I probably would actually, but we are not comparing like with like, because sexual desire is inherent and hardly to be compared with wanting to smoke cannabis.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darcy88
Printable View
I probably would actually, but we are not comparing like with like, because sexual desire is inherent and hardly to be compared with wanting to smoke cannabis.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darcy88
I think you're right Neely - no political party will legalise it because they don't have the right fibre. They'd rather polarise the issue along with the press and throw money at a problem that won't go away.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neely
My main concern is the criminality it promotes. Users have been using whether legal or not. I can't see that changing. Legalisation might take away the forbidden fruit aspect of it and puncture the egoism of users.
Society is completely ambivalent about drugs anyway. They are illegal, and yet celebrities and rock stars flaunt its use. Ozzy Osbourne is feted because he didn't manage to kill himself with his excess. Yet some poor geezer with a disease is prohibited from legal use. Double standards? Certainly.
We know that cannabis isn't too much of a problem for most people, though I suspect that users are all too keen to say it's safe when there are people who have suffered from it, and to deny that it is a gateway drug when it does open those doors. It's the other hard drugs that cause the social problems. Yet by criminalising the whole lot, these people can be left on inadequate methodone programmes whilst their poor kids suffer.
Lets legalise the whole lot - take the trade away from criminals, and use the revenue to support those who may have made the wrong choices, but more especially inform kids better and try to give them the heads up about the real dangers of all the drugs - alcohol included.
It won't happen though.
I think what you say is interesting Paulclem. What about people who develop an addiction to prescription drugs? These drugs are already legal.
[QUOTE=Paulclem;1112567]
You have just highlighted the the nub of the problem.Quote:
Legalisation might take away the forbidden fruit aspect of it and puncture the egoism of users.
Some of it must be down to the doctors who prescribe them and acceptable practice. There are always people who can subvert the system though. Michael jackson did, and he would have legal or illegal no doubt. It's difficult as it's not about rationality.Quote:
Originally Posted by Delta40
I've heard that the only proven therapeutic benefits to be had from the use of Cannabis are the alleviation of nausea and loss of appetite.Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulclem
No. I didn't say that. I said if alcohol and cigarettes are legal, so should pot, a drug scientifically chosen to be no worse than alcohol or cigarettes (something the non-supporters seem to make a point of not addressing). Heroine and cocaine are definitely shown to be worse for someone than those three drugs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neely
I'm just for consistency. Alcohol and cigarettes are legal, why not pot? I've seen no rational argument here again it being legalized (I may have missed something). Alcohol and tobacco have been a part of cultures for thousands of year while pot hasn't. So? What does that even matter?
Someone, I think a non-supporter, said that if it was legalized that use may go down because the forbiddenness of it is a drawing da ore for many people, especially the young. I agree . . . which is another reason it should ne legalized.
It's supposed to help alleviate the pain of...MS I think. There have been court cases where a chap with it wanted to be able to take it legally. There have been experiments since. I don't know lot about it though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darcy88
The available evidence seems to point to alleviating certain medical conditions. But there is a wealth of difference in someone taking it for medical purposes and youthful vanity taking it because pop singers take it illegally.Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulclem
Hahaha. What?Quote:
Originally Posted by Emil Miller
Do you drink Emil? Have you ever? Its the same thing. Or I guess some would have us obey the law even when that law is irrational and unjust.
