Should Weed Be Legal?

[Supras]

What a load of complete and utter bullshit. You live in a fucking fantasy land.

So the state would dictate the amount of drugs you are allowed to take? So a crackhead/smackhead/meth head wants to get completely off their tits and are told, " Sorry, this is all your allowed to take today". Does the druggie just walk out and say "Oh well"?

It's not a fantasy land, it's a rigorous and reviewed model that I have posted in depth on this site on several occasions. What's happening here, is that you're sore as f**k that I've totally destroyed you on this thread (in every conceivable way) so will lash out at eminently logical proposals.

But, in reference to your second paragraph, here is where it works absolutely brilliantly with heroin in Canada - http://www.psmag.com/science/vancouvers-free-heroin-injection-clinic-58029/

And in the UK - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8255418.stm

You've brought up meth completely inappropriately in this thread already, but if a "meth head" wanted to consume more drugs the very best place he could be is a government facility. If he's aggressive towards, he'll be imprisoned instantly. Simple as that.

This is almost as bizarre an argument as you saying a meth head should be given their ice in a controlled environment despite you later admitting to not having a clue as to the effects of crystal meth.

You've said this twice. And it still never happened.

I know significantly more about the effects of crystal meth than you, obviously, but I'm not going to claim to be an expert in the chemical make up of every currently illegal drug. Especially one that isn't even remotely an issue in the UK.

[robbie bobson]

" Jail for growing a plant ? " A gypsy laughed

c/o Highland papers

[Dee Man]

I don't know that much about the effects of Crystal Meth, I've never claimed I did,

[Supras]

I don't know that much about the effects of Crystal Meth, I've never claimed I did,

Er, yeah, a factually correct statement. And not at all what you claimed here:

despite you later admitting to not having a clue as to the effects of crystal meth.

Below is what you wrote after calling me stupid, and what you failed to notice after I quoted and suggested I might have to SPELL it out for you.

Drug. Singular.

That was it? FFS

[Dee Man]

I know significantly more about the effects of crystal meth than you, obviously,

No you don't.

[robbie bobson]

[Supras]

No you don't.

Okay, demonstrate to me your knowledge and credentials.

And whilst you are there tell me exactly why we should imprison people solely for the voluntary consumption of a product.

[blanco]

You don't get 20 litre vats of vodka being sold in the shops. And of course it doesn't happen in any countries that have legalised drugs.

If cars were illegal would there be more or less road deaths in Scotland? If fast food was illegal would there be more or less obesity deaths in Scotland? Do you want booze, cars and McDonald's outlawed?

20 litre vats of vodka have never been a requirement to binge drink AFAIK, as for the second point, I wouldn't outlaw anything, I was simply asking how he came to the absurd conclusion that legality of drugs combats bingeing.

People do things to excess because it's in their nature not because of the legal status of what they're consuming.

[LinkinFighter]

Oh really

You're not worth debating, carry on.

[Supras]

20 litre vats of vodka have never been a requirement to binge drink AFAIK, as for the second point, I wouldn't outlaw anything, I was simply asking how he came to the absurd conclusion that legality of drugs combats bingeing.

People do things to excess because it's in their nature not because of the legal status of what they're consuming.

Er, and I answered that fully with a very detailed and specific answer as to how it would work in practice.

So it's not "absurd" you just didn't have the knowledge to understand it. Glad I've now passed it on.

[chomp my root]

On the actual question I voted yes, I've never tried it and thats unlikely to change but from seeing friends take it for years I have no problem with weed and for all the reasons stated, it makes sense.

On the argument that all drugs should be legalised, I find that one completely unworkable, I can follow Supras's logic for it but (if I've got what he's saying) I can pop down to my local heroin clinic for my regular fix and alls peachy, I hand over my cash and I'm sorted. What would happen if I lose my job/retire and can't afford it now ? Do I get it off the NHS (why work then ?) or do I resort to the current system of committing crimes to feed my habit (government condoned/assisted) to buy illegal (and possibly cheaper crappier) replacements. Would I then deserve to be punished by the criminal justice system for building a habit that the government have had a hand in creating ? While I'm no fan of the nanny state surely they would have some kind of duty of care, possibly making any official 'heroin shops' fairly cost prohibitive for a lot of users.

