Should Weed Be Legal?

[LinkinFighter]

Deeman

[Zetterlund]

I have read the first 6 or 7 pages of this topic and may read the rest later. It's not a subject I've spent much time on, so I don't claim to be an expert.

Firstly the topic poll - weed, I wouldn't actively campaign to legalise it but I wouldn't be up in arms if it did get legalised either. It's not obviously harmful, but I have no doubt that prolonged use has a lasting effect on people.

The debate about the legalisation of all drugs raises a few issues with me. For the record, I agree the "war on drugs" isn't working and needs dramatically overhauled.

- Imprisoning of people for the mere crime of consumption.

While I don't think people should be imprisoned for consuming drugs in most cases, I do think it should be illegal. Consuming a product creates the market for it so it's the consumer which perpetuates the entire drug trade.

- Forcing users to consume unsafe products.

This line has been repeated throughout the thread. Nobody is being forced to take drugs? I've never felt under any pressure from the government to take drugs. I quite easily could if I wanted to but I choose not to, as taking a mind-altering and/or addictive substance could only have a negative effect on my abilities to function as a normal human being in day-to-day life.

The rocketing usage figures for cocaine and other drugs over the past few decades is usually used to show how prohibition doesn't work but there are other factors which go some way to explain this too. It's a feature of the West's global capitalist economies that poorer countries can produce the drugs so cheaply, and the more the economic gap widens the cheaper the product will be. The average man on the street has much more disposable income than he did 30 years ago too.

I'd need to know more about the government facility idea to comment further on it. If you could legally consume drugs in here, would it still be illegal to buy and consume outside of such a facility? If so then it doesn't sound any different to current prescription drug laws? It also seems to me that the market would still be flooded with illegal suppliers undercutting the state.

[Lambie's Pigeon Feed]

I have read the first 6 or 7 pages of this topic and may read the rest later. It's not a subject I've spent much time on, so I don't claim to be an expert.

Firstly the topic poll - weed, I wouldn't actively campaign to legalise it but I wouldn't be up in arms if it did get legalised either. It's not obviously harmful, but I have no doubt that prolonged use has a lasting effect on people.

The debate about the legalisation of all drugs raises a few issues with me. For the record, I agree the "war on drugs" isn't working and needs dramatically overhauled.

While I don't think people should be imprisoned for consuming drugs in most cases, I do think it should be illegal. Consuming a product creates the market for it so it's the consumer which perpetuates the entire drug trade.

This line has been repeated throughout the thread. Nobody is being forced to take drugs? I've never felt under any pressure from the government to take drugs. I quite easily could if I wanted to but I choose not to, as taking a mind-altering and/or addictive substance could only have a negative effect on my abilities to function as a normal human being in day-to-day life.

The rocketing usage figures for cocaine and other drugs over the past few decades is usually used to show how prohibition doesn't work but there are other factors which go some way to explain this too. It's a feature of the West's global capitalist economies that poorer countries can produce the drugs so cheaply, and the more the economic gap widens the cheaper the product will be. The average man on the street has much more disposable income than he did 30 years ago too.

I'd need to know more about the government facility idea to comment further on it. If you could legally consume drugs in here, would it still be illegal to buy and consume outside of such a facility? If so then it doesn't sound any different to current prescription drug laws? It also seems to me that the market would still be flooded with illegal suppliers undercutting the state.

[chomp my root]

1. Your cost argument is going no where, conveniently entitled "speculation", because you seem to think heroin is expensive to produce. Which it really isn't. Who said anything about appointments? But you're right, drug users with consistent access to drugs will behave in a much more reasoned and consistent manner. The evidence for that is clear in Canada, and the trial in the UK.

This paragraph says nothing.

2. But it is hardly an all or nothing approach, more of an evolutionary approach. Those who don't understand the war on drugs support it, those who have a partial understanding support decriminalisation and anyone who has looked into it in any depth supports legalisation.

This paragraph also says nothing.

