Should cannibas be legalised????

togster

So is addictiveness the basis of your argument? Mine is that it is addictive and i have seen people ruin their lives because of it. Annd before you start shouting again i have seen alcohol do the same. However why make something illegal because something similar is? So would you agree with legalising e's or LSD or mushrooms? In this sense i consider cannabis a gateway drug, it will lead to others calling for the legalisation of these substances. So could you please answer the questions?!;)

kleefarr

As usual Erowid has some good info on the subject, not a biased view either.

www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis

PeakOutput

togster wrote: »

So is addictiveness the basis of your argument?

im not arguing for or against, im simply picking holes in other peoples argument in the hope someone will persuade me one way or the other

Mine is that it is addictive and i have seen people ruin their lives because of it.

it is not addictive for MOST people just like alcohol is not addictive to most people. the people it is addictive to will find something to be addicted sometimes they will be beneficial(like a sport or something) others they will be detremental(like gambling)

However why make something illegal because something similar is? So would you agree with legalising e's or LSD or mushrooms?

i assume you mean why make something legal. im not using that as an argument although i see all the anti legalisation people arguing the exact opposite. if one argument is null and void the exact opposite is too imo.

In this sense i consider cannabis a gateway drug, it will lead to others calling for the legalisation of these substances.

i dont believe it will lead to any significant majority or minority to call for legalisation of any of the stronger drugs like e / heroin / coke. some people might sure but nowhere near the amount necessary to be heard if you know what i mean

So could you please answer the questions?!;)

done and done

if cannabis was already legal like alcohol and tobacco are would you be out campaining for it to be outlawed?

ScumLord

togster wrote: »

So is addictiveness the basis of your argument? Mine is that it is addictive and i have seen people ruin their lives because of it. Annd before you start shouting again i have seen alcohol do the same. However why make something illegal because something similar is? So would you agree with legalising e's or LSD or mushrooms? In this sense i consider cannabis a gateway drug, it will lead to others calling for the legalisation of these substances. So could you please answer the questions?!;)

I think making shrooms illegal was totally uncalled for. (even though they're still not completely illegal just ask your local headshop for more information)

Every time we make a point it's isolated and ridiculed for being the only point. There are a hole range of reasons why criminalising the use of cannabis is wrong.

1. It's no worse than the legal drugs, why single out cannabis in the first place.
2. It has no ill effects on those that don't use the drugs
3. It currently funds criminal gangs, the gangs that every one is so desperate to get rid of.
4. It has many medical benefits, it's disgusting that some one on they're death bed would be refused something that works just.. because.
5. It has a million and one industrial and agricultural uses. many of them very eco friendly.
6. No matter what anyone says it's not physically addictive.
7. You can't overdose on it.
8. You don't turn violent on it.


Does anyone have a problem with me getting stoned in my own home?

joseph brand

I think we owe it to those people to keep it illegal.

Making it illegal does not make it unattainable. It's illegal and everyone who wants to smoke it can. It just means, instead of giving my money to the government (if it were legal), my money supports crime.

If they ever make tobaco illegal, crime lords will be worth BILLIONS!!!

Get the point!!! :mad:

bubonicus

By Jonathan Owen

independent

Published: 21 October 2007
The devastating effects of skunk cannabis on the nation's mental health are revealed here for the first time, showing where the drug has hit hardest around the country.

Some areas have suffered a tenfold increase in people mentally ill from using the drug.

Nationally, skunk smokers are ending up ill in hospital in record numbers, with admissions soaring 73 per cent. The number of adults recorded as suffering mental illness as a result of cannabis use has risen sharply from 430 in 1996 to 743 in 2006.

The government data shows how the damaging effects of the drug have swept across England. Hospital hotspots for cannabis abuse include Manchester, London, Cheshire and Merseyside.

And, as the debate over the drug's dangers continues, figures released by the National Treatment Agency for Substance Abuse (NTA) show that more than 24,500 people are in drug treatment programmes for cannabis – the highest ever.

