since cannabis is illegal throughout Europe dealers find it convenient to use Holland as a centre of distribution, something that would not happen if cannabis was legal throughout Europe. This contributes to the existance of organised crime there.

The culture in the country is very different to the culture in Britain, Ireland, Germany even. The legalisation of cannabis would have different effects on different cultures.
I fear that Ireland has demonstrated with alchohol that we can be very self destructive.
At the same time I dont believe is a strict nanny state with cannabis, so if someone makes the choice they want to use cannabis, either responsibly or otherwise, they should not be prosecuted for possessing small amounts. I just fear what would happen to the country if we legalised cannabis on our own (not going to happen).

If there is ever a cannabis legalisation debate for more countries of europe, I really think it would be better to have a blanket EU law, legal or not, to avoid another drug/distribution centre like Amsterdam. If its legal everywhere this will be avoided. However for the moment the Netherlands have their cake...(or brownies).

lisa.c

Apolagies Paladin! I'm terribly sorry that I am not as punctually intelligent as 'you' appear to be. I will in future(and I mean this) include punctuation, and all them other important marks that are presently present in our english text.

I've been smoking cannabis for roughly twelve years on and off. I'm not what you would call a stoner as such. I get stoned very very quickly, and have no need or desire to smoke more than a joint a day (I smoke maybe two/three days a week). In fact, its only on my regular trips to Amsterdam that I would partake in amounts of three/four joints a day.

Saying that, since I've been smoking for years, the majority of my friends smoke cannabis. Some moreso than others. Some have their own businesses, some are students, and some are approaching the waster mentality. Its a matter of choice. They've chosen the amount of cannabis to smoke to fit where they want to be in life. And they haven't moved on to harder drugs. For my own history, I started on speed, and micro-dots prior to trying cannabis. I only smoke cannabis now. In fact, none of my friends have moved from cannabis to harder drugs. There's no need.

Cannabis is a relaxant. It definetly won't help you to get laid, but its nice after work to get stoned a bit, watch the news, have dinner, etc. Its a welcome relief from the pressures from the day. And to this date, I have only one bad experience from Cannabis. Lol. And thats due to liberal amounts of drink being mixed.

Cannabis on its own is perfectly ok. It doesn't make you aggressive like Drink does, nor does it give you a hangover. Its alot cheaper (while being illegal) than alcohol, and doesn't cause liver damage. While it does have diseases associated with it, mainly these are associated due to the tobacco used in the joint. (Which you can avoid, by using pure smokes/pipes etc)

For my part, I prefer the effects of cannabis to drink, and I prefer the affect it has on other people as opposed to the crowds of drunk guys on a saturday night.

In regards to Amsterdam, I have never had a problem there. It's the only city I have ever been in that I haven't got freaked out by being alone late at night ****ed off my face. Ireland? I'd be very wary. the UK, more wary of trouble. Amsterdam? Love it. Might be the organised crime centre of Europe, but stoners don't cause trouble. Stoners want to have a good buzz and be nice.

And I agree totally with Paladin abt the difference between Holland and Ireland.

So for me, legalise it all the way.

midget lord

up until 1993 if someone chose to engage in homosexual activities, they were also classed as a criminal...and yet we look back at that now and think how stupid the law was in viewing gay people who wanted to express themselves in an intimate way with another human being as criminals....

How can you possibly connect the two, they are completely different. Smokers have the choice to smoke or not.

ferdi

midget lord wrote:

How can you possibly connect the two, they are completely different. Smokers have the choice to smoke or not.

i'm just pointing out the fact that some laws are stupid, made by people who dont have a clue what they are talking about who are just following the herd mentality.

swiss

Originally posted by Paladin:

Never argue with someone who ignores the very existance of punctuation, capitilisation, grammar, sense and clarity. Its makes reading threads difficult when half the posts are a strain on the interpreting centres of the brain.

For goodness sake Lisa.C (lisa.c), there is little difficult with making english text coherent without earning a Booker prize.