3. But if you're concerned or surprised by me calling the "general public" idiotic, these are the same people who sustain medieval institutions like the monarchy. They will be considered idiotic, until they demonstrate otherwise.

4. Why is it everyone bottles the debate and starts trying to pass some comment on my "tone"? Who the f**k cares

I've numbered your points for simplicity

1. I've no idea how expensive heroin is to produce but the medical professionals and security will need to get paid, there may even have to be new constructions due to people (rightly or wrongly) not wanting a heroin shop 'in my neighbourhood'. For these shops to work, they can't exactly be a 9 to 5 operation either. As for your assumption that the police will not have to spend a bean on 'naughty' drug related crime, I'm dubious to say the least.

2. Ooft, those who don't understand the war on drugs support it ? You've made yourself look a bit daft with that sweeping generalisation.

3. I agree with you about the monarchy, I'd abolish it but those pesky idiotic masses eh ? Democracies a bitch

4. The reason everyone 'bottles' the debate is because you're obsessed with your 'war on drugs' that you cherry pick what the debate entails, I can't speak for all of us but I'm not quite as 'into' it as you are, so for most of me its a non-debate, I'm guessing in your own head you've got some killer arguments desperate to see the light of day As for your 'tone' you really should work on it, I'm not saying you should be kissing babies but slagging off the people you're trying to convert is, you know, counterproductive and as you're not daft and know this, it makes me wonder why you take this approach.

[chomp my root]

1. You've said unworkable twice, and yet haven't actually demonstrated why it is unworkable. Nor have you put forward arguments for the current policy, the war on drugs, which is clearly and demonstrably unworkable.

2. Maybe he gets it somewhere else? Maybe he doesn't get it? You don't really have much of a point here. The recommended dosage will be determined by medical professionals, under no circumstances will the government decide to give users so much of a product they die. But that's assuming all drug users who are "having a bad day" instantly want heroin, and there is no evidence for this whatsoever. Why has this policy been such a dramatic success in Canada and in a trial in the UK? Er, cause it works. If I have a "shit day" I don't go home and drink a half bottle of vodka. I find it astonishing your justification for "unworkable" is conjecture you have just made up. Does any of what you're saying give a justification for imprisoning drug users?

3. It's not a smokescreen, it is an absolutely fundamental part of the debate. Obviously.

Prescribing a safe amount of drugs is not prohibition. Again, obviously. I have no idea if it will work for all, it will provide everyone with the opportunity to live a normal life, whether or not they take it. It's certainly preferable to the current system, who offers nobody a choice, and which only works for criminals.

4. I find it greatly amusing you are using "drug trafficking and crime" as an argument AGAINST drug legalisation and FOR drug prohibition. There will be greatly reduced criminal involvement in drugs following legalisation. They, more than anyone, oppose it vigorously.

I imagine the police will treat non state dealers the same way they treat those who sell illegal alcohol or cigarettes. Committing a crime, but clearly idiots who are hardly important enough to devote significant resources to. Don't really know what this has got to do with drug legalisation, however.

Your last sentence makes no sense.

5. You don't get it, at all. This is demonstrated by your scatter gun, contradictory, posts. It's not naive, there is one of us here with a developed understanding of different drug policy alternatives. That person is not you. The current system is dangerous to all users, and indeed society as a whole. A legalisation system would be considerably less dangerous, for the reasons already outlined.

6. By different financial burden, you should be saying considerably reduced financial burden.

7. There is no logic that appeals to the messy logic of people? Well, people crave for substances that alter their state of mind. They will also want drugs. We as a society have neither the capability nor desire to stop the production of drugs. Therefore, the current system is fatally flawed and doomed to failure, as it has done on every level. To develop an alternative policy requires a certain amount of scholarship in addition to practical studies. Which is why the system in place in Canada, and the trial in the UK, are so important in determining the best way to progress.

8. Your closing comments laughably assumes that 99% of people support the war on drugs and only 1% support legalisation. This simply isn't true. Legalising cannabis is a positive move, and step one of full scale legalisation.

