[Closed] Is anyone actually opposed to legalisation of marijuana use?

There's also strong medical evidence of it causing psychological issues in predisposed users?

I've no problem with the old style did but the skunk type stuff is the meths drinking end of the spectrum to continue the alcohol analogies.

Give it a generation. Older people vote and a lot of them vote Conservative. They would not vote for a party with a pro decriminalisation policy. I imagine that will change in a decade or two in terms of a shift in the demographic (older people dying).

The SNP have already debated the use of Marijuana for medicinal purposes. I expect it to be included in some future legislation at Holyrood. As for general use I think the jury is still out on the pros and cons - i.e. there's plenty of evidence on both sides of the debate. Until that becomes more one-sided I can't see things changing. What's interesting to me is that it's now been around long enough that a significant portion of the public and our lawmakers must have first-hand experience and yet it remains a classified drug.

Interesting about the older people... do the ones who are currently not quite old just get more conservative as they get to be old codgers?

I've noticed my parents' politics get more conservative after retirement

Waswas - I should imagine there are many alcoholics suffering with debilitating mental and physical effects of plain old Famous Grouse / Gordon's Gin without resorting to drinking meths.

I'd also imagine that a kid bought up on 12hrs per day of Call of Duty / GTA is as likely to suffer some kind of mental aggravation as a skunk smoker.
There are dozens of analogies to be had, but the fact is that nearly any substance/input will cause you physical harm if used excessively.

Personally I wouldn't advocate legalising for recreational use.

I think tobacco and alcohol are a poor comparative measure too. If invented now I'm not convinced they'd be allowed but 100s of years of consumption and industry built around them ensures their continued legality and in the case of many they are enjoyed in relative moderation to no long term harm to the individual. I've also seen lives ruined by booze and drugs.

I don't smoke but enjoy the odd beer.

There are iirc links (or suggestions of links) to psychotic illness associated with some of the more pungent cannabis strains too, along with effects on short term memory. Those risks might be worthwhile to alleviate medical symptoms of something else but in addition to booze and fags personally I think it would be a step the wrong way.

This country doesn't need more people who are incapable through drugs, legalised or not. There's also the risks around driving and roadside testing etc.

As for the COD/GTA analogy I'm sure you are right that this would have that effect too but just because there's one (or 2 or 3) options to mess people up I don't see that offering another isnt going to make exacerbate it further.

^^^ As above. Ban it.

Slimjim78 - no doubt. And would it be legalised if we knew that was a probable outcome for some users and alcohol was currently a banned drug?

I wouldn't go classing this as a generational thing, it was legal until 1928, prescribable after that until 1971, and the literal poster boy for the drug, Bob Marley would be 71 this year.

My personal view is that we live in a society where alcohol is an accepted and legal form of getting completely wasted for millions every week, therefore it's beyond strange that a drug such as sensi is considered dangerous and to be banned.

I don't think it's any more harmful than alcohol, although admittedly the effect it has on me now is not pleasant (paranoia etc.), but not really sure Britain needs *another* easily accessible recreational drug to choose from...

edit: pretty much what garage_dweller said

Yes, because we should be trusted to make our own minds up and behave responsibly.

If cars were invented now, or planes, we wouldn't ban them because death by crashing would be a certain outcome for some, would we?

Not sure, I can see strong arguments for decriminalisation but at the same time have first hand experience of friends who've really lost there way from using.

My personal view is that we live in a society where alcohol is an accepted and legal form of getting completely wasted for millions every week, therefore it's beyond strange that a drug such as sensi is considered dangerous and to be banned.

It's not strange at all. It's banned because it's a danger; weed expands your mind man; you can see the world for what it really is. The establishment are scared.

People demonstrably cannot behave responsibly.

Why not just legalise all medical and recreational drugs to be available to all? Because no one imagines it would end well.

Also it's always the criminals who are in-charged.

Ban it.

People demonstrably cannot behave responsibly

Governement isn't there to assume we are all inherently bad and not to be trusted, society by and large is responsible - protecting it from the mindless minority is a real responsibility

15 years ago I would've voted to legalise it. With hindsight now, I i definitely wouldn't.