There's also the 'masses' who vote for our policy makers, who rely on the 'masses' for their jobs. Suggesting to these masses that the government want to set up 'heroin shops' would be a vote loser so the masses would need to be 'educated' that its acceptable. Cannabis would, I would imagine be acceptable to a lot, if not most but much more than that I think no matter how much some may want it (and how much 'logic' they may use) they'll be pushing against public opinion which doesn't really have to rely on anything, personal prejudice can go a long way. Its back to convincing people that its the best course which is doubtful at best.

Edited February 9, 2014 by chomp my root

[Lambie's Pigeon Feed]

On the actual question I voted yes, I've never tried it and thats unlikely to change but from seeing friends take it for years I have no problem with weed and for all the reasons stated, it makes sense.

On the argument that all drugs should be legalised, I find that one completely unworkable, I can follow Supras's logic for it but (if I've got what he's saying) I can pop down to my local heroin clinic for my regular fix and alls peachy, I hand over my cash and I'm sorted. What would happen if I lose my job/retire and can't afford it now ? Do I get it off the NHS (why work then ?) or do I resort to the current system of committing crimes to feed my habit (government condoned/assisted) to buy illegal (and possibly cheaper crappier) replacements. Would I then deserve to be punished by the criminal justice system for building a habit that the government have had a hand in creating ? While I'm no fan of the nanny state surely they would have some kind of duty of care, possibly making any official 'heroin shops' fairly cost prohibitive for a lot of users.

There's also the 'masses' who vote for our policy makers, who rely on the 'masses' for their jobs. Suggesting to these masses that the government want to set up 'heroin shops' would be a vote loser so the masses would need to be 'educated' that its acceptable. Cannabis would, I would imagine be acceptable to a lot, if not most but much more than that I think no matter how much some may want it (and how much 'logic' they may use) they'll be pushing against public opinion which doesn't really have to rely on anything, personal prejudice can go a long way. Its back to convincing people that its the best course which is doubtful at best.

What happens when an alcoholic loses his job or retires?

[chomp my root]

What happens when an alcoholic loses his job or retires?

They get assistance from the NHS as you know, my point was that heroin shops would be quite expensive if the current booze/tabs tax levels were used to make the service more or less cost neutral. This may push people down the current root so what happens to these people ? Alcoholics/alcohol abusers who commit crimes aren't immune from the long arm of the law so I would assume that Drug users/addicts would be the same.

The other strand of my argument is the acceptance angle and you agree surely that right or wrong people would be against it which firmly throws it back to the 'pro' camp to convince people to change their attitudes. The catch 22 of politicians and the voters would suggest (to me anyway) that the 'logic' of legalising all drugs would not be pushed (geddit) on us by politicians.

[Hearts Daft]

Theres quite enough rancid tramps outside boozers smoking it, ta.

[Supras]

On the argument that all drugs should be legalised, I find that one completely unworkable, I can follow Supras's logic for it but (if I've got what he's saying)

Completely unworkable? You mean, exactly like the current system then? You'll question will be answered shortly, but if that is the biggest objection to drug legalisation here are mine to the war on drugs.

- Imprisoning of people for the mere crime of consumption.

- Causing untold deaths and misery by moving the supply to criminals.

- Forcing users to consume unsafe products.

- Billions spent worldwide, to absolutely no positive effect.

So if you disagree with legalisation and think it is "unworkable", what do you propose?

I can pop down to my local heroin clinic for my regular fix and alls peachy, I hand over my cash and I'm sorted. What would happen if I lose my job/retire and can't afford it now ? Do I get it off the NHS (why work then ?) or do I resort to the current system of committing crimes to feed my habit (government condoned/assisted) to buy illegal (and possibly cheaper crappier) replacements. Would I then deserve to be punished by the criminal justice system for building a habit that the government have had a hand in creating ? While I'm no fan of the nanny state surely they would have some kind of duty of care, possibly making any official 'heroin shops' fairly cost prohibitive for a lot of users.

What happens if you can't afford a product? You don't buy it. Simple, really. Of course, users will have immediate help should they decide to stop using the drug, and a structured plan of decreasing usage will be in place to wean them off the drug. It already happens in Canada, addiction can be cured by a structured process of decreasing dosage.

Of course, it'd would require a lengthy and detailed process to develop a pricing structure, but given the dosage you can buy is greatly restricted, and the almost non existent costs of production, I struggle to envision a situation when you won't be able to afford it.

