Cannabis should be legalized in Ireland To pull Our country out of ression

ISAW

Buceph wrote: »

That's not entirely true, as that would amount to the courts legislating, which they're prohibited from doing. Past case law has to have a direct causal line equivalent to the case in question. Case law cannot remove another law,

I didn't argue it could.
I stated that "this is only about cannabis" isn't true because in order to accept the laws about cannabis you have to accept the whole body of laws and decisions made about them. If a principle is made about one set of laws that principle can be applied to tother laws. This isnt just a legal argument it is a philosophical one in other words the arguments made are not necessarily legally binding or only to do with legally binding issues, although the issue is ultimately one of a cannabis law.

In the case of criminal laws about drugs they can be analysed in terms of why criminal laws exist and whether they are fair and just. In doing so they can be compared to other laws about say sexual behaviour in order to elucidate the principle behind the law.

Saying that cannabis being legalised must amount to herion being legalised is a rubbish notion,

Where did I say that?
I didnt argue for free heroin!

I said that if the principle being advanced to remove the law on cannabis is "allow people to have unrestricted access to something which may harm them but that is their own risk to take" then this principle can be applied in principle to heroine or anything else.

that has no effect in reality as they each stand on their own. Otherwise people wouldn't be arguing the peculiarities of cannabis in comparison to alcohol as legislation for legalisation would be a fait accompli.

In fact people are arguing that! they are saying that alcohol is more damaging than cannabis so why no legalise cannabis.
To which I say "so maybe is heroine or prostitution" but people don't argue that they should be legalised just because they are less harmful than alcohol do they?

As I stated it isnt just a case of the law (althought there are laws on cannabis prostitution and alcohol) it is a case opf the philosophical basis of whether a principle behind the law is reasonable.

In this case one principle is "allow people to have unrestricted access to something which may harm them but that is their own risk to take". But we don't even do this for alcohol!

ISAW

Buceph wrote: »

You're looking for a single compelling, black and white reason for something to be done.

Im doing nothing of the sort!

I'm showing people that when they propose something they had better be able to support it! I ask for the principle behind it and if thet principle can be exposed as insufficient then there isnt a good reason to change the law is there?

That's quite naive. There are relatively few areas where things are absolute. And to base all your arguments on such logic is to betray the complexity of the question at hand and results in an obtuse refusal to engage in a constructive discussion.

LOL! Elsewhere relativists try to fudge the issue.

Is an entirely sane adult having sex with a child of say six always wrong?
There is an absolute for you!

I don't base my position on anything. I ask others to propose their reasons as to why cannabis should be legalised
Now is you are going to say cannabis should not be about absolutes and should be considered relative to other illegal things then why not compare it to prostitution alcohol child abuse or other drugs?

Buceph

ISAW wrote: »

snip

That would be fine if you looked at the totality of the effect. Instead you're taking minor elements and spinning them out to massive effect, something that can't be done if you're going to respect the argument.

I don't see the argument as "let people do whatever, as long as they're the only one harmed" as the knock-on effects are impossible to see. The argument I see is "Let people do whatever, as long as the broad effects of what's done is limited to a degree that is socially acceptable."

You argued that legalising cannabis with an intention to reduce crime is not applicable because legalising prostitution to reduce crime isn't the correct route. How absurd do you want to take the effects of that? That decriminalising cannabis is akin to decriminalising rape, murder and theft. You're not even looking at the elemental parts of the argument, you're looking at elements of elements of the argument. It would be like arguing for banning the glow-in-the-dark watches because part of them is used in nuclear bombs. On the surface that looks great, but it doesn't apply to the realities of the situation.

You're picking and choosing to the effect of misrepresenting words and arguments . And that's pure tabloid-ism and I don't think it should apply for any honest discussion.

Buceph

ISAW wrote: »

LOL! Elsewhere relativists try to fudge the issue.

Is an entirely sane adult having sex with a child of say six always wrong?
There is an absolute for you!