I can almost see Emil sitting on his porch in a rocking chair, yelling at the neighbor kids because their ball rolled into his yard.Quote:
Originally Posted by Emil Miller
I also offered to provide evidence. Want some?Quote:
Originally Posted by Emil Miller
It's safer:
http://hempnews.tv/wp-content/upload...ngdangers1.png
People are rotting in jail for it:
http://norml.org/share/marijuana_arrests_chart468.gif
I don't think so, sometimes people wear helmets and sometimes they don't. If it is a law, it's one of those ones that's impossible to enforce in Canada because we have too few people (which also means too few cops) over such a large area.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neely
They're hideous too:Quote:
Originally Posted by Neely
http://daerangall.ca/wordpress/wp-co.../tarsands3.jpg
It's annoying, usually there's a liquor store at least near the grocery store, but sometimes there isn't and you have to trek to the other side of town.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neely
That's just not reality. I'm pro-abortion for the exact same reason: if you make a law against it, people will do it anyway and they will f*ck it up and cause a lot of damage. If it isn't illegal, it's safer. Since it isn't illegal here, the police don't turn too heavy an eye on the growers so we buy from people we know (haha, one of the ladies who sells it in town owns a flower shop and grows weed in her greenhouses), however in other countries where it's far more strict people want to smoke anyway so they'll buy from shady freaks and that money will eventually find it's way to very dangerous people to fund horrible things. Saying "well they shouldn't do it anyway" is meaningless, that's a fantasy world.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neely
Looks like Canada is getting gyped.Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
Lots. I'm at work right now, but I'll dig around tomorrow night when I'm at home.Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulclem
He's got a point, all of the anti-legalization people on this thread happen to be British. It's possible that Britain isn't there yet. Yaaay, cultural differences on litnet!Quote:
Originally Posted by Neely
I don't think so, it's not a "forbidden fruit" here, we smoke it because we like it. The stigma that seems to be attached to marijuana in the UK isn't the same as in Canada, neither are considered "drugs." People who drink at parties and smoke on weekends don't usually think to themselves "whelp, guess it's heroin next."Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulclem
:smilielol5: Oh my god, I almost died. Those damn kids with their Cyndi Lauper! *shakes fist*Quote:
Originally Posted by Emil Miller
There are vast multitudes of older people who are pro-legalization, litnet simply has a high number of 18-25 posters. So far, we've got two older people and one younger person anti-legalization, and we've got two older and maybe five younger people who are pro-legislation. As I've said multiple times, the "young people are stupid!" argument does not hold a drop.
In democratic countries, governments and their advisers decide what is going to be legal or illegal. Once a law has passed onto the statute, it remains until it is changed. If someone disagrees with it they are duty bound to obey it until it is repealed. It's the basis of western civilisation, without which, all our freedoms would be undermined.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darcy88
Methinks the young lady doth protest too much. Nevertheless, young people, with notable exceptions, aren't stupid but they are impressionable and therein lies the cause of this particular problem.Quote:
As I've said multiple times, the "young people are stupid!" argument does not hold a drop.
As for those rotting in jail for it, the answer's clear: if you don't want to do the time, don't commit the crime.
Juniper, it's obviously not worth the time to make good arguments backed by facts, at least for Emil's sake, because he doesn't seem to want to acknowledge them.
Ok I knew I said adieu to this conversation but --- seriously emil?Quote:
Originally Posted by Emil Miller
Maybe that is why you critisize so much democracy, because you actualy don't get it?
For nations (the E.U and America) that relish and use the word Freedom so often, I am astounded by how suprisingly litttle our general populations know of what actual freedom is.
Methinks Emil doth seek attention. I'm starting to seriously think that these poorly-constructed jibes from the sidelines are simply how you get your rocks off. Still, you're not very good at it, so there's no harm in it I suppose - although you do continuously detract from the topic of discussion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Emil Miller
Yeah, I agree completely. I used to get into all sorts of debates about the definition of "freedom." I don't get why, it seems like a very straightforward concept to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexander III
My criticism isn't aimed at democracy but at 'liberal democracy' which leads to people breaking the laws drawn up by their elected representatives after due consultation with those who have the available information on the subject.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexander III
The fact that it isn't illegal to possess and use pot in California so long as you have a doctor's authorization is a concession by the Federal Gov't that pot's Schedule 1 status, that pot is addictive and has no medicinal value, is somewhat dubious. I don't know how else you read that.
Which means, that the issue has to be economic and cultural. Science has little to do with it, IMO.
Ten pages before Emil had to throw that dirty word "liberal" in there. A new record?
Unfortunately there are those who don't know the difference between liberty and license.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandi
So were we born a hundred years ago, you would be the man sending me a white feather in the mail, because I refused to die for king and country?Quote:
Originally Posted by Emil Miller
No, that line of reasoning does not hold, for then you'd be required to obey any law, no matter how unjust, and we know that governments pass unjust laws all the time. A man is entitled to act in accordance with his conscience, nothing else. If obeying an unjust law makes no impact on one's life, then sure, go ahead and submit. But people really enjoy marijuana, its a prominent part of my nation's culture, and as Juniper illustrated with that graph - the drug is as harmless as caffeine 99 percent of the time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Emil Miller
Damn. Here they be having helicopters flying all around. They check the hydro-meter. If you get caught with a significant amount you go to jail.Quote:
Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf
Wikipedia says that its cultivation is currently illegal in Canada and it says the overall legal status of marijuana is in dispute.
I think the neo-cons have beat a hasty retreat :D Now pass that over here....