It is the most commonly misused drug by children, accounting for 75 per cent of those requiring treatment. That's 11,582 under-18s – more than double those in treatment for cannabis abuse in 2005.

And more adults (13,087) are in drug treatment programmes for cannabis abuse than for crack or cocaine.

This news comes as pressure grows on the Government to reclassify cannabis to its former class B status, with the fears of police now being echoed by the Forensic Science Service, which says skunk cannabis – a highly potent form of the drug – accounts for 75 per cent of all seizures.

Cannabis remains Britain's most commonly used illegal drug, with more than 4,000 kilos confiscated by police and customs officers in the first six months of this year.


http://news.independent.co.uk/health/article3081842.ece

PeakOutput

iv read that about skunk before because it is apparently so potent it is still a vast minority of people who use it that have problems and those people are an even smaller minority of the total cannabis using population.

if it was legal the government would be making millions if not billions in tax revenue from its sale(after all people are paying extrtionate amounts for it now the governement can do the same) and then this money can be used to bring our mental health system out of the dark ages thus helping the monority that have problems with skunk and the thousands of other mental health patients

ScumLord

This turn towards the dangers of "skunk" which has been around for years and is actually a fairly common breed of the plant is laughable. There are many, many other strains allot stronger and this article just goes to show how clueless the author is. Skunk is your bargain basket variety of cannabis in Amsterdam.



There's nothing special about skunk and I'd love if the author wasn't talking out of his hole because there's none around.

Potential-Monke

^^^ Agreed with ScumLord, the low quality stuff comes over here.

bubonicus

ScumLord wrote: »

This turn towards the dangers of "skunk" which has been around for years and is actually a fairly common breed of the plant is laughable. There are many, many other strains allot stronger and this article just goes to show how clueless the author is. Skunk is your bargain basket variety of cannabis in Amsterdam.



There's nothing special about skunk and I'd love if the author wasn't talking out of his hole because there's none around.

But what about killer skunk?

Sam Vimes

yes bubonicus, in some cases cannabis can be harmful to some people's health, although i'd say a lot of the admitted children just had hysterical parents

something being harmful is not reason on its own to make it illegal. People are smart enough to make decisions for themselves about whether they want to do it or not. People who want to do it, do it whether its illegal or not and people who don't, don't

the only difference in the long run is who the money goes to, the government or gangs

smoking hash affects no one but the person smoking it and as such, people should be free to damage their health if they so choose

armour87

Legalise everything ----> Money from tourism ----> country probably goes tits up

SubjectSean

Terry wrote: »

Have you read this thread?

As for the racism arguement, that's just liberal P.C. hippy crap.
Saying that America banned it to try and get rid of Mexicans is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard in my life.
Yeah. Take away the weed and they'll all go back to Mexico.

It's illegal because it ****s with your perceptions and is harder to control than alcohol.

Hmm...makes me wonder how much you've researched this subject. There is lots of historical evidence that racism played a large part in the banning of cannabis at least in America. For example when Montana outlawed marijuana in 1927, the Butte Montana Standard reported a legislator's comment: "When some beet field peon takes a few traces of this stuff... he thinks he has just been elected president of Mexico, so he starts out to execute all his political enemies." In Texas, a respected senator said on the floor of the Senate: "All Mexicans are crazy, and this stuff is what makes them crazy." There's lots of evidence like this and the anti-drug propaganda of the time is full of racist nonsense. However so far as I know nobody at any point suggested that making it illegal would make the Mexicans go back to Mexico. I don't know where you got that from.

You seem to be implying that alcohol doesn't mess with your perceptions but a trip to any A&E dept. on a Friday night or to a rehab clinic would easily contradict this assertion. In fact alcohol messes with your perceptions far worse and in potentially more life-threatening ways than cannabis ever does. I've been smoking for 25 years and can honestly say I have never done anything as remotely crazy as some things I have done with the alcohol in me. As for the notion that it's harder to control than alcohol I don't see on what you are basing this assertion.