Right and wrong? Are we talking about morals or laws?

ISAW

Cosimo Salvatore wrote: »

W But if this thread is, as you say, " about the principle of legalisation of cannabis particularly for revenue generation "

Then why do you keep bringing heroin into the equation ? What has heroin got to do with, as you say, the legalisation of cannabis, particulary for revenue generation ?

If a principle can be applied to cannabis one can reasonably ask why it should not apply to other things in order to understand the reasonableness of the principle.

Similarly we could look at non revenue generating reasons such as whether drug use improves or otherwise the nation's mental health.

And you are painting me as someone who doesn't care about your opinion. You are again WRONG! i do care and i care that it is reasonable.

Look at this:
All fish live in the sea.
Sharks live in the sea..
Therefore, sharks are fish.

I don't want you because you accept the conclusion then figure the reasoning underlying it must be right! See? It isn't! Even if you believe sharks are fish.

ISAW

Buceph wrote: »

Right and wrong? Are we talking about morals or laws?

Both. The question is is it morally or otherwise acceptable for society to allow people to do as they want? given we restrict people then we have to decide where to draw the lines. given we drew the line at cannabis where is the evidence that we should now move that line?

ISAW

Buceph wrote: »

That would be fine if you looked at the totality of the effect. Instead you're taking minor elements and spinning them out to massive effect, something that can't be done if you're going to respect the argument.

I have been over this before.

One can point to a general principle and take specific examples.
i.e. move from the general case to the particular
That is what I am doing.

One cant do the opposite and insist because this swan is white that all swans are white.
that is nto what I am doing i.e. moving from the particular to the general.

I am illustrating the general principle of "unrestriction" and how it is argued that it is good in the case of cannabis. but if it isnt god in the case of heroine then it isn't a valid general principle!

I don't see the argument as "let people do whatever, as long as they're the only one harmed" as the knock-on effects are impossible to see. The argument I see is "Let people do whatever, as long as the broad effects of what's done is limited to a degree that is socially acceptable."

Prostitution heroine and cannabis use are not acceptable to all the leaders of all the political parties.

You argued that legalising cannabis with an intention to reduce crime is not applicable because legalising prostitution to reduce crime isn't the correct route. How absurd do you want to take the effects of that? That decriminalising cannabis is akin to decriminalising rape, murder and theft.

Indeed yes! If the reason given is one of removing a crime! in fact if all crime was abolished there would be no crime of rape or murder but I submit society would not be the better for it.

You're not even looking at the elemental parts of the argument, you're looking at elements of elements of the argument. It would be like arguing for banning the glow-in-the-dark watches because part of them is used in nuclear bombs. On the surface that looks great, but it doesn't apply to the realities of the situation.

If indeed they are highly radioactive why not ban them as a cancer causing agent?

You're picking and choosing to the effect of misrepresenting words and arguments . And that's pure tabloid-ism and I don't think it should apply for any honest discussion.

You are saying I am dishonest now! Careful that is a personal attack!

i am taking on ever issue point reason and piece of evidence raised about the legalisation of cannabis.

It seem all you can now resort to is attacking the person rather then the issue. Do you always resort to shooting the messenger when you don't like the message?

Buceph

ISAW wrote: »

If a principle can be applied to cannabis one can reasonably ask why it should not apply to other things in order to understand the reasonableness of the principle.

I'm not dealing in principles. I don't know why you want to deal with principles. Principles are dealt with in broad strokes, not specific details of every individual case. Show me a constitution, the closest we get to dealing in rights, that goes into exact detail of what is and isn't and what should and shouldn't. It doesn't happen. People have the foresight to understand that such principles can't be spelled out like that, and that it's rare that they should apply absolutely. So you have to look at the merits in each case.

So you're saying the principle of "legalising x because it decreases crime" can be applied to other things, when others are simply saying "we should legalise x because it reduces y and given all other factors that's a beneficial thing." They're not looking at a principle, they're looking at a multitude of reasonings.