Damn, you pro-marijuana people sure are robust and forceful in argument, rather than lethargic. Damn, "Reefer Madness" was wrong!
I think the attitudes to Cannabis are probably the same here as Canada. Smokers in the past - when I was out and about-had much the same attitude, and use is more widespread now.Quote:
Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf
What I meant by forbidden fruit is the initial attraction - but not just cannabis, but harder drugs too. I'm thinking of younger people than you - kids - later teens, who are perhaps more impetuous/ less informed.
People who drink at parties and smoke on weekends don't usually think to themselves "whelp, guess it's heroin next."
The fact is that drug use opens circles of people to each other. My experience is that once you start, you naturally come into contact with people who smoke and can offer you other stuff. There's nothing mysterious about it, and it doesn't remove choice, but it is there and it is an influence.
Where advertising in the past has gone wrong is again to demonise users/ drug use. When you meet ordinary people who are fine, and who have experience of these things, it can have a powerful effect in contrast to the expectations engendered by popuar perceptions. I met nice, interesting people. With little experience, it is very easy to equate "nice" and "interesting" with right.
When I look back, I see these egotistical people revelling in their "experience" and doling out cod advice and spouting product descriptions as well as any car salesman, when in actual fact they knew little. There was also an odd transitoryness to those relationships, which now makes me question the nature of the friendships that arose out of them. One of the reasons I'd suport legalisation is to get rid of these self appointed experts, who actually have no interest in the well being of the people they deal with. (I'm not talking about friendships that have arisen in the usual way, but these drug circle friendships).
Laws are influenced by lobbyists and very often drafted by those lobbyists. Your description comes across as incredibly naive.Quote:
Originally Posted by Emil Miller
As I thought cannabis has recently moved up a category in fear that the government were sending out the wrong message regarding this smelly drug.
Quote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7845023.stm
On 29th January 2004, cannabis had been reclassified from a Class B to a Class C drug in the UK, but as of Jan 26th 2009, it was reclassified it back to Class B.
NOW: CLASS B CANNABIS
Illegal.
If you are under 18, you will be arrested and given a formal warning.
Up to 5 years in jail for possession
Up to 14 years in jail for supplying or dealing
Before: CLASS C CANNABIS
It's still illegal
If you are under 18, you will be arrested and given a formal warning
Up to 2 years in jail for possession
Up to 14 years in jail for supplying or dealing
It matters simply because alcohol and tobacco have legal status and cannabis doesn’t. It is quite possible, even likely, that that tobacco would not be legal given what we know about it now. This just highlights the dangers of legalisation. For once the door is open that’s that.Quote:
I'm just for consistency. Alcohol and cigarettes are legal, why not pot? I've seen no rational argument here again it being legalized (I may have missed something). Alcohol and tobacco have been a part of cultures for thousands of year while pot hasn't. So? What does that even matter?
It ultimately doesn’t matter, if it is safer, it is still a drug and no sensible person/government minister is going to open it up and encourage people to smoke it, no matter how safe people claim it is.Quote:
I also offered to provide evidence. Want some?
It's safer:...
If the government here have reclassified the drug in order to send out a more powerful message, which in my opinion is the right decision, then why on earth are they likely to legalise it completely, for what sort of line does that take on other drugs too?
Besides there are plenty of contrasting reports on cannabis. Here's a segment from the BBC Health page:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/health/emotiona...cannabis.shtml
Not something the health secretary is going to push forward.Quote:
Risks of cannabis
There's increasing evidence that cannabis use is linked to a number of health risks. It damages the ability to concentrate, decreases motivation and more than occasional use in teenagers can affect psychological development. Users can become anxious, suspicious and even paranoid. Heavy use increases the risk of serious psychiatric illness.
Users of skunk, a stronger and increasingly more available form of cannabis, are seven times more likely to develop a psychotic illness, such as schizophrenia, than people not using cannabis or using the more traditional forms. Cannabis also interferes with coordination, causing problems with balance, walking and driving.
There are other side effects of the drug, but they vary considerably and are less predictable, partly because cannabis has more than 400 active ingredients. They may include effects on the heart, such as increased heart rate and blood pressure, and damage to fertility. People who smoke cannabis are also exposed to the toxic chemicals in tobacco smoke.
People may become dependent on cannabis and find it difficult to stop using it, experiencing unpleasant withdrawal symptoms if they do stop such as cravings, agitation, mood changes, sleep problems, appetite disturbance and other symptoms.
