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

PeakOutput

mikom wrote: »

That's what you are up against.

Luckily I'm not a stoner, or else I would be asleep on the case.

Luckily im out of here in a few weeks to more liberal climes, hopefully people will have woken up by the time I decide to move back

Either way its not a big deal for me, I smoke a bit not a huge amount, the hypocrisy of the current system just grates on me

whoopdedoo

mikom wrote: »

Seems the writer of your "Very good article" in the journal is a whole lot more biased than we first believed Maceface.

It seems his mother is Grainne Kenny.... President of “Eu against drugs” who been quoted as saying “Cannabis is more addictive than Valium or tobacco”.
The same woman accused of this lunacy.....



More here.... http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2054886349

Here's another article from a couple of years ago, where David used his position as a "journalist" to further his own and his mother's agenda.

http://www.tribune.ie/archive/article/2009/apr/19/david-kenny-the-debate-about-legalising-cannabis-i/

Pathetic, to be honest.

fcukin tramp!!

UsernameInUse

Currently, cannabis has shown to have beneficial effects in the treatment of nausea, vomiting, premenstrual syndrome, unintentional weight loss, insomnia and lack of appetite, painful conditions, especially neurogenic pain, spasticity, movement disorders, asthma and glaucoma, inflammatory bowel disease and migraines, fibromyalgia and related conditions, multiple sclerosis and spinal cord injuries, alcohol abuse and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, collagen-induced arthritis and asthma, digestive disease and epilepsy, bipolar disorder, atherosclerosis, colorectal cancer, depression, dystonia and leukemia, Huntington's disease and hepatitis C, gliomas and skin tumors, MRSA and PTSD, Parkinsons' disease, pruritus and sickle-cell-disease, sleep apnea and anorexia nervosa, Tourette syndrome and breast cancer, post traumatic stress, HIV/AIDS, Brain cancer, Opioid dependence and Alzheimer's disease.

The fact is that cannabis does have a host of medicinal values and benefits, including;
Cannabinol, Cannabigerol, Tetrahydrocannabinol, Cannabidiol and B-Caryophyllene. Yet, all these benefits cannot be administered because of the Misuse of Drugs Act.

MaceFace

Here is some interesting stats from the last 2 pages of posts since I posted a link the the article on The Journal.

From the replies of those who appear to be negative towards the article or its contents (i.e. those that seem to defend a more liberal policy on drugs), I broke down the replies by type:

Posts that attacked the author: 6
Posts that made irrelevant points: 1
Posts regarding the questions raised in the article: 2

I ignored posts that were not addressing my post or the article.

And people wonder why the debate never progresses - its because it is very difficult to talk about the issue without being shouted down by the angry mob that attack the messengers rather than tackle the actual issues.

I assume that those who want change for cannabis also want to see the same change for Ecstasy, GBH, LSD, and Mephadrone?

MaceFace

UsernameInUse wrote: »

Currently, cannabis has shown to have beneficial effects in the treatment of nausea, vomiting, premenstrual syndrome, unintentional weight loss, insomnia and lack of appetite, painful conditions, especially neurogenic pain, spasticity, movement disorders, asthma and glaucoma, inflammatory bowel disease and migraines, fibromyalgia and related conditions, multiple sclerosis and spinal cord injuries, alcohol abuse and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, collagen-induced arthritis and asthma, digestive disease and epilepsy, bipolar disorder, atherosclerosis, colorectal cancer, depression, dystonia and leukemia, Huntington's disease and hepatitis C, gliomas and skin tumors, MRSA and PTSD, Parkinsons' disease, pruritus and sickle-cell-disease, sleep apnea and anorexia nervosa, Tourette syndrome and breast cancer, post traumatic stress, HIV/AIDS, Brain cancer, Opioid dependence and Alzheimer's disease.

The fact is that cannabis does have a host of medicinal values and benefits, including;
Cannabinol, Cannabigerol, Tetrahydrocannabinol, Cannabidiol and B-Caryophyllene. Yet, all these benefits cannot be administered because of the Misuse of Drugs Act.