You seem to have a weird desire to boil this down to an absolutist stance, where even in the child rape case you had to add specificity to avoid being irrational, and even in that case you couldn't come up with a cast iron situation of something being wrong (presuming you're putting the blame of doing a misdeed on the adult, rather than talking about a broad situation where something is seen as "sad" or unfortunate.) You're talking in principles and absolutes. What about the situation where a father is forced to rape a daughter or they'll all be killed? I'm fairly certain you can't deal in absolutes there.

Buceph

ISAW wrote: »

i am taking on ever issue point reason and piece of evidence raised about the legalisation of cannabis.

Yes, but you're not dealing with it in the way it was presented. You're taking one part in a multitude of parts that make up an overall argument, and applying it to other situations that have no baring on the broad situation of cannabis legislation.

ISAW

Buceph wrote: »

I'm not dealing in principles.

That much is clear!

I don't know why you want to deal with principles.

I think I explained why - because they are the philosophical basis for laws.

Principles are dealt with in broad strokes, not specific details of every individual case.

Exactly - like general principles which can be illustrated by specific examples.

Show me a constitution, the closest we get to dealing in rights, that goes into exact detail of what is and isn't and what should and shouldn't. It doesn't happen.

Indeed it doesn't we go by principles and allow the courts to decide whether unstated examples are specific cases of that general principle - they are called unenumerated rights.

People have the foresight to understand that such principles can't be spelled out like that, and that it's rare that they should apply absolutely. So you have to look at the merits in each case.

And the case is interpreted and the unenumerated right is decided upon as relating to the general principle

So you're saying the principle of "reducing x because it decreases crime" can be applied to other things, when others are simply saying "we should reduce x because it reduces y and given all other factors that's a beneficial thing." They're not looking at a principle, they're looking at a multitude of reasonings.

Care to enumerate this multitude?
I went throught all the reasons and ther are scant that stuck.
I cant think of any that stuch for recreational cannabis us.
Can you give me say five of these "multitude of reasons" for legalising recreational cannabis?

You seem to have a weird desire to boil this down to an absolutist stance,

If you think my having absolute principles is weird that is your problem not mine

where even in the child rape case you had to add specificity to avoid being irrational,

Actually I added it because relativists try to fudge the issue about what an adult or child is.

I not you didn't answer the question. do you believe it is ALWAYS wrong for a sane adult to have sex with a six year old child?

and even in that case you couldn't come up with a cast iron situation of something being wrong

Do you believe it is ALWAYS wrong for a sane adult to have sex with a six year old child? Or is this not a cast iron always wrong case?

What about the situation where a father is forced to rape a daughter or they'll all be killed? I'm fairly certain you can't deal in absolutes there.

So you think it is right in that circumstance?

How about two wrongs don't make a right and you cant do wrong so that good will come of it?

Ive been over this ground before as I have stated. You relativists do try to fudge things. So basically you think it is okay for incest or rape if it is done in circumstances where not committing incest and rape will result in death of both parent and child? In fact didn't we have a similar unenumerated right arising out of the A B C and X cases?

newtadis

isaw is a expert lets just believe him to end this argument someone please close this thread as its getting to be total rubbish talk

ordinarywoman

this ground before as I have stated. You relativists do try to fudge things. So basically you think it is okay for incest or rape if it is done in circumstaIve been overnces where not committing incest and rape will result in death of both parent and child? In fact didn't we have a similar unenumerated right arising out of the A B C and X cases?[/QUOTE]


with all the ridiculous arguments for the past 35 pages you have made...when will you have the maturitiy to realise that this thread is nothing to do with herione, incest rape, prostitution, it is nothing to do with how to argue, shifting the burden of evidence, or proving a falacy.

just because you keep writing them doesn't make your arguement an arguement.