Yes, because we should be trusted to make our own minds up and behave responsibly.

But where do you draw the line? There is a balance between freedom of choice and the needs of society as a whole.

The law (amongst other things) is not just there to punish but to protect those who are vulnerable to making crap choices.

At one end anarchy and no social structure at the other totalitarianism.

Somewhere in the middle is where I believe we mostly want to live.

@davidtaylforth

On form this evening I see.

[quote=richardkennerley ]15 years ago I would've voted to legalise it. With hindsight now, I i definitely wouldn't.Sort of backs up my point. Any reason (apart from just being older) that you've changed your mind?

@davidtaylforth

On form this evening I see.

😀

Stoner's hyperbole.

There's definitely some truth in it though.

We're losing billions in tax, spending billions on enforcement, criminalising otherwise law-abiding citizens and helping plenty of dangerous people get rich. What [i]exactly[/i] are we, as a society, getting in return?

15 years ago I would've voted to legalise it. With hindsight now, I i definitely wouldn't.

But where do you draw the line?

Good question. Probably not at a green herb that makes most people relax, giggle and fall asleep.
If I were to draw the line there, I'd be putting MUCH tighter alcohol laws in place first.

I wouldn't legalise it for general use. We are in the slow process of making smoking tobacco illegal or at least prohibitively expensive and hidden from general sale.

Certainly there are arguments for medicinal use/studies but if there is no profit in it then most big pharma companies won't be interested in pursuing it.

Alcohol is accepted but it would be naive to assume that there are no issues caused by it.

The only arguments for making it generally legal are down to control of supply/quality and removing the profits for criminals.

The criminals will be the first to dominate the market as they are already experts in this field.

It would be like wolves among sheep happy days for the criminals.

The real issue is the war on drugs has failed and is causing untold harm. compare the UKs experience with drugs with the Netherlands and Portugal

~there is no doubt cannabis smoking causes harm across populations - perhaps the most harmful effect is it often gets you addicted to tobacco as well but in itself it must be damaging to the lungs. there is an association with mental illness but what that is is most unclear. Do people predisposed to mental illness smoke more cannabis? Can it act as a trigger in vulnerable people or is it a direct cause?

Certainly the ill effects tho are less harmful to society that other drugs both legal and illegal. NO pot smoker goes out and starts fights or robs houses to pay for their drugs. They just sit on the sofa and spout rubbish and become very boring indeed.

As richpenny above states - prohibition causes many problems and has failed

Good question. Probably not at a green herb that makes most people relax, giggle and fall asleep.

So, hypothetically (obviously...) why does the effect change over time, has the drug changed or is there a tolerance or something? I have a friend who used to get relaxed and giggly then fall asleep who now just gets very paranoid and introverted and quiet, which is why he's now very bitter and thinks it should remain illegal since he doesn't enjoy it any more 🙄

The only arguments for making it generally legal are down to control of supply/quality and removing the profits for criminals.

They are quite compelling arguments though, plus you've forgotten the criminalisation of about 10% of the population. There's also removing it as a gateway drug. And if you gave people an alternative to alcohol you could reduce some of the massive social and health issues it causes.

The criminals will be the first to dominate the market as they are already experts in this field.
It would be like wolves among sheep happy days for the criminals.

No they wouldn't.

They wouldn't stand a chance against a legitimate and legal supply.

They would be out of business almost straight away.

Its really about the votes, irrespective of party, TBH If your MP sees getting weed decriminalized as a more important issue than housing, EU trade, Health, Education, Policing, the rising cost of living or any of the hundred more pressing issues facing the country, I wouldn't expect them to be re-selected by their party at the next GE, nor would I vote for such a clown... Which major parties actually even bother to cover the concerns of stoner's in their current manifestos?

But mainly are the public clamoring for another "legal narcotic"?
The truth is most seem happy enough with Booze, Fags, Vaping and the Bake off, do they need yet another escape from this dreary old world? probably not...

Interestingly, the US is way ahead of us on this. Wandering around the Bay Area it's obvious how many people grow a few plants for their own medicinal use and the number of ads for medicinal marijuana shows how accepted it is. It's legal for recreational use in Colorado, Oregon and Washington (and, i think, soon California). There are simply no cogent arguments against legalisation.

