I don't expect you to change your mind, Mr Sarcastic-Pants. People rarely change their position on such matters. I can't be bothered to summarise the essay, so perhaps it was unwise of me to mention it. If people want to look it up they, of course, are free to do so. But it won't change many opinions, I'm sure.
Apologies for the sarcasm. Of course I have looked him up and read a bit, he's a very interesting bloke. Anti-ideological, sceptical, rational and empiricist. And opinionated. My kind of chap. Also he was working at Winson Green Prison when one of my best mates was prison pharmacist there, I'll get a personal reference. From what I remember from stories told he probably won't have had any qualms about prescribing powerful sedatives. I suspect I would agree with him on some things (moral and cultural relativism, for example) and disagree on others. Not sure I agree with what seems to be his basic premise, that 'left/progressive' views have created a dependent, criminalised underclass. Firstly I'm not so sure that left wing views have been so prevalent, certainly not economically, and secondly I'm certain that there has always been an underclass, even more so under no safety net capitalism, just read some Dickens. On drugs he reckons it's easy to give up if you want to, and who am I to argue with a doctor. I'll have to read more, but I can't see that as an argument for criminalisation for consumers. To be honest Ubes, criminalisation or legalisation of drugs isn't a big thing for me. I find the best arguments for decriminalisation are from right wing libertarians like PJ O'Rourke and the great Penn and Teller.
It would actually cost more in the long run, regardless of the small amounts of savings. The NHS expense alone would probably be more than all the small savings for other things. Not to mention more crime on the streets. More drugs always mean more burglaries and serious assaults. Normal people dont want to put up with the disgusting odour of cannabis either.
Banning a drug doesn't necessarily cut its consumption. This is a non-addictive, essentially harmless substance which is needlessly banned meaning it's unregulated and uses up police time for no reason. Why would there be an expense to the NHS?
Natural cannabis and other mild basic halucigens, mushrooms, original pure LSD maybe others, should have been legalised 50 years or more ago. It would have removed the ease by which people would move from drugs no more dangerous or less dangerous than alkohol onto very dangerous stuff. The black market dope seller would probably no longer have the whole range in his storeroom ready to sell to the young lad just wanting a joint. It would also enable quality control of the legally controlled product reducing the danger of the hazardous modified products that have been sold as grass or acid etc for years. Still better late than never.
Easy, empirical test for this, lets look at the healthcare spend, assault and burglary rates for Colorado, where the production, sale and consumption of cannabis is regulated and taxed. One year in crime is DOWN and the tax take is so high that they are considering giving money back to citizens. So it looks like you are wrong, except for your personal dislike of the smell. Your idea of a 'normal' person is probably not in sync with mine, you don't speak for anyone but yourself, thankfully. Agree with most of that but nothing is totally benign. Feeling good is addictive, and there is a proven link between cannabis and the development of schizophrenia, bipolar disorder and depression in young men especially, and especially heavy users - rates of these are sometimes twice as high as in non using populations. What is less clear is whether these people are genetically prone to these illnesses and are also drawn to drug use. Plenty of totally legal things are potentially exceedingly harmful too of course and I think this is a stronger argument for controlled legalisation.
One of the arguments often put forward by the pro-decriminalisation side, and touched upon in earlier posts on this thread, is that alcohol is legal, but that its dependency has quite probably blighted more lives than a substance like cannabis might. I find this argument somewhat odd. I don't think anybody is campaigning for alcohol prohibition - or are they? - so such an argument comes across (to me, at least) rather like a case of "two wrongs make a right". In general, people are quite prepared to accept that certain individuals can develop an alcohol dependency or a nicotine 'addiction', although I think it fair to say that said individual has to work quite hard at developing either before he/she succeeds. Assuming the same also applies to cannabis use - not to mention the other possible side-effects, such as its likely links to stimulating psychosis and schizophrenia, research into which the Unpopular Hitchens (y'know, the alive one) often calls for - why would any sane person want to decriminalise the drug and add it to society's already significant woes? Is it simply the case that the impact of potentially greater cannabis use through decriminalisation (including possible dependency or mental health issues), is considered a lesser evil than the current status quo? If so, then I'm not sure that I buy that. The general impression that I get is of a bunch of affluent middle class social cannabis users leading a campaign to decriminalise the drug they habitually pass around with the Tia Maria and brandies, with little thought about the social consequences their selfishness will inflict upon the lower classes already suffering the most as a consequence of anti-social behaviour, alcoholism, domestic abuse and drug addiction. I don't see decriminalisation having much of a positive impact on those most needing greater protection from society's wider ills. But I can see why the likes of Richard Branson might want it legalised, puffing away with his trendy chums in some gated retreat safely away from the great unwashed.
Put anothet way the current criminalisation of drugs in most countries has caused a huge loss of lives from placing a whole industry outside any health controls so many die from taking bad stuff, and many more have died in trying to distribute the illegal products, and many more have and will lose their lives in failed attempts to enforce the prohibition. You'd think the law makers would have learned it don't work from the US alkohol pohinition of the 30's, but most have not.
