Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Legalize Cannabis Ireland
Options
Comments
-
christmas2012 wrote: »..)but there might be an antisocial element to this when it gets brought in,and schizophrenics,as its supposed to be linked with schizophrenia..
Compared to the anti-social element involved now I'd say it would greatly improved/reduced, as regards schizophrenia the evidence shows that rather than causing schizophrenia there may be a slightly earlier onset of schizophrenia in cannabis users (about 2.5 years) not a greater number or more acute etc. but more importantly cannabis is not a cause of schizophrenia.
Schizophrenia is a highly complex brain disorder and yes it is common for schizophrenics to use alcohol and drugs to self medicate. It's a rare enough disease about one in a hundred will develop symptoms but when a person does develop it it's not their fault or something they did that caused it.0 -
The Legalise drugs posters here have only long winded obfuscated arguments that have little merit and designed to drive away intelligent responses
Paddy, I'm afraid you're yet to post an intelligent response to this thread, all your posts here appear to be regurgitated fearmongering and illogical conclusions.0 -
Yup, many schizophrenics are more likely to experiment with drugs, hence the faulty cannabis/schizophrenia link.Compared to the anti-social element involved now I'd say it would greatly improved/reduced, as regards schizophrenia the evidence shows that rather than causing schizophrenia there may be a slightly earlier onset of schizophrenia in cannabis users (about 2.5 years) not a greater number or more acute etc. but more importantly cannabis is not a cause of schizophrenia.
Schizophrenia is a highly complex brain disorder and yes it is common for schizophrenics to use alcohol and drugs to self medicate. It's a rare enough disease about one in a hundred will develop symptoms but when a person does develop it it's not their fault or something they did that caused it.
Schizophrenia has however been linked to childhood trauma/mental or physical abuse.0 -
2. That altered perception is temporary and contributes to the addiction. There are other ways to free your mind.
People have always used psychoactive drugs and always will. I don't see why people are so opposed to drug use as a form of recreation.3. Taht's the point really. Drug laws aim to protect those that cannot make the informed decision.
Why not just help them to make an informed decision then, rather than banning many (pretty harmless) drugs?6. I was referring to the comment about legislating morals. Sometimes morals have to be the basis for legislation in order to protect others. For example, I do not believe cannabis should be advertised or sold near schools. This is a moral stance but one that i believe should be enforced by law.
Sorry, I meant pertaining to adults. When it comes to children, there will obviously be exceptions.
7. Prevention is often better than a cure. The argument becomes one of how to prevent it. Preventing someone being attacked by a cocaine user is much better than catching him afterwards because it means there is no victim. It is a balancing situation which is necessary in all legislation. Perhaps the cannabis legislation is too far to the right and needs to be centered.
Banning drugs is not the way to prevent it. Sensible educational policies etc would be a better way to go.
8. Ireland does not have the same focus on cannabis as the States. Most simple posession detections are not sought after, they are generally ancillary to other motives. Simple posession charges do not land many people in prison, nor do they waste much police time. Decriminalising posession would not have a major effect.
Are you denying that cannabis legalisation would raise/save a large amount of revenue? The stats were there for all to see.
9. It's not a good legalisation argument to say it is not as bad as another thing. You might as well be admitting it is dangerous.
It's an argument against people claiming that drugs being "harmful" is a reason they should be illegal.17. No it isn't.
Given that every drug transaction is a crime how could you argue that drug induced public order offences constitute the majority of drug crime? This is even ignoring all the threats, beatings and murders surrounding the drug trade.
18. if i get into my car twisted drunk and drive home to bed I have hurt nobody. Where is the victim. If you argue that cannabis is a victimless crime then you must surely accept that drink driving is too, as is not wearing a seatbelt and in fact most road traffic crimes. The only time there are victims are when things go wrong. But we legislate it anyway. Same theory behind cannabis legislation.
Talk about a red herring.You have put other people at risk by not being in a fit state to do so. It's like saying you should leave a 10 year old drive or allow people to shoot guns into a crowd of people as long as they don't hit people-in other words, ridiculous.
The rest of your points were either a simple divergence of opinion or something I've already dealt with.The Legalise drugs posters here have only long winded obfuscated arguments that have little merit and designed to drive away intelligent responses . I'll be back to remind them from time to time as i always have . They have no argument that is decent and honest only words that veil other motives .