Unlike the current, clearly insane, policy of prohibition I would never punish users for buying from illegal sources of heroin. These sources will be significantly more expensive, and of far reduced quality, so why in the hell would anyone buy it?

The government did not create the addiction, they provided a safe product to the overwhelming benefit of their citizens. I don't see any valid reasoning for making it "cost prohibitive".

There's also the 'masses' who vote for our policy makers, who rely on the 'masses' for their jobs. Suggesting to these masses that the government want to set up 'heroin shops' would be a vote loser so the masses would need to be 'educated' that its acceptable. Cannabis would, I would imagine be acceptable to a lot, if not most but much more than that I think no matter how much some may want it (and how much 'logic' they may use) they'll be pushing against public opinion which doesn't really have to rely on anything, personal prejudice can go a long way. Its back to convincing people that its the best course which is doubtful at best.

It wouldn't so much be a shop, as a government health facility. Which already exists. I think the majority of the population, idiotic though the masses are, have realised that the war on drugs is a ludicrous and unworkable policy. The zeitgeist, certainly amongst the young, is going towards drug legalisation. Not just here, but throughout the world. But of course I can, and do, play a part in educating people on this issue. Over the past few years why don't you look at the reaction to these threads? The zeitgeist is moving, and very quickly too. Here's Nick Clegg - http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/feb/08/clegg-britain-must-join-drugs-debate

Finding people who are passionately in favour of the war on drugs is extremely difficult, and has been for years. These people don't exist. If you understand the war on drugs, you don't agree with it.

They get assistance from the NHS as you know, my point was that heroin shops would be quite expensive if the current booze/tabs tax levels were used to make the service more or less cost neutral. This may push people down the current root so what happens to these people ? Alcoholics/alcohol abusers who commit crimes aren't immune from the long arm of the law so I would assume that Drug users/addicts would be the same. The other strand of my argument is the acceptance angle and you agree surely that right or wrong people would be against it which firmly throws it back to the 'pro' camp to convince people to change their attitudes. The catch 22 of politicians and the voters would suggest (to me anyway) that the 'logic' of legalising all drugs would not be pushed (geddit) on us by politicians.

Why would "heroin shops" be expensive? But still, even if we do consider the cost of setting up additional health facilities, it would be a drop in the ocean compared to the policing costs of the war on drugs, the cost of imprisoning users and the cost of lost production from addicts. The economic argument is unequivocally in favour.

The Pro camp don't need to present their argument, I'm more than happy to do so, but I want someone to tell me why they think people who voluntarily consume drugs should be imprisoned? Can anyone even attempt to answer that question? Those opposed should be standing up and justifying the complete failure of their policy.

And would drug users who commit crimes be punished? Well, obviously.

[chomp my root]

You keep re'hash'ing the same arguments and you obviously believe them which is fair enough. You seem to want to wrap the whole drugs thing into one easy 'fix' which it isn't. As for costs, its all speculation but I would imagine the whole process would not be cheap. Thats assuming that all the 'users' of the system play the game and instead of being spontaneous just pick up the phone and book an appointment for a week next thursday instead of saying "I want it now". Naivity in the extreme I'd suggest.

I don't know if this war on drugs that seems to excite you is a 'war on terror' big picture thing or just the general push by law enforcement to arrest criminals so I've no idea and can't and won't comment. Probably because I'm one of the idiotic masses though. Thats probably the reason I don't buy into your all or nothing approach (or is it MY way or the highway, hmmm)

It is the pro change groups role to err, push for change, they're the ones who don't like the status quo. If you are thinking of starting a pressure group I'd get someone else to be the 'poster boy', theres a few people out there who don't appreciate being described as idiotic and you might not sway them with your charm.

[Smurph]

Should weed become legal how would it be sold? Would specialised weed shops just start opening up and people could pop in and buy it or would it be available in bars/coffee shops or would it be in special weed sections of supermarkets? Only sold online perhaps?

I'd love shops that sold nothing but marijuana and various paraphernalia. Go in, have a chat with the guy and see what's what. They'd have so many different strains. It would be beautiful. Coffee shops/bars would nullify the reason to go to Amsterdam on holiday and I really like Amsterdam. f**k supermarkets; go to your local weed supplier.

[Lambie's Pigeon Feed]

You keep re'hash'ing the same arguments and you obviously believe them which is fair enough. You seem to want to wrap the whole drugs thing into one easy 'fix' which it isn't. As for costs, its all speculation but I would imagine the whole process would not be cheap. Thats assuming that all the 'users' of the system play the game and instead of being spontaneous just pick up the phone and book an appointment for a week next thursday instead of saying "I want it now". Naivity in the extreme I'd suggest.