What are you suggesting - that the chemicals should be used to treat patients with these conditions or that cannabis should be legalised so it can be used for recreational use?
I assume its the former.

BluePlanet

It should be legalized for recreational use, with the added benefit of the aforementioned.

Go-Go-Gadget

MaceFace wrote: »

I assume that those who want change for cannabis also want to see the same change for Ecstasy, GBH, LSD, and Mephadrone?

You thought wrong.

MaceFace

BluePlanet wrote: »

It should be legalized for recreational use, with the added benefit of the aforementioned.

Any added benefit is irrelevant as you can get that benefit without having to legalise the drug.

Go-Go-Gadget wrote: »

You thought wrong.

Oh, I would love to know now why you think cannabis should be legalised but not Ecstasy.

Go-Go-Gadget

MaceFace wrote: »

Oh, I would love to know now why you think cannabis should be legalised but not Ecstasy.

Personal opinion and knowledge on the subject. In particular the long term damage caused to serotonin patterns as demonstrated in monkey brains.

Read it up for yourself, but hey, I'm not your teacher, if you're posting on the subject you should really know this, only a fool would post without knowing what he's talking about

Buchert, R., Thomasius, R., Nebeling, B., Petersen, K., Obrocki, J., Jenicke, L., Wilke, F., Wartberg, L., Zapletalova, P. and Clausen, M. Long-term effects of "ecstasy" use on serotonin transporters of the brain investigated by PET. J Nucl Med, 44:375-384, 2003.

I think medical cannabis will be legalised eventually in Ireland but I don't feel ming is a step in the right direction, he comes across as a complete headcase.

invinciblePRSTV

MaceFace wrote: »

Here is some interesting stats from the last 2 pages of posts since I posted a link the the article on The Journal.

From the replies of those who appear to be negative towards the article or its contents (i.e. those that seem to defend a more liberal policy on drugs), I broke down the replies by type:

Posts that attacked the author: 6
Posts that made irrelevant points: 1
Posts regarding the questions raised in the article: 2

Those are not interesting stats. The article has no scholarly value, it's just a uninformed opinion piece with someone with a vested interest in keeping things exactly as they are.

ISAW

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

Those are not interesting stats.

Yes they are

The article has no scholarly value, it's just a uninformed opinion piece with someone with a vested interest in keeping things exactly as they are.

In an academic search of "cannabis" in scholoarly peer review journals out of the first fifty articles of the 4844 returned I found two which could in any way be deemed pro cannabis. one provides inconclusive evidence of pain relief
CMAJ: Canadian Medical Association Journal; 10/5/2010, Vol. 182 Issue 14, p1494-1495, 2p
The second is a literature review
Cannabis use in palliative care – an examination of the evidence and the implications for nurses.
Journal of Clinical Nursing; Sep2010, Vol. 19 Issue 17/18, p2454-2462, 9p

Most are about negative psychological effect.
NONE are for free recreational availability.

It is worth pursuing and further research is necessary.
Hardly strong evidence with about one percent of publications even slightly in support?

Go-Go-Gadget

ISAW wrote: »

In an academic search of "cannabis" in scholoarly peer review journals out of the first fifty articles of the 4844 returned I found two which could in any way be deemed pro cannabis. one provides inconclusive evidence of pain relief
CMAJ: Canadian Medical Association Journal; 10/5/2010, Vol. 182 Issue 14, p1494-1495, 2p
The second is a literature review
Cannabis use in palliative care – an examination of the evidence and the implications for nurses.
Journal of Clinical Nursing; Sep2010, Vol. 19 Issue 17/18, p2454-2462, 9p

Most are about negative psychological effect.
NONE are for free recreational availability.

It is worth pursuing and further research is necessary.
Hardly strong evidence with about one percent of publications even slightly in support?

