[Closed] Should Cannabis be legalised?

me too.

i cant blame anyone for believing it to be harmless fun.

My view is that i never saw drugs help anyone. If it is a crutch for something it really wont help. If you are shy cocaine [ or alcohol] is not the answer etc

The problem , for want of a better word, should be solved by doing the least harm and I think that is best achieved with legalisation and control
Like prostitution or abortion my own personal view is irrelevant it is going to happen whatever I think. the best I can do is harm reduction. that requires drugs to not be part of the criminal world, for obvious reasons, IMHO

scratch - Member

It'd make more sense to compare it with smoking behind the wheel no?

Of course it doesn't- tobacco doesn't intoxicate you in the same way. Still really no idea where you're going tbh.

My view is that i never saw drugs help anyone. If it is a crutch for something it really wont help. If you are shy cocaine [ or alcohol] is not the answer etc

I would say taking ecstasy helps some people to be more open-minded, less judgemental, and more empathetic. I only have anecdotal evidence though.

Whatever the method I just think that a complete free-for-all is not the ideal.

Not very libertarian of you Stoner. I know you libertarians only want small Government; the bits removed that interfere with your money making schemes, but can't you see what a great business opportunity it is? You wouldn't want to scare anyone off now would you?

The war on drugs is like the war on terror. Both been around forever, both a bit vague and undefined, both unwinnable.

My view is that i never saw drugs help anyone. If it is a crutch for something it really wont help. If you are shy cocaine [ or alcohol] is not the answer etc

Hmmm ... Agree in theory, however as a fairly shy, introverted person, drinking heavily and taking drugs in my 20's allowed me to be the life and soul of the party rather than the saddo in the corner.

As such, I've always been rather grateful that drugs (I include alcohol obviously) exist.

I would say taking ecstasy helps some people to be more open-minded, less judgemental, and more empathetic. I only have anecdotal evidence though.

Legalise - yes (individual choice grounds)
Encourge - no (personal choice grounds)

Don't understand yunki's (I think ) argument on P1 that people who have not experienced something, should not be able to legislate over it. That would make (necessary) legislation on lots on things pretty much impossible.

I think he was referring to qualia 😉

Ie there is a personal experience that comes about something that you can only know by doing it
Is it not mary][ righ tname??] the blind girl as the thought experiment?

It would be restrictive in legal realms for obvious reasons

Yes so long as it doesnt negatively affect price or quality 🙂 Katt Williams says it the best!

Of course it doesn't- tobacco doesn't intoxicate you in the same way. Still really no idea where you're going tbh

If it were made legal, you'd be in your rights to toke at the wheel, in my mind having a spliff at the wheel may lead to a reduced amount of concentration being paid to the road than if you'd not. Maybe you'd be driving at 23mph, maybe I'm being overly cautious and yeah its a shoot way off the actual point but.....

If it were made legal but still illegal in the car I'd say legalise tbh.

But the original football hooligans (organised as opposed to local hoodlums) were mainly middle aged, well paid gents - estate agents and the like, so that doesnt necessarily link to the EDL.

If it were made legal, you'd be in your rights to toke at the wheel

I might be wrong here, but I reckon it would be as illegal to drive under the influence of drugs as it is now.

Clearly I am in favour. I do think the TCP CDB potency should be marked on the package. Some newish strains have quite different effects from those of yore.

Also:

Bill Hicks. Because.

Legalise - yes (individual choice grounds)
Encourge - no (personal choice grounds)

But surely by legalising, this would encourage those people that would think that it was therefore alright to use these drugs?

There's plenty of legal things that will screw you up. Your point is?

Happy to let them make their own choices WW. As JY pointed out educating against drug use is complicated by obvious inconsistencies. But bottom line I would prefer to educate than legislate.

If it were made legal, you'd be in your rights to toke at the wheel

Why would you? I believe it's already illegal to be high and drive, same as alcohol.

f it were made legal, you'd be in your rights to toke at the wheel,

You may be right re EDL the point was football hooligans did not become nice - however they did stop hitting each other to the same level so he may have a point

My point was that you cant legalise without encouraging.

