Should Cannabis be Legalised

fisifan01

What do you think

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

In the immortal words of Agrajag... Oh no, not again.

(For those who haven't read the Hitch-hiker's Guide to the Galaxy, go read it :P)

I voted yes. There are several reasons for this- but a large part of the debate isn't "should cannabis be legalized"- but HOW it should be legalized. That in itself is a broad and complex enough issue, with more than a few threads pertaining to its discussion.

Occy

bonkey

Fidifan - if you're going to start a thread like this, please offer your own perspective at the start, instead of just posting an empty question.

jc

mike65

I vote yes with the following health warning-

I do so not because I think getting "out of it" is a good thing or because I think pot is without medical risk but simply because
I'd sooner criminals were'nt making a mint by selling it.

I take the same view with all illegal drugs, they should be
made availible on the understanding you'll be on a programme to
get you off the stuff.

(I'd treat tobacco and booze in the same fashion and sod the vitners)

Mike.

Shinji

Out of interest Mike, do you drink alcohol?

I utterly fail to subscribe to this whole "my body is a temple" school of thought on substances. Why don't we have compulsory schools to get people off chocolate and saturated fats while you're at it?

Let's all eat celery and contemplate our navels for 75 years, that's a wonderful idea...

mike65

I don't drink except for the very odd glass of dry cider, my
world view is proberly informed by two matters - I'm diabetic and fags killed my dad at 51, so I tend to a hard-line on bad addictive substances but I'll make an exception for chololate in moderation (well we all need one vice ).

Mike.

p.s. I hate celery!

phreak

i voted yes aswell.

Reason : Because i think that people have the right to make their own choices.

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

Originally posted by Shinji


I utterly fail to subscribe to this whole "my body is a temple" school of thought on substances.

It's an important signal to send to the public for many reasons Rob- not least of all the huge load on health services (no pun intended) which is in a large part due to obesity & lifestyle disorders. Millions of dollars are spent by insurers and governments everywhere on righting the wrongs people knowingly perpetuate amongst themselves. Cardiologists are swamped not with congenital or developmental disorders, but with people who are taking up hospital beds for no better reason than a horrible diet and chronic lack of exercise. A patient who falls ill because of a communicative disease can't help it very much- one who comes about illness through an unhealthy lifestyle over 40 years could not only help it, but prevent it simply by using common-sense methods for leading a healthy life.

Our species weren't meant to sit at desks in sedentary jobs every day, nor to eat huge amounts of deep-fried meats- we were (mainly vegetarian) hunter-gatherers with a high input of required exercise. Before everyone goes and jumps all over me- I'm not saying we need to start wearing bear-skins and screeching Ooga-booga (with the exception of amp, he might make more sense that way )- I'm saying you cannot ignore our evolutionary roots and how little our natural pattern of adult development has changed. We owe it, if not to ourselves, but to society at large- to keep fit, lead a healthy lifestyle- as much as we owe it to society to live in a lawful manner, or to work and fulfill our duty in that regard to society. Healthy habits I would argue, are as much part of our social contract as paying taxes and finding a job.

Let's all eat celery and contemplate our navels for 75 years, that's a wonderful idea...

No one's suggesting that for a minute. Why does it have to *either* be "Eat only health foods for perpetuity " or "Binge eat T-bone steaks, burgers, do no exercise, faff around at work AND at home like a flabby couch-potato etc." It isn't a choice between black and white- the message of leading a healthy lifestyle is moderation. Pure and simple- it means eat more fruit and veg, not less. Do more exercise, not less. In other words, add things to your routine/diet that you mightn't do already. That's not depriving yourself of anything, just adding to a routine. Unhealthy/fatty foods, if consumed in moderation, and evenly over a period of time shouldn't cause long-term harm.

As for detrimental/carcinogenic products- in an ideal world I would refuse to treat patients who had put themselves in such a position. If that were the case then I'd be all for free choice. Given that doctors are required to treat the patient regardless of how abusive they've been to their body (where do you after all, draw the line?)- I think that patients have a responsibility to lead as healthy a lifestyle as possible, in return for society and medical professionals being willing to care for them should they fall ill through no fault of their own.