(My personal stance is that every drug should be decriminalised but that's another discussion.)

Given that my user name doesn't make me anonymous I wouldn't really want to say too much, but basically I used to smoke, a lot, and loved it. Thought it was great. Eventually realised that actually, I'd wasted several years of my life. I've seen the negative psychological effects in action and it definitely becomes a gateway drug.

I don't think it's really bad or evil or anything, and I'm not saying it ruined my life, I just don't think it's harmless and there's better ways of spending your time. (All personal opinion of course)

Total non-argument. Why is it illegal? I've yet to see a convincing argument. I've had mates with bipolar parents go mad on the stuff (pre-existing latent psychosis) but on the whole, it's a shitload better than a half bottle of spirits and a four pack of Stella.

Pretty sure the US states which have legalised it are making a pretty penny from taxing the stuff and as TJ has pointed out, the Portuguese method has worked out well for all concerned. I've banged on about this before so won't dig out all the stats about reduced crime and lives saved again.

important issue than housing, EU trade, Health, Education, Policing,

All of that boring stuff becomes a lot less important once you're baked off your cake though.

I lost my way through cannabis use, and have only really not royally ****ed up my life through being from a middle class background with parents who've been able to support me while I've got straightened out again, and put the effort into finding different people for me to go and see to get help me get straight again, but despite all that, I'm thinking the only way to really get a handle on what it can do to people, and to reduce any harm to society from it being criminalised, I'm thinking it possibly should be legal as a way of stopping criminal gangs from making money from it's supply, and maybe even as a way of regulating the strengths of different strains of cannabis available to buy if that would be possible - by having grass easier to buy again rather than skunk being the main product which criminals sell due to the higher profits, and aiming to control at what ages people start to smoke it too.

If I didn't have the fortunate background I do, I might have a different perspective though, from being in a darker place still.

I've noticed my parents' politics get more conservative after retirement

damaging to the lungs.

Is about the worst side effect to smoking neat weed. I also believe (and was chuffed when I recently heard it expressed by a pro on the subject* as I'd claimed this about 15 years ago) it isn't good for young minds to consume psychoactive stuff until at least 18 - 20 years old. Or at least until a semi-firm (fnarr) sense of self can be achieved.

* Alpin's thread if anyone is interested; the podcast link.

This country doesn't need more people who are incapable through drugs

but does it make you incapable of performing everyday tasks? in my experience, no...

last time i was incapable of riding my bike after having a smoke i had drunk 3 1ltr krugs of strong Bavarian beer beforehand.... did those 3 beers inhibit my decision to have a smoke? yes.

remember... grass dann bier, das rat ich dir. bier dann grass, du kotz.
(grass then beer, i recommend it. beer then grass, you'll be sick)

cannabis has been used for as long as, if not longer than, alcohol. the same goes for opium and cocoa leaves.

if the government was to legalise it then it could to an extent (as it is relatively easy to grow at home) control the supply and therefore reap the tax revenue.

i've been "weed free" for three months now. this is possibly the longest i've not had a smoke in about 18 years. i don't feel any better for it. i'm now not suddenly more productive at work. my mood hasn't changed (according to the GF she has noticed no change in me).

there are plenty of fuctioning stoners just as there functioning alcoholics, coke heads and heroin users. the drug itself isn't the problem, rather the user.

i would vote to legalise it. think how much quieter the town centre would be on a weekend.

although these adverts from New Zealand make you think. drug driving is obviously a big problem there....

frosty pigs! hahahaha

All of that boring stuff becomes a lot less important once you're baked off your cake though.

Fair point, if Teresa were to pass out bongs to the negotiating team before they go into the Brexit talks, the whole thing would be over in 20 minutes...

😀

Further to my previous post, and echoing a few before and after, I stopped smoking the stuff when it became impossible to get a nice but of resin. Suddenly, all that was available was punch-in-the-face weed.