Terry

Potential-Monke wrote: »

^^^ Agreed with ScumLord, the low quality stuff comes over here.

But the argument a lot of people have is that they want the high quality stuff.

ScumLord

Terry wrote: »

But the argument a lot of people have is that they want the high quality stuff.

Of course we do. By low quality he means like the difference between a rotting tomato (what we get here) and a chocolate bar (what you get in Amsterdam).

SubjectSean

Terry wrote: »

But the argument a lot of people have is that they want the high quality stuff.

Most of the cannabis that makes it to these fair shores is of the cheapest lowest quality imaginable. The "soap bar" is made in Morocco where the poor farmers simply cannot keep pace with Europes demand and so are mixing polythene, wax, shoe polish and other poisons into the mix. Irish drugs barons buy in the cheapest stuff which understandably is the stuff that has been cut the most. The so called "herbal" cannabis, the little of it that gets here, is laced with silicon to make it heavier. Smoking silicon will lead to silicosis. When people say they want the high quality stuff they just mean they don't want to be poisoned.

kleefarr

joseph brand wrote: »

Making it illegal does not make it unattainable. It's illegal and everyone who wants to smoke it can. It just means, instead of giving my money to the government (if it were legal), my money supports crime.

If they ever make tobaco illegal, crime lords will be worth BILLIONS!!!

Get the point!!! :mad:

Also, while it's illegal, it is mixed with all sorts of rubbish. Making it legal would at least result in a better quality product I would have thought.

JC 2K3

Gingervitis wrote: »

if anyone abuses any substance, be it solvents, recreational drugs, even food (see obesity) it will have health risks, and that is what certain young people in Ireland will do. Therefore, why legalise another substance when that is what is going to happen?

Because society as a whole shouldn't have to obey stupid laws that protect a very small minority of idiots from the chance of developing health problems through their own fault.

The law shouldn't be protecting people from themselves, that's not what it's there for.

togster wrote: »

Next it will be cocaine and pills and heroin. Sur if you use the above in moderation too whats the harm?

None whatsoever.

Tzetze

The truth about Marijuana and Dupont's (and his cronies) involvement in (and orchestration of) it's banning throughout the West.

History of Marijuana A great film that details how versatile a fibre hemp is.

I don't believe there is another plant that grows to maturity so quickly. Because of this, hemp is also a great source of renewable fuel. It can also grow in very dense environments, meaning you gain much more fuel from hemp than from any other natural resource.

The benefits of this King of plants far outweigh the (imho, non-existant) negatives. Anyone who'd take the time to educate themselves about marijuana would know this. But remember, it will serve a man no good to be educated in falsehoods.

togster

JC 2K3 wrote: »

None whatsoever.

Ok so would you call for the legalisation of cocaine, heroine etc? I mean these people are only hurting themselves right? I don'r think you can be selective with that argument.

JC 2K3

togster wrote: »

Ok so would you call for the legalisation of cocaine, heroine etc?

With the right infrastructure in place, most definitely.

SimpleSam06

Tzetze wrote: »

I don't believe there is another plant that grows to maturity so quickly. Because of this, hemp is also a great source of renewable fuel. It can also grow in very dense environments, meaning you gain much more fuel from hemp than from any other natural resource.

More stoner nonsense. Elephant grass is by far the most effective renewable resource when it comes to fuel, specifically biodiesel.

SimpleSam06

DaveMcG wrote: »

I'm sorry -- are you suggesting that drug dealers are funding bogus scientific research to help sell their product? Please clarify if you are not, but that's what I picked up from you there.

Who do you think will be selling drugs if they are legalised? Drug dealers? Hahahaha...