You haven't given any decent argument. What is your major problem with cannabis legalisation for instance?tayto lover wrote: »Brilliant reason to legalise cannabis............... not
How many spliffs have you smoked today to come up with that ?
And there was I wondering why they call it dope.
Good man. Seriously, anti-legalisation posters saying "What have you been smoking?" etc is not particularly funny. Nor is it a good way to make an argument.0 -
Snake Pliisken wrote: »1. They can try and compete with the legitimate market, sure. But regulation, more selection and cheaper product would make it hard going for the most part. Right now dealing cannabis is a very attractive proposition to any 16-25 year old with a bike wanting a bit of cash.
2. People with disregard for the law will continue to have disregard for the law, with or without drugs being part of conversation. A lot of people who deal drugs don't have the desire to physically hurt or steal from people, they sell drugs because they perceive their actions to be of no harm, they're providing a service to people with similar interests to themselves.
3. America created the world's drug policy and money in politics is the root of nearly all problems in society today.
4. You're not talking about cannabis anymore here, you're talking about illegal hard drugs now. Cannabis doesn't destroy your life. It might allow you to rationalize sloth as a lifestyle, but people who end up like that weren't exactly going to be employee of the month material to begin with anyway.
People effect the those around them every step of their lives, we're social animals. Maybe instead of guilting people away from drugs, we should look at what's causing people to use in such a self destructive way?
People who destroy their lives have demons, the reason they use so heavily is to get away from the pain of existence, of worry and shame. If you grow up carrying the pain of other people, whether through poverty, abuse, lack of love or biological chemical imbalance- you need love and treatment, not drug escapism!
Let's not forget that these damaged people found drugs anyway, while they're absolutely forbidden in almost every country in the western world! Why not offer clean drugs, treatment and real information to these people?
5. You wouldn't be arguing against the legalisation of cannabis if you weren't blinkered.
Imagine there were four people stranded on a deserted island and one of them decided that he was going to smoke the weed that grew naturally on the island and the other three told him he wasn't allowed. How stupid would that be? They'd be needlessly encroaching on his freedom when he's doing absolutely no harm to anyone else.
You only get one life on this planet according to most people. Why shouldn't you be allowed to try a drug, to experience anything you want to experience as long as your not violating another person's rights?
People should be given real information and allowed to make their own decision. It's hard to stomach being told I'm not allowed to smoke a joint 'for my own safety and that of those around me' when people can go into a supermarket and buy refined sugar, e-numbers and fatty foods for their children and enough alcohol to kill themselves when all that **** is just as poisonous, if not more so than a bit of weed!
6. Those people are free to do as they please as long as they're not hurting others, but they are being ignorant and stupid. They can be ignorant and stupid for as long as they please and then they can go get help. I don't know whether there will always be casualties of addiction, all I know is that addiction levels and drug abuse is higher than it ever was before and prohibition isn't working. Guilt and misinformation isn't working. We need a new strategy, and the truth and education looks to be the best way to combat abuse.
7. You agree with prohibition. That's what prohibition does. It marginalizes people, makes them afraid and suspicious of their own government. It keeps the poor in their place. It takes a medical issue and turns it into a crime.
8. In a perfect world, no one would abuse drugs. But people use drugs, so let's be real about it and treat adults like adults and let them assume responsibility for their actions.
9. Cannabis has been around for thousands of years, with widespread use in many cultures over the millennia. Cannabis is RELATIVELY SAFE AS HAS BEEN SAID AND DEMONSTRATED OVER AND OVER IN THIS THREAD. The point I was making was that the health cost of cannabis was much lower than that of both alcohol and tobacco, so taxes would probably cover the public medical cost of the side effects of the drug. People have been smoking weed in California since the counter culture popped over there and there hasn't been any 'other illnesses' manifesting themselves from fifty years of hippy culture.
10.
11. The line between legitimacy and the black market is literally lines on a piece of paper. The money is there to ensure that should the change over take place, it'd would all go fairly smoothly. People protect their investments. And illegal drug dealers can't go to the police, they can just get arrested by them.
12.