ISAW

newtadis wrote: »

isaw is a expert lets just believe him to end this argument someone please close this thread as its getting to be total rubbish talk

Take that elsewhere. Metadiscussion about closing a thread isnt for the thread itself. I didn't say "believe me". what I said was "if you have evidence or an argument for legalising cannabis then care to produce it?"

i haven't seen strong evidence yet. the best evidence was only for medical use and there was no supporting evidence that this requires legislation.

ordinarywoman wrote: »

with all the ridiculous arguments for the past 35 pages you have made...when will you have the maturitiy to realise that this thread is nothing to do with herione, incest rape, prostitution, it is nothing to do with how to argue, shifting the burden of evidence, or proving a falacy.

Wrong! It is everything to do with that!
You say "we should legalise cannabis"
I say: "Why? Care to give me some reasons?
You say : well people would prefer to be able to enjoy cannabis without fear of being arrested

It is completely valid for me to say : People might perfer to enjoy heroin or incest or rape without fear of being arrested but that isnt a reason to remove the criminal law on rape incest or heroine is it?

You then asking me to show why there is a heroin law or show how cannabis is harmful is "shifting the burden". I am not making the claim it should be legalised so I don't have to show why! It is completely valid for me to point out these fallacies.

just because you keep writing them doesn't make your arguement an arguement.

But my counter argument is supported by reference to law, logic, reason and medical research. The argument for legalisation of cannabis is only supported by opinion. where is the evidence?
Furthermore saying something about my position is shifting the goalposts - it is for those proposing that cannabis be legalised to provide their case.

where is it?

Bottle_of_Smoke

ISAW wrote: »

Take that elsewhere. Metadiscussion about closing a thread isnt for the thread itself. I didn't say "believe me". what I said was "if you have evidence or an argument for legalising cannabis then care to produce it?"

i haven't seen strong evidence yet. the best evidence was only for medical use and there was no supporting evidence that this requires legislation.





Wrong! It is everything to do with that!
You say "we should legalise cannabis"
I say: "Why? Care to give me some reasons?
You say : well people would prefer to be able to enjoy cannabis without fear of being arrested

It is completely valid for me to say : People might perfer to enjoy heroin or incest or rape without fear of being arrested but that isnt a reason to remove the criminal law on rape incest or heroine is it?You then asking me to show why there is a heroin law or show how cannabis is harmful is "shifting the burden". I am not making the claim it should be legalised so I don't have to show why! It is completely valid for me to point out these fallacies.

where is it?

Jesus could you not just join a f*cking debating club or something.

incest/rape/heroin all have good reason to be illegal, incest as it runs the high risk of a deformed child. Rape because someone is going through being raped and heroin is highly addictive and harmful.

There's no problems with cannabis of a similar magnitude. That's why people make that argument ffs.

ISAW

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Jesus could you not just join a f*cking debating club or something.

incest/rape/heroin all have good reason to be illegal, incest as it runs the high risk of a deformed child. Rape because someone is going through being raped and heroin is highly addictive and harmful.

There's no problems with cannabis of a similar magnitude. That's why people make that argument ffs.

Just because something is more serious does not mean that the principle or logic involved is wrong!

Also, while it is more physically addictive pure Heroin for example may be less harmful than cannabis. Heroine does not damage your body. Cannabis can maybe cause a psychic break particularly if you are inclined to react to psychotic drugs and not to opiates.


And your argument amounts to "cannabis is harmless so it should be legal" Suppose someone says "heroin is harmless" or "pedophilia is harmless" you would react in a different way because most people don't think they are harmless. If your argument is based on what you think most people believe and not on whether something in shown to be true by evidence ( and their is evidence genocide rape murder and cannabis have negative effect) then you don't have much of an argument.

The simple point is some people want some things that people don't consider acceptable. They are banned from doing those things whether that thing is child abuse cannabis or parking on double yellow lines. That does not mean illegal parking is tantamount to genocide but that shifts the issue form principle to one of penalties for the offence.

Bottle_of_Smoke

ISAW wrote: »

Just because something is more serious does not mean that the principle or logic involved is wrong!