:lol: Neo-con, if you would believe it I do work sometimes too, I can't just sit around all day like you potheads smoking dope and surfing litnet!Quote:
I think the neo-cons have beat a hasty retreat Now pass that over here....
Which governments are you referring to? Here in the UK, laws have to receive a majority vote in parliament before they can be enacted so there is nothing unjust about it. While some teenagers of various ages may take cannabis, it is not a major part of the UK's culture and I don't see the medical advisers to the government recommending something that will merely exacerbate a problem with smoking that they have successfully been campaigning against for decades.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darcy88
No, laws are drafted by the government's lawyers regardless of lobbyists. The situation might be different in other countries but not here.Quote:
Laws are influenced by lobbyists and very often drafted by those lobbyists. Your description comes across as incredibly naive.
If you are interested, you might do well to read my book, it will tell you a good deal about the way politics and the law operated in the UK up until the last Labour government that made certain structural changes to the legal system.
I've read about how they've been quite humourless on the BC coast (even though it grows wild in many places). Apparently, most of the Canadian weed in the United States was traced back to BC. Political pressure, blah blah blah.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darcy88
It's been f'ing "in dispute" for like, ten years now. People don't even know what's legal and what isn't, and the legality of certain actions vary from province to province. What a clown show.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darcy88
No one said anything about "encouraging" people to do anything (except for when you said that the gov't should "encourage" people not to smoke, which is comparable). You never answered my question, by the way - do you drink?Quote:
Originally Posted by Neely
Haha, suuuuure... Britain: home of the world's only honorable politicians.Quote:
Originally Posted by Emil Miller
Well what do you think legalising something is going to do, of course it is going to encourage drug use, especially if Tesco's get hold of it?Quote:
No one said anything about "encouraging" people to do anything. You never answered my question, by the way - do you drink?
I thought that was a rhetorical question, of course I drink, what do you think I do in all of those pubs I'm always posting pictures of?
Also see the Belgian Beer thread - art in a glass. (All legal)
That's not "encouraging" use, that's simply commerce. Do they "encourage" you to buy string cheese? I bet you could pick up a can at Tesco. It's your choice whether to buy it or not (as it should be).Quote:
Originally Posted by Neely
Buy why? Isn't it "damaging to your health?" Doesn't drinking cause problems for society? What value is there in it? (besides that wishy-washy "one glass of red wine a day" argument)Quote:
Originally Posted by Neely
Basically, why should you be allowed to indulge YOUR drug of choice, but if I indulge mine, I could get sent to prison for fourteen years? Where's the justice in that?
Marijuana is just better, no hangovers, no vomiting, no violence, no headaches, no loss of inhibition (aka. slutty drunk people), no passing out, you can't OD and the addiction factor is practically nil. There's absolutely no sane reason why a person should be sent to prison for over a decate for having a joint on them. If you can't see that, then I simply don't understand your point of view. What you seem to be saying is "it's smelly." So... okay then. You're pushing for social stagnation and promoting a nanny state, which doesn't bother me as much because you're not in my country, but I still don't get it.
Also, it sounds like you're trying to make it seem like this is all some fringe idea. According to an impartial poll, the majority of Canadian adults believe that marijuana should be officially legal. We do live in a democratic country, and government efforts to influence the views of the general public on this issue have failed miserably, so I think the law will change (as laws often do - I can't believe I have to say that, but apparently I do). Americans smoke a lot of marijuana too, and they're very liberal in terms of the stuff (even though they could go to prison for it, for some profoundly stupid reason). I'd say they're not far behind us.
Do you seriously believe that the law always equalls justice ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Neely
Anyway, if I posted pictures of me smoking weed in a caffe in amsterdma, would you view it more or less like you posting pictures of you with a beer in a pub, or would you view the former as ilicit behavior and the latter as normal behavior?
Am I the only one who in this thread has suddenly realized just how the majority of Italian and German people went along with what their goverments did in the late 30's
No you are not, but that is a far cry from making a drug illegal. There are some good arguments on both sides, but that statement is far from a good argument. I'd leave that one out of this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexander III
Haha, that thought nagged at my brain part way down the last page, but Bien's right in that it is somewhat hyperbolic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexander III
Lokasenna,Quote:
Originally Posted by Lokasenna
I would be surprised if someone else hasn't mentioned this (I am not going to read hundreds of posts on this issue but was struck by your comments), but have you considered that the late teens and early twenties is a common age for the onset of schizophrenic symptoms with or without drug use? Given the family history, is there some special reason you believe there is a causal connection between the onset of the disease and the marijuana use? Couldn't this just be a fortuitous correlation?
