Should cannibas be legalised????

meditraitor

Cannabis impairs cognitive development (capabilities of learning), including associative processes; free recall of previously learned items is often impaired when cannabi is used both during learning and recall periods;
Cannabis impairs psychomotor performance in a wide variety of tasks, such as motor coordination, divided attention, and operative tasks of many types; human performance on complex machinery can be impaired for as long as 24 hours after smoking as little as 20 mg of THC in cannabis; there is an increased risk of motor vehicle accidents among persons who drive when intoxicated by cannabis.

ScumLord

meditraitor wrote: »

Wrong

RIGHT!

meditraitor

Chronic health effects of cannabis use
selective impairment of cognitive functioning which include the organization and integration of complex information involving various mechanisms of attention and memory processes;
prolonged use may lead to greater impairment, which may not recover with cessation of use, and which could affect daily life functions;
development of a cannabis dependence syndrome characterized by a loss of control over cannabis use is likely in chronic users;
cannabis use can exacerbate schizophrenia in affected individuals;
epithetial injury of the trachea and major bronchi is caused by long-term cannabis smoking;
airway injury, lung inflammation, and impaired pulmonary defence against infection from persistent cannabis consumption over prolonged periods;

meditraitor

heavy cannabis consumption is associated with a higher prevalence of symptoms of chronic bronchitis and a higher incidence of acute bronchitis than in the non-smoking cohort;
cannabis used during pregnancy is associated with impairment in fetal development leading to a reduction in birth weight;
cannabis use during pregnancy may lead to postnatal risk of rare forms of cancer although more research is needed in this area

meditraitor

So the FACT it is illegal is not the only problem associated with cannabis use!

http://www.who.int/substance_abuse/facts/cannabis/en/index.html

Your probably a lovely chap but blatantly misrepresenting the problems surrounding cannabis use is something you will regret when you get older and wiser (not saying I am ;-))))))))

ScumLord

meditraitor wrote: »

Cannabis impairs cognitive development (capabilities of learning), including associative processes; free recall of previously learned items is often impaired when cannabi is used both during learning and recall periods;
Cannabis impairs psychomotor performance in a wide variety of tasks, such as motor coordination, divided attention, and operative tasks of many types; human performance on complex machinery can be impaired for as long as 24 hours after smoking as little as 20 mg of THC in cannabis; there is an increased risk of motor vehicle accidents among persons who drive when intoxicated by cannabis.

So? Everything has some sort of effect on you and those are not so bad. I have to say it again but there is a certain other drug that has the same effects but we don't see it as a big deal so why be so conserned?

heavy cannabis consumption is associated

.... Associated, nothing more.

cannabis used during pregnancy is associated with impairment in fetal development leading to a reduction in birth weight;
cannabis use during pregnancy may lead to postnatal risk of rare forms of cancer although more research is needed in this area

Don't do drugs when pregnant, problem solved.

meditraitor

ScumLord wrote: »

SimpleSam06, you do realise your being charged for every reply he gives you.

Misrepresenting facts again:D

SimpleSam06

ScumLord wrote: »

SimpleSam06, you do realise your being charged for every reply he gives you.

Charged with what though?

ScumLord

meditraitor wrote: »

Misrepresenting facts again:D

opps, my reply was late it was a joke aimed at barrister fee's, it would have been quite funny if I hadn't messed it up.

rubadub

Terry wrote: »

Just keep skewing the arguement there. Good boy..

Yeah keep avoiding reasonable arguments, good girl :rolleyes:

Terry wrote: »

Having read countless threads on the same topic, all I ever see are the same arguements about how alcohol is really bad and weed has been around for thousands of years (as has alcohol, but I digress). It gets fairly tiresome.

It is tiresome and I have yet to hear a decent argument for the continuation of the hypocrisy within the drugs laws.

Terry wrote: »

Of course they could. However, by using thse things as a debating point, you ae just trying to sway the arguement away from the fact that possesion of cannabis is illegal and are trying to justify your own purchase of it.

I was reffering back to your previous post which you could not give a reasonable defence to.

Terry wrote: »

.
Do you honestly believe it will be cheaper if legalised?

If you answer yes to any of those questions, then you are either stoned or really deluded.