And what service did you use? Go to pubmed.org (U.S. National Library of Medicine ) and type in Cannabinoids. Then retract your statement and all of your opinions based on half truths.

invinciblePRSTV

ISAW wrote: »

Yes they are

Oh no they're not!

ISAW wrote: »

In an academic search of "cannabis" in scholoarly peer review journals out of the first fifty articles of the 4844 returned I found two which could in any way be deemed pro cannabis. one provides inconclusive evidence of pain relief
CMAJ: Canadian Medical Association Journal; 10/5/2010, Vol. 182 Issue 14, p1494-1495, 2p
The second is a literature review
Cannabis use in palliative care – an examination of the evidence and the implications for nurses.
Journal of Clinical Nursing; Sep2010, Vol. 19 Issue 17/18, p2454-2462, 9p

Most are about negative psychological effect.
NONE are for free recreational availability.

It is worth pursuing and further research is necessary.
Hardly strong evidence with about one percent of publications even slightly in support?

I don't think anyone is arguing that cannabis can be harmful to certain people. However you can't seriously claim off a quick academic database search and with a tiny sample that the literature is uniformly against the relaxation of cannabis cultivation laws.

The question of legalising the cultivation and sale of cannabis isn't a medical issue, it's a social one. Irrespective of what the law says people will consume cannabis, so we need to ask ourselves do we base our drug laws on a moral basis, or on a rational basis? Psychosis, cancers and all the other alleged risks of long-term cannabis use will occur anyway, so do we continue as we are and criminalise people pointlessly, or do we bring our cannabis laws in line with many other progressive western nations to reflect 21st century reality.

MaceFace

Go-Go-Gadget wrote: »

Personal opinion and knowledge on the subject. In particular the long term damage caused to serotonin patterns as demonstrated in monkey brains.

Read it up for yourself, but hey, I'm not your teacher, if you're posting on the subject you should really know this, only a fool would post without knowing what he's talking about

Buchert, R., Thomasius, R., Nebeling, B., Petersen, K., Obrocki, J., Jenicke, L., Wilke, F., Wartberg, L., Zapletalova, P. and Clausen, M. Long-term effects of "ecstasy" use on serotonin transporters of the brain investigated by PET. J Nucl Med, 44:375-384, 2003.

I think medical cannabis will be legalised eventually in Ireland but I don't feel ming is a step in the right direction, he comes across as a complete headcase.

I don't think there is a need to be so arrogant in your replies. Anyone can quote a research paper and use inflammatory language such as the above.

Many papers which categorize drugs according to how harmful they have rate Ecstasy as less harmful than cannabis. See the paper posted above for an example. A common argument of those wishing to see cannabis legalised is that it is not as bad as alcohol and tobacco, so those who use that argument are hypocritical to not agree to the legalisation of all drugs that are less harmful than alcohol and tobacco.

If your advocating the medicinal use, then I suggest you find another thread as this one is for the legalising of cannabis not any of the chemicals contained within.

Go-Go-Gadget wrote: »

And what service did you use? Go to pubmed.org (U.S. National Library of Medicine ) and type in Cannabinoids. Then retract your statement and all of your opinions based on half truths.

Why are you suggesting the poster search for something completely different?
Cannabis and Cannaboids are not the same thing.
The post from ISAW was not about medicinal use of cannabis or about cannaboids - it was about the number of "scholarly" papers discussing the legalisation of cannabis.

invinciblePRSTV

MaceFace wrote: »

Many papers which categorize drugs according to how harmful they have rate Ecstasy as less harmful than cannabis. See the paper posted above for an example. A common argument of those wishing to see cannabis legalised is that it is not as bad as alcohol and tobacco, so those who use that argument are hypocritical to not agree to the legalisation of all drugs that are less harmful than alcohol and tobacco.

I agree with the decriminalization of all drug use, as clearly drug laws based on outdated moral reasoning have no impact on people choosing whether or not to partake in the consumption of illegal substances. I can understand in an Irish context people wishing to disassociate cannabis from other drugs due to the inevitable hysterical reaction, but the premise is the same. Ecstacy, taken in moderation by healthy adults, poses no danger. Indeed the illegal status of it only makes it potentially dangerous due to criminal elements occasionally being prone to mixing in other substances with the active ingredient in it, a healthy dollop of state regulation would curb that.