Also, while it is more physically addictive pure Heroin for example may be less harmful than cannabis. Heroine does not damage your body. Cannabis can maybe cause a psychic break particularly if you are inclined to react to psychotic drugs and not to opiates.


And your argument amounts to "cannabis is harmless so it should be legal" Suppose someone says "heroin is harmless" or "pedophilia is harmless" you would react in a different way because most people don't think they are harmless. If your argument is based on what you think most people believe and not on whether something in shown to be true by evidence ( and their is evidence genocide rape murder and cannabis have negative effect) then you don't have much of an argument.

The simple point is some people want some things that people don't consider acceptable. They are banned from doing those things whether that thing is child abuse cannabis or parking on double yellow lines. That does not mean illegal parking is tantamount to genocide but that shifts the issue form principle to one of penalties for the offence.

It is not on what people believe. The reality is no one is dying from cannabis use. Very few are suffering health consequences.

Therefore I really resent that my taxes are being wasted on harrassing users at music festivals, paying judges to give stoners minor fines, wasting police resources, paying administrators etc

Most legal drugs have negative effects from painkillers to anti-depressents to cancer drugs to everything in between.

So we look at the magnitude of the these negative effects. Overall I cannot understand why cannabis continues to be illegal when addictive anti-depressants are easily available.

/waits to find out what method of debate I've violated this time :rolleyes:

xsizo

this thread is pointless, there is no way what so ever that cannabis will be legalized Ireland. Just keep dreaming on...


seriously, the more you people talk about this subject the more time you waste.

try to find a new hobby and take your mind of these drugs, I know its not that harmfull and they use it for cancer paitent.

Life is good, there are waaaaay more things you can do other than smoking a joint. if you wanted to smoke so badly, Amsterdam isn;t that far

mikom

xsizo wrote: »

this thread is pointless, there is no way what so ever that cannabis will be legalized Ireland. Just keep dreaming on...


seriously, the more you people talk about this subject the more time you waste.

try to find a new hobby and take your mind of these drugs, I know its not that harmfull and they use it for cancer paitent.

Life is good, there are waaaaay more things you can do other than smoking a joint. if you wanted to smoke so badly, Amsterdam isn;t that far

I'll just leave this here.

xsizo wrote: »

I know this might be old news, but I just went there to check it out and found that the shop was for sale.

damn it, i use to love that place ;/

did they close it because they ran out of business or
because of this?

whoopdedoo

xsizo wrote: »

this thread is pointless, there is no way what so ever that cannabis will be legalized Ireland. Just keep dreaming on...


seriously, the more you people talk about this subject the more time you waste.

try to find a new hobby and take your mind of these drugs, I know its not that harmfull and they use it for cancer paitent.

Life is good, there are waaaaay more things you can do other than smoking a joint. if you wanted to smoke so badly, Amsterdam isn;t that far

I dunno about that to be honest, the eu have already told each and every country they have full powers to bring in their own drug laws and that they estimate the market is worth anything from €60,000,000,000 - €120,000,000,000 between the 27 states. There's also the very loose reneging of Ireland from the Shengin agreement we signed up to to allow us Irish to have legal medical cannabis delivered to Ireland from the Netherlands. I've contacted them and all they need is a prescription from a doc here or an order from a chemist and they'd send it protected by the EU directive and that could force the issue here.

the days of drug prohibition across the EU are numbered when theis type of talk is going on and with services already in place to supply the whole of the EU with medical cannabis.

ISAW

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

It is not on what people believe. The reality is no one is dying from cannabis use. Very few are suffering health consequences.

No one is dying from rape, prostitution, gambling, fraud, embesslement, loaning money to people illegally, parking on double lines, refusing to pay the gas Bill etc. but that isnt a reason to make such behaviour legal is it?

Therefore I really resent that my taxes are being wasted on harrassing users at music festivals, paying judges to give stoners minor fines, wasting police resources, paying administrators etc

But that is a question of operational policy and sentencing or penalties and not one of principle of legality. For example one can also say imprisioning people for refusing to pay a parking ticket or fining them for driving 100 yards in a bus lane is wasting police resources or administration but that isn't a reason to make such behaviour legal is it?

