The old circular cannabis debate......the world is firmly divided between people who think its OK to use cannabis, and those who don't. The two camps are both pretty vociferous, and both believe they are right to believe what they do, and both will throw various studies around to prove their points however neither side has come up with solid data to show why their view should prevail. I'm pro legalisation myself, as I believe in free will within reason, but I'm also pro legalisation because I despise the hypocracy of some of the anti lobby, and would choose the opposite side to them just because someone should. Health is the first argument that falls down for me - this one bothers me because I believe that people should be able to choose whether to put their body under the influence of drugs, illegal or otherwise, regardless of the health consequences. Society tells us that our aim as people should be to be as healthy as possible for as long as possible. Not sure that's a sustainable target in an ever more crowded world. If people didn't ever risk their health and shorten their lives, we would have even more people around using up natural resources just to live, needing old age care, pension support for longer. Those that use us harmful drugs such as cannabis, or alcohol, or nicotine, or eat badly are actually doing society a favour if they live shorter lives. The downside is of course the cost of medical treatment required for ailments caused these unhealthy factors.....which is a legitimate reason why the legalisation of cannabis should be debated, as income could be generated to pay for medical treatment of users. Unhealthy food should also carry a premium price for the same reasons just like alcohol and tobacco already do. It also takes cannabis out of the same market place as heroin, crystal, coke etc and could put an end to the fallacy that there is such a thing as a gateway drug. I bought my first weed in a pub, does that make alcohol a gateway drug, leading to harder things? I think not somehow. The mental health argument is tricky, because there are so many people for whom regular, long term cannabis use has no discernable effects, and who can lead fully productive lives, raise families, have successful careers etc. There will always be cases where patient X used cannabis and is now psychotic, however there is never any direct proof that Patient X's psychosis was solely caused by cannabis use, and I believe that rather than cause mental illness, cannabis is merely attractive to people who already have problems. I know several people with varying degrees of mental illness, and I'd say the proportion that are cannabis users is about the same as the general population - you never see a positive media story about the great life a cannabis user had, only the tragic ones about a life that may have been altered by its use. I'm a long term user (over 30 yrs of regular use)but most people would never know it because I dont flaunt it, and apart from when I am actually smoking, there are no signs that I use it. I don't have any mental problems and I don't consider my drug of choice to be any more socially negative than alcohol, merely illegal. I use a vapouriser these days, so I can use it in the same room as a non smoker without affecting them and with considerably fewer harmful effects for me because there is no combustion. Cannabis was never made illegal for health reasons, and if it was legally produced and readily available to consenting adults in our own country, there would be no profit in smuggling it in from abroad. Huge financial savings for the country due to freeing up police, customs and court resources, and a loss of money making opportunities for organised crime seems like a win-win situation to me. Supplies could be quality controlled, outlets could be policed and we could have a leisure drug at our disposal the same way alcohol is for those people that choose to drink. If that were the case, maybe I wouldnt still get irritated by the stark differences in language used between someone drinking a glass of wine a day being described as a moderate drinker whereas a smoker who smokes one joint a day is a habitual drug user/abuser. I like cannabis, I think its great. I've never harmed a person to get it, I've never lost a job, or been unable to get a job because of it, I find its effects relaxing, or stimulating depending on my mood and I will very probably carry on using it. The science of growing the plants is fascinating and the engineering challenges of building a secret grow chamber in cupboards, filing cabinets, fridges etc is very satisfying to me, hence I have designed and built many guerrilla gardening setups for people, indoor and out, both hydroponic and soil based, organic where possible, and am happy to so that people have a choice of producing their own high quality, affordable cannabis without ever having to go somewhere and buy it. Despite all that, I believe that anybody selling cannabis to a minor should be dealt with very harshly, as should anybody who commits a crime caused by or aggravated by drug use because with free choice comes responsibility.....which I am also quite in favour of That's my opinion, for what it's worth. (I dislike the soft drug/hard drug labels as they imply less harmful/more harmful and the only labels that actually matter are legal/illegal. Those that already use illegal drugs have their own opinions about the legitimacy or value of that particular law and are prepared to risk it anyway - the labels only matter if you get caught)
Sorry flt i understand your point but that's a poor example, scientists have even come out and said - and i quote 'ecstasy is no more dangerous than horseriding.' And to the person who said cannabis is more harmful than ciggarettes, im sorry but that is pure bollocks. It's been proven that alcohol and tobacco is more dangerous than 90% of illegal substances out there, the exceptions being heroin & coke/crack. At the end of the day most of the health problems with drugs are down to impurities rather than the actual substance itself. Regulating them (note i said regulate) and education would solve this issue.
A few people are saying how the problem with weed these days is how it's super strong compared to the past, this is due to alot of it being chemically enhanced, again if it was regulated it would semi-solve this issue as you would know exactly what you're getting. EDIT: Also let's please not call speed n ecstasy 'hard drugs' as any drug user (ex or current) will know the only truly hard drugs are crack cocaine and heroin.