You seem unable to understand a simple statement of fact. I'll repeat it:Quote:
Haha, suuuuure... Britain: home of the world's only honorable politicians.
Laws are drafted by the government's lawyers.
I did not say that there aren't lobbyists in the UK but they do not draft laws.
In any case, if their influence was that strong, the tobacco companies would be queuing up to promote legalisation of cannabis for the reasons that Neely has rightly stated.
If the government gave the green light on cannabis and made it available for general use in the UK tomorrow, then yes there would be a massive boom in consumption of the stuff. This irresponsible act would be akin to encouraging drug use, absolutely.Quote:
That's not "encouraging" use, that's simply commerce. Do they "encourage" you to buy string cheese? I bet you could pick up a can at Tesco. It's your choice whether to buy it or not (as it should be).
Yes drinking and smoking (I don’t smoke) causes massive problems for society which is why I don’t think it is a good idea to introduce a third in cannabis, which may also lead onto harder drugs too.Quote:
Buy why? Isn't it "damaging to your health?" Doesn't drinking cause problems for society? What value is there in it? (besides that wishy-washy "one glass of red wine a day" argument)
It’s hard luck ultimately. It is because alcohol and tobacco (especially alcohol as the vast majority of people in the UK drink) are so imbedded in the culture here and cannabis isn’t.Quote:
Basically, why should you be allowed to indulge YOUR drug of choice, but if I indulge mine, I could get sent to prison for fourteen years? Where's the justice in that?
I’m not pushing for anything I’m merely going about my business. Though if I were an angst teen at the moment I would be pushing for far more important things, like university fees, education cuts, healthcare reforms, youth unemployment, state pension age, etc, etc, though there would be little point anyway, ultimately.Quote:
Marijuana is just better, no hangovers, no vomiting, no violence, no headaches, no loss of inhibition (aka. slutty drunk people), no passing out, you can't OD and the addiction factor is practically nil. There's absolutely no sane reason why a person should be sent to prison for over a decate for having a joint on them. If you can't see that, then I simply don't understand your point of view. What you seem to be saying is "it's smelly." So... okay then. You're pushing for social stagnation and promoting a nanny state, which doesn't bother me as much because you're not in my country, but I still don't get it.
As far as I’m aware in the UK it might as well be a fringe idea. This might be because I’m ‘out of the loop’ with the whole debate, because I don’t have much interest in it, or it could genuinely be because it is a fringe argument here. I know that the current position is ‘no way’ though, so that suits me fine.Quote:
Also, it sounds like you're trying to make it seem like this is all some fringe idea. According to an impartial poll, the majority of Canadian adults believe that marijuana should be officially legal. We do live in a democratic country, and government efforts to influence the views of the general public on this issue have failed miserably, so I think the law will change (as laws often do - I can't believe I have to say that, but apparently I do). Americans smoke a lot of marijuana too, and they're very liberal in terms of the stuff (even though they could go to prison for it, for some profoundly stupid reason). I'd say they're not far behind us.
In most cases yes, in this case yes.Quote:
Do you seriously believe that the law always equalls justice?
I don’t know, strange question, but I wouldn’t think like that. I would see if you looked like I imagined and be interested in the background view of Amsterdam, that's all probably.Quote:
Anyway, if I posted pictures of me smoking weed in a caffe in amsterdma, would you view it more or less like you posting pictures of you with a beer in a pub, or would you view the former as ilicit behavior and the latter as normal behavior?
I will respond to the original intent of your post. I have found occasional marijuana use to be helpful in the composition of music. This is probably not due to the enhancement of creative faculties or to any specific effect of the drug itself, but merely to the change in perspective it affords. You see, sometimes, after hearing the same themes and ideas over and over again it becomes impossible to hear them objectively or to adopt a purely aesthetic stance toward them—that is, to hear them afresh as a listener might rather than as a craftsman. I have found that being able to step out of the latter role and to hear my work from the outside, as it were, opens up my thought processes. After a few tokes it sometimes happens that a passage that has stumped me all week, one for which I can't conceive a satisfying continuation, suddenly completes itself in my imagination as if it is playing itself. When this happens the drug also seems to help in focusing rapt concentration on the problem of capturing what I have heard.Quote:
Originally Posted by tonywalt