I don't know if this war on drugs that seems to excite you is a 'war on terror' big picture thing or just the general push by law enforcement to arrest criminals so I've no idea and can't and won't comment. Probably because I'm one of the idiotic masses though. Thats probably the reason I don't buy into your all or nothing approach (or is it MY way or the highway, hmmm)

It is the pro change groups role to err, push for change, they're the ones who don't like the status quo. If you are thinking of starting a pressure group I'd get someone else to be the 'poster boy', theres a few people out there who don't appreciate being described as idiotic and you might not sway them with your charm.

The tone of his posts in these threads is often OTT but everything he says is correct.

Your only come back was cost which is your own misinformed opinion.

Heroin isn't going to be sold as a recreational drugs and legalisation is will not increase usage, in fact the evidence shows it decreases uses as in Portugal.

With smack you are still trying to get people off it, bit providing a safe controlled way to do it.

Ecstasy and weed would be sold as recreational drugs in a very controlled environment. These drugs are less harmful and less addictive to the user than alcohol or tobacco.

In the nicest way possible you haven't figured it out yet, that's not a slight on you, 99% of the population recoil in horror when someone proposes legalising all drugs but it is the best thing for everyone.

That's why he keeps telling you its hard to find a staunch proponent of the war on drugs who will debate the issue, its because they can't win the arguement and even they know it.

[chomp my root]

The tone of his posts in these threads is often OTT but everything he says is correct.

Your only come back was cost which is your own misinformed opinion.

Heroin isn't going to be sold as a recreational drugs and legalisation is will not increase usage, in fact the evidence shows it decreases uses as in Portugal.

With smack you are still trying to get people off it, bit providing a safe controlled way to do it.

Ecstasy and weed would be sold as recreational drugs in a very controlled environment. These drugs are less harmful and less addictive to the user than alcohol or tobacco.

In the nicest way possible you haven't figured it out yet, that's not a slight on you, 99% of the population recoil in horror when someone proposes legalising all drugs but it is the best thing for everyone.

That's why he keeps telling you its hard to find a staunch proponent of the war on drugs who will debate the issue, its because they can't win the arguement and even they know it.

Just because you agree with him and no matter how hard you wish it were the case it is unworkable. Your heroin user goes along to the government clinic/shop (it sell stuff, its a shop to me, doesn't mean I think it'll be next to RS McColls on the 'High' st.) and gets his stuff, job done. Next day for whatever reason he's having a shit day he wants another hit of the good stuff but the heroin shop says sorry mate you had yours yesterday you'll have to wait XX days/hrs. What does our user do ? Say "fair enough chief I'll pop back then" or does he get it from somewhere else ?

All the talk of prohibition not working is a bit of a smoke screen, what (seems to me anyway) is being said is the government can get better safer drugs. The system being proposed isn't going to be a 'get what you want, when you want, as long as you can pay' approach, whats being suggested is a 'professional' telling you how much you can get and how often. A form of prohibition. While this might work for some do you really think this will work for all ? So we have the heroin shops, we still have illegal drug trafficking and the crime associated with people committing crime to get their fix. This doesn't exactly fit the utopian vision presented to end this 'war on drugs' stuff (forgive my ignorance of all its ramifications). So we still have police trying to stop the 'bad' non state drug sellers and criminals who commit crimes to get them. We also have a situation where people can 'justify' even if only to themselves that its not their fault and as we all know wheres there blame theres a claim so its the governments fault.

While in your eyes, I don't get it, I could argue the reverse and suggest your approach is very naive and possibly dangerous to many (as it is now I realise) but state sanctioned and therefore potentially a different financial burden on the state. Before Supras asks me for my 'specific' solutions (for his no doubt unbiased consideration) to the problem I don't have it, sorry, it's not something that I've given a great deal of thought to but as ever I try and keep an open mind and theres not been any real 'logic' in this thread that works in the messy world of people (for me).

I have to say as a closing comment that if 99% don't get it then maybe its the 1% that are at odds. Keep trying to change peoples minds by all means but I would suggest that legalising cannabis would be the first step rather than the all or nothing angry approach.

[chomp my root]

I'm a ridiculous kind of a cat