Most legal drugs have negative effects from painkillers to anti-depressents to cancer drugs to everything in between.

Legal and not freely available drugs. Which is why they are restricted to prescription and to medical use! As someone who had cancer drugs
1. you can't just walk in off the street and buy them off the shelf
2. they cost a bloody fortune!
3. They dont make you high they make you knackered so recreational use is out of the question.

So we look at the magnitude of the these negative effects. Overall I cannot understand why cannabis continues to be illegal when addictive anti-depressants are easily available.

But again that is an argument for control of other addictive drugs and not for legalising yet another for free availability.

WHAT anti depressents are freely available by the way

/waits to find out what method of debate I've violated this time :rolleyes:

Touché

ISAW

whoopdedoo wrote: »

the days of drug prohibition across the EU are numbered when theis type of talk is going on and with services already in place to supply the whole of the EU with medical cannabis.

Fair enough but if you are going to do that then have your legal arguments well prepared. You would be dismantled in court if you put up the like of the arguments put up here. I would even be happy to take it on as an issue although you might contact Ming Flanagan TD and inform him of this idea and he might put you straight. However, this is for medical use and not free recreational availability. You can win that moral battle battle but I doubt you could convince most people free drug use is something that is good for society.

ordinarywoman

ISAW wrote: »

i haven't seen strong evidence yet. the best evidence was only for medical use and there was no supporting evidence that this requires legislation.

yes i have already provided numerous links for medical use..the last one had photographic evidence of skin melonoma cured over a ten day period using topical cannabis(see post 1027/pg 69).

ISAW wrote: »

Wrong! It is everything to do with that!
You say "we should legalise cannabis"
I say: "Why? Care to give me some reasons?
You say : well people would prefer to be able to enjoy cannabis without fear of being arrested

people would prefere to not be arressted or live in fear for trying to cure a killer disease, but we've already had this conversation before....and my 'crackpot ideas' and 'biased information' havent changed much since then, just been added to.

ISAW wrote: »

It is completely valid for me to say : People might perfer to enjoy heroin or incest or rape without fear of being arrested but that isnt a reason to remove the criminal law on rape incest or heroine is it?

You then asking me to show why there is a heroin law or show how cannabis is harmful is "shifting the burden". I am not making the claim it should be legalised so I don't have to show why! It is completely valid for me to point out these fallacies.

it amazes me how you have the audacity to call me crackpot.

i have stated before that i believe that it is my right to put chose into my own body.who is the government to lie to tell me that it is morally safe to have a few beers, but to smoke a joint/consume a medable is morally wrong when evidence says that it is more physically/socially harmful to consume alcohol.Should i not be more well educated than to just follow the herd, and believe what the goverment tells me, do what i am told.

Sure the government would never lie to us, the government would never keep important information (like the cure for cancer) away from us??
the government would never make life changing discisions that could change peoples lives forever, without so much as asking the people...would it?

now you can tell me that medical/and recreational cannabis is different....but we've had that conversation before too.

Cannabis is cannabis.
its not rape, incest,heroine,child abuse,prostitution,illogical falacys.

cannabis is cannabis.

ISAW

ordinarywoman wrote: »

yes i have already provided numerous links for medical use..

Yes and I responded to them. Though helpful they were not comprehensive or showing any longitudinal final or well developed medical research.

the last one had photographic evidence of skin melonoma cured over a ten day period using topical cannabis(see post 1027/pg 69).

Didn't see that one . Thanks Ill get back to you on that one.

people would prefere to not be arressted or live in fear for trying to cure a killer disease, but we've already had this conversation before...

If i recall, you have quite clearly stated that you are in favour of free availability. Are you now saying you are only for medical use and if and when they is proven you do not argue in favour of recreational use?

