Scientific study shows students that smoke cannabis have lower grades and higher fail

hatrickpatrick

Oranage2 wrote: »

How will the legalise cannabis brigade defend this?

Pretty simple - your body, your rules. If you choose to do chase current highs at the expense of your future intelligence, that should be entirely your decision and nobody else's.

However, I would advocate for health warnings on legal cannabis products, just like with smoking, alcohol etc.

Sofiztikated

Oranage2 wrote: »

I've not read further on, but I hope you never have children or be in any responsible in the development of any child, with your mindset you're clearly not fit to do it!

Why so?

nozzferrahhtoo

RasTa wrote: »

Money.

I have sat and debated face to face at length with John Hickenlooper about legalizing it in Colorado. Each time I met him he was totally against it but each time he seemed less and less sure he could successfully stand against it.

Then sure enough the last time I met him he admitted it would not be long before he would be signing it into law. And it wasn't.

hatrickpatrick

Drug prohibition, the reasons of which were not initially based on public health concerns (that came after the "society's morality" as an argument) will almost certainly be looked back on in 100-200 years as one of the biggest, most costly, and shameful blunders of the 20th century. The crime, violence, devastation and chaos it has caused is immeasurable, and primarily because a bunch of elitists didn't want people being able to lower their inhibitions, not because they were actually concerned for peoples' health. Shambolic.

JupiterKid

I can only speak from my own experience - I smoked quite a bit of hash in my college years and I did very well academically, most of my mates did likewise and did fine but there were one or two guys who fell into problems with harder drugs.

I continue to smoke it on an occasional basis and it is a lot safer than alcohol. The hypocrisy of those against legalisation of drugs and their approach to alcohol never ceases to amaze and disappoint me. If alcohol was discovered in the past 20 years, for sure it would be considered a very dangerous drug and be proscribed.

The tide of history is moving towards decriminalisation/regulation and in future years we will look back at the "war on drugs" as misguided at best and downright dangerous at worst.

JupiterKid

JupiterKid wrote: »

The tide of history is moving towards decriminalisation/regulation and in future years we will look back at the "war on drugs" as misguided at best and downright dangerous at worst.

That may well be, but the prospect of a potential future shift in moral outlook doesn't have much to do with the 'correctness' of that change.

Moral righteousness is unlikely to correspond much more with the future than it did with the recent past. We should be careful of assuming that the future means 'progress'.

Personally, I've come to view drugs and social welfare as being negatively correlated. That doesn't mean that I'm anti-drugs, I've used a variety of drugs with a troubling promiscuity, to the point of swallowing chemicals with no idea of what I'm putting into my mouth. It borders on the infantile.

Yes, the war on drugs has failed. Yes, the future looks like it will be liberal towards illicit drugs. But none of this implies an improvement. Change for its own sake is fairly meaningless, even if it satisfies the majority. And just because something has failed, doesn't mean it was wrong.

weldoninhio

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

That may well be, but the prospect of a potential future shift in moral outlook doesn't have much to do with the 'correctness' of that change.

Moral righteousness is unlikely to correspond much more with the future than it did with the recent past. We should be careful of assuming that the future means 'progress'.

Personally, I've come to view drugs and social welfare as being negatively correlated. That doesn't mean that I'm anti-drugs, I've used a variety of drugs with a troubling promiscuity, to the point of swallowing chemicals with no idea of what I'm putting into my mouth. It borders on the infantile.

Yes, the war on drugs has failed. Yes, the future looks like it will be liberal towards illicit drugs. But none of this implies an improvement. Change for its own sake is fairly meaningless, even if it satisfies the majority. And just because something has failed, doesn't mean it was wrong.

ScumLord

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Yes, the war on drugs has failed. Yes, the future looks like it will be liberal towards illicit drugs. But none of this implies an improvement. Change for its own sake is fairly meaningless, even if it satisfies the majority. And just because something has failed, doesn't mean it was wrong.

At the very least it's going to take billions out of the hands of criminal gangs and put it back into legitimate businesses and tax income. It's going to drastically reduce prison populations, many of those people may end up in other types of rehab but I'd guess they'll be cheaper than courts and prisons, so that prisons can be reserved for real criminals. It's going to mean the guards have time to investigate real crimes.

We can't just legalise drugs and expect to live happily ever after, it is a change in the way our society works. We need to change how our systems deal with drug problems and have the remedies ready.

But we can't fight this human behaviour, humans use drugs, let's make it as safe as possible rather than continue our futile attempts to stamp it out.

Esho

Wanderer78 wrote: »

So our current policies on illegal drugs is working?

Yes, it's working very well, if blocking garda and court resources to criminalise people who are harming only themselves is considered working well <sarcasm>

Blanket legalisation is not the answer - decriminalise, maybe for medicinal uses, yes.
I'd love to see the what must be a millions a year spent by users on cannabis taken away from the scumbags, but legalisation is harmful and as RasTa said, woul dbe done for money at the expense of our children.

Daledge

Correlation does not imply causation.