Legal Marijuana

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Neely, how do you know pot belong legalized would be so detrimental to the UK.

I think it's just a matter of time before it's legalized in the states. A long matter if time, but I think it'll happen eventually. All public poles I've seen on the issue are for legalization, and the people who are for it just keeps growing.

For me, it comes down to this. When we're talking about pot, a drug scientifically shown to be no more dangerous than cigarettes or alcohol, I think people should be allowed to decide for themselves whether or not they want to use it. End of story.

[smerdyakov]

I think the above poster has got to the knub of it. It's about choice, pro or anti.
Ok, maybe some people binge smoke cannabis, teenagers for example and they might develop problems from it. But if the thing is regulated properly like the medicinal cannabis project in California right now (to all intents and purposes this is unreserved legalisation) I don't see a problem. And besides, all the tax money being repatriated back into the economy, isn't it better than criminals getting the money? Don't buy into the fear mongering that the world will go to hell in a hand basket if it is legalised. It won't. People will just have the choice to smoke if they want or not rather than being criminalised over it (remember 10 for 2 in the States - that guy got a bigger custodial sentence than a rapist would get - for two joints - 10 years, what an absolute insanity is that?).

And no, it won't be sold in Tesco...

[Darcy88]

I've met hardened criminals, one a likely murderer, who derive much of their income from marijuana. Anti-marijuana legislation is responsible for far more suffering than the drug itself. Those Mexican cartels deal not only with cocaine but with marijuana as well, and the rivers of blood they spill can in part be traced back to the laws prohibiting the free and legal cultivation and trade of a relatively harmless naturally occurring PLANT.

Oil companies annihilate the pristine natural beauty of entire regions, natural gas companies that frack pump toxic chemicals into the groundwater, tobacco companies profit from pushing a lethal poison, alcohol companies sell a substance linked to 75000 deaths each year in America alone, and the government throws people in prison for cultivating a plant that God himself sowed in the earth.

[BienvenuJDC]

I've met hardened criminals, one a likely murderer, who derive much of their income from marijuana. Anti-marijuana legislation is responsible for far more suffering than the drug itself. Those Mexican cartels deal not only with cocaine but with marijuana as well, and the rivers of blood they spill can in part be traced back to the laws prohibiting the free and legal cultivation and trade of a relatively harmless naturally occurring PLANT.

Oil companies annihilate the pristine natural beauty of entire regions, natural gas companies that frack pump toxic chemicals into the groundwater, tobacco companies profit from pushing a lethal poison, alcohol companies sell a substance linked to 75000 deaths each year in America alone, and the government throws people in prison for cultivating a plant that God himself sowed in the earth.

I didn't think that you believed in God.

[Darcy88]

I didn't think that you believed in God.

I don't know. You're right, I really don't. I try. Most often to no avail. Sometimes I manage to pretend, but that's not really belief. I meant its natural and if you believe in God you have to wonder why he'd spread the seed of this supposedly wicked herb. Its seeds are incredibly nutritious, full of healthy proteins and fatty acids, and you better believe our early ancestors ate the bud right off the stem.

[BienvenuJDC]

I don't know. You're right, I really don't. I try. Most often to no avail. Sometimes I manage to pretend, but that's not really belief. I meant its natural and if you believe in God you have to wonder why he'd spread the seed of this supposedly wicked herb. Its seeds are incredibly nutritious, full of healthy proteins and fatty acids, and you better believe our early ancestors ate the bud right off the stem.

I do believe that everything has its purpose. I also believe that it is our responsibility to use all things responsibly. You just have to be careful with using that argument consistently. Just as the old man in The Count of Monte Cristo philosophized that everything in moderation was profitable. I can't remember how exactly he said it though.

[Paulclem]

I think the above poster has got to the knub of it. It's about choice, pro or anti.
Ok, maybe some people binge smoke cannabis, teenagers for example and they might develop problems from it. But if the thing is regulated properly like the medicinal cannabis project in California right now (to all intents and purposes this is unreserved legalisation) I don't see a problem. And besides, all the tax money being repatriated back into the economy, isn't it better than criminals getting the money? Don't buy into the fear mongering that the world will go to hell in a hand basket if it is legalised. It won't. People will just have the choice to smoke if they want or not rather than being criminalised over it (remember 10 for 2 in the States - that guy got a bigger custodial sentence than a rapist would get - for two joints - 10 years, what an absolute insanity is that?).

And no, it won't be sold in Tesco...

There will definately be problems if cannabis is legalised. There is anecdotal and medical evidence that it causes the onset of serious mental illness that renders the person incapable of an unsupported life - as has been discussed. Having said that, this is happening anyway. The war on drugs cost us with no effect, and you're right; the illegality of the drug merely opens the markets to criminals, as prohibition did.

So how to proceed? Legalisation would put criminals out of business. Revenues could be taxed and put into support for those who be will and who are already adversely affected by the drug, and others. It might seem that this would be a rocky road to the decriminalisation of all drugs. It might, and that might be the better option for the same reasons.

