Off Topic Legalising cannabis would raise £100's of millions

[Sooperhoop]

I think there are as many, if not more, people casually using cocaine than smoking spliffs. I've been in 'respectable' pubs in affluent areas on a weekend evening and would be surprised if there were less than 50% of the people in there that hadn't been in the toilets sniffing a line, many of these are people over 50 years old who are comfortably off and just want a 'high' other than getting rat-arsed...

 

[rangercol]

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 call for - why would any sane person want to decriminalise the drug and add it to societies 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 societies 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.

This is pretty much how I see it.

 

[Didley Squat]

I think there are as many, if not more, people casually using cocaine than smoking spliffs. I've been in 'respectable' pubs in affluent areas on a weekend evening and would be surprised if there were less than 50% of the people in there that hadn't been in the toilets sniffing a line, many of these are people over 50 years old who are comfortably off and just want a 'high' other than getting rat-arsed...

My first concern with legalising it would be an influx of people using the product, followed by an influx of additional road accidents and fatalities by people affected by it.
To me, I'm not bothered by it, I just would not like to see more innocent people affected in a third party way as listed.
Besides, I'm silly enough without it.
I guess if you want a legal high, go climb the Eiger!

 

[aqualung]

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.

Mine could be and others as well....by some idiot who reckons it's ok to drink and drive and other alcohol induced situations. I appreciate that maybe is the extreme but it does happen. Conversely I could smoke 100 ***s and still be safe to drive.....not that I would, I gave up the ***s cold turkey over three years ago after smoking heavily for 40 years. Right, off to polish the halo!

 

[QPR Oslo]

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.

You must log in or register to see media

Many people have lost their lives because they have had to breathe in other people's smoke.

 

[aqualung]

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.

You must log in or register to see media

This clip was all over our local news 9's. The blessing is, at least they didn't kill anyone else, only themselves.

 

[sb_73]

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 call for - why would any sane person want to decriminalise the drug and add it to societies 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 societies 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.

I don't get your point on alcohol. I would not want to criminalise it, or tobacco. It's your choice as an individual to allow it to 'blight' your life. Some people can't help it, addiction is part of their make up, and your mate Theodore thinks that people want to be addicted, it's easy to stop. I've referred to the links with mental health above, there is plenty of research out there, whatever Hitchens C thinks.

Why assume that use of cannabis, long term, will rise with decriminalisation? Tobacco use is falling, as is alcohol use. You would simply make an illegal, untaxed habit which is rarely prosecuted legal and taxed. You will never stop cannabis use, or alcohol and tobacco use if you criminalise them - you simply put them in the hands of criminals. You could cut their use dramatically by taking Mao's route of threatening to execute 20 million heroin addicts unless they stopped (source:Theodore).

Fact is consumption of mood altering substances is a part of human nature (and animal nature - monkeys and elephants seek out fermenting fruit and then fall over, it's hilarious). Alcohol has been a part of European and Middle Eastern culture for thousands of years, mescal and peyote in Central America, coca in South America, kava in Fiji and other Pacific islands, mushrooms in Siberia.......legal or illegal it's going to happen, some people will be damaged and will damage others, most won't.

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.

You must log in or register to see media

Passionate stuff Ninesey. How many fires caused by gambling have you put out?

 

[Swords Hoopster.]

your mate Theodore

 

[QPR999]

Passionate stuff Ninesey. How many fires caused by gambling have you put out?

I once got called to a 'Patient Alight' in St Thomas's Hospital, Lambeth. When we turned up this poor bloke was in a pretty bad way. After we had dealt with him the nurse told us that apparently his mate had a bet with him that he couldn't smoke a *** in the hospital and get away with it. He thought he would as he was in one those hyperbaric oxygen tents and assumed that it would contain the smell of the smoke.

 

[sb_73]

I once got called to a 'Patient Alight' in St Thomas's Hospital, Lambeth. When we turned up this poor bloke was in a pretty bad way. After we had dealt with him the nurse told us that apparently his mate had a bet with him that he couldn't smoke a *** in the hospital and get away with it. He thought he would as he was in one those hyperbaric oxygen tents and assumed that it would contain the smell of the smoke.