13. A .015 BAC makes you 25 times more likely to crash. There are millions of people on the roads, of course there are victims. Any comparison drawn between the victims of drunk driving and those who suffer from drug addiction is an insult to those who've died in car crashes at the hands of drunk drivers.
1. Illegal cigarettes are a booming trade. What makes you think cannabis would be any different?
2. You seem to be under the impression that the majority of cannabis dealers are of the ageing hippy variety. This is not correct. The majority of them are dangerous gangsters.
3. They may be responsable for the perceptions people have but the US has absolutley no input on our cannabis laws.
4. It wasn't me that brought up people ruining their lives with drugs. I simply responded to another posters comment about it. i would consider a person who has an uncontrolled addiction to have ruined their life and damaged the lives of those around them.
5. I'm not against the legalisation of cannabis. Not sure where you got that. I think it would be beneficial financially and medically to the country. What i am against is the false notion put out by the legalise campaign that it would be an easy task and everyone would live happily ever after.
6. i agree in part with what you say. But I believe that some substances are so destructive that prohibition is necessary to protect people.
7. I agree with the prohibition of activities which put a burden on or endanger others. i don't believe that cannabis falls under this category but I do think heroin and cocaine does.
9. Alcohol has been around for years but foetal alcohol syndrome is a relatively new discovery. Your belief that cannabis won't be linked to more medical conditions in the future is very short sighted.
11. Or kill them. I'm surprised at your claim that the money is there. The country is bankrupt.
12. I'm surprised you can;t see the parallel. People on cannabis have impaired judgement. People on cocaine have increased aggression. These effects can endanger others but you believe that it is up to the user not to let them or to hold them responsable afterwards. How is it different from drink driving? It creates an extra risk but as long as the user doesn't crash then there are no victims. If there are then he can be held responsable afterwards. The two stances are exactly the same so can you tell me why prohibition is correct in one and not the other?Great for addressing the points of another single poster, but as this is a forum for group discussion, numbering your replies makes it a colossal pain for others to follow.
If you can't follow simple numbers then you have bigger problems than are being discussed here.Chuck Stone wrote: »I see. By banning drugs they leave their sale and distribution to degenerates and thugs. That way vulnerable people are protected...
... oh wait, no, that's total bollocks.
No they don't leave the sale to anyone. People willing to buy drugs illegally create that market. There's no point in trying to pass the responsability. If you buy drugs illegally that is completely your choice and you are the one funding the dealer and all he does.People have always used psychoactive drugs and always will. I don't see why people are so opposed to drug use as a form of recreation.
I'm not opposed to it. I find it pathetic.Why not just help them to make an informed decision then, rather than banning many (pretty harmless) drugs?
Because some people are too stupid or desperate to make an informed decision. This is one of the major problems with the legalise campaign. They assume all cannabis users are gentle souls who went some light escape. This is not correct.Sorry, I meant pertaining to adults. When it comes to children, there will obviously be exceptions.
So you agree that in some cases it is necessary?Banning drugs is not the way to prevent it. Sensible educational policies etc would be a better way to go.
There is an argument to be made for that. But there is also a necessity to legislate as well. How else can you ensure quality for instance?Are you denying that cannabis legalisation would raise/save a large amount of revenue? The stats were there for all to see.
No, I just don't think it would be as big a windfall as the legalise campaigners make out.It's an argument against people claiming that drugs being "harmful" is a reason they should be illegal.
I'll use an analogy. Lets say your kid asks you if they can go to the shops on their own and you tell them no, it's too dangerous. They tell you that it's not fair because Jimmy next door gets to drive his mothers car to the shop. Would you suddenly change your mind and say they can go to the shop or would you look to have something done about the kid driving the car?Given that every drug transaction is a crime how could you argue that drug induced public order offences constitute the majority of drug crime? This is even ignoring all the threats, beatings and murders surrounding the drug trade.
If you are talking about crime rates then reported crime is what you must consider. Individual transactions are not included in crime rates, nor are the majority of threats and beatings because the victims don't report them.Talk about a red herring.You have put other people at risk by not being in a fit state to do so. It's like saying you should leave a 10 year old drive or allow people to shoot guns into a crowd of people as long as they don't hit people-in other words, ridiculous.