.and my 'crackpot ideas' and 'biased information' havent changed much since then, just been added to.

Well if you define yourself as biased or crackpot who am I to disagree?

I don't tend to indulge in fallacies like ad hominem so I won't labour the point.

it amazes me how you have the audacity to call me crackpot.

Where did I do that?

i have stated before that i believe that it is my right to put chose into my own body.who is the government to lie to tell me that it is morally safe to have a few beers, but to smoke a joint/consume a medable is morally wrong when evidence says that it is more physically/socially harmful to consume alcohol.

It isn't the government and that is exactly what they are! the State can and do regulate the behaviour of people and are entitled to do it. It may not be immoral to drive oin the wrong side of the road when you are on a deserted highway but if you were seen doing it an agent of the state could have you fined even if nobody got hurt and it was totally safe. It isnt up to you to decide what you think is totally safe or reasonable for yourself. Ther are laws against alcohol consumption by the way.

Should i not be more well educated than to just follow the herd, and believe what the goverment tells me, do what i am told.

It isn't a question of blind obedience of authority. Laws are there because people believe these things should be illegal. If people believed otherwise the laws would be changed. It isnt for you to decide what laws you want to follow and what ones you want to ignore.

Sure the government would never lie to us, the government would never keep important information (like the cure for cancer) away from us??
the government would never make life changing discisions that could change peoples lives forever, without so much as asking the people...would it?

Technically they do ask the people. It is called an election. After that it is up to their judgment. But this is a "straw man" fallacy! Unpopular government decisions on finance have nothing to do with legalising cannabis for recreational use.

now you can tell me that medical/and recreational cannabis is different....but we've had that conversation before too.

Indeed. and you were in favour or recreational use were you not?

Cannabis is cannabis.

No it isn't. Used as a medicine and used just to get high are two different uses.
The exact same act may have different legal status depending on the intention in the mind of the perpetrator.

its not rape, incest,heroine,child abuse,prostitution,illogical falacys.

In general all come under "illegal substances or activities" . It IS the same in that making something legal involves showing how it being legal is a reasonable thing to do. "People like doing it" isn't a good reason.

cannabis is cannabis.

A gun is a gun but it could be used for self protection or for murder.

KStolen

Ther are laws against alcohol consumption by the way.

There are laws against the consumption of alcohol by an individual of the age of majority in a private residence?

I'm not aware of any such laws. Please be more specific as to the laws you meant.

ISAW

KStolen wrote: »

There are laws against the consumption of alcohol by an individual of the age of majority in a private residence?

I'm not aware of any such laws. Please be more specific as to the laws you meant.

Where did I say there were any such laws?

And there are laws against adults being drunk yes.

I stated that even alcohol is regulated. Unregulated recreational use of cannabis is more extreme than alcohol. But I'm not the one claiming that because alcohol is harmful that therefore cannabis should be legalised. Let us double parking in probably less harmful than cannabis . Should we therefore legalise double parking?

KStolen

I didn't say you did say there were such laws. I was merely asking if a law with the qualifiers I added existed.

You didn't answer my question though. Which laws exist that prohibit an adult from being drunk?

ISAW

KStolen wrote: »

I didn't say you did say there were such laws. I was merely asking if a law with the qualifiers I added existed.

You didn't answer my question though. Which laws exist that prohibit an adult from being drunk?

Eh? Drunkeness is against the law isn't it?

KStolen

No, I don't think so. Being drunk and disorderly is, or being so drunk in a public place that you are likely to injure yourself or somebody else is, but you can not get arrested simply for being drunk.

That's as far as I know, anyway. You implied that you knew about these laws, so that's why I asked you.

RGDATA!

ISAW wrote: »

We could legalise prostution or pedop[helia nd that would also creae a new tourist industry. But just because it will increase tourism isnt sufficient reason to do it is it?

prostitution is already legal you know.

RGDATA!

RGDATA! wrote: »

prostitution is already legal you know.

Fancy pointing out the law for that?