Didn't agree with me at all so I just stopped seeking it out. This was maybe 15 years ago. The new breed is definitely not very good for ones' mental health.

davidtaylforth - Member

I'd keep it illegal because the habitually stoned are quite the most tedious individuals on the planet.

i'm surprised by those that say that it ruined their lives or they felt it sent them into a dark place.

don't those people think that they may have had similar experiences with alcohol or glue sniffing if weeed wasn't available?

isn't it more to do with the character of the individual than the substance?

i've tried lots of drugs over the years. some of them i've done more than once and never did i think my life was heading in the wrong direction.

i know of one guy who ended up being sectioned. private school, odd-ball, autistic, parents with more money than sense and a bit of a recluse to start with. maybe smoking weed just quickened his arrival at the unit.

interestingly, how many people do you think take ecstasy/MDMA on a weekend and end up, either directly or indirectly, in hospital? and how does that as a percentage compare to recreational alcohol use (self-inflicted over indulgence, fights, being bottled, car crashes, domestics, etc)?

Shattner's Bassoon... 😆

Where does it stop? I tried weed, cocaine, speed etc when I was much younger. The one that caused me to lose control the most was weed so does that mean the others should be legal?

Personally Id legalise cannabis and mdma, decriminalise pretty much everything else bar cocaine

cocaine use led to the boom and excessive behaviour in banking in the 80-s and 90s

I tried weed, cocaine, speed etc when I was much younger. The one that caused me to lose control the most was weed so does that mean the others should be legal?

I think it means the coke you tried was mainly talc.
But yes, where it stops is a valid question - moving into the realm of complete decriminalisation as already mentioned. Ultimately, the argument ends up 'my body, I should be able to do whatever I want'.

Or you just decide that hard drugs are signifincaly more addictive and harmful and welcome weed to the table.

Chest, well, yes. Lets you experiment (if you wish) with a safe, pure substance. If it ****s you up, you'll probably stop. If it proves benevolent, you might continue.

Most of us who tried all the above make sensible decisions. There will always be the odd few who continue down a self-destructive path but why should that inhibit the general population who can enjoy the benefit of a nice alcohol-free buzz?

tjagain - Member
Personally Id legalise cannabis and mdma, decriminalise pretty much everything else bar cocaine

But why stop there? We know for a matter of fact that it's crack and heroin addiction which cause the greatest injury to society. They're going to take it anyway, so why not hand it over in a controlled fashion and provide rehab for those who choose to take it?

After all, some get their buzz from power. We know of many politicians with questionable mental states - we don't seem to be banning many of them in a hurry

I'm not giving an opinion as to what should or shouldn't be legal, I'm just wondering why so many seem to think getting stoned is more acceptable than other highs.

I assure you I am aware of the effects of what I said I tried. For what it's worth I thought speed was the most enjoyable, followed by coke. The modern, high quality weed wipes you out far more. If it doesn't, you are smoking too much.

I has seen the effect heavy weed use has had on friends and it's not good. The first thing I think when someone launches a prickly defence of Canabis is that they smoke too much and are in denial.

I think the argument is strong purely on a tax revenue basis, the income would outweigh the health cost for the problem users, and it has the added bonus of destroying or at least seriously damaging a black market trade that involves vioence and gang/turf wars etc.

We should also bear in mind weed has been bread to be stronger as a direct reaction to it's illegality,

Have a friend who got psycosis through pot cost him his marriage and kids, for a friend of daughters it lead to ofher drugs which where nearly terminal.

Legalised fully no. Prescribed medical use in approved forms yes.

Mattyfez is on to something there. Prohibition breeds stronger strains of alcohol / weed etc.

I well remember my first visit to Amsterdam, on a cycling your of Europe. We tried the skunk, decided it was way too much and left with jersey pockets stuffed with Lebanese Red instead.

There's no doubt that horribly strong weed will mess you up - even a few weeks can result in disaster for some but it's equally imortant to recognise that most people won't suffer anything other than a few "black days" before coming to their senses.

I'm just wondering why so many seem to think getting stoned is more acceptable than other highs.

Or, to flip the argument, why isn't it as acceptable? If getting drunk is sociably acceptable then why shouldnt getting stoned be?

definitely becomes a gateway drug.