PeakOutput wrote: »

also you took my point as meaning i was only talking about monetary cost. i wasnt. factors like increased mental patients with legalisation compared to increased crime with continued prohibition need to be compared as well......which is more socially acceptable?

The lesser of two evils doesn't make it not evil.

PeakOutput wrote: »

secondly if you leave addiction out of it heroin is apparently( i say apparently as i didnt read the studies myself but have been told the results threw a 3rd party) a harmless drug and it is in fact the **** it is mixed with by drug dealers to increase their profits and the complete unregulation of the trade that leads to deaths.

Mm. Harmless except for the terminally addictive aspects. Thats like saying arsenic is grand other than it kills you.

PeakOutput wrote: »

i don't think legalisation in this country will ever happen even if it is the economical solution

Economical solution. Would you listen to yourself.

bubonicus wrote: »

So I post a link to a scientific study, and I get called a stoner with a chip on my shoulder.

I wish people just would have read the original link i posted and the disclaimer at the bottom. :rolleyes:

Hey I can write whatever the hell I want to on the internet and stick whatever disclaimers I want under it; does that make me authoritative?

wazzoraybelle

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

More stoner nonsense. Elephant grass is by far the most effective renewable resource when it comes to fuel, specifically biodiesel.

I agree. But hemp makes a great fabric and is highly disease resistant unlike cotton which uses a huge amount of pesticides. But commercial hemp is very different to the plant grown for weed.
My own opinion is to legalise possession up to an ounce or three or four plants if your growing but and have zero tolerance on dealing.

SimpleSam06

wazzoraybelle wrote: »

I agree. But hemp makes a great fabric and is highly disease resistant unlike cotton which uses a huge amount of pesticides. But commercial hemp is very different to the plant grown for weed.

Thats very thin. Lots of materials are used for fabrics, not just cotton, so propounding on the benefits of hemp as a fabric because it uses less pesiticides is a bit silly. Also commercial hemp doesn't produce the neccessary compounds to give someone a "high" upon smokeage.

wazzoraybelle wrote: »

My own opinion is to legalise possession up to an ounce or three or four plants if your growing but and have zero tolerance on dealing.

Thats a bit like they have in Amsterdam at the moment. It just means the dealers will use more mules.

wazzoraybelle

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Thats very thin. Lots of materials are used for fabrics, not just cotton, so propounding on the benefits of hemp as a fabric because it uses less pesiticides is a bit silly. Also commercial hemp doesn't produce the neccessary compounds to give someone a "high" upon smokeage.


Thats a bit like they have in Amsterdam at the moment. It just means the dealers will use more mules.

?????????????
My point was exactly that! Hemp is not marijuana as we under stand it.

And in amsterdam dealing is perfectly legal. Have you been? Thats what coffee shops are!
A more suitable comparison is switzerland and germany.

SimpleSam06

wazzoraybelle wrote: »

My point was exactly that! Hemp is not marijuana as we under stand it.

You mean I can't smoke those jeans I got on holiday?

wazzoraybelle wrote: »

And in amsterdam dealing is perfectly legal. Have you been? Thats what coffee shops are!
A more suitable comparison is switzerland and germany.

Rather than getting into the finer points of Dutch import laws, if you make it legal to own it but illegal to distribute it, (dealing), you will only make the criminal dealers exponentially richer.

togster

JC 2K3 wrote: »

With the right infrastructure in place, most definitely.

So you think people will be able to moderate their intake of heroine? Except for the idiots like;) And what sort of information would you put in place so that you could legalise heroine?

Dave!

Maybe something like they did in Switzerland. Maybe read up on it before you disregard it.

togster

What. JC said we should legalise heroine. Why? Your article refers to methodone treatments in Switzerland. I presume he means it should be legally available for purchase.

"Switzerland's policy of offering heroin addicts substitution treatment with methadone or buprenorphine has led to a decline in the number of new heroin users in Zurich, according to a paper published in this week's issue of The Lancet"