MaceFace wrote: »

Why are you suggesting the poster search for something completely different?
Cannabis and Cannaboids are not the same thing.
The post from ISAW was not about medicinal use of cannabis or about cannaboids - it was about the number of "scholarly" papers discussing the legalisation of cannabis.

And, as pointed out, the poster used a tiny sample from which to draw his conclusions. Besides, real world examples triumph selective qoutation of academic papers.

Give me a worse case scenario for Ireland based on your reasoning of what will happen if cannabis cultivation is decriminalised?

PeakOutput

MaceFace wrote: »

If your advocating the medicinal use, then I suggest you find another thread as this one is for the legalising of cannabis not any of the chemicals contained within.

medicinal marijuana should be legalised, it is part of the issue being discussed there is no need for another thread.

If/when it is legalised for medicinal use it should not be under the control of the pharmaceutical companies. there are numerous reports from medicinal users who have been prescribed the pharmaceutical equivalant and found that while the active ingredient is the same as in straight up marijuana the effect it had on symptoms is totally different

HighandMighty

Decent documentary on the subject.

Feel free to educate yourself..

The Union -- Marijuana Documentary from British Columbia

Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqq8-3ZBFeE

Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0q4SNQr5-og

Part 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_cb9910qxU

Part 4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9IsihVc_l38

Part 5
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nbm8QoqzOiM

Part 6
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7IVSJXYnm30

Part 7
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cG8vOMtvo4A

Part 8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMAN64AE4YY

Part 9
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZvmBLWEwliQ

Part 10
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aB1L8J4Rjqk

Society is significantly split on this issue and the minority is suffering, it needs to be sorted out.
People need to wake up and smell the cannabis, its as much a part of society as alcohol and painkillers are and far FAAAR less harmful.
The biggest harm to society when it comes to cannabis is the law against it, its oughtright counter productive, and anyone who thinks otherwise is out of touch with reality.

Tobbaco should be banned, that **** causes cancer and cancer kills our loved ones.

Go-Go-Gadget

Maceface, do you study this matter for a living? Or do you have a degree in a related field?

ISAW

Go-Go-Gadget wrote: »

And what service did you use?

http://library.open.ac.uk/search/
You will also find Pubmed here
http://library.open.ac.uk/find/free/

Go to pubmed.org (U.S. National Library of Medicine ) and type in Cannabinoids. Then retract your statement and all of your opinions based on half truths.

How many returns from a search on "Cannabinoids" and how many of these are positive?

In pubmed I got 9817 returns
I looked through the first 40.

Drugged driving, psychotropic effects, poisioning in children etc.

Of them if any these were the pro cannabis results:

Neuroprotective agents: Cannabinoids. Sánchez AJ, García-Merino A.
Clin Immunol. 2011 Mar 17

Relates to MS treatment - medical not recreational use

The endocannabinoid system and cancer: Therapeutic Implications.
RElates to cancer- medical not recreational use

Endocannabinergic Modulation of Interleukin-1β in Mouse Hippocampus under Basal Conditions and after in vivo Systemic Lipopolysaccharide Stimulation.

A paper on brain chemistry in mice - no implied cannabis positives

Pharmacological characterization of AM1710, a putative cannabinoid CB(2) agonist from the cannabilactone class: Antinociception without central nervous system side-effects.

More mice - analysis of rectal temperature and tail flicking. - so?

Mult Scler. 2011 Mar;17(3):259-61.
Cannabinoids and B cells: emerging targets for treating progressive multiple sclerosis.

Multiple Sclerosis - medical not recreational use

Three more relining to possibilities for Alzheimers MS and anxiety.

NONE on how free recreational use is in any way better for society!

ISAW

Go-Go-Gadget wrote: »

Maceface, do you study this matter for a living? Or do you have a degree in a related field?

