Should Weed Be Legal?

[blanco]

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.

At what point does drug addiction change from being an illness to an enjoyable lifestyle choice

[Supras]

I've not changed my views.

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

By "real world" do you mean your personal experiences? Erm, yeah. I find the idea that you know more about this topic than me highly amusing.

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.

Nobody ever cited the evidence regarding the 12 hour high. But is monitoring users of drugs for 12 hours workable? Um, yes. It happens in hospitals all the time

That's on the same level as your "legalisation means kids can get drugs easier".

No, my response to the comments from the head of the Portugal drug policy was "I can't exactly comment until he clarifies what justification the UN has from preventing legalisation, or what steps they would take to do so."

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.

The rest of your points are just, typically, misguided, but it is a fact that people are imprisoned for drug possession here and around the world. It's one of the primary reasons I am against the war on drugs. There is an abundance of examples of people getting prison sentences for drug possession. Saying otherwise is explicitly counter factual, which is pretty standard from you by know. When you don't know anything - just lie and see if it sticks.

I have never ever used legalisation or decriminalisation interchangeably, I know the intricacies of both far better than you do.

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.

The Portuguese system is incomplete, and I've explained exactly why. You didn't respond to this because, as usual, you go on the offensive, are quickly routed, then disappear and create these embarrassing and clearly incorrect summaries. I mean, what do you think has happened in this thread? Have you provided a justification for keeping heroin illegal? Have you ever even attempted to answer the moral justification for making consumption illegal? No, you have failed on each point, along with dropping clangers like legalisation will mean kids get greater access to drugs. I don't mind dispelling the kind of myths you are perpetuatuing, what I find bizarre is that you're still here, claiming you've got it right! It's as if you are suffering mass, repeated delusion.

Most members of government are intelligent people, look throughout the MPs and you'll struggle to find a big proponent of the wonderful war on drugs. They don't exist.

But anyway, if you want to stand up from your sixth knockout, and provide specific examples of:

1) Who benefits from making harder drugs such as heroin illegal.

2) What moral justification you have for making the voluntary consumption of a drug illegal.

3) Why you would promote a policy that would force users to buy an unsafe product from criminal gangs and support organised crime.

Give them a bash, I don't think I'll be surprised.

[madwullie]

Urgh just typed a reply and phone crashed. I don't have as much time as I used to on here to type lenghty replies (and im invariably on the phone) hence why I've not been posting in here as much as I once would and the topic moves on once I finally get the chance to write at length

One thing that you don't seem to grasp re the monitoring: meth, acid (12 hour hit), ecstacy, amphetamines are all drugs that are used in conjunction with the environment they are consumed in. People simply won't want to sit ina sterile facility to be monitored while under the influence. If they can only consume and remain in these places they will have to source their drugs elsewherw. Heroin works because it makes people want to lounge about, and its qll about the drug not mattering where its taken.

I'll reply to the rest of what you said later in the week when I have access to a pc

Edited May 19, 2013 by madwullie

[Supras]

Urgh just typed a reply and phone crashed. I don't have as much time as I used to on here to type lenghty replies (and im invariably on the phone) hence why I've not been posting in here as much as I once would and the topic moves on once I finally get the chance to write at length

One thing that you don't seem to grasp re the monitoring: meth, acid (12 hour hit), ecstacy, amphetamines are all drugs that are used in conjunction with the environment they are consumed in. People simply won't want to sit ina sterile facility to be monitored while under the influence. If they can only consume and remain in these places they will have to source their drugs elsewherw. Heroin works because it makes people want to lounge about, and its qll about the drug not mattering where its taken.

I'll reply to the rest of what you said later in the week when I have access to a pc

And if they don't want to take a legal product, and want to risk their life, then fine. That's their choice. It absolutely isn't an argument against legalisation though, some people will still consume products from criminal gangs, but there's no need for the government to force all users to go to do so.

Of course, and I've emphasized this several times, the monitoring would only be in the initial phase so effects can be monitored and the drug could be more widely available to the public following a structured scientific review. We'll go with the solution that the evidence says is best, but initially it will be monitored.

I don't know how I have to keep pointing this out, although I find it highly amusing that two of the arguments you've put forward against legalisation are:

1) You shouldn't be able to get heroin in your local corner shop!!!

2) People don't want to consume in steralised facilities!!!

Must be a real pity I'm actually proposing a workable solution, eh?

[madwullie]

Well no because I'm not posting on this bevause I want to win an argument, but because I'm interested in the topic.