If you have difficulty understanding a post for whatever reason, it is preferable to simply ask the original poster to rephrase in a clearer manner. If the posts are a chronic attack on the English language, then a judicious use of the ignore feature may be in order. Nit picking grammar or punctuation is neither big or clever, and you had better make sure that your own grammar is perfect when you do it.

Having been to Amsterdam I believe that comparing that model for the legalisation of cannabis to the possible reality of another country legalising cannabis is hugely misleading. Whilst it is the only real working model in the first world there are many mitigating factors that impact negatively upon the model.

Accepted. Despite this, it is the only viable model on which we can base any sort of estimate of the effect decriminalisation of cannabis would have on our society. As you yourself have stated Ireland does have self destructive tendencies with alcohol, so I believe it would be reasonable to assume that comparitively more people would also take too much cannabis. Of course, there is no way to know whether this is the case or not, but in the absence of more reliable data, would it not be better to err on the side of caution?

Originally posted by klaz:

Cannabis on its own is perfectly ok. It doesn't make you aggressive like Drink does, nor does it give you a hangover.

I would amend this slightly to say cannabis in moderation on it's own is perfectly okay. The issue as I see it is whether people can be trusted to keep it in moderation.

As I've said before, I have little problem with the health hazards associated with cannabis. If we as a society tolerate people doing untold damage to their lungs with tobacco, and untold damage to their liver with alcohol, it would be highly disingenuous to rail on comparitive health risks with cannabis.

Amsterdam? Love it. Might be the organised crime centre of Europe, but stoners don't cause trouble. Stoners want to have a good buzz and be nice.

If I was walking through a large city at night, I also wouldn't worry about stoners. I would however be wary of other, rather more nefarious criminal elements. I don't mean to be scaremongering but organised crime infers the presence of organised criminals. I'm sure not all of them are stoners.

Lennoxschips

i'm just pointing out the fact that some laws are stupid, made by people who dont have a clue what they are talking about who are just following the herd mentality.

There is also a herd mentality in youth culture nowadays that leads people to think that cannabis is harmless, or even "less dangerous than tobacco." It's similar to the herd mentality in the 1950s and 60s regarding smoking cigarettes, when people did not know that they could develop lung cancer. How many pot smokers today know that cannabis use quadruples the chances of developing schizophrenia and other psychotic mental illnesses? Not many.

If we as a society tolerate people doing untold damage to their lungs with tobacco, and untold damage to their liver with alcohol, it would be highly disingenuous to rail on comparitive health risks with cannabis.

We have no choice but to tolerate alcohol and tobacco use. If the government banned alcohol today, they would be overthrown tomorrow in a violent coup, because half the country is addicted to alcohol. Fortunately however, half the country is not yet addicted to cannabis and we can still do something about it.

ferdi

**** off with your nanny state, go back to russia.

ferdi

just trying to lighten the mood...in fact i'm off to lighten my mood right now

I would amend this slightly to say cannabis in moderation on it's own is perfectly okay. The issue as I see it is whether people can be trusted to keep it in moderation.

The thing is that if you smoke too much you just get stupid. Drink too much and you'll puke your guts out, along with a number of other unfortunate results.

You will never be able to cater for everyone. Moderation means different things for everyone. What you can do is safeguard the majority, by allowing cannabis, but increasing the sentencing on harder drugs. Give and take.

If I was walking through a large city at night, I also wouldn't worry about stoners. I would however be wary of other, rather more nefarious criminal elements. I don't mean to be scaremongering but organised crime infers the presence of organised criminals. I'm sure not all of them are stoners.

But the thing is, that Organised crime is better than no organisation at all. Organised crime isn't interested in the normal person. They want more money coming in rather than the potential of the police causing trouble because they've targeted normal citizens. normal people are not worth enough to warrant the attentions of organised crime. Besides, organised crime is more likely to be interested in not harming someone over the muggers and thieves that are excluded from that grouping.