I'd agree whole heartedly that there are plenty of legal things that screw you up. One being alcohol which I already endorsed earlier.

......There's a reason I don't usually wade into serious topics such as this *backs off, ruuuuns*

But surely by legalising, this would encourage those people that would think that it was therefore alright to use these drugs?

Anyway, i'm off now as i'm tired and the whisky is making typing more difficult...

Thats irony btw 😀

Hmmm, I would have said yes to legalisation but White Widow in the Dam changed things...

evidence is mixed but Holland has lower use rates than we do

and I've seen people addicted to it, even though users are steadfast in their claims you can't be addicted to it. maybe it's different kind of addiction to nicotine or white powders, and working on different timescales, but I have friends that are desperate for "the man" to drop by. and know of one that was scrabbling around for bits to make a joint like Zammo in Grange Hill.

decriminalise maybe. legalise no. but expect there to be a wee-wee test for every job app like in the US if it is decriminalised or legalised.

while I agree on a certain level of "let people decide for themselves", if it's something that affects others around them, or society in general, or health service etc. then there needs to be either controls or methods of discouraging use.

my experience of 4 years there is that I saw a factor of 10 more usage there than my years spent at uni.

you can sort by descending and we are above Holland

I've seen too many horrible things happen to people I've known. Please don't tell me that smoking cannabis doesn't lead on to other drugs. It can.

I also believe that for some cannabis use does lead onto the use of other drugs but would also say that that is: a) a link on the chain of mood-altering substances that comes chronologically into people's lives after sugar, alcohol and caffeine, and b) partly true because the very act of buying cannabis brings you into contact with drug dealers who may or may not also have other drugs for sale.

The way to minimize the harm from cannabis is to take its distribution out of the hands of organized crime business groups and states, and put it into the hands of a highly regulated, highly taxed transparent market. The criminalization of drugs doesn't just create gangsters in the UK (or other consumer markets), it destabilizes and corrupts entire developing countries and costs lives from underdevelopment.

Hear hear.

It should be legalised.

I don't think you can't treat cannabis as a single substance. The strengths now of skunk is vastly more powerful than was previously available. Wouldn't want my kids to be driven by someone who has just had a lungful of this...has to stay illegal....

put it into the hands of a highly regulated, highly taxed transparent market.

The creation of a highly taxed market will lead to criminality as OCGs muscle in to tax evasion, eg iir there was a major spike in organised crime in Kent back in the early 90's as gangs moved into smuggling hand rolling from belgium and even now OCGs still get involved in bootlegging as it's easy money on a risk reward basis. It's criminal diversification - if there's a market they move in.

Wouldn't want my kids to be driven by someone who has just had a lungful of this...has to stay illegal....

Why do people keep suggesting it will mean more drug-driving and that this won't be illegal? 😉

Fantombiker - Member

Wouldn't want my kids to be driven by someone who has just had a lungful of this...has to stay illegal....

<deja vu>

So we should ban all alcohol because we don't want people drink driving? This is just silly, driving while intoxicated is an offence regardless of whether the substance you're using is legal.

But surely by legalising, this would encourage those people that would think that it was therefore alright to use these drugs?

I don't think the act of legalising would change much, but by doing so you put drug production into the hands of major companies, with major marketing budgets and few scruples...

(Note that legalising is not the same as decriminalising, so drug use rates in other countries are unlikely to be reliable indicators.)

Why do people keep suggesting it will mean more drug-driving and that this won't be illegal?

Never underestimate the stupididy of people when it comes to topics such as this 😛

Many older people (40+) base there 'yes' to legalisation based on what was available when they were younger. The cannabis that they smoked was pretty mellow and the stimulant and depressant ingredients largely balanced each other out.

There were still cases of mental illness resulting from smoking but these were few and users generally did so without too many issues.

Modern cannabis namely skunk and it's derivatives have had the depressant compounds bred out.or are selected as they are high in THC with almost no cannabinol. It's now a far more potent and dangerous proposition.

