Should Weed Be Legal?

[blanco]

Giving heroin addicts a methadone supply free of charge has hardly put smack dealers out of business, so what effect is it likely to have on the black market by providing the likes of crystal meth on prescription?

[Supras]

Giving heroin addicts a methadone supply free of charge has hardly put smack dealers out of business, so what effect is it likely to have on the black market by providing the likes of crystal meth on prescription?

Because the methadone programme is a discredited mess?

[DEEJANGO]

Um, no, Cannabis is a Class B drug and possession can carry a 5 year imprisonment in the UK. In the US small scale marijuana possession, and paraphernalia has in one case led to a 96 year prison sentence.

People absolutely do get imprisoned all the time for drug possession, and all over the world too.

Have you yet provided any reason why Crystal Meth should be illegal, or who making it illegal benefits?

No they don't on the UK for personal. In very rare cases maybe but 'all the time ' no your wrong.

TBF their is no point discussing any hypothetical scenarios with someone like yourself as you deem everything you say to be FACT and brush aside everyone else's theories.

So goodnight and enjoy the pipe when you get it legalised.

[blanco]

Because the methadone programme is a discredited mess?

What makes you think that legalising every drug under the sun would be any more successful then?

[jagfox]

Giving heroin addicts a methadone supply free of charge has hardly put smack dealers out of business, so what effect is it likely to have on the black market by providing the likes of crystal meth on prescription?

Methadone is pretty vile stuff, a legacy of our country's vain attempt at the war on drugs.

Was marijuana not a name used by the US authorities to demonise cannibas along with some of those wierd anti-doper movies?

Also with alcohol and to an extent tobacco being legal I don't think anyone can really make a subjective argument for any narcotic being made illegal.

[madwullie]

People do not get imprisoned all the time for having a little drugs on them no matter what tge maximum possible penalty is. The working realities of the system are quite different.

Well seen you're a ref supras. Encyclopaedic knowledge of the theory, not so much pracitcal understanding of the reality of the game

[Supras]

No they don't on the UK for personal. In very rare cases maybe but 'all the time ' no your wrong.

TBF their is no point discussing any hypothetical scenarios with someone like yourself as you deem everything you say to be FACT and brush aside everyone else's theories.

So goodnight and enjoy the pipe when you get it legalised.

Yes, people are imprisoned for personal use all over the world including the UK. But either way, if you support the war on drugs - as you claim to - then absolutely you support imprisoning drug users which is one of the foundations of the war on drugs.

What has happened has been quite predictable, someone who doesn't know very much about this topic - you - tries to debate it with something who knows a lot more about it. My best advice is read widely, read all the encompassing arguments, both for and against legalisation. Then you won't be so far out of your depth and then you won't have to resort to nonsense hypothetical But it won't matter anyway, because by the time you do all that reading you'll agree with me. Finding enthusiastic proponents of the war on drugs is very difficult, and extremely rare, because anyone with a clue knows its a disastrous policy.

I have no interest whatsoever in consuming drugs, that is the laziest and most desperate assumption.

What makes you think that legalising every drug under the sun would be any more successful then?

Well, for a start it'd be absolutely nothing like the methadone programme. I've outlined in depth on this thread why it'd be successful and positive for society, and how similar schemes have been rampant successes in Canada - and even trials in the UK.

The methadone programme is thoroughly discredited, of course it didn't destroy heroin dealers. It didn't destroy coffee shops, either. Why would it? Again, drug policy proponents are pretty unanimous on its failure.

People do not get imprisoned all the time for having a little drugs on them no matter what tge maximum possible penalty is. The working realities of the system are quite different.

Well seen you're a ref supras. Encyclopaedic knowledge of the theory, not so much pracitcal understanding of the reality of the game

Yes, they do. All over the world. Why do you think the US has seen such an explosion in prison population recently? The answer is drug laws and imprisoning users.