Classic, though sad. Darwin Award in the post to that bloke.

 

[Uber_Hoop]

I don't get your point on alcohol. I would not want to criminalise it, or tobacco.

Let me see if I can help you with this. I was merely trying to point out that some advocates for the decriminalisation of cannabis claim that the harm that alcohol does to society is far worse than legalised cannabis could ever achieve. They might be correct, but how can this possibly be a sound argument for decriminalisation? If you lived in a village besieged by man-eating tigers, would you object to me releasing a leopard?

It's your choice as an individual to allow it to 'blight' your life. Some people can't help it, addiction is part of their make up...

In an earlier post on this thread (I believe) you expressed surprise that, as a libertarian, I wasn't an advocate of decriminalisation myself. From a personal perspective I couldn't give a damn how people choose to spend their time, but I think we should all be concerned about how their choices impact upon others. Yes, like alcoholism, gambling 'addiction' etc. If 'addiction' is part of some people's make-up, should we encourage these practices by decriminalisation, or do our utmost to dissuade them from these pursuits? Another argument for decriminalisation seems to be that fact that the authorities seldom prosecute for possession. Sadly, the authorities seldom do much to deter anti-social behaviour in children and teenagers, so perhaps we should decriminalise vandalism, threatening behaviour and violence too.

..and your mate Theodore thinks that people want to be addicted, it's easy to stop....

I wish that he was of my acquaintance, Stan, as I learn a great deal from his essays. As somebody that spent his early years in Liberia I was fascinated by his travelogues to that country (amongst others), as well as his pieces on subjects that I would never ordinarily have sought out such as Ibsen, Dr Johnson and so forth.

Don't people want to become 'addicted' then? There is enough information out there concerning the dangers of pursuing certain pastimes, so it might be reasonable to assume that they do want to become addicted. If this isn't a reasonable assumption, then the conclusion must be that such people are stupid or vulnerable. Shouldn't we be protecting such people?

I've referred to the links with mental health above, there is plenty of research out there, whatever Hitchens C thinks.

I think you mean Hitchens P. Hitchens C is the one whose output has somewhat tapered off in the past 4 years.

Why assume that use of cannabis, long term, will rise with decriminalisation? Tobacco use is falling, as is alcohol use. You would simply make an illegal, untaxed habit which is rarely prosecuted legal and taxed. You will never stop cannabis use, or alcohol and tobacco use if you criminalise them - you simply put them in the hands of criminals. You could cut their use dramatically by taking Mao's route of threatening to execute 20 million heroin addicts unless they stopped (source:Theodore).

I'm glad that you read Dalymple's piece, Stan. Though of course an extreme example, it is nonetheless interesting to learn that more severe enforcement or punishment can lead to a reduction in drug abuse.

I have no idea whether decriminalisation will increase cannabis use or not, but I can imagine that certain more law-abiding citizens could be tempted to try what was once considered (by them) to be forbidden fruit. I dunno, but it would be one hell of an experiment to get wrong, wouldn't it?

Fact is consumption of mood altering substances is a part of human nature (and animal nature - monkeys and elephants seek out fermenting fruit and then fall over, it's hilarious). Alcohol has been a part of European and Middle Eastern culture for thousands of years, mescal and peyote in Central America, coca in South America, kava in Fiji and other Pacific islands, mushrooms in Siberia.......legal or illegal it's going to happen, some people will be damaged and will damage others, most won't.

Back where we started.

 

[GoldhawkRoad]

Let me see if I can help you with this. I was merely trying to point out that some advocates for the decriminalisation of cannabis claim that the harm that alcohol does to society is far worse than legalised cannabis could ever achieve. They might be correct, but how can this possibly be a sound argument for decriminalisation? If you lived in a village besieged by man-eating tigers, would you object to me releasing a leopard?