As far as cannabis goes- use in moderation is in no way harmful if not smoked with an excess of tobacco- or if medically perscribed for pain-relief purposes. As such, if it were legalized, and proper dosage made public- and responsible behavior enforced in the same way as currently done with alcohol- there should be no problem with it becoming a social activity. Political obstacles in this regard stem largely from ignorance of the electorate, or mistaken prepolicy notions (soft drugs are a gateway to hard drugs, we can't put the genie back in the bottle, and all other kinds of crap).

There have already been numerous arguments about this particular topic on boards, a simple search will bring them up.

Occy

cujimmy

We should follow the UK recent example. We should also allow forward thinking GP's prescribe it

che

Originally posted by cujimmy
We should follow the UK recent example. We should also allow forward thinking GP's prescribe it

although i completly support the legalisation of cannabis, im against the way the uk have introduced it. i ask you ,what is the point of decriminilisation when you still have do go to some dodgy f^ck to get your weed. doesnt it make more sence to take the criminal element out of the process all together. there telling you that on one hand its fine to smoke weed, that you aint gonna get in trouble with the law if you get found out, but to get some somek you still gotta deal with the same process that you had before.
the sooner thay bring in dutch style coffee shops the better. it makes to much sence for it not to happen.
also, the day that i can fly into town and pick up a 1/4 of white widow will be a great day indeed.

Bateman

What should be criminalised is people coming up to me when they can't handle the stuff and think we are all "on their cloud".

Ajnag

Why the hell should i be prosicuted for choosing a safer drug as opposed to alcohol.every night in this country people are fighting and vandelising and acting anti-social due to the effects of alcohol.how many hundreds die due to drink driving in this country, and although i agree that smoking and driving is irresponsible, it has been shown that at least a driver on cannabis is slower, more paranoid, and somewhat more conentious of their surroundings.


as a tax payer why should i be prosicuted for smoking cannabis in my own home, while mara harney can use a fisherys aircraft vital for the safety of my friends lives at sea to go and open a fukin off licence which will no doubt sell alcochol to be consumed by alcoholics who beat up their familys.

and to think that fat cu*t called howard marks "Mr.Evil":rolleyes:

Im frustrated and can you blame me.

Sand

I completely support the legalistion of cannabis, I dont see any problem with distributing and taxing it as is done with alcohol or nicotine. Crap, drink diesel for all I care - so long as Im not picking up the bill....

DadaKopf

I don't see the problem with it being legalised at all. The only thing that worries me is that we Irish already have a fairly unhealthy drinking culture and I wouldn't like to see us becoming too dependent on cannabis either.

fisifan01

Yes i believe that it should be legalised for the following reasons

1) It would stop the dealers and gangsters from making a living out of it.

2)Taxes extracted from it could be used to fund drug treatment programmes.

3)Legalising it would take away the incentive for it to lead to harder drugs. As Cannabis Users often obtain ecstasy and Heroin from the same dealers.

4)The so called mental and physical affects caused by cannabis are only present in people who use the drug excessively. The percentage of heavy smokers is far greater than heavy cannabis users.

Kopf

**** yeah it should!




i'm well wasted.

ACE OwNz J0oO!!

I feel that fisifan is right in saying that it should be legalised ,BUT!, some people may lookfor harder hits and not be staisfied with just that and move on to cocane etc ,post a poll if their isnt one

Sand

I feel that fisifan is right in saying that it should be legalised ,BUT!, some people may lookfor harder hits and not be staisfied with just that and move on to cocane etc ,post a poll if their isnt one

So what? **** em, for want of a better term. If someones is so incredibly dumb as to want to do "harder hits" then theyre probably habitual russian roulette players in the first place. If they want to kill themselves in a search of a high its not your concern or mine so long as were not asked to foot the bill for their rehabilitation.

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

Originally posted by Sand

If they want to kill themselves in a search of a high its not your concern or mine so long as were not asked to foot the bill for their rehabilitation.

This is a dangerous argument to make Sand- as I said before in this thread, where do you draw the line? In other words, if a patient is suffering from chronic physical addiction to, say alcohol, society shouldn't help them? What about cardiac illness? If someone eats 10 burgers a day and does no exercise, by your reasoning we should tell them to f*ck off when they keel over with a coronary. Alzheimer's- if people expose themselves to known oxidizing agents by living in an urban area and choose not to keep their mental faculties honed, it's not our responsibility? Of course it is- because people make mistakes, and sometimes can't help them. If society's attitude were that you had to lead a perfect life in order to be deserving of help, then it's not a society I would want to live in. Many of the people who suffer from these addictions *want* to get off them- as such, they are entitled to medical care in my eyes. Whether you fund it as the taxpayer or not, society will still ultimately have to foot the bill.