The number of prisoners incarcerated on drug-related offenses rose 15-fold between 1980 and 2000.

http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar_url?hl=en&q=http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levitt/Papers/KuziemkoLevitt2004.pdf&sa=X&scisig=AAGBfm3lcuGQWzMy_djHbsG_oAfpGt3E8Q&oi=scholarr&ei=CsOWUZ-UMMHX0QWw1YHQCA&ved=0CDAQgAMoADAA

There's an article where I wholeheartedly disagree with the conclusions. But, anyway, this is yet another example where one side of the debate has not done the appropriate research and have rather made false claims that drug users are not imprisoned. Yes they absolutely are, it is a hallmark of the current system.

[Kaz]

I've never seen anyone sent to prison for simple possession of a class B drug but I have seen on occasion people sent to prison or remanded for 4 weeks for possession of class A drugs. This happens, and it is costly, there is no doubt about that. And every time someone is prosecuted for possession of an illicit substance regardless of whether it is class A, B or C, you the tax payer pay criminal defence solicitors a minimum of £485 when it is prosecuted in the Sheriff Court. It is ridiculously easy money and it must cost a fortune every year. When someone is prosecuted for cannabis cultivation for example, many of whom do so because they don't want to give money to criminal gangs standing in back alleys, or for pain allieviation, the tax payer can be paying criminal defence firms thousands of pounds.

[Smurph]

The worst thing about marijuana is getting the munchies, but half an hour later and you have a delivery driver making a sweet rhythm chapping your door, everything's better again and that's the best damn meal you've had.

I love weed. I really don't understand why it's not legal.

[Lisandro]

DRUGS SHOULD BE BOTH LEGAL AND ILLEGAL. THEY ARE GOOD AND BAD.

[jagfox]

DRUGS SHOULD BE BOTH LEGAL AND ILLEGAL. THEY ARE GOOD AND BAD.

Perhaps your consultant should up your dosage?

[peeeel]

The war on drugs, the most unmetophorical, metrophor knowing today, how can anyone think that the right method to dealing with addicts is by classifying them criminal?

Drug addiction is an illness; the illness is being fuelled by cartels worldwide that prosper through drug money.

If hypnotically I have a son, daughter nephew...ect, they fall into hard times and become an addict, I want them to get the help their illness deserves, not to be vilified by bigoted newspapers Journalist or politicians.

The war on drugs helps....

Drug Cartels, Banking Cartels, Drug Dealers, Crime Rates, Empty Jail cells, Empty Graves, ect....

The war on drugs fucks off....

Tax payers, addicts & their family/friends, doctors, nurses, police officers, ect...

Decriminalising drug may very well increase the amount of drugs being taken, however they will be clean, taxed and enjoyed.

Edited May 19, 2013 by peeeel

[BradHorse]

I've never seen anyone sent to prison for simple possession of a class B drug but I have seen on occasion people sent to prison or remanded for 4 weeks for possession of class A drugs. This happens, and it is costly, there is no doubt about that. And every time someone is prosecuted for possession of an illicit substance regardless of whether it is class A, B or C, you the tax payer pay criminal defence solicitors a minimum of £485 when it is prosecuted in the Sheriff Court. It is ridiculously easy money and it must cost a fortune every year. When someone is prosecuted for cannabis cultivation for example, many of whom do so because they don't want to give money to criminal gangs standing in back alleys, or for pain allieviation, the tax payer can be paying criminal defence firms thousands of pounds.

I think the cases of people being given lengthy terms in prison for possession of something like weed are when they've been caught doing it many, many times. As an example, I've been caught twice with weed and both time it's just been a personal amount; first time I got a £60 quid fine (I think) and second time it was £100. I know if I get caught a third time it becomes a charge or something? I dunno, the hearsay I get from my fellow tokers is if you're caught three times then it's pretty difficult to get into America. You seem pretty clued up - is that the case?

I'm sure the government must do okay financially as there'll be far many more like me who they can just make a quick £160 off than the rare examples of forking out for defence lawyers for small time possession charges.