If your stance is to make people be responsable for their actions and not prohibit behaviour that may lead to increased risks then drink driving is in the same category. Of course if you disagree you will have to admit that in some cases reckless behaviour must be prohibited. And reckless behaviour includes taking too many drugs.0 -
Advertisement
-
FFS MagicSean, you're long enough here. Some of us are on mobile where your post is impossible to read. Quote properly not numbered0
-
-
Legalize multiquote Ireland0
-
0
-
The Legalise drugs posters here have only long winded obfuscated arguments that have little merit and designed to drive away intelligent responses . I'll be back to remind them from time to time as i always have . They have no argument that is decent and honest only words that veil other motives .
Veil other motives? They seem fairly up front with the fact that they want to have cannabis legalized. Most would be honest with the fact that one of the reasons they want it to be legalized is so they can smoke it.
That's hardly a hidden agenda.0 -
Advertisement
-
Im more on the side of legalising it being honest,it would bring huge employment to the area with coffee shops and transit and manufacturing and packaging of the weed..Tax revenue would be collosall
Problem is can your government handle it well,where does all the revenue go?in their pockets?0 -
christmas2012 wrote: »Im more on the side of legalising it being honest,it would bring huge employment to the area with coffee shops and transit and manufacturing and packaging of the weed..Tax revenue would be collosall
Problem is can your government handle it well,where does all the revenue go?in their pockets?
Why is that a bad thing? It means less taxes on everything else and fewer cuts in spending.0 -
what i mean is would the government missapropriate it a la mick wallace style..
im all for legistlation really,but there are some issues that need ironing out,it could have an anti social element to it,theres mental illness linked to it such as schizophrenia,but it would bring in huge amounts of tourism and it would have a positive up beat buzz to it lots of money going around ireland,great revenue..0 -
I think it would be great if alcohol became illegal for a short period. This would show those who are against cannabis just how annoying it is to have a stranger tell You that You are breaking the law. Really is nobodys business what I smoke. I'm not asking anybody else to smoke it.0
-
1. Illegal cigarettes are a booming trade. What makes you think cannabis would be any different?
Have to say on this point- this is because the tax is too high and also because the quality of legal and illegal cigarettes is the same. If weed was sensibly priced and good quality there would be no reason to go to dealers. And despite the illegal cigarettes, most cigarettes smoked are legal.2. You seem to be under the impression that the majority of cannabis dealers are of the ageing hippy variety. This is not correct. The majority of them are dangerous gangsters.
I would say a lot of them are young fellas just looking to make what they see as easy money. Importation and distribution is in the hands of gangs but I'd say many dealers would operate independently, for cannabis at least. That's just my personal observation.
I'm not opposed to it. I find it pathetic.
Well that's your opinion. I sometimes think whats as pathetic are people do triathlons and brag about their level of fitness and "adrenaline rushes" and look down at less fit people, but each to his own. (I hope you don't do triathlons now that I said it!);)
Because some people are too stupid or desperate to make an informed decision. This is one of the major problems with the legalise campaign. They assume all cannabis users are gentle souls who went some light escape. This is not correct.
I think it would be entirely possible to break down the pros and cons of every individual drug use to a level understandable by 90% of the population if required. And even if you were worried about irresponsible use, I don't think you should pick up on cannabis, given that it is relatively harmless as drugs go.
So you agree that in some cases it is necessary?
When it comes to children or when it harms third parties, sure. I'm sure there could be other rare exceptions but I can't really think of them.
There is an argument to be made for that. But there is also a necessity to legislate as well. How else can you ensure quality for instance?
That's just more about regulating the industry, similiar to alcohol, ensuring the product is safe for consumption etc.
I'll use an analogy. Lets say your kid asks you if they can go to the shops on their own and you tell them no, it's too dangerous. They tell you that it's not fair because Jimmy next door gets to drive his mothers car to the shop. Would you suddenly change your mind and say they can go to the shop or would you look to have something done about the kid driving the car?
Not a really fair analogy, tbh. A better one would be someone lying about the dangers of a driver to ensure that he can't drive.
No, I just don't think it would be as big a windfall as the legalise campaigners make out.
We'll have to agree to disagree here I think.
If you are talking about crime rates then reported crime is what you must consider. Individual transactions are not included in crime rates, nor are the majority of threats and beatings because the victims don't report them.
I think we were talking at cross purposes here.