I gave reasons why it would be still available at cheaper prices, just like most legal drugs can be got cheaper. As usual your only answer as usual is "shut up that is a legal drug you cannot compare it". I suppose if it was legal it would be "shut up that is a liquid, totally different thing" or some other nonsensical reasoning to dismiss it. So I tried to get "drugs" out of the way so you might be able to answer it. As expected you weasled out of it.

Terry wrote: »

Yes. All these have been prescribed in the past. Then people realised the damaging long term effects of use of these drugs and they were banned.
It's called learning from your mistakes, or trial and error.

Many drugs used recreationally are still legal and prescribed by doctors. You seem to be completely ignorant of current drug laws and more importantly the reasoning behind the introduction of laws, the reasons are mainly economic rather than medicinal. Many illegal drugs are made illegal because of their inherent safety, which leaves them determined as having a "high potential for abuse" and are made illegal for that purpose. The horrific side effects of alcohol can be seen as an advantage to law makers, less potential for abuse, many people would drink far more if it were not for hangovers. Just look at sales of "hangover cures" and painkillers.

Many doctors prescribe cannabis since they feel it is safer than other drugs used in medication e.g. recovering cancer patients. Psilocybin is used to treat cluster headache sufferers (AKA suicide headaches). A single threshold dose can give relief for a year, while the only other current medication costs ~20-100euro per day and is not nearly as effective. Amphetamine is usually cosidered a safer stimulant than caffeine and is still used to treat kids with ADD. Oh my god, your local pharmacist might well be peddling speed to kids :eek:

Terry wrote: »

The people who suffer badly from the effects of alcohol are the ones who abuse it.
If there was an alternative, they would undoubtedly abuse that too.

I dont think anybody doubts that. Still no reason to restrict "moderate drug users" from having a varied choice other than alcohol, especially as safer alternatives are out there.

Again you are trying to pass the buck.
The people who suffer badly from the effects of alcohol are the ones who abuse it.
If there was an alternative, they would undoubtedly abuse that too.

Heroin, cocaine, amphetamines and their derivatives, ecstacy (not MDMA)..

Many medical professionals would consider amphtamine & MDMA as less harmfull than alcohol. Not sure what you mean be ecstacy if you say "not MDMA", I presume you mean street E, which does contain contaminants. You are bringing up one of the main arguments for legalisation if that is your point.

Just because some quack in the 1850's prescribed opiates and cocaine, it doesn't mean it was the right thing to do.

Just because some nutter in the early 1900's made it illegal for economic reasons doesnt make it right either

meditraitor

rubadub wrote: »

It is tiresome and I have yet to hear a decent argument for the continuation of the hypocrisy within the drugs laws.

Even less of a reasonable argument has been put forward for the legalisation of said drugs rubbybaby:D

Deja-vu

Mark

AngryHippie

Seriously, Its bad enough having to read some of those posts once, (not yours necessarily) please don't quote it back line by line, Its enough just to say your piece, and direct it to them, If anyone reading it gets lost, they can just scroll back up to it.

The kernel of this argument is that the current legislation cannot be justified in any real sensible discussion without the "drugs are bad" line being used as a response to at least half of the real benefits of them. The only down-side to smokin a bit of dooby that I have ever experienced is nicotine.

Having said that, If you can't grow at home the cons still remain

1) Funding organised crime
2) Smoke is harmful to your Lungs
3) You will suffer a little memory loss
4) You won't be safe to drive
5) If ya overdo it, you'll pull a whitey an puke.


there is nothing the Govt. or legal system can do about 2,3 & 5, but as these apply to alcohol/cigarettes anyway, they cannot be used as a rational arguement against legalization.
If it was legal, point 1 would be irrelevant
Using a vaporizer invalidates point 2
Using your brain a little more when you're not high will help for 3
There are no studies yet to prove how cannabis affects driving ability, But I would not reccomend it to anyone who is stoned. If you are too stoned to drive you won't want to go anywhere anyway.
Rather pukin from dope than pukin from beer. 1 stomach ulcer qualifies me to settle that arguement in my book.;)

SimpleSam06

AngryHippie wrote: »

Seriously, Its bad enough having to read some of those posts once, (not yours necessarily) please don't quote it back line by line

But some of us find the irony of someone going spittle-spraying-berserk with fury in the defence of a drug that reduces aggression fairly amusing, let the man have his say!