I would vote yes to legalisation of the older style cannabis variants with much less THC and would make skunk etc class A.

I don't think the act of legalising would change much, but by doing so you put drug production into the hands of major companies, with major marketing budgets and few scruples...

As opposed to the highly principled South American drug cartels that have turned large parts of the continent into lawless killing grounds, butchering thousands every year? Or maybe the highly moral Islamic Extremists? Whose idea of Sharia Law doesn't extend quite far enough into not flooding the world with Heroine, then using the money to fund terrorism?

As opposed to the highly principled South American drug cartels that have turned large parts of the continent into lawless killing grounds, butchering thousands every year? Or maybe the highly moral Islamic Extremists? Whose idea of Sharia Law doesn't extend quite far enough into not flooding the world with Heroine, then using the money to fund terrorism?

Hold on, I'm not saying I'm against legalisation! I think it would be a good idea: as your [s]wail[/s] post points out, it would get the production out of the hands of some very nasty people. But arguing that consumption wouldn't go up is IMO incorrect, which is the point I was making.

...... . . . . what was the question . . . . ......... ?

I'm with Binners on this one, legalise it all and pump the money currently spent on enforcement of stupid laws into education.

Also, I don't think comparing the markets is helpful particuarly regarding other drugs such as tobacco where a significant black market exists. If cannabis was taxed too high then I reckon a lot of people would just grow their own. It's not difficult, there is no processing of the final product to do and considering the amount of faff people go to to make their own beer (myself included!) this is a far simpler route to a good night out/in.

Wouldn't want my kids to be driven by someone who has just had a lungful of this...has to stay illegal.

Modern cannabis namely skunk and it's derivatives have had the depressant compounds bred out. It's now a far more potent and dangerous proposition.

I think there may be some merit to your point to be fair but I am not sure what the research shows on this re risk tbh.

decriminalise maybe. legalise no.

It's now a far more potent and dangerous proposition.

yes, legalised and quality controlled and appropriately classified.
there is a huge problem bubbling just under the surface owing to the strength of the weed that kids are smoking nowadays

anyone who thinks weed is harmless is as out of touch as the person who still thinks 'drugs are bad'

edit: had to scroll back, but what neninja said.

But arguing that consumption wouldn't go up is IMO incorrect, which is the point I was making.

The most telling sign of just how much the present policy is failing is the reality of how ridiculously easy it is to buy just about any drug that takes your fancy, just about anywhere in this country.

Its a quick phone call away. I can't see how selling them through licensed suppliers would increase use by any significant amount. And considering the obvious advantages over the present 'system', I just don't get how anyone capable of rational thought can look at the present shambles objectively, and conclude that the status quo is working just fine, and we shouldn't be looking at alternatives.

As i mentioned above the evidence is counter intuitive and it tends to reduce consumption - perhaps a reduction in thrill because it is now legal?

IIRC prohibition in the US also increased alcohol consumption

Organized crime received a major boost from Prohibition. Mafia groups limited their activities to prostitution, gambling, and theft until 1920, when organized bootlegging emerged in response to the effect of Prohibition.[71] A profitable, often violent, black market for alcohol flourished. Powerful criminal gangs corrupted law enforcement agencies, leading to racketeering. In essence, prohibition provided a financial basis for organized crime to flourish.[72]

Rather than reducing crime, Prohibition had transformed the cities into battlegrounds between opposing bootlegging gangs. In a study of over 30 major U.S cities during the prohibition years of 1920 and 1921, the number of crimes increased by 24%. Additionally, theft and burglaries increased by 9%, homicide by 12.7%, assaults and battery rose by 13%, drug addiction by 44.6% and police department costs rose by 11.4%. This was largely the result of “black-market violence” as well as the diverting of law enforcement resources elsewhere. Despite the hope of the prohibitionist movement that the outlawing of alcohol would reduce crime, the reality was that the Volstead Act led to higher crime rates than were experienced prior to prohibition and the establishment of a black market dominated by criminal organizations.[73]

Furthermore, stronger liquor surged in popularity because its potency made it more profitable to smuggle.....