If your stance is to make people be responsable for their actions and not prohibit behaviour that may lead to increased risks then drink driving is in the same category. Of course if you disagree you will have to admit that in some cases reckless behaviour must be prohibited. And reckless behaviour includes taking too many drugs.
The problem with drink driving is that you put other people at risk. Reckless behaviour that harms third parties should be prohibited, I agree. Someone just smoking cannabis all day doesn't put anyone else at risk.0 -
Having seen the negative effect cannabis abuse has on some people I tend to err on the anti-legalise side. That said I don't think if it will herald the downfall of society if ever legalised.
I also don't believe the economic benefits will be as great as people make out. People can't magically start spending money they don't have. The argument that previously illegal trade will now be taxed may be valid but that won't stop it - certainly there still is a big problem with fake and smuggled tobacco products.
As for tourism, judging by how the Dutch are rolling back on allowing visitors access to coffee shops it might not generate as much income as speculated. Although the presence of proper growth-generating industries in that country might be one factor in not relying on it.0 -
The problem at drink driving is that you put other people at risk. Reckles behaviour that harms third parties should be prohibited, I agree. Someone just smoking cannabis all day doesn't put anyone else at risk.
Sitting your house drinking all day or shooting up a heroin doesn't harm anyone either until they hop into a car.. Just as bad as drink.
Im all on for legalising but the problem is the would tax it and it would be like eveything else in this country bloody expensive.
Leave it illegal, keeps the quality up and price down. The government will never legalise it no matter how many people hold up a poster, sign a petition or do a wee march.;)0 -
0 -
Sitting your house drinking all day or shooting up a heroin doesn't harm anyone either until they hop into a car.. Just as bad as drink.
Im all on for legalising but the problem is the would tax it and it would be like eveything else in this country bloody expensive.
Leave it illegal, keeps the quality up and price down. The government will never legalise it no matter how many people hold up a poster, sign a petition or do a wee march.;)
So should we ban things like uniflu which are unsafe to drive on as well?
As for quality and price, you must be kidding me. You can a gram of weed in Amsterdam for less than a tenner, much better quality too. Here people can spray it or put in parsley to up the weight or whatever.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
Christ, it's after taking me a good 5/6 hours to read this whole thread and it's left me baffled as to how the anti-cannabis crowd can still state the same things over and over when each and every point they've made has been shown to be false by genuine and factual links.
And i mean everything. All the against arguements have, in the last 34 pages, been shown to be false. The yes campaigners have everything covered. Any honest, open-minded and factual based opinion should be well with the yes side, the no side hasn't provided anything which helps their campaign.
But there hasn't been very many people talking about the benefits of hemp. Some have referenced it, but i fear it is lost on the tl;dr people. Hemp, the extremely low thc strain of the cannabis plant, can be used to:
- Make material lighter and warmer than cotton, and protects against uv rays, at a hugely reduced cost.
- Hemp paper is cheaper, stronger and more self-sustaining than paper from trees. Hemp is one of the fastest growing biomasses that can be grown, and it takes 4 acres of tress to do the same job as 1 acre of hemp, along with hemp paper being able to be recycled 7 or 8 times.
- Hempcrete: cheaper than concrete, gets stronger over time - lasts up to 100 years, compared to the average of 40 years for concrete, and is eco-neutral - any carbon released during the creation is counter-acted by the amount of carbon hempcrete takes in during it's life.
- Hemp oil is very-high in polyunsaturated fats (the good fats)
- It is 100% biodegradeable, recyclable and reusable.
There are others, but i'm at work and can't access the video that displays all these. It may already have been posted.
It's not just about the consumption of cannabis, it's the other uses for hemp which is being hindered by these archaic and ineffective laws. It's a shame that peoples prejudices about a wonderful plant with many uses aside from getting people high. I don't smoke it anymore (due to my current professions), but if it was legalised i would happily replace alcohol with it. It's cheaper, doesn't have a hangover, and with the right group of people it can contribute to one of the best evenings one can have.
Plus, as many have said, i would rather a street full of stoners than a street full of drunks. I have never heard of stoners being invovled in criminal damage, anti-social behaviour, etc that is all associated with alcohol.