AngryHippie

Yeah, in fairness, I had a toke there, an I see the funny side of it now, He should really skin up and chill out. Don't freak him out so bad tho:D

Karoma

JJ6000 banned for Personal Abuse.

GLaDOS

meditraitor wrote: »

heavy cannabis consumption is associated with...

Keyword being heavy, just as heavy consumption of alcohol results in liver failure and numerous other nasty ailments. If you are sensible with both there is no reason you cannot enjoy a healthy and productive life

Terry

I'd like to add a warning for SimpleSam06 for feeding JJ6000.

rubadub, I'm not even going to bother dissecting your reply. It really is tiresome.
You are completely deviating from the topic at hand (which is "Should cannibas (sic) be legalised?"),

Why not just give us some valid reasons for its legalisation, without bringing up archaic medicinal uses of other drugs and such.

Wertz

Terry wrote: »

Why not just give us some valid reasons for its legalisation, without bringing up archaic medicinal uses of other drugs and such.

Wouldn't putting an end to these threads be reason enough? Let all us stoners f*ck off and get wasted and leave the rest of you to discuss something more titilating...

FX Meister

Yes and no

ScumLord

Terry wrote: »

Why not just give us some valid reasons for its legalisation, without bringing up archaic medicinal uses of other drugs and such.

It should be made legal because I like it. I don't see why your so opposed to me smoking a joint in peace?

There's also plenty of evidence of personal abuse against any one who uses cannabis on this forum. Even though the people have absolutely no evidence that any smoker here is lazy, useless or some scumbag drug user that steals to feed there "habit".

Free the JJ6000!!!

Tzetze

ScumLord wrote: »

Free the JJ6000!!!

+1

Terry

I've been known to lift bans when people gloat about someone being banned.
I can go the other way and lengthen the ban if people spam the thread about a ban.

If you have a problem with it, take it to feedback, or that new forum where you can go and bitch about being unfairly banned by nazi mods. Google it.

keen

Terry wrote: »

I've been known to lift bans when people gloat about someone being banned.
I can go the other way and lengthen the ban if people spam the thread about a ban.

If you have a problem with it, take it to feedback, or that new forum where you can go and bitch about being unfairly banned by nazi mods. Google it.

When will the power trip end?

Let me guess I'm now banned. Free keen lads.

Terry

keen wrote: »

When will the power trip end?

As soon as I sober up.

darkmaster2

I think it should be legalised. I can`t think of any other drug with so many positives and few negatives, especially when vapourised or eaten rather than burned.

ScumLord

ME wrote:

It should be made legal because I like it. I don't see why your so opposed to me smoking a joint in peace?

Answer me damnit! this is the killer point in the the argument.

Sam Vimes

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

At the height of prohibition, Al Capone's organisation was being discussed in the White House. They had essentially full control over several major cities, and they were the law. If thats not chaos, I'd love to see your definition of it. Also note the difference between enrichment and "vast, vast enrichment".

do you honestly think that some scumbags from blanchardstown would be running the country in 5 years if they banned alcohol?

now don't get me wrong here, i don't want to ban alcohol but there are very very few arguments for banning cannabis but not alcohol and "it would cause chaos" is not one of them. there already is chaos or have you missed all the murders over drugs in the country?

and ask yourself, what gave al capone his power? as far as i can see it was the fact that something was made illegal for which there is an extremely high demand. and how did they take away the power from the gangs? they made it legal again. and you said that they'd just move onto something else but al capone's gang doesn't still run those cities does it? their power was removed and they faded away. they're still there but on a much smaller scale because they don't have that huge income from alcohol.

and what is the most used drug in the country? that's right its cannabis. and how many millions do you think they make off it that they'd lose if you could buy it in a shop? maybe vast, vast riches?

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Criminals wouldn't have the money if gobshites didn't give it to them.

what does that have to do with anything? do you suggest we outlaw gob****es? maybe ship them off to camps? what is your point and what does it have to do with the legalisation of cannabis?