How many pot smokers today know that cannabis use quadruples the chances of developing schizophrenia and other psychotic mental illnesses? Not many.

You might be suprised. We all know the effects. Lord, knows we've had some personal expierence in our time doing it of paranoia.. Thing is though you would need to smoke an awful lot to get that way. And I mean alot, or if you already have some mental disabilities/disfunctions. (And in this case you'd know to avoid it in the 1st place)

We have no choice but to tolerate alcohol and tobacco use. If the government banned alcohol today, they would be overthrown tomorrow in a violent coup, because half the country is addicted to alcohol. Fortunately however, half the country is not yet addicted to cannabis and we can still do something about it.

I know, what..... 30+ stoners. Only 1 would be considered addicted, and its purely mental. There is no addiction associated with cannabis. Its an urban myth. Addiction to Tobacco, yes.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

found these links, dont have time to post myself but they should be interesting enough to read.

http://www.jackherer.com/comparison.html

http://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/cannabis_myth.shtml

7. Drugs used in medicine are routinely given what is called an LD-50. The LD-50 rating indicates at what dosage fifty percent of test animals receiving a drug will die as a result of drug induced toxicity. A number of researchers have attempted to determine marijuana's LD-50 rating in test animals, without success. Simply stated, researchers have been unable to give animals enough marijuana to induce death.

that alone says it all, it doesn't have to be smoked. it can be eaten, put into a tea.. afaik you can make a wine/beer from it.. it is an incredibly versatile and wonderful planet that was made illegal for all the wrong reasons. now this culture of fear, and hatred of drugs and drug use has made it incredibly difficult for people to accept that drugs are not neccesarily "bad" for people.
I don't want to be a productive member of society, I want to live peacefully and happily.

ferdi

Mordeth wrote:

I don't want to be a productive member of society, I want to live peacefully and happily.

Amen Brother!

there is far too much pressure on people to 'make it' these days. money is king. people are expected to work too hard. people in the 1940s and 1950s worked hard but with the advent of computers it was thought that the load would be taken off human the machines would do the work. What has in fact happened is that, because of computers, everything has gotten faster and people are now expected to keep up!!

i dont wanta bmw with a 4 bedroom house in the suberbs with ****ty contrived landscaping out the back!! i'll work, pay taxes and i wont spung off that state so leave me in peace and decriminalise!!!

http://my.marijuana.com/Exposing_index_1095.html - damn good site about Cannabis/Marijuana

i dont wanta bmw with a 4 bedroom house in the suberbs with ****ty contrived landscaping out the back!! i'll work, pay taxes and i wont spung off that state so leave me in peace and decriminalise!!!

I smoke and this doesn't affect the chances of my achieving all the above. I work hard, and I play to burn that off. Cannabis is part of that. It won't stop me from reaching the goals i have in mind for the future.

midget lord

ferdi wrote:

Amen Brother!

there is far too much pressure on people to 'make it' these days. money is king. people are expected to work too hard. people in the 1940s and 1950s worked hard but with the advent of computers it was thought that the load would be taken off human the machines would do the work. What has in fact happened is that, because of computers, everything has gotten faster and people are now expected to keep up!!

i dont wanta bmw with a 4 bedroom house in the suberbs with ****ty contrived landscaping out the back!! i'll work, pay taxes and i wont spung off that state so leave me in peace and decriminalise!!!

feckin hippy...

ferdi

i'm not a hippy, i'm just not a sucker yuppie either

good site klaz

Most users of heroin, LSD and cocaine have used marijuana. However, most marijuana users never use another illegal drug.

As marijuana use increased in the 1960s and 1970s, heroin use declined. And, when marijuana use declined in the 1980s, heroin use remained fairly stable.

For the past 20 years, as marijuana use-rates fluctuated, the use of LSD hardly changed at all.

Cocaine use increased in the early 1980s as marijuana use was declining. During the late 1980s, both marijuana and cocaine declined. During the last few years, cocaine use has continued to decline as marijuana use has increased slightly.