Everything else has been argued to death and proven beyond doubt (imo) that the benefits far outweigh the negatives, the negatives which occur with abuse and can be associated with the abuse of any intoxicant.0 -
Jimoslimos wrote: »Having seen the negative effect cannabis abuse has on some people I tend to err on the anti-legalise side.
It would be ridiculous to think that cannabis doesnt have any negatives. However, the current approach to tackling drug problems is doing nothing to reduce drug usage.
Cannabis is easier to get than alcohol in this country - if you regulate the industry you are not going to increase availability. You will however be making some revenue which could be invested in addiction services and the health system - which would actually tackle the problems that prohibition is supposed to be preventing in the first place!0 -
Uraguay took an interesting approach this week i hear. Legalised, taxed and controlled by the government. You need to register to purchase and users who are deemed "hooked" get treatment paid for by the new taxes.
Like any substance inc alcohol, people need to find out are they smoking weed for fun, or are they "self medicating".0 -
This is untrue. The majority of cannabis dealers are people who got into dealing to guarantee their own supply. In over ten years I've yet to met a gangster dealer of weed. Nearly every cannabis exclusive dealer is exactly the same, middle class, young, loves weed. Half the time all their doing is getting their own smoke for free by dealing. The only people who make big money on weed are the importers and growers, they put on the big price and there's little room for anyone else to make profit.2. You seem to be under the impression that the majority of cannabis dealers are of the ageing hippy variety. This is not correct. The majority of them are dangerous gangsters.
The fact is people like doing drugs, always have always will. It's idiotic for the government to fight against the tide on something where there will always be a will to go to any lengths to use drugs.No they don't leave the sale to anyone. People willing to buy drugs illegally create that market. There's no point in trying to pass the responsability. If you buy drugs illegally that is completely your choice and you are the one funding the dealer and all he does.
People should have the right to do drugs too, they shouldn't have their one chance at life curtailed by the moral view points of others. Drugs are close to a religious experience for many of it's users. There is absolutely no way of ever stopping people from doing drugs.0 -
Jimoslimos wrote: »People don't take uniflu recreationally.
You're missing my point. Just because something impairs your ability to drive doesn't mean it should be banned. Driving on it while impaired should be banned but not the substance itself.0 -
I personally think it's hilarious that a plant is banned. A plant which grows out from the ground naturally is banned from earth, how does earth feel about this - lol ?
I know you'll say well, the following is also the same :
Coca Plant - Cocaine
Poppy Plant - Heroin
and so on, the difference is that cocaine & heroin are extracted and chemically altered to make the drug, with Cannibis you just cut your plant, hang itupside down for a week and then cure it in a jar from anywhere from 1 month - 10 months, then smoke it.
Even beer / tobacco has to be altered, this is why I find it hiliarious that a plant is banned and this is the main reason why I do not obey the law.
I've also accepted as a ( true stoner ) that I simply couldn't be arsed in the campaign against legallizing it as you won't win.
America has said this is illegal and because other countries around the world like to follow america's suit and can't make their own laws / decisions what has happened, cannibis is illegal everywhere but can be got easier than a can of fanta, so who cares ??0 -
Easier to get than a can of Fanta? Pm please.0
-
Have to say on this point- this is because the tax is too high and also because the quality of legal and illegal cigarettes is the same. If weed was sensibly priced and good quality there would be no reason to go to dealers. And despite the illegal cigarettes, most cigarettes smoked are legal.
So legalising and regulating won't necessarily kill the black market. The government would have to still induce people away from the dealers with tax incentives. So it's like I said. Not a simple process that would bring in a financial windfall.I would say a lot of them are young fellas just looking to make what they see as easy money. Importation and distribution is in the hands of gangs but I'd say many dealers would operate independently, for cannabis at least. That's just my personal observation.
You would be wrong. Here's an example of a recent seizure
http://www.thejournal.ie/drugs-cash-and-firearms-seized-in-rathfarnham-area-of-dublin-501209-Jun2012/
Firearms don't seem to match with your idea of dealers. You probably just think about the dealer who sells to a few friends. Where do you think he gets his stuff? It's from a bigger dealer, who in turn gets it from a bigger dealer. The idea of a stoner hippy growing cannabis and selling it is ridiculous. Most people like that grow enough for personal consumption. It's too risky otherwise.Well that's your opinion. I sometimes think whats as pathetic are people do triathlons and brag about their level of fitness and "adrenaline rushes" and look down at less fit people, but each to his own. (I hope you don't do triathlons now that I said it!);)
Actually i think that people who can get a high without having to ingest a poison are quite lucky.I think it would be entirely possible to break down the pros and cons of every individual drug use to a level understandable by 90% of the population if required. And even if you were worried about irresponsible use, I don't think you should pick up on cannabis, given that it is relatively harmless as drugs go.