This is a moot point however, since cannabis is in no way a gateway drug any more than alcohol is a gateway drug. I know few drinkers who decided to look elsewhere for a better depressant/relaxant than alcohol :P The main reason they haven't done so is that alcohol is a legal (and very harmful) drug- so rather than break the law, they'll stick to the old bottle. Legalize cannabis, and this concern goes away. Nicotine and alcohol are unbelievably more harmful than cannabis, particularly alcohol- just look at the number of crimes associated with alcohol intolerance- drink-driving, alcohol-related violence, domicilary abuse brought about by the onset of alcohol, the list goes on. Yet we trust people as young as 16 in some countries with being responsible about this- there is a far stronger case for strictly regulating/banning alcohol than there is for cannabis.

Occy


Occy

bonkey

Originally posted by Bob the Unlucky Octopus
This is a moot point however, since cannabis is in no way a gateway drug any more than alcohol is a gateway drug.

This is one of the most significant points which I think is all-too-often glossed over.

Anti-marijuana campaigners constantly claim that the substance is a known gateway drug. However, what they fail to mention is that virtually all of the ascertainable reasons as to why it acts as a gateway drug are because of its illegal status, not because of the substance itself.

Put simply, there is no evidence to show that marijuana users progress to harder drugs for a "better high" - or if there is, I have never seen a credible study to that effect. Its the type of stuff your mom or your secondary school teacher come out with during the "drugs are bad, mkay" speeches, but I have never once seen anyone show that marijuana is the base cause.

There is evidence to show that a mentality of experimentation may lead people to try harder drugs - in the same way that it may lead them to try sniffing butane, lighter fluid, glues, etc. In the same way it would lead them to try drinking alcohol, smoking tobacco, or indeed smoking marijuana. In other words, marijuana is not a cause in these cases, it is a symptom. It is typically the first illegal substance which people try, so often gets blamed when they continue their experimentations to harder drugs.

There is evidence to show that having determined how to acquire one illegal substance, it becomes far more likely that a user will be tempted (peer pressure, "investigation", salesmanship from the dealer, etc.) to try other substances acquired in a similar manner.

There is evidence to show that a large number of street-level dealers deal in more than just grass, thus creating the possibility of a gateway.

In otherwords, the gateway effect of marijuana tends to be because of its illegality, not because there is any actual evidence which can be used to show that it is a gateway.

jc

Ajnag

American govt test by n.i.d.a scientists have shown that cigarettes effects on dopamine levels in the brain actually increase the assocation of pleasure with all psycotropic drugs(alcohol-> heroin) such that ciggarettes are the closest possible thing to a supposed gateway drug.

Sand

If society's attitude were that you had to lead a perfect life in order to be deserving of help, then it's not a society I would want to live in.

Youre right, my view is a tad pitiless but addicts, particularly alcoholics seeing as you mention them, tend to thrive on pity - their own self pity and the well meant pity of others- as I know from personal experience. Anyone whose ever seen actual physical holes in a junkies arms, or even that british actress whose now missing a fair bit of her nose thanks to her cocaine addiction and still wants to do that sort of stuff is quite simply a moron and is going to end up receiving a Darwin award sooner or later.

Many of the people who suffer from these addictions *want* to get off them- as such, they are entitled to medical care in my eyes.

People who are so witless as to be unaware of the dangers of addiction, particularly to alcohol, nicotine or hard drugs - especially given the *massive* propaganda campaigns against them- are of questionable intelligence/common sense to begin with. They knew the risks, they made a deliberate choice, they made their bed- lie in it.

Thats the problem associated with individual freedom to do what you want, you also accept the consequences of your actions. I dont personally mind what drugs people use, Im not unusual in my use of alcohol for example, and if people want to use nicotine or cannibis or whatever fine. An actual argument for taxes funding rehabilitation might be made if the tax revenue from the sale of drugs was used to treat the addicts when they eventually decide they want out. Other than that.....

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

Originally posted by Sand


Youre right, my view is a tad pitiless but addicts, particularly alcoholics seeing as you mention them, tend to thrive on pity - their own self pity and the well meant pity of others- as I know from personal experience.