I am "angry" about the war on drugs the same way the abolitionists were "angry" about slavery. When you see human beings suffering, and know of ways to alleviate it, of course you will vigorously support the implementation of a new policy.

1. I may have said unworkable twice, probably because I think its really unworkable, I've given examples, you chose not to accept them, move on. Again with the war on drugs, I've not given an argument to back it because apparently I don't understand it but still back it according to you. Not sure how I could

2. Aye, because we all listen to what the government says, 3-4 units of alcohol a day blah blah blah, if you want something you'll try and get it, as for 'all' heroin users (words in mouth stuff), it doesn't take all, even just a few to come straight out of the heroin shop and go and get another hit of dodgy stuff and die. Again, not exactly your utopian dream of fluffy drugs for all who want them scenario. As for imprisoning drug users, thats a seperate argument and one that you're trying to throw into the mix.

3. Your argument that state controlled drugs for all, administered by professionals means what ? I'm guessing what the pro's decide is the correct amount, not what Joe Public think/want, surely you can see that there might be a slight difference of opinion. Sounds like 'control' to me which could be interpreted as prohibitions wee brother. Not to mention that depending on the hours the 'shop' is open (more hours mean more cost) that people might want 'out of office hours' hits, where to turn to, hmm.

4. I take your point and I'd love to remove the criminal element but even if the police said they weren't going to go for illegal drug dealers, some of these guys are involved in other crime too so fair game. There's also the people who may commit crime to get the money for their hit either from the 'shop' or dealers.

5. Meh, opinion, you've got yours and I've got mine, and in my opinion your's is naive, for the reasons I've given

6. Again, you're saying that coming from your no 'war on drugs' if they're all legalised and so the police won't spend a bean chasing drug dealers. As I've said, I find that scenario extremely naive.

7. So, replace one flawed system with another, involving the government as a partner, aye, even if your heroin shops were 99.9% successful that still leaves the government with a couple of unwanted statistics.

8. I think its you that thinks 99% of the population support the war on drugs, you're the only one banging on about it. 99% of the population may be against the legalisation of heroin and the like but what does that matter, they're all idiotic. As for your 'anger'.

grrrr you get 'em tiger.

[chomp my root]

Unlike you, of course, who has no facts. And is trying to turn this into a discussion on me for some reason

Is it because you are doing so badly on the topic itself?

Common courtesy doesn't covert people, facts do. And if people aren't converted by facts, then they are the idiots I previously referred to. Funny that you're green dotting each other, though, alone you were failing, and together you are doing even worse.

Sorry, did I not get back to you quick enough, getting bored not having anyone to 'seethe' at ?

[Zetterlund]

???

[Dee Man]

Trawling through pages and pages for that?

Tragic.

Yet another stellar contribution to the forum from Jimmy85.

[LinkinFighter]

To be fair you mentioned destroying someone

[Jimmy85]

Trawling through pages and pages for that?

It's called reading through the thread. Kinda what forums are designed for tbh.

[The Moonster]

Trawling through pages and pages for that?

Tragic.

Yet another stellar contribution to the forum from Jimmy85.

He's still contributed more than you. All you've done is threaten to contribute, f**k off, come back and threaten to contribute. Again.

[1320Lichtie]

No really an expert or know what I am speaking about to much as dont dabble in drugs but I think it should stay illegal, I would say legal if it was to get treated by people the same way as alcohol is, but could just see it becoming a farce, could just imagine workies having fag breaks doing whatever they are doing and sneakily having a joint or whatever.

[The Moonster]

No really an expert or know what I am speaking about to much as dont dabble in drugs but I think it should stay illegal, I would say legal if it was to get treated by people the same way as alcohol is, but could just see it becoming a farce, could just imagine workies having fag breaks doing whatever they are doing and sneakily having a joint or whatever.

Yip, we're world renowned for our responsible attitude to drinking.