But arguing that consumption wouldn't go up is IMO incorrect, which is the point I was making.

Forgot to say re the super strength skunk, you can get super strength lager and spirits and some nutters will imbibe them but most drinkers want something a bit more mellow. If super strength stuff is easier to smuggle/grow/sell for the gangs then that's all you'll be able to buy, something legalisation and control would sort out. Pretty sure there's a lot of smokers who want a nice mellow bit of old style weed but skunk is all that's available.

Some pretty relevant points made already, particularly regarding the strength / thc content of skunk, etc, in comparison with dope 20 or 30 years ago. As a psychiatric nurse, I've probably seen more people permanently damaged (ie the development of full blown psychosis) due to cannabis than any other drug (having said that, mephedrone seems to be taking over lately). This may have a lot to do with the aforementioned increase in thc content, but I also suspect it has a lot to do with the fact that its generally seen as a soft drug, perhaps more respectable (probably not the right way to put it, but there you go) than speed / smack, etc, therefore more people are likely to try it. Do I think it should be legalised? Possibly, mainly because I think it's a complete waste of money and resources attempting to police it, and people are always going to use it. Better to educate rather than criminalise. I just object to the fact that so many people see it as harmless - it's not, and I'm aware that cigarettes and booze carry risks as well, but I personally haven't nursed anywhere near as many folk damaged by these substances. I realise that that last sentence could be construed as me saying I believe smoking and drinking are in some way less harmful than smoking cannabis - of course, I'm not, I'm just saying that in my particular line of work, drug induced psychosis is far more prevalent.

Current approaches to drug abuse, (including alcohol) don't work. Therefore, it is blatantly obvious that continuing to do something that doesn't work, or in fact doing even more of that which does not work is daft. (NB: Happy to defend that statement should anyone disagree).

IMHO therefore the sensible thing to do would be to open our minds to more constructive approaches to the issues. Bringing the issue out from the shadows as has been done with alcohol may not resolve the issue, but it does remove it from the hands of criminals to a large extent, which is quite a part of the battle.
You can see very clearly that this is a narrow path to walk, where undue attempts to influence behaviour tend to drive the problem back underground into criminal hands. See cigarettes for the most obvious example.

So in short re OP yes it probably should be "Decriminalised" as should all other "recreational drugs" that however is not the same as saying its open season per se.

I realise that that last sentence could be construed as me saying I believe smoking and drinking are in some way less harmful than smoking cannabis - of course, I'm not, I'm just saying that in my particular line of work, drug induced psychosis is far more prevalent.

Well, you do work as a psychiatric nurse. On a cancer ward your opinion might be different. (Though that doesn't change the point about it being dangerous, of course).

I think there is a possibility of some "good" boys and girls who will never do anything illegal who once legalised would try drugs. But as others have said the positives we'd get from regulation and control of the drugs would far outweight the minor increase. As a counter there's probably a lot of "naughty" boys and girls who only do stuff coz it is illegal.

I think consumption generally would go up, not just the "good boys and girls" (although there'd be a bit of that, too). After all, full legalisation means you could smoke a joint in the park, outside the pub, wherever.

What if you decided to get completely stoned one Sunday afternoon on a mate's house as it was legal.
On the drive home you kill a cyclist in an accident as we all know you're reactions are severely impaired.
Do you still think it should be legalized?

What if you decided to get completely [s]stoned[/s] pissed one Sunday afternoon on a mate's house as it was legal.
On the drive home you kill a cyclist in an accident as we all know you're reactions are severely impaired.
Do you still think it should be legalized?

?

That's no different from necking 10 pints and then getting behind the wheel of a car though, is it?

You'd have to be a moron to do that. And morons are morons whatever their drug of choice, legal or otherwise

But it only takes one joint to be stoned. One pint and you would be within limits.

so four pages of agreement (barring the rather pathetic half arsed trolling)
unheard of in STW history, but can this conversation be transferred to the HoC?

But it only takes one joint to be stoned. One pint and you would be within limits.