Very odd...the vast majority of alcoholics that I've seen at work anecdotally don't want to admit they have a problem, even when the behavioral patterns and the liver biopsy all but shout it at them. The fact that people often don't realize or want to admit they have a problem is often the biggest hurdle to overcome. They don't want your pity because there's nothing to pity- how can you argue with them on that? We can't force treatment on anyone, but we can certainly make them aware of their difficulties- and then treat them. At which stage they don't want pity either, just counseling and guidance. To use the direct medicolegal analogy, if someone was physically harming themselves without knowing it, society has a duty to help and protect them. Just the same is true here- after many mental patients finally realize their problem, they too leave their cells sobbing. Does that mean they're wallowing in self-pity? Of course not- we just tend to have less sympathy for alcoholics because the average person knows the destructive effects of alcohol, while they don't know of the role of "magnified intent" that predominates several types of mental patients.

People who are so witless as to be unaware of the dangers of addiction, particularly to alcohol, nicotine or hard drugs - especially given the *massive* propaganda campaigns against them- are of questionable intelligence/common sense to begin with. They knew the risks, they made a deliberate choice, they made their bed- lie in it.

I take exception to the nicotine analogy, because many of the patients one sees in hospitals are over the age of 50, and at the time they took up the addiction medical studies into the effects of tobacco were repressed. There were no public awareness programmes, not even a surgeon-general's warning.

As for the attitude itself- make your bed and lie in it. Hmmm. So if you were to spend a lifetime eating fatty foods and seldom exercising, the paramedics should just pack their defib away and leave. "Sorry hun, he was just a fat unhealthy b@stard, can't help you there- he should have known what he was doing to his poor heart." Shouldn't these people have your standards applied too? What about women who drink several cups of coffee a day and develop fibroids and PCU? They should have known better too, because after all, their doctors do right? But the crowning example is this one- suppose two SCA (sickle cell anemia) patients want to have a child(knowing mind you, that there is a chance their child will have the gene expressed, a 50/50 chance in this case). If the child is born a sickler rather than an SCA carrier, can you legitimately turn around to the parents and say: "Look, you really should have understood the consequences of your actions in having this child sir/ma'am, now there's really no helping you." These examples are not unusual, they are far more commonly stipulated in our health care systems than drug addiction. The reason drug addiction is given greater publicity isn't because the health risks impact a lot of people- it's because the crime associated with them does.

Thats the problem associated with individual freedom to do what you want, you also accept the consequences of your actions. I dont personally mind what drugs people use, Im not unusual in my use of alcohol for example, and if people want to use nicotine or cannibis or whatever fine.

Again, the basic principle of accepting the consequences of your actions is all well and good, but it throws up several moral instances where we just cannot contemplate this expeditious line of reasoning. If Sand, years from now, you or I happened to develop CTS due to years of typing on message boards, would you expect the government to waive our healthcare? Or if we lived in an urban area dominated by powerlines and we were hospitalized for bone and lung cancer- should we have accepted the consquences of living in an urban area near power-lines? Perhaps not, especially if we live in a nation where government aids in the construction of private housing, some of which simply must be built in these areas.

An actual argument for taxes funding rehabilitation might be made if the tax revenue from the sale of drugs was used to treat the addicts when they eventually decide they want out. Other than that.....

This idea has been discussed many times by the FDA and found to be unworkable, I'll explain more tomorrow if you want, it's getting late

Occy

bonkey

Originally posted by Bob the Unlucky Octopus This idea has been discussed many times by the FDA and found to be unworkable

Small question on that one, Doc Oc....

When you say "found to be unworkeable" do you mean in general, or specifically when applied to the US structure (healthcare, revenue, etc).

I'm not trying to say that Ireland would be any better, but I think that one nation rejecting something as unworkeable is not a reason for others to blindly do so as well...

jc

simon_partridge

Originally posted by Bob the Unlucky Octopus

A patient who falls ill because of a communicative disease can't help it very much- one who comes about illness through an unhealthy lifestyle over 40 years could not only help it, but prevent it simply by using common-sense methods for leading a healthy life.