Anecdotally it does, but science suggests otherwise.

It's definitely less harmful than alcohol or tobacoo. I see no reason why it (and other recreational drugs) shouldn't at the least be decriminalised. As has been shown in the US if things are regulated and taxed things are safer and the government makes a huge wad of cash instead of criminals. Ask any teenager, is it easier to get weed/coke/MDMA or alcohol. Here's a clue, it's not the items that are sold in the cornershop.

It's not harmless but that's not really the point- these decisions are always a matter of "balance of harm" and IMO criminalisation causes more harm than legalisation would. Very little that we do is truly harmless so that's never the benchmark.

I've known people who've done themselves significant harm through weed but you know what? I'm pretty sure they'd have found some other way to do it had that not been available

user-removed - Member

But why stop there? We know for a matter of fact that it's crack and heroin addiction which cause the greatest injury to society

Excluding the legal drugs of course.

We should also bear in mind weed has been bread to be stronger as a direct reaction to it's illegality,

Genuinely curious as to your source for that. Link...?

And yeah, I know there's a joke in that quote about strong flour or somesuch but it's too early and my minds on an op I'm having in a few hours so excuse my lack of enthusiasm...

But please link to the info - I could do with as much reading material as poss.

cocaine use led to the boom and excessive behaviour in banking in the 80-s and 90s

No it didnt,

[i]i know of one guy who ended up being sectioned. private school, odd-ball, autistic, parents with more money than sense and a bit of a recluse to start with. maybe smoking weed just quickened his arrival at the unit[/i]

I'd love to know which of the things listed other than the smoking were the ones(s) that you feel meant his arrival at a secure mental institution was inevitable...

I have often wondered if the teenage years when most people dabble in mind altering substances are actually the worst possible time. The brain goes through enormous changes through this period, can it be specifically damaging to this process?

Those of us in our 40s who can't find our car keys should crack on.

Legalise the lot, let the police concentrate on actually making society better rather than a pointless endless cycle of wasted effort.

User removed - by decriminalising heroin etc then you can move the issue out of the criminal justice system into healthcare - but by not legalising it you keep a lid on things. From the experience of other countries this is a good way forward

Wilburt - the cocaine use in the city of London financial centre is well documented and did lead to a lot of the excessive behaviour and caused great damage to the economy.

Came on here to comment, but I can't for the life of me remember what I was going to say.

Anyone got any chocolate?

Through work I get to sit in on some excellent drugs information training. Fortunately the guy that we have that comes in and does it is a pragmatic intelligent lad with first hand experience of drug use from every angle (user and councillor and law enforcer). I'm pretty convinced that 'modern' weed and MDMA use can have a pretty devastating effects on some users whilst leaving others uneffected. Also that those that it has the most potential to do harm to are least well equipped to have an intelligent attitude towards it. Very much like alcohol then!

I guess the question is, should society move at the speed of the slowest in the group?

If your 'experience' of marijuana/hash/weed is from 20 odd years ago you would probably be very surprised by the changes in what is on the market today - and not in a good way.

Mixed feelings, I dislike prohibition but the older I get the more I realise that the general population aren't bright enough to cope with choice.

Any town centre on a drinking night is pretty much evidence for that - and referendum results 🙁

The health pros and cons are debatable, it's a drug and has side effects, you can argue how bad they are compared to traffic fumes, alcohol, tobacco or sugar.

Doesn't change that people who want to use it will justify the risks and those that don't like it will up the side effects.

Legalising supply might mean control over the quality, tax income be nice and medical research applications could be good.

Balanced off against people phoning in sick or driving doped up, not sure if it's a good trade off. That's only a guess but based on alcohol use as a guide there's a good chance of it being an outcome.

Discreet and sensible use should be decriminalised though.

slimjim78 - Member
Waswas - I should imagine there are many alcoholics suffering with debilitating mental and physical effects of plain old Famous Grouse / Gordon's Gin without resorting to drinking meths...

I'm for decriminalising all drugs. Make them available from pharmacies and licensed outlets like alcohol and taxed accordingly.