It's illegal to be driving under the influence, be it one joint or many pints.

iolo - Member

What if you decided to get completely stoned one Sunday afternoon on a mate's house as it was legal.
On the drive home you kill a cyclist in an accident as we all know you're reactions are severely impaired.
Do you still think it should be legalized?

Sleeping is legal, what if someone decides they should sleep while driving!

BAN SLEEPING.

But it only takes one joint to be stoned. One pint and you would be within limits.

What about a pint of vodka/whisky/wine?

What if you decided to get completely stoned one Sunday afternoon on a mate's house as it was legal.
On the drive home you kill a cyclist in an accident as we all know you're reactions are severely impaired.
Do you still think it should be legalized?

Have I just stumbled into a 'worst debating skills' competition or something?

still pissed after last night is my guess 😉

But it only takes one joint to be stoned. One pint and you would be within limits

I think, like alcohol, we would set a threshold at which your performance is so impaired you can longer drive.
Crazy thought eh

By the way it's smoked openly on the park over by us I thought it was legal anyway. 😕

RE the driving issue - AFAIK it's not easy to get a quick reading of the chemical's levels in the person. Doesn't it require a blood test?

Actually I seem to remember* that as there is no level set for the amount of THCetc that is allowed in the blood during driving there's a good chance you wouldn't be prosecuted if you were observed smoking a spliff and then trying to drive - assuming you don't have more on you [another matter] and don't appear to be intoxicated when questioned.

I've never been busted and don't drive - so I don't know.

*Don't get used to it.

I think currently if any THC is registered in the system it's a ban as you have an illegal substance in your body, or something like that. That's what they said on the speed awareness course thing anyway.

a ban as you have an illegal substance in your body,

Very much doubt that.

[u]Reasons[/u]

1) I am innocently in a place where its being smoked I receive secondary smoke.
2) I am given something with it in, cake for example, I innocently eat it without being aware of what it is.
3) etc etc etc

As with alcohol there has to be a level at which it is deemed to be a significant intoxicant.

Just to clear it up I think driving under the influence of anything is a no-no. Riding around the woods with headphones and bag full of Mars Bars OTOH....

The strengths now of skunk is vastly more powerful than was previously available

The creation of a highly taxed market will lead to criminality as OCGs muscle in to tax evasion, eg iir there was a major spike in organised crime in Kent back in the early 90's as gangs moved into smuggling hand rolling from belgium and even now OCGs still get involved in bootlegging as it's easy money on a risk reward basis. It's criminal diversification - if there's a market they move in.

Having said all that, there is a further problem: if the UK unilaterally legalized and regulated cannabis, it would immediately become a (bigger) hub for organised criminal activity and money laundering as cannabis was smuggled to other countries where it remained illegal.

Should Cannabis be legalised?

edit

yes . it is much better alternative to deadly tobacco and alcohol.

not bothered as I'm not fussed in the slighest about the commercialisation of cannabis. personal cultivation should be legalised though.

I dont think it should be legalised. I also think its wrong to hide it behind the veil of alcohol and smoking. Just because one thing is allowed, doesn't mean that everything else should be. There has to be a line drawn somewhere. I think the line should cut into alcohol and smoking more personally.

A big problem to me with the legalisation issue is that it cant be generalised into a single category of user. (The same is true of alcohol). Some people can take it responsibly, some cant, so you're not able to lump everyone together.

I'm not convinced that legalising it would make much difference anyway. If it were a taxed commercial product, you would likely still just get people growing their own and under-cutting the legal market with cheap home-brew gear and selling it on. As well as the larger OCG stuff supply chains already mentioned.

Yes it should, love it.

Hahaha, Jekkyl, I think you're a bit slow mate 😉

not bothered as I'm not fussed in the slighest about the commercialisation of cannabis.

konabunny - Member
not bothered as I'm not fussed in the slighest about the commercialisation of cannabis.

Aren't you the guy that's all enthusiastic about the paramilitaries in Ireland? I'd have thought you'd be the other way around

ps my views are wide and varied on ireland, don't be a fool and think that means I condone or agree with everything that happened.