To be fair he didn't "argue from authority". so please don't try the same.

MaceFace

Go-Go-Gadget wrote: »

Maceface, do you study this matter for a living? Or do you have a degree in a related field?

I refuse to disclose how much knowledge I have on the subject or where it is coming from as it is totally irrelevant, and besides I could say I was Hunter S. Thompson living the quiet life in Kerry and you would have no way to verify my claim.

If I said I was studying medicine in college, or was a Social Worker working with disadvantaged groups, or a research assistant on tropical diseases, what difference would it make? Do the words in my post somehow change to say something else?

So, instead of trying to probe who I am and making that the topic of conversation, deal with the content of my posts. Criticizes and debunk my words, opinions and claims as much as you like.

Go-Go-Gadget

MaceFace wrote: »

If I said I was studying medicine in college, or was a Social Worker working with disadvantaged groups, or a research assistant on tropical diseases, what difference would it make? Do the words in my post somehow change to say something else?

Knowledge on the matter either biological or socially is something that should be pointed out. You wouldn't let a dentist do your taxes or an accountant drill your teeth.

It's the same with this. Simply googling doesn't give you enough knowledge on the subject to have the right to say someone else is wrong.

ISAW

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

Oh no they're not!

Yes they are interesting. Of two samples of 50 and 40 of thousands of papers not one argued for or presented any evidence for unrestricted recreational use. About one to three per cent gave some unconclusive evidence related to medical possibilities.

You don't find that interesting? You are entitled to your opinion. I find it interesting.

I don't think anyone is arguing that cannabis can be harmful to certain people. However you can't seriously claim off a quick academic database search and with a tiny sample that the literature is uniformly against the relaxation of cannabis cultivation laws.

I can and do claim that it is a myth that there is any widely supported peer reviewed evidence that cannabis should be freely available for recreational use.

The question of legalising the cultivation and sale of cannabis isn't a medical issue, it's a social one.

The evidence of peer review research for support on social grounds is non existent.

Irrespective of what the law says people will consume cannabis, so we need to ask ourselves do we base our drug laws on a moral basis, or on a rational basis?

Irrespective of what the law says people will sexually abuse children rape and murder people. Is it rational that we should also abandon these laws? Why then do it for cannabis?

Psychosis, cancers and all the other alleged risks of long-term cannabis use will occur anyway,

The cancer element I referred to was the positive claims for cannabis arresting cancers!

so do we continue as we are and criminalise people pointlessly,

Murder and rape will also occur. Is it pointless to maintain the laws against it?

or do we bring our cannabis laws in line with many other progressive western nations to reflect 21st century reality.

Which "progressive nations"?
Let us take that reasoning further. Other nations have legalised abortion prostitution and the electric chair. Should we therefore copy them?

Go-Go-Gadget

ISAW wrote: »

Which "progressive nations"?
Let us take that reasoning further. Other nations have legalised abortion prostitution and the electric chair. Should we therefore copy them?

So you don't feel Ireland as well as many other countries hopping the bandwagon and banning the use of cannabis was OK either then?

Secondly, how the heck is that on topic?

It's exactly the same sort of nonsense you were spouting before you got the warning and were told to wind down your participation in this thread.

This thread is about should cannabis be legalised in Ireland to pull our country out of recession. Not "ISAW compares cannabis to rape and murder".

ISAW

Go-Go-Gadget wrote: »

Knowledge on the matter either biological or socially is something that should be pointed out. You wouldn't let a dentist do your taxes or an accountant drill your teeth.

You don't have to be an expert or qualified in something to have an informed opinion. also moral ramification may have nothing to do with medical ones. An "expert" can tell you about the development of an embryo. But it is for you to decide if you believe if it has rights as an unborn child or no rights as just a bunch of cells.

It's the same with this. Simply googling doesn't give you enough knowledge on the subject to have the right to say someone else is wrong.