[1320Lichtie]

Yip, we're world renowned for our responsible attitude to drinking.

What I meant was folk would be much more likely in my opinion to sneak in a few joints instead of a few pints whilst on shift.

Edited February 10, 2014 by 1320Lichtie

[parsforlife]

No really an expert or know what I am speaking about to much as dont dabble in drugs but I think it should stay illegal, I would say legal if it was to get treated by people the same way as alcohol is, but could just see it becoming a farce, could just imagine workies having fag breaks doing whatever they are doing and sneakily having a joint or whatever.

If people are under the influence of/ taking drugs at work and their performance hampered as a result(which it would for some drugs , such as weed or alcohol, but not for others such as nicotine or caffeine) then they should be rightly disciplined, I'm not sure how legality of the drugs make it acceptable for their use in work, if you go drinking at lunch and come back pissed you haven't broken the law, but you won't get away with it either.

[The Moonster]

What I meant was folk would be much more likely in my opinion to sneak in a few joints instead of a few pints whilst on shift.

I just don't see it. Weed has a pretty pungent smell, if someone's been smoking it you would generally know. Making weed legal won't turn weed smokers into mad weed-craving jake-balls, sneaking in joints at every opportunity, it'll allow them to continue as they are without the worry of wending up in jail for putting something that isn't harmful in their body. I also don't see making weed legal pushing someone to start smoking it, if they're going to try it, they'll do so anyway.

[Kaz]

No doubt he's done research but he's presenting it like the word of God, to quote Disreali (or Twain) lies, damn lies and statistics. I'm sure anyone who decided to set themselves up as the guru on any topic could find 'facts' to back themselves up.

Oh and if he's wanting to convert people to his way of thinking, common courtesy is a good starting point, if he becomes sick of repeating himself (ha) then theres no need to re-enter the debate. No offence but you're coming across as the wee guy stood behind the big guy going "yeah, what he says".

What on earth are you on about? He has simply presented his opinion in a clear, concise and logical manner.

So far as your comment in bold is concerned, I have a considerable interest in this topic for a variety of reasons and I'm happy to debate any aspect of the legalisation debate with you without anyone's assistance.

In my job I see the failure of criminalisation and the war on drugs on a daily basis. I see the vast sums of money which are squandered on it. I see lives being destroyed because of it, and criminal gangs getting rich from it. I don't know Supras but everything he says on the subject appears to be logical. So I'm intrigued to hear why you think continued criminalisation is the way forward......

[Dee Man]

He's still contributed more than you. All you've done is threaten to contribute, f**k off, come back and threaten to contribute. Again.

It's absolutely pointless debating with this Supras boy. He's too immature to admit when he's wrong so he's a lost cause. A fruitloop. I feel as if I'm replying to this guy:

If you want to fight his corner, go for it.

How would it be possible to administer "safe doses" to junkies? Who determines the safe dose when it's the junkie themselves who decide when they've got the fix they're after? What happens when the junkie needs another fix but has already exceeded his daily limit?

Just a couple of questions for starters.

[Supras]

How would it be possible to administer "safe doses" to junkies?

It's fucking easily possible you absolute zoomer.

Medical staff administer safe doses of drugs all the fucking time

Here's one doing it with heroin for decades http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/ontv/theinsider/heroin+on+the+nhs/649957.html whilst practicing as a senior GP.

And yet you are asking how it's possible? And you wonder why people think you're a fucking idiot who has been utterly destroyed on this thread?

[Dee Man]

It's fucking easily possible you absolute zoomer.

Medical staff administer safe doses of drugs all the fucking time

Here's one doing it with heroin for decades http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/ontv/theinsider/heroin+on+the+nhs/649957.html whilst practicing as a senior GP.

And yet you are asking how it's possible? And you wonder why people think you're a fucking idiot who has been utterly destroyed on this thread?

Answer the follow up questions and stop using selective quoting in a vain attempt to avoid the obvious gaping holes in your argument as per.