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.Originally Posted by Darcy88
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.
"L'art de la statistique est de tirer des conclusions erronèes a partir de chiffres exacts." Napoléon Bonaparte.
"Je crois que beaucoup de gens sont dans cet état d’esprit: au fond, ils ne sentent pas concernés par l’Histoire. Mais pourtant, de temps à autre, l’Histoire pose sa main sur eux." Michel Houellebecq.
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.
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.
Before sunlight can shine through a window, the blinds must be raised - American Proverb
[QUOTE=Paulclem;1112567]
You have just highlighted the the nub of the problem.Legalisation might take away the forbidden fruit aspect of it and puncture the egoism of users.
"L'art de la statistique est de tirer des conclusions erronèes a partir de chiffres exacts." Napoléon Bonaparte.
"Je crois que beaucoup de gens sont dans cet état d’esprit: au fond, ils ne sentent pas concernés par l’Histoire. Mais pourtant, de temps à autre, l’Histoire pose sa main sur eux." Michel Houellebecq.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"L'art de la statistique est de tirer des conclusions erronèes a partir de chiffres exacts." Napoléon Bonaparte.
"Je crois que beaucoup de gens sont dans cet état d’esprit: au fond, ils ne sentent pas concernés par l’Histoire. Mais pourtant, de temps à autre, l’Histoire pose sa main sur eux." Michel Houellebecq.
Hahaha. What?
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.
I also offered to provide evidence. Want some?
It's safer:
People are rotting in jail for it:
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.
They're hideous too:
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.
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.
Looks like Canada is getting gyped.
Lots. I'm at work right now, but I'll dig around tomorrow night when I'm at home.
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!
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."
Oh my god, I almost died. Those damn kids with their Cyndi Lauper! *shakes fist*
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.
Last edited by JuniperWoolf; 02-06-2012 at 09:33 AM.
__________________
"Personal note: When I was a little kid my mother told me not to stare into the sun. So once when I was six, I did. At first the brightness was overwhelming, but I had seen that before. I kept looking, forcing myself not to blink, and then the brightness began to dissolve. My pupils shrunk to pinholes and everything came into focus and for a moment I understood. The doctors didn't know if my eyes would ever heal."
-Pi
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.
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.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.
"L'art de la statistique est de tirer des conclusions erronèes a partir de chiffres exacts." Napoléon Bonaparte.
"Je crois que beaucoup de gens sont dans cet état d’esprit: au fond, ils ne sentent pas concernés par l’Histoire. Mais pourtant, de temps à autre, l’Histoire pose sa main sur eux." Michel Houellebecq.
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?
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.
Last edited by Alexander III; 02-06-2012 at 09:09 AM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