Correct! You have that right before you do the search in the first place! The point is do you have the supporting evidence which backs up your case? Also I would remind you it is not for the detractor to take on the "burden of proof". If you make a claim it isnt for me to show the negative is true or to even supply balance. It is for you to prove your own claim!
While you are searching it might be helpful if you look up the logical fallacies "shifting the burden" "proving a negative" and "argument from authority".

ISAW

PeakOutput wrote: »

absolutely

However, this is yet more strawmanning / slippery slope / bull****, arguments from you.

no it isn't! It is showing the principle that the other person proposed is not a general principle as he is trying to make out!

you pick apart one part of a persons argument and then apply it to something completely irrelevant to make it look like the original argument is absurd, that is basically the definition of strawmanning

No it isn't! His argument that the principle is true in general is not logical.
A "straw man" is when one picks something not related.
Abortion, prostitution and he death penalty are related through the principle proposed namely "we should do as others do"

Why shoul;d we only do as others do in this single case and not in any other case?
Why do you get to pick this out?
And if it only applies in this case how could it be a strong general argument?

Here is what they stated in entirety:

The question of legalising the cultivation and sale of cannabis isn't a medical issue, it's a social one. Irrespective of what the law says people will consume cannabis, so we need to ask ourselves do we base our drug laws on a moral basis, or on a rational basis? Psychosis, cancers and all the other alleged risks of long-term cannabis use will occur anyway, so do we continue as we are and criminalise people pointlessly, or do we bring our cannabis laws in line with many other progressive western nations to reflect 21st century reality

It is basically saying
forget the medical argument and adopt the social one
Social one = Other countries are "progressive" and have social norms that we should have. ~ Except of course when these norms are not to your liking!

Do we apply this principle to abortion? - NO!
Do we apply it to the death penalty - NO!
Do we apply it to prostitution -NO!

I am just pointing out that pandering to some sort of liberal agenda is no use when you pick and chose which bits of liberal agenda you want.

It isn't any use saying we should tolerate other peoples opinions and activities except the ones you don't want to tolerate!

It is not a straw man!
It is pointing out the principle of "do we base our laws on a moral basis, or on a rational basis?" has ramifications and we can't use that general argument for anything else so how is the principle a general principle when you insist one can only apply it to one case of cannabis and not in any other case?

If "we should be like them" only applies in the case of cannabis and in no other instance what is so significant about it as a principle?

[Jackass]

Maybe it's that I'm in my late 20's now, age they say makes you more conservative, but maybe it just makes me a little bit wiser...

Probably up until my mid-20's I would have been in favour of it being legalised, but to be honest "it's never killed anyone" isn't really a good enough excuse to legalise it.

I dabbled, but now having grown out of it, i acknowledge it's harmless enough, no more dangerous than regular smoking tobacco, but it does make people useless, and we've all seen stoner friends who can sit in for days on end and just smoke and the certain rut it can get people in.

I also feel that whilst not physically addictive, and I'd strongly disagree that it leads to harder drugs as a direct result of smoking, it is a lifestyle, and i just don't see what the benefits of this lifestyle can be. Making it available to everybody just means more and more people will try it and more and more people will become very contented with that stoner lifestyle, and I know it's sort of funny to people perhaps, and movies are made about stoner type lifestyles (Big Lebowski, Jay & Silent Bob) they're often protrayed as completely useless, no hopers, and that, in my experience, is generally the case for regular users who eventually snap out of it, but really do waist years of their life on it.

I've no problem with the current arrangement. If you really want to do it, you still have the choice and can get it easily enough, but I don't beleive it should be encouraged in the mainstream, and as for it impacting on drugs gangs etc., legalising it for that reason would be conceeding defeat to the drug gangs as unable to stop them, and I think the answer to gangs is more organised, specialised teams, and not muscling them out of the market by taking control of their trade by supplying it ourselves...

Pepe LeFrits

[Jackass] wrote: »

Maybe it's that I'm in my late 20's now, age they say makes you more conservative, but maybe it just makes me a little bit wiser...