[madwullie]

In Thailand you can get executed for carrying drugs. Seems about as relevant as mentioning what happens to people in America

[placidcasual]

If hypnotically I have a son, daughter nephew...ect, they fall into hard times and become an addict, I want them to get the help their illness deserves, not to be vilified by bigoted newspapers Journalist or politicians.

Is that with David Blaine or Derren Brown?

I dunno, the hearsay I get from my fellow tokers is if you're caught three times then it's pretty difficult to get into America. You seem pretty clued up - is that the case?

If you're so much as arrested for a crime involving "Moral Turpitude" then you lose the right to travel to the USA on the Visa Waiver Programme. You'd have to apply for a proper visa and you've next to know chance of getting one.

If you're daft enough to tell them on the application form, that is.

[DeeGas]

Booze is responsible for many deaths and much crime,but that's legal.

If people are educated to the effects of 'grass' then maybe it's about time it was decriminalised.

[RawB93]

I don't know how any drug could ever be made unavailable to any person on earth by the powers that be. It's all natural. It's all from this earth. Enormously contrasting to the legal system that stands in the way of this.

Why should we allow alcohol to be such a huge problem (larger problem than that of green) when we clamp down on others? Shades of grey I think.

[madwullie]

Only possession with intent to supply or being concerned in the supply of a controlled drug would ever lead to a person being jailed for class b possession in this country. Same for most Class A drugs also. Where it starts to get a bit murkey is if a person is say fined by the courts and they don't pay that fine then an extract warrant can be granted for say 3 days in prison for failure to pay the fine.

It doesn't matter because in certain middle eastern countries you can get the lash for possession

Edited May 19, 2013 by madwullie

[Supras]

In Thailand you can get executed for carrying drugs. Seems about as relevant as mentioning what happens to people in America

What? Given the UK took the lead on the war on drugs from the US, as the entire world did, I'd say it's very relevant what happens there.

You claimed that people are not imprisoned for drug possession under the current system, that is demonstrably false. One of the many factual errors you have made in this discussion. It's factually incorrect both here and around the world.

I think drugs should be legalised in all countries, not just the UK, and will utilise whichever examples I see fit.

Only possession with intent to supply or being concerned in the supply of a controlled drug would ever lead to a person being jailed for class b possession in this country. Same for most Class A drugs also. Where it starts to get a bit murkey is if a person is say fined by the courts and they don't pay that fine then an extract warrant can be granted for say 3 days in prison for failure to pay the fine.

The first sentence is simply not true. But anyway, what is it you are arguing? That people shouldn't be imprisoned for drug possession? Why, then, did this current government reclassify cannabis so that possession can led to 5 years imprisonment?

If you don't agree with imprisoning users, then aren't you in favour of decriminalisation? In which case, why not state your position very clearly.

It doesn't matter because in certain middle eastern countries you can get the lash for possession

Whilst you have clearly changed your views throughout this thread, and claim to not support the war on drugs, please tell me exactly what point you are trying to make. If it's that I can't use examples from around the world then my response is: yes I can, I have done openly throughout the thread, and I will continue to do so.

[madwullie]

I've not changed my views.

My point is that when confronted with evidence from the real world you deflect or obfuscate.

When shown what crystal meth does to the user - ie the effects it has you pull the frankly unworkable 12 hour monitoring response.

When it is pointed out the head of Portuguese anti-drug policy (or whatever his title was) says there would be a problem legalising because of the un you assert this is false as if he doesn't know what he is talking about.

When it is explained that people don't, in the main, get jailed for simple possession, your response is that but in America they do like we werent all talking about UK law all along. Then when an actual polis appears to explain the reality of what happens, this isn't good enough.

Throughout the thread you use the terms legalisation and decriminalisation interchangeably when they mean entirely different things.

You implied that heroin was legal in Portugal when it isn't and derided me for proposing a system which surprisingly was very similar to the Portugese system you champion

Like I said, big on the theory, lacking in the practical knowledge.

FWIW, governments seem to think that being "tough on drugs" is a big vote winner and being "soft" isn't. Hence why policy has changed re cannabis but the reality for police work is entirely different.

Edited May 19, 2013 by madwullie