In an earlier post on this thread (I believe) you expressed surprise that, as a libertarian, I wasn't an advocate of decriminalisation myself. From a personal perspective I couldn't give a damn how people choose to spend their time, but I think we should all be concerned about how their choices impact upon others. Yes, like alcoholism, gambling 'addiction' etc. If 'addiction' is part of some people's make-up, should we encourage these practices by decriminalisation, or do our utmost to dissuade them from these pursuits? Another argument for decriminalisation seems to be that fact that the authorities seldom prosecute for possession. Sadly, the authorities seldom do much to deter anti-social behaviour in children and teenagers, so perhaps we should decriminalise vandalism, threatening behaviour and violence too.



I wish that he was of my acquaintance, Stan, as I learn a great deal from his essays. As somebody that spent his early years in Liberia I was fascinated by his travelogues to that country (amongst others), as well as his pieces on subjects that I would never ordinarily have sought out such as Ibsen, Dr Johnson and so forth.

Don't people want to become 'addicted' then? There is enough information out there concerning the dangers of pursuing certain pastimes, so it might be reasonable to assume that they do want to become addicted. If this isn't a reasonable assumption, then the conclusion must be that such people are stupid or vulnerable. Shouldn't we be protecting such people?



I think you mean Hitchens P. Hitchens C is the one whose output has somewhat tapered off in the past 4 years.



I'm glad that you read Dalymple's piece, Stan. Though of course an extreme example, it is nonetheless interesting to learn that more severe enforcement or punishment can lead to a reduction in drug abuse.

I have no idea whether decriminalisation will increase cannabis use or not, but I can imagine that certain more law-abiding citizens could be tempted to try what was once considered (by them) to be forbidden fruit. I dunno, but it would be one hell of an experiment to get wrong, wouldn't it?



Back where we started.

The first time I've seen anyone comparing the legalisation of a mild form of cannabis to the legalisation of youth violence, Uber. Isn't this slightly hysterical...?

 

[sb_73]

.

 

[Uber_Hoop]

The first time I've seen anyone comparing the legalisation of a mild form of cannabis to the legalisation of youth violence, Uber. Isn't this slightly hysterical...?

Probably (chortle, chortle). I was merely trying to point out that just because the authorities don't actively pursue something that is supposed to be 'against the law' it shouldn't necessarily follow that said something should be decriminalised. I'm certainly guilty of being hysterical about releasing leopards.

 

[Uber_Hoop]

.

I agree.

 

[GoldhawkRoad]

Probably (chortle, chortle). I was merely trying to point out that just because the authorities don't actively pursue something that is supposed to be 'against the law' it shouldn't necessarily follow that said something should be decriminalised. I'm certainly guilty of being hysterical about releasing leopards.

Releasing leopards, I can understand...

 

[sb_73]

I agree.

I had created a long and utterly brilliant response to your post but the format was all wrong (tried and failed to imitate your very neat division of my post) and in a drug an alcohol fuelled frenzy I deleted it, beat the wife, and tied a lit firework to the dog while smoking a cigar.

 

[Uber_Hoop]

I had created a long and utterly brilliant response to your post but the format was all wrong (tried and failed to imitate your very neat division of my post) and in a drug an alcohol fuelled frenzy I deleted it, beat the wife, and tied a lit firework to the dog while smoking a cigar.

I feel utterly defeated and am now persuaded to support the decriminalisation lobby.

 

[GoldhawkRoad]

I feel utterly defeated and am now persuaded to support the decriminalisation lobby.

 

[Quality Passing Rules]

I once got called to a 'Patient Alight' in St Thomas's Hospital, Lambeth. When we turned up this poor bloke was in a pretty bad way. After we had dealt with him the nurse told us that apparently his mate had a bet with him that he couldn't smoke a *** in the hospital and get away with it. He thought he would as he was in one those hyperbaric oxygen tents and assumed that it would contain the smell of the smoke.

Of f%$k. Lucky the whole place didn't go up. I heard of a guy that climbed into a newly installed air conditioning set that was still full of mastic fumes for a sly joint. He was a dread and after the fumes ignited he came out with his dreads still smoking from the flash. Might be bull might not but the vision in my head is funny.