Probably up until my mid-20's I would have been in favour of it being legalised, but to be honest "it's never killed anyone" isn't really a good enough excuse to legalise it.

That's backwards. You don't need a reason to make something legal. You need a reason to make something illegal.

I dabbled, but now having grown out of it, i acknowledge it's harmless enough, no more dangerous than regular smoking tobacco, but it does make people useless, and we've all seen stoner friends who can sit in for days on end and just smoke and the certain rut it can get people in.

I also feel that whilst not physically addictive, and I'd strongly disagree that it leads to harder drugs as a direct result of smoking, it is a lifestyle, and i just don't see what the benefits of this lifestyle can be. Making it available to everybody just means more and more people will try it and more and more people will become very contented with that stoner lifestyle, and I know it's sort of funny to people perhaps, and movies are made about stoner type lifestyles (Big Lebowski, Jay & Silent Bob) they're often protrayed as completely useless, no hopers, and that, in my experience, is generally the case for regular users who eventually snap out of it, but really do waist years of their life on it.

... and who are you to force your lifestyle views on others? People should have the right to decide how they live their lives. I'm sure a lot people living the 'stoner lifestyle' are very happy that way.

I've no problem with the current arrangement. If you really want to do it, you still have the choice and can get it easily enough, but I don't beleive it should be encouraged in the mainstream

Keeping something illegal because though the law is an ass, the law is easily circumvented anyway? Very weak argument.

and as for it impacting on drugs gangs etc., legalising it for that reason would be conceeding defeat to the drug gangs as unable to stop them, and I think the answer to gangs is more organised, specialised teams, and not muscling them out of the market by taking control of their trade by supplying it ourselves...

If religion was illegal, would you be against legalising it on the grounds that it would be conceeding defeat to criminals exploiting the law by selling bibles? Besides, it's all been tried. Prohibition doesn't work.

Pepe LeFrits

As I recall, you dabbled a few years ago...

[Jackass] in an alternate reality wrote:

Maybe it's that I'm in my late 20's now, age they say makes you more conservative, but maybe it just makes me a little bit wiser...

Probably up until my mid-20's I would have been in favour of Counter-Strike being legalised, but to be honest "it's never killed anyone" isn't really a good enough excuse to legalise it.

I dabbled, but now having grown out of it, i acknowledge it's harmless enough, no more dangerous than regular offline games, but it does make people useless, and we've all seen gamer friends who can sit in for days on end and just play and the certain rut it can get people in.

I also feel that whilst not physically addictive, and I'd strongly disagree that it leads to MMORPGS as a direct result of playing, it is a lifestyle, and i just don't see what the benefits of this lifestyle can be. Making it available to everybody just means more and more people will try it and more and more people will become very contented with that gamer lifestyle, and I know it's sort of funny to people perhaps, and movies are made about gamer type lifestyles (TRON, Gamer, that 80s flick with Matthew Broderick) they're often protrayed as completely useless, no hopers, and that, in my experience, is generally the case for regular gamers who eventually snap out of it, but really do waist years of their life on it.

I've no problem with the current arrangement. If you really want to play it, you still have the choice and can get it easily enough, but I don't beleive it should be encouraged in the mainstream, and as for it impacting on games gangs etc., legalising it for that reason would be conceeding defeat to the games gangs as unable to stop them, and I think the answer to gangs is more organised, specialised teams, and not muscling them out of the market by taking control of their trade by using STEAM ourselves...

karma_

[Jackass] wrote: »

I've no problem with the current arrangement. If you really want to do it, you still have the choice and can get it easily enough, but I don't beleive it should be encouraged in the mainstream, and as for it impacting on drugs gangs etc., legalising it for that reason would be conceeding defeat to the drug gangs as unable to stop them, and I think the answer to gangs is more organised, specialised teams, and not muscling them out of the market by taking control of their trade by supplying it ourselves...

If you have no real issues with someone smoking a joint or two, why be in favour of criminalising them if they are caught?