The present system has made a criminal class very wealthy and has been a major source of funds for "enemies of the West".

There is no ideal system, but one that at least ensures that money is not flowing towards criminals has got to be at least slightly better than what we have at the moment.

Discreet and sensible use should be decriminalised though.

It pretty much is the Police really don't give a shit if you use it in your own home.

1) Would it be possible to legalise and sell freely milder strains, and keep skunk criminalised? It is after all the case for alcohol.

2) Is criminalisation even a deterrent? Doesn't seem like it from this thread and the world generally. Is the establishment simply wasting its time and money?

Now you could argue that legalising it would simply be giving in to criminals, and that you should not be able to overturn laws simply because lots of people want to break them. But then again - what is the purpose of law in the first place? Who owns the laws? The people, or the few in charge? For whose benefit are laws enforced?

I seem to remember using the stuff at weekends occasionally, for a few years, then moving on. As so many others have said, it's not the same anymore.

It worries me that, since then, there's a set of mentally ill and very disconnected folk making their way onwards through the demographic in their gradual decline. The train-wreck when they reach the far end is going to put an awful load on the NHS.

I've driven when stoned, and I've gone rock-climbing stoned. Both of them only once. Both were on the gentle stuff. That was forty years ago, I hope there's a legal cut-off for saying that.

Is there a test for driving while incapacitated?

One time at the Skatepark - some lads were huddled under some ramps - Smoking hash - A Policeman turned up - couldn't tell you if it was coincidence or if someone had called - Anyhow he 'apprehended ' the lads told them not to smoke at the park because little kids used it and then handed them back their stash - Which I'd approximate was about a quarter ..

I'm ambivalent.

If it's near enough legal anyway, I'd quite like the distribution formalised so there's less money going to crims, more money raised in taxes and more choice - I'd like to be able to go into a cafe and choose something to suit my tastes rather than have a choice of weapons grade skunk or some dubious resin.

I know if you know the right people, you have that choice, but see point re: crims.

On the other hand, as someone pointed out on page one, "I'm not sure that what we need is more easily accessible drugs"

On a third hand, or one of my feet, perhaps anything we can do to dislodge/substitute parts of the UK drinking culture would be a good thing.

Well that's the thing, if it's illegal for the purpose of discouraging use, it clearly doesn't work, buying it is just as quick and easy as ordering a pizza.

My personal view..

I smoked a shitload of dope in my teens, all day every day for years on end..
When I started dabbling with other drugs I developed severe mental health issues, and as a consequence I am now pretty much allergic to the effects of cannabis..

I could if I chose to, smoke a little now and then but it could potentially mess me up a bit and to my mind it's just not worth it for me under the current system of sourcing illegal product..
If I chose to smoke regularly again (which I have experimented with as an adult) I would very soon be hiding under the bed scared to death of the bogeyman..

I would still very strongly advocate the legalisation and regulation of marijuana for therapeutic use, as with the advances in the study of the chemical make up of different strains and regulated doses, it could be a cheap and invaluable tool in combating a huge variety of low level physical and psychological health issues..

I think that used properly, society could benefit hugely with increased well being and productivity, creation of jobs, taxation, and a general increase in the overall emotional intelligence of the global population..

People would still abuse it and some people would still suffer from short term psychological issues, but that happens anyway under the current system..
Take away that seductive veil of secrecy, take away the paranoia of illegality, make a safe useable variety of products available for those in genuine need and the world would be a better place

I'd give my right arm to be somewhere like Colorado where I could easily access a product to help combat anxiety and depression

"I'm not sure that what we need is more easily accessible drugs"

Will it actually result in more smoking (of weed) though?

Ask any teenager, is it easier to get weed/coke/MDMA or alcohol. Here's a clue, it's not the items that are sold in the cornershop.

Where the hell do you live?

Or, to flip the argument, why isn't it as acceptable? If getting drunk is sociably acceptable then why shouldnt getting stoned be?

It pretty much is. You are far more likely to see someone stoned and stinking of weed rather than drunk during the day time where I live. No one bats an eyelid. People seem to think wondering around stoned all day is acceptable in a way being drunk wouldn't be.