I think you mean CBD. There are several known cannabinoids including CBD, CBN, THC, THCV and they all interact and alter each others effects. They also interact with the plants aromatic terpenes (limonene, etc) to change the effects. Cannabis is not native to Jamaica it's thought it was introduced there from the Indian subcontinent, and 'skunk' is not genetically modified, just selectively bred like any other comercial crop. Also to differentiate skunk from cannabis is completely illogical, it's all cannabis, there are thousands of strains. The press just latched on to the term skunk. It's like calling any slightly sweet apple 'pink lady'. One more thing, unless we're speaking Spanish it's cannabis not marajuana. This wasn't all aimed specifically at you Quality Passing Rules, just saying about the CBC/CBD thing
As far as alcohol is concerned, I agree that the "two wrongs make a right" argument doesn't work, predominantly, because consuming alcohol is not wrong (to our Western eyes). Used responsibly, it's a food and a drug that enhances lives in many occasions, mostly social. The fact that a small minority struggle with addiction is not sufficient reason to ban it for all. Addictions have to be managed. So for cannabis (probably not skunk - I'm thinking of naturally grown "weed"), although not a food, it's a recreational drug that is widely used now. I strongly disagree about the affluent middle class comment, Uber. It's used far more widely, predominantly by the Afro-Caribbean community that seems to prefer it to alcohol. That's why increasingly, the police don't bother with people consuming it or growing it for personal consumption. But that essentially undermines the law and makes application unreliable, since different police forces will exercise discretion in different ways. Parliament has to recognise we will not stop this oil tanker. Cannabis use is part of the culture of this country now, as it is in the US. People are not lemmings. If there is a safe type of the drug, most will choose this over something that could induce mental illness. Of course, there will be some that want the stronger drugs - but these will be taking it anyway. If marijuana was legalised tomorrow, there would be some increased interest initially, and then it would find its own level, as it has done in the states in the US that have legalised it.
In a country that allows beer to be cheaper than bottled water … why not look for another product to sell in the UK shop. If it goes legal above ground then expect the youth who all believe that they are living a celebrity lifestyle to get uncontrollable It's governed by fear any ways so I expect it to stay the same to keep as many as possible within the fear barrier … those who could be scared to do it Tobacco sales would rocket Pissheads and Airheads on a Saturday night in Sutton has to be seen to be believed Drivers who drive under blow? … how much extra will that cost to enforce? .. Billions at a guess
It probably is among the morons you hang around with, but not among the decent people among us who make up over 95% of the population
You'll find that of the "decent people" (among which, modestly, you include yourself), many have consumed cannabis at some time in their youth. Most of the lawyers, judges, prosecuting and defence counsel, senior partners of large city firms etc have all taken it at some time. I know, I studied with them in the 1970's. All parts of society are involved in some way.
sorry to deviate slightly, but what really annoys me is that all tobacco products are hidden behind screens and out of sight...supermarkets even have a menu for you to choose from as they are not allowed to open the screen for you to choose, only if you know immediately what you want. Alcohol however is on full display for all and sundry to see and purchase and by doing that it almost glorifies alcohol when viewed against the virtually underground method of selling tobacco. The effects of alcohol on the wider population are much greater than tobacco consumption.
Interesting. Apologies for the spellings. (Dodgy touch screen phone, better delete the misspelt versions from my spell checker. lol) I know it wasn't indigenous to the West Indies but it was that strain that was used at the primary starting point. (It's just a name given to one of the strains.) Anecdotally, it seems to be skunk that has the greatest mental health issues compared to the lower strength strains. (Point taken re. selective breeding though. Much better way to put it than genetic modification. But my point was it has been tampered with to make it far stronger.) The thing Re. differentiation for skunk goes back to the mental health issue. If something is creating issues I would differentiate it on health grounds not on composition grounds. Your totally right in the sense it is all the same stuff. I do think the term skunk came from the people who did the tampering though. The press may have picked up on it and used it but I don't think they invented the term.
Instead of legalising drugs, the Government should be forcing companies such as Facebook, Google, Starbucks et al to pay their ****ing taxes. That would give the agencies enough money to go out and find the scum that peddle illegal drugs of all kinds and prosecute the ****s.
My health is not affected by somebody drinking alcohol. Also the majority can drink alcohol without being addicted to it. Smokers are killing 1000's of people every year. I buy a box of 20 cans of lager in a supermarket and it lasts me 3-4 weeks.
Harold Wilson smoked, he lived until he was seventy five. Cigarettes are rarely the cause of a family breakdown, if ever. Or the cause for major concern as the taking of many other substances are. But our master's have decided that smoking is evil. If you want to buy cigarettes they are shut down behind aluminium curtains. I would argue that , drinking, gambling and the consummation of drugs does more harm to people and families than the buying of cigarettes does. When was the last time you heard that a life was wrecked by smoking, I don't recall any wife or girlfriend getting battered as a result of smoking? Replace the smoking word, with drink, gambling or drugs. Lives are wrecked by people gambling their wages away as soon as they receive them. This is encouraged by the MSM as every other advert is an advert to 'cash out' or 'who's going to score next ?' etc Ray Winstone and Betfair etc are guilty of this. This is becomingly more repeated after every other advert on Sky, BT, and ITV. As mentioned earlier by Aqua, drink or alcohol is on regular show and promoted. This does more harm than good. When was the last time you heard that a wife, or indeed a husband got battered after a bout of drinking? How about when they got a hiding after smoking a cigarette? Mmm! It now seem's acceptable that we can discuss the the merits of illegal drugs despite the above. In order to rest my case have a look at these two young lads. They are 20 and 21 years old. ''The men, from Royal Tunbridge Wells, had taken a cocktail of prescribed and illegal drugs.'' ''The video shows the pair laughing, chatting and singing as Michael appears to be giving Kyle a driving lesson as they pass through Rotherfield. Both men, who had been wearing seat belts, died instantly.'' Do Not Watch This If You Are Subject To Severe Nightmares. This Is What Happens In Real Life Unfortunately. Thankfully No Bystanders Were Killed. You can read the further blurb in the info below the vid. This is what driving and the taking of drugs can do to people... This happened in April this year.