If a way could be found to safely decriminalise the majority of drugs, benefit society and get these mythical sensible politicians and the media on board I'd be all for it. I'm not convinced by your system though. Or your faith in governments who despite being so against the war on drugs, perpetuate the war on drugs and seldom if ever stand for election on a ticket that even remotely resembles anything talked about in this thread

Edited May 19, 2013 by madwullie

[nessies long lost ghost]

All drugs should be legalised.

[Supras]

Well no because I'm not posting on this bevause I want to win an argument, but because I'm interested in the topic.

If a way could be found to safely decriminalise the majority of drugs, benefit society and get these mythical sensible politicians and the media on board I'd be all for it. I'm not convinced by your system though. Or your faith in governments who despite being so against the war on drugs, perpetuate the war on drugs and seldom if ever stand for election on a ticket that even remotely resembles anything talked about in this thread

Why are you not convinced by my system? So far your criticisms have been directly contradictory, not enough and control AND too much control? If you could summarise it in a series of points that'd be great.

And of course, address the three points I asked of you on the last page. I've justified my position both in moral terms, who it benefits and exactly how it'd work in practice. If you think your system is so superior - or that mine doesn't work - it should be easy enough to comply with these requests.

[Lambie's Pigeon Feed]

I brought this up with a mate in Saturday, he was anti decriminalization/legalization because he uses weed as a scapegoat for not finishing uni. Notwithstanding that he hardly touched the stuff compared to others in that peer group this was 100% the reason and therefore nobody else can touch it.

I've got another mate who did pretty shit at school and blames weed, in fact he still blames it for a bad memory (he hasn't smoked anything for 10+ years).

Someone from our school killed himself recently, none of us are still in contact with him or know why he did it. People immediately started blaming him smoking soap bar in school (again 10+ years ago).

I know a few people who blindly accept it makes everyone mad and leads to hard drugs, they are reluctant to accept other views.

That booze could just have easily caused them to do shit at school/uni, that cities would be better if half the pissheads just got stoned/loved up meaning less fights, etc.

On so many topics its amazing how many people refuse to think differently to the conventional government/media message which is so often mistruths and bullshit.

[Supras]

Do you know why they failed in school/uni? It had nothing to do with whether or not weed is illegal, and absolutely everything to do with their own personal failings.

That's what you should tell them.

[deadasdillinger]

For something that grows naturally in the ground with no refinement needed to it to smoke it. I can't see any reason for it to be illegal

Well that's a weak argument. There's plenty that grows in the ground which, with no refinement needed, can kill you. I really don't see what that has to do with weed being legal or illegal.

I think it should be legal but I don't particularly care.

[Supras]

Yeah, I only care about great injustice when it affects me.

[Lambie's Pigeon Feed]

Do you know why they failed in school/uni? It had nothing to do with whether or not weed is illegal, and absolutely everything to do with their own personal failings.

That's what you should tell them.

That is exactly what I do tell them, unsurprisingly they aren't just going to get off their high horse and admit that there and then but hopefully it is food for thought.

[blanco]

Yeah, I only care about great injustice when it affects me.

Do you carry a portable soap box everywhere you go, allowing the lttle people to be educated whenever you feel they need your opinion.

[Supras]

Do you carry a portable soap box everywhere you go, allowing the lttle people to be educated whenever you feel they need your opinion.

Is there a type of soap box that is non portable?

But yeah, of course you're entitled to not care, it just shows that you lack empathy. You are probably against emergency aid to developing countries too if it means you only get a fortnightly bin collection.

[Suspect Device]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-23516966

Uruguay show the way to make demand for weed fall. Nationalise it.

Still can't see our country following their weed lead.

[Lambie's Pigeon Feed]

I don't know a lot about Uruguay apart from they are the best football team in the world by population, they have legalised green, they're women are stunning and they have the balls to stand up for themselves (I spent a week trying to get in but they shut the borders with Argentina to make them clean up a paper mill that was pissing pollution into their rivers).

I also like the way Uruguayans say Ooragwiy

Respect.

[NorthAyrshireKillie]

Uruguay kens the score.

[10 CC ICT]

Was it not cotton growers that got it banned in the states? Hemp was a serious threat to their livelihoods.

[KeeperDee]

Was it not cotton growers that got it banned in the states? Hemp was a serious threat to their livelihoods.

More the timber production companies I think.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Pie & Bovril mobile app

[Reynard]

Prohibition solved nothing. Ever.