But you don't need to be 25 stone "to survive" either. If you are able to say to a nicotine addict, "just stop", then I can just as easily say to an obese person, "just stop". Now obviously I don't mean stop eating altogether, but just cut out the fatty, sugary, food, and eat smaller amounts. If anything, those who need to deal with an eating addiction have an advantage over smokers, in that they are still allowed to bloody eat food. It's not like a smoker can still have 3 or 4 cigarettes every day after they quit.
Obviously a horrendous and appalling terrorist act, but I still feel incredibly uncomfortable with the fact that the death penalty is still in use.
Umm sorry, but all drugs, legal or illegal are harmful if taken excessively. Pop a bottle of perfectly legal paracetamol and it's not going to be terribly good for you. The reason (well one of) the reasons people take drugs is that it transposes you into a different sense of reality. That can be in turn exciting/inspiring/fun/****ing terrifying. The rationale can be a creative one all the way through to one based in a deeply rooted psychological discomfort with your own reality (which tends to be the one that creates longer term issues as you're treating a symptom not a cause), but your original comment is rather off kilter I'm afraid.
You're absolutely right. I live in a very drug-intolerant country (smoking cannabis will result in a minimum 2-year sentence or you'll be exported if foreign). On the plus side, crime is massively reduced. I can't even begin to explain how safe and easy it feels walking around here at night compared to most countries etc. However, there really does feel like there is no creativity or originality here at all. The music/fashion/art/film scenes are just constantly ripping off the west. I can absolutely guarantee that the next big thing in music will come out of Europe or America, and it always will, because that is where the creativity (drugs!!) is (are). Manufactured boy/girl band pop music here is pretty much what 90% of the population listen to, it's absolutely unbelievable. Just imagine a 30 year old bloke listening to Justin Bieber on his way to work!!! Give him a bloody spliff and ten minutes later he'll be downloading Bob Marley or Pink Floyd, haha!!
Global and cultural development, music and drug culture. LTL, the floor is yours... *watches on intently*
I applaud you on that. I do still have a TV and pay the licence fee, but I rarely watch broadcast TV. I suppose I pay the licence fee for the little I do watch [BBC 1, 2 and 4] and for the hopeful upkeep of Radio 4 and 4 Extra. With the odd smattering of The Monday Night Club in Radio 5. Of course, I could watch and listen to all of this on iPlayer 2 hours after the events and ditch the TV licence, but I don't want the Beeb to break for adverts, so I contribute. However, your stand to ditch the TV and become more active is an excellent one.
I have experience with a variety of legal and illegal drugs, though I had the sense to stay away from the scarier strands of the latter. It's the legal ones that ultimately presented more of a problem; the illegal ones may have more effect in the moment, but the legal ones are harder to shake.
If you read the really really really long post that is pro-legalisation, it basically said there are cases and evidence to support both arguments. This suggests we don't know. This is my point. If there is no categorical proof, why legalise it? (I know you said regulate, but the discussion was about legalisation) I refer also to your comment about 'please don't call certain drugs hard drugs, any drug user....' - I never have taken drugs, so I certainly can't categorise them based on use, you are right. I am pleased I couldn't name the right ones . I can still think they are not right to be legalised though.
Here is a drug question to look at it in a different way, as there are always articles and "proof" either way. If you don't have children, remember this and ask yourself this when you do: Which of the following will you be most comfortable with buying for your teenage child? Beer Wine Whisky Cigarettes Rolled tobacco Cigars Cannabis Speed Ecstasy Cocaine
Son: Cigars so he looks cool. Daughter: anyone who tries to give her anything like this will be beaten to within an inch of his life.
Honestly, cannabis. Abhor tobacco smoke, hate drinking and people when they are drunk. The grinding your teeth and not being able to stay still for hours hardly made the others a compelling experience. I have had great, pleasant experiences with truffles/mushrooms but the anxiety I suffered on occasion would lead me to never totally recommend it to anyone. I could only advise and would always help anyone to ensure safe handling/operation. When my wife and I smoke, we laugh a lot, eat too much pizza and go to bed early. Plus it helps take your mind off a day spent dealing with our bosses, the idiot, the sociopath and the incompetent, racist, depressed alcoholic. There's negative health effects from everything on that list, but if I'm going to use substances, it'll be that one. I think people should use substances, of their own choosing, in moderation of course, and always in conjunction with work or creative activity.
When I was at work the slightest trace of any substance would have got me the sack, one colleague was suspended after eating a roll with poppy seeds on it! The alchohol limit was stricter than the vehicle driving limits. In the latter days smoking was banned anywhere in the building, it was a better place to work in. Everyone is free to chose, but there's a time and a place for it and no good moaning later about the consequences.