I don't think you're going to end up with a society full of dope headed no hopers. There are those anyway. Most people try stuff, but then leave it. It might just be the better option of the two, but then society would have to become more responsible for those who do suffer from it.

I don't support drugs, nor do I want legalisation for my own use. It just seems that illegality leads to a market for criminals, whilst the rest of us pay for its effects. Anti drug publicity in the past has failed because it lied. More recent campaigns have been more honest. An honest description of why people take drugs - because it's fun - is a better approach than the demonisation. But then the opportunity presents itself to explain the real risks - paranoia, mental illness etc. I also think decriminalisation would remove the mystique around them - forbidden fruit and all that.

There are x factors though. New drugs are being developed all the time to circumvent the law. Legalisation might just open the door to a range of new drugs that could enhance whatever. Sport battles with this. Could it cause more problems than it solves?

[BookBeauty]

I direct all attention to my prior post. It kinda got swallowed up with the debate, I think.

[JuniperWoolf]

There will definately be problems if cannabis is legalised. There is anecdotal and medical evidence that it causes the onset of serious mental illness that renders the person incapable of an unsupported life - as has been discussed.

Careful, anecdotes aren't evidence. I have seen many impartial studies claiming that marijuana isn't as detrimental as the North American governments have been saying for the last century (there's a classic one done in the 40's which I could give a link to, after that there was really no doubt anymore - at least, no educated doubt), but I have yet to see an impartial report claiming that marijuana is even as harmful as alcohol or cigarettes.

I don't think you're going to end up with a society full of dope headed no hopers. There are those anyway. Most people try stuff, but then leave it. It might just be the better option of the two, but then society would have to become more responsible for those who do suffer from it.

I smoke pot, and not to brag like a tool but simply to prove a point, I have a 3.8GPA from the U of A, I donate 10% of my paycheques to charity and I've been co-running an animal rehabilitation center for six years. My dad smokes, and he's a politician and union leader plus a prison guard. My classics prof smokes weed, and he's... well... a professor (a classics professor, but still). Also, since my highschool graduation, I've come to learn that at least six of my teachers smoke weed. Alcohol drinkers and hard drug users are often supported by the state, but marijuana really isn't that debilitating (unless you're a schizophrenic, apparently).

[LitNetIsGreat]

I think the above poster has got to the knub of it. It's about choice, pro or anti.

But there's always a fine line between choice and government legislation. The same could be argued for seatbelts in cars, the use of crash helmets, smoking in public places and so on, it's a circular debate. It could be argued that giving people information and leaving them to decide is not always enough.

And no, it won't be sold in Tesco...

Why not if it's made legal?

...tobacco companies profit from pushing a lethal poison, alcohol companies sell a substance linked to 75000 deaths each year in America alone, and the government throws people in prison for cultivating a plant that God himself sowed in the earth.

Tobacco is a plant too and alcohol is as natural as they come so I don't see the argument there.

Those oil companies will be fined for polluting the environment. Sure, it will be a fraction of their profits and so they are probably better of polluting the environment and paying the fine, but that is the power of big corporations for you and is a different story.

Neely, how do you know pot belong legalized would be so detrimental to the UK.

Because there would be a massive boom in consumption of the vile stuff which is not something I would want to see. It would also give the green light to further drug use, with the same arguments of 'freedom of choice' then becoming applicable to other drugs like heroin and cocaine. People have a right of choice yes?

On a personal level though I just can't be doing with the stuff reeking the whole estate up and groups of people smoking it in public, at the bus stop in gangs around the shops etc - do I really want to see an increase in this? I would have to move to the middle of nowhere if it was foolishly pushed through government. That might sound dramatic or petty but I really can't stand it. What about my rights not to have to be subjected to the smell of it?

[JuniperWoolf]

But there's always a fine line between choice and government legislation. The same could be argued for seatbelts in cars, the use of crash helmets, smoking in public places and so on, it's a circular debate.

What's a "crash helmet?"

Why not if it's made legal?

I'm going to assume that a Tesco is like a grocery store. You can't buy alcohol at a grocery store in North America.

Tobacco is a plant too and alcohol is as natural as they come so I don't see the argument there.

Tobacco and alcohol are legal.

Those oil companies will be fined for polluting the environment. Sure, it will be a fraction of their profits and so they are probably better of polluting the environment and paying the fine, but that is the power of big corporations for you and is a different story.

It's nice to think that they will, isn't it? I live in Alberta. This is us:



They were fined one time in the last decade for getting oil on ducks.

On a personal level though I just can't be doing with the stuff reeking the whole estate up and groups of people smoking it in public, at the bus stop in gangs around the shops etc - do I really want to see an increase in this? I would have to move to the middle of nowhere if it was foolishly pushed through government. That might sound dramatic or petty but I really can't stand it. What about my rights not to have to be subjected to the smell of it?

Seems like a pretty selfish reason for supporting a legislation which causes extremely high levels of gang activity, supports terroism on an international scale and costs the state billions of dollars to maintain unjust prison sentences (thereby not only ruining lives, but also soaking up funding which could be used to support public services).