And who would distribute this information? The government? The same government who the legalise campaign have branded liars? Why would people believe them now? It would ake a long time for the real issues behind drug use to be explained to people.When it comes to children or when it harms third parties, sure. I'm sure there could be other rare exceptions but I can't really think of them.
What about people who suffer from mental disabilities but are over 18? Would they fit in your exceptions?That's just more about regulating the industry, similiar to alcohol, ensuring the product is safe for consumption etc.
It's still regulation that is required for a safe product to be out there. And surely you'll still need laws to put the dealers who are dealing cheap stuff off the street.Not a really fair analogy, tbh. A better one would be someone lying about the dangers of a driver to ensure that he can't drive.
No, you are mixing up the issues now. The analogy I used was right for the argument you made. You are trying to justify something by saying it is not as bad as something else which is legal.We'll have to agree to disagree here I think.
No we don't. You just said further up that the government would have to tax it low so people don't stay with the dealers. So it can't be both ways.The problem with drink driving is that you put other people at risk. Reckless behaviour that harms third parties should be prohibited, I agree. Someone just smoking cannabis all day doesn't put anyone else at risk.
Unless he tries to drive a car, operate heavy machinery, fire a weapon, fly a plane, perform surgery You claim that there is no victim in cannabis use. Well there is no victim in drink driving either. The victim only arises if you crash.This is untrue. The majority of cannabis dealers are people who got into dealing to guarantee their own supply. In over ten years I've yet to met a gangster dealer of weed. Nearly every cannabis exclusive dealer is exactly the same, middle class, young, loves weed. Half the time all their doing is getting their own smoke for free by dealing. The only people who make big money on weed are the importers and growers, they put on the big price and there's little room for anyone else to make profit.
That is so much bull****. Even if the fellas you deal with are local lads where do you think they get their stuff? From a bigger dealer. They don't buy straight from the importer. This is the kind of stuff you tell yourself to avoid the guilt of how many people die to get you your smoke.The fact is people like doing drugs, always have always will. It's idiotic for the government to fight against the tide on something where there will always be a will to go to any lengths to use drugs.
People should have the right to do drugs too, they shouldn't have their one chance at life curtailed by the moral view points of others. Drugs are close to a religious experience for many of it's users. There is absolutely no way of ever stopping people from doing drugs.
Maybe people should have the right to use drugs. But at the moment they don't. And when you buy drugs from dealers you are funding a lot of violence. You can try and avoid the responsability by saying you have no choice but in fact you do have a choice. You can choose not to do drugs. You can choose do go on your religious pilgrimage where it is not illegal. You can take part in some coherent campaign to legalise it. You could even grow your own if you really believed in your right but didn't want it to come at the cost of lives. But that's too much effort right?0 -
This is the kind of stuff you tell yourself to avoid the guilt of how many people die to get you your smoke.
Which leads us back to the beginning and the crux of the argument. If cannabis was legalised nobody whatsoever would need to get hurt.Maybe people should have the right to use drugs. But at the moment they don't. And when you buy drugs from dealers you are funding a lot of violence. You can try and avoid the responsability by saying you have no choice but in fact you do have a choice. You can choose not to do drugs. You can choose do go on your religious pilgrimage where it is not illegal. You can take part in some coherent campaign to legalise it. You could even grow your own if you really believed in your right but didn't want it to come at the cost of lives. But that's too much effort right?
The responsibility lies with the government and the people who commit the violence. Your pontificating is starting to get tiresome at this stage.0 -
Advertisement
-
People advocating the use of Drugs concerned about the wellbeing of Government Coffers and the Abilities of the Forces of Law and Order with much concern for the common good .
That does'nt match with the typical stereotype at all .There's some game here indeed .0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M58kGCQLwxU
Advertisement