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Okay so, enjoy your crusade to have cannabis legalised with the media gainst you. /gets popcorn

again, a pointless statement. we're talking about the pros and cons of legalising cannabis. we're not starting a campaign. getting the media on our side is irrelevant

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

And maybe hes blowing more than smoke out a few orificies. Make the claim, back it up. Thems the rules.

then you go back over all your posts and do the same. you made a lot of unsubstantiated claims.

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Well well, isn't that funny. You could say the same thing about almost any drug.

yes you could. what's your point? again you seem to just be saying stuff for the sake of saying something and not actually making any point, valid or not.

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Then again I'm not making wild ass and hairy claims on all sides.

yes you are. you said cannabis affects people other than the person using it. it doesn't

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Oh yes, criminals are forcing us to introduce a whole new variety of drugs to the shelves of our corner shops. Grow a pair, would you.

i've read that maybe ten times now and i still have no idea what you're talking about. maybe i should clarify my question:

how does smoking cannabis affect those around you?

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

No, you go after the people who make the legal system.

again, just a statement for the sake of a statement. i realise you can't go after a system because its an inanimate object. i thought it was implied in my statement that you go after the people who make the laws but apparently that was unclear.

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Sigh. Its just not worth it.

that doesn't make you right, that just makes you condescending. and that is a prime example of what people do when they have been proven wrong and they want to make the poster look bad without actually making a point.

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

So by your logic all drugs should be legalised after age 18? No, tis you who makes perfect sense.

yes absolutely they should. as a democrat i believe in freedom of choice and i don't believe in a nanny state where the government tells me what i can grow in my garden and what i can't

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

So why is he waxing eloquent on the faceless machinery of the state so much? The sixties are over, thank christ.

again a statement that i can't find the point of.

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

But why should society have to bend over because a tiny minority of drug using tweens can't handle the itch?

that's actually the point i've been making. why should society be denied something because teenagers are stupid? if an 18's cert is good enough for a dvd, a pack of cigarettes or a bottle of jameson then its good enough for cannabis i say

i know its harmful, you know its harmful but if someone wants to smoke himself into schizophrenia, then that's none of my business. in the meantime, we can make sure he gets good quality stuff through regulation and eliminate the deaths due to impurities in the drugs

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Yes, there are no reasons to keep drugs illegal. Brilliant.

being sarcastic doesn't make you right either. if you think i'm wrong, then prove me wrong, don't just sarcastically say i'm wrong

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

When you start smoking DVDs I'll give you a gold star for good comparisons.

again with the sarcasm. you're very bad at arguing. what does smoking them have to do with anything? you said that people do cannabis despite the fact that its illegal and it carries a heavy penalty, therefore its addictive and i showed that be be wrong by saying people buy pirate dvds despite the fact that its illegal and it carries a heavy penalty.



your entire post was an attempt to belittle me through condescension and sarcasm without actually making a single valid point. you wrote an awful lot but most of it had absolutely nothing to do with anything and was just there to fill space and the stuff that was slightly relevant was littered with sarcasm and still wrong

SubjectSean

meditraitor wrote: »

Cannabis impairs cognitive development (capabilities of learning), including associative processes; free recall of previously learned items is often impaired when cannabi is used both during learning and recall periods;
Cannabis impairs psychomotor performance in a wide variety of tasks, such as motor coordination, divided attention, and operative tasks of many types; human performance on complex machinery can be impaired for as long as 24 hours after smoking as little as 20 mg of THC in cannabis; there is an increased risk of motor vehicle accidents among persons who drive when intoxicated by cannabis.

I never had any conception that it could make you so retarded, you should stop it IMO

AngryHippie

Commander Vimes, I salute you.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Commander Vimes wrote: »

yes absolutely they should. as a democrat i believe in freedom of choice and i don't believe in a nanny state where the government tells me what i can grow in my garden and what i can't

re:"So by your logic all drugs should be legalised after age 18? No, tis you who makes perfect sense." - SimpleSam06

Meh, agree with almost everything you just said but if they legalised Cocaine or Heroin I'd be protesting.

Fair enough you don't want a nanny state, but there's a difference between democracy & anarchy.

If they legalised Heroin or Cocaine hundreds if not thousands of people would become addicted & lot would become dependent on society. Not to mention violent toward society. That's having an affect on me. So f*ck that.

Fair enough you having a joint has no affect on me. If it did I wouldn't want it legalised.