[LitNetIsGreat]

What's a "crash helmet?"

A motorcycle helmet, it's illegal to ride one without it. Is it not so in Canada?

I'm going to assume that a Tesco is like a grocery store. You can't buy alcohol at a grocery store in North America.

Yes it's a large supermarket. I'm surprised you can't buy alcohol at your version of the same, making two trips to get some wine or beer seems silly.

They were fined one time in the last decade for getting oil on ducks.

Ha, ha. Those oil spaces look massive.

Seems like a pretty selfish reason for supporting a legislation which causes extremely high levels of gang activity, supports terroism on an international scale and costs the state billions of dollars to maintain unjust prison sentences (thereby not only ruining lives, but also soaking up funding which could be used to support public services).

It seems to me that there is a lot of fuss over these drugs. It's not a selfish reason either in one respect because the way things stand I'm in the right, as cannabis smoking is illegal. There would be no gang activity and terrorism over this if people didn't smoke it, so I won't be held to ransom over it. It sounds like when a kid says if I can have this or that, I'll be good, the real world doesn't work like that, even if there are points for the legalisation of it.

The way it stands I'm happy because there is less of the stuff clogging up the streets and to give this drug the green light is to open up the floodgates to a whole host of other problems for sure.

[smerdyakov]

If you read my earlier posts, I stipulated that if it were to be legalised it could not go down the same road as alcohol. Serious regulation would be needed, and perhaps people could be assessed by their doctors as to their suitability for smoking it.

I think you are failing to see the bigger picture here from a utilitarian perspective. The greater good is achieved by legalising it: it greatly reduces crime and the adherent misery it brings to society, taxation money would be repatriated back into the country, people having a choice (the seat-belt analogy is a good one - and it was an information campaign with shocking advertisements that made people think to do it rather than the small mandatory fines - information campaigns in schools and TV on the dangers of binge smoking would have to happen). After all, people who work hard, pay taxes or are in training/education etc should not be deprived of the option of a recreational joint just because some people don't like the smell of it.
Anyway, teenagers could smoke it at home if it were legal without their parents flipping out because of the stigma it carries due to being illegal, and it could be done in a safe, controlled environment.

Weed doesn't make people aggressive like alcohol does, and it is not addictive like alcohol, and there is simply no argument for saying it's a gateway drug. Maybe people would drink less as well, which wouldn't be a bad thing.

[LitNetIsGreat]

If you read my earlier posts, I stipulated that if it were to be legalised it could not go down the same road as alcohol. Serious regulation would be needed, and perhaps people could be assessed by their doctors as to their suitability for smoking it.

Yes I've read your posts, I've read all the posts. I don't quite follow this point though, as it seems that most people are arguing for the drug as a recreational thing and not something to be used for medical purposes. Little Jonny wants to get high while listening to Korn is not going to pass the medical inspection. Also if it is so harmless why the need for such tight regulation? Either it is legal or it is not.

I think you are failing to see the bigger picture here from a utilitarian perspective. The greater good is achieved by legalising it: it greatly reduces crime and the adherent misery it brings to society, taxation money would be repatriated back into the country, people having a choice (the seat-belt analogy is a good one - and it was an information campaign with shocking advertisements that made people think to do it rather than the small mandatory fines - information campaigns in schools and TV on the dangers of binge smoking would have to happen). After all, people who work hard, pay taxes or are in training/education etc should not be deprived of the option of a recreational joint just because some people don't like the smell of it.
Anyway, teenagers could smoke it at home if it were legal without their parents flipping out because of the stigma it carries due to being illegal, and it could be done in a safe, controlled environment.

I can see the bigger picture and I can understand the point but my opinion remains the same.

Weed doesn't make people aggressive like alcohol does, and it is not addictive like alcohol, and there is simply no argument for saying it's a gateway drug. Maybe people would drink less as well, which wouldn't be a bad thing.

It absolutely does open the door for greater drug use. What sort of message does it send out to the population from a political perspective if a government official gives the green light on a drug? Also what of the rights of cocaine users? Of heroin junkies? Don't they have rights too? Individual choice has limits and implications that impact upon everybody in society.

[BookBeauty]

The bottom line is: People will continue to take drugs whether they're illegal or not.

It's far more dangerous for marijuana, and other drugs, to be taken on the black market.



If the government is selling the drugs rather than shady drug dealers on the streets, they will have to be clean and not mixed, as marijuana often is on the black market.

As I have said, at least with legalization, healthcare is more approachable and no hardcore drug addicts are going to jail if they want help for their addictions.

I think turning a blind eye to the problems that society has is not the solution. We have to admit we have a problem, and that the laws aren't making the crimes go away.

If legalization is not the solution, which, of course, I'm willing to admit if another viable solution is given, then something else must supplement the law.

In any case, I would trust the scientific method. Make a trial run, see if it's better than the way things are now. If it is, implement it temporarily, until a better solution is reached.