Well that's very easy to say, but altering one's lifestyle is a very difficult thing to achieve, especially if it involves an addictive drug like nicotine/alcohol, but even just moderating one's diet and exercise regime can be very difficult - I always cook too many roast potatoes for instance, but at the time of consumption they seem too nice not to eat so I eat them anyway. The "preventable" health problems mentioned above are bred as much by our society as by the individuals who perpetrate them IMHO...

bonkey

Originally posted by simon_partridge
The "preventable" health problems mentioned above are bred as much by our society as by the individuals who perpetrate them IMHO...

And, of course, the same can be said about many of our substance-abuse problems as well - they are as much symptoms of our society than of the individual.

The point being made is that it is far too easy to claim that anything is simply "avoidable", and that therefore you deserve no support for having fallen to it.

While I agree in principle with Sand's somewhat utopian ideal that "do what you want, but dont expect the state to pay for the problems", I would be the first to admit that such an ideal is unworkable.

Its all very well for us to throw the sorry cases out on the street as "their own fault", but how many accidents and illnesses are genuinely unavoidable? Ultimately, very few.

While it may be easy to do, picking one group and saying "you dont deserve help - you brought this on yourself" is really only fair if you're going to apply it across the board. Of course, if fairness isnt an issue, then the addicts are an easy target.

jc

simon_partridge

Incidentally, does anyone know what the cannabis-use statistics for Holland actually are? Do they have more people using it because it's freely available, or maybe less people use it as it's become commonplace and therefore not "rebellious" to do so there?

One definite advantage of their system was evident during Euro 2000 when England "fans" (hooligans) went on the rampage before and after the alcohol fuelled game in Belgium, but were far too spaced and chilled out to do any damage after taking pot in Holland.

bonkey

Originally posted by simon_partridge
Incidentally, does anyone know what the cannabis-use statistics for Holland actually are? Do they have more people using it because it's freely available, or maybe less people use it as it's become commonplace and therefore not "rebellious" to do so there?

There seems to be some disagreement over the significance of figures coming from the Dutch about their usage statistics.

A google search on "cannabis statistics Netherlands" yields plenty of hits, and the general consensus I'm getting from browsing the figures is best summed up by a paragraph from one article :

However, cannabis use also developed in waves in other European countries. Apparently, general national trends in cannabis use are relatively independent of cannabis policy. To date, cannabis use in the Netherlands takes a middle position within the European Union. Apparently most cannabis use is experimental and recreational. The vast majority quits using cannabis after some time. Only a very small proportion of current cannabis users is in treatment. From international comparison, it is concluded that trends in cannabis use in the Netherlands are rather similar to those in other European countries, and Dutch figures on cannabis use are not out of line with those from countries that did not decriminalise cannabis. Consequently, it appears unlikely that decriminalisation of cannabis will cause an increase in cannabis use.

What I feel is missing from these figures is what I would term "transient usage" - or non-residents of the nation using cannabis. I think it is pretty much beyond question that Amsterdam would cater for a large number of tourists who want a smoke - far more than comparable cities where tourists would have to find a dealer rather than a shop, if you see what I mean.

Of course, whether or not such transient use is statistically important from a health/addiction/abuse point of view is a much dodgier question.

The other thing that I have noticed is that while usage figures look at percentages of the population, they dont seem to adress consumption per individual - while decriminalisation may not significantly effect the number of users, it may effect the average quantity used per individual, which is probably a significant statistic.

Interestingly, I found a link here which would seem to show that Ireland ranks near the top for "have used cannabis" and "have used cannabis recently" figures, particularly amongst the younger generations. In fact - we are highter ranked than the Dutch in each of these categories, although the figures only deal with 15-16 year olds.

jc

Ajnag

intresting reading, holland is fairly good by the look of things, 13th in use of cannabis, and 27 th in heroin.

http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v02/n1435/a05.html?1064

bonkey

Originally posted by Ajnag
intresting reading, holland is fairly good by the look of things, 13th in use of cannabis, and 27 th in heroin.

Id be curious, though, to see how individual cities rank up against each other, rather than entire nations.

I would imagine that there could be some interesting figures from that....

jc

My name is Mud

According to the lonely planet guides, 'hardline' Paris has a higher level of Heroin addicts per 1000 than 'tolerating' Amsterdam. France also has some of the harshest penalties in Europe relating to drugs.

Also to note that Amsterdam has one of the lowest rates of HIV/AIDS infections due to clean needle exchange programmes.

Alcohol kills alot of people every year, and I think nobody to date has every died from Cannabis (not saying that inhaling hot somke is good for you:))