Should Canabis be legalised??? Watch

This discussion is closed.
caz
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#21
Report 16 years ago
#21
(Original post by Ryoku)
got a point, but drinking is supposed to be at night, yet people get sick days from hangovers, canabis doesn't give you hangovers, and would probable be used in the same way as alcohol (aka after work)
There is always the risk that people will smoke can. like cigaretts if they are more readilly available, but it's a free country, shouldn't we be able to do what we want with our own bodies?
yes we should, it is our life, we should our lives for ourselves
cannabis does have "hangovers", but its not really a hangover, u just feel it even after u've slept (and weed really does give u a good night's sleep, which is a VERY useful effect of it)

montel williams got on T.V. and cried about it being illegal, saying people like him with MS (some disease) should be able to use it to feel better, as it is not addictive like morphine, and it really has no side effects other than short term memory loss, which really isnt even that big of a deal. life goes on, dont get a stressful job if u wanna smoke pot or drink the green dragon
0
fionah
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#22
Report 16 years ago
#22
It's one of those things that is different to establish cause/effect - the lunatic aunty I mean..

Anyway, I voted yes, because of tax reasons, the fact it wouldnt make a difference, because alcohol is legal, and because if it was legal a lot of situations would be less dangerous for young people.

I knew someone (edit: my brother knew someone really, I just knew OF him) who was murdered because of some trouble over payment for weed - if it was legal he wouldnt have had to consort with that type of person in the first place. Also, when I have bought it in the past, a lot of more dangerous drugs , ecstasy, coke, etc. have been available to me.
0
caz
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#23
Report 16 years ago
#23
(Original post by fionah)
It's one of those things that is different to establish cause/effect - the lunatic aunty I mean..

Anyway, I voted yes, because of tax reasons, the fact it wouldnt make a difference, because alcohol is legal, and because if it was legal a lot of situations would be less dangerous for young people.

I knew someone (edit: my brother knew someone really, I just knew OF him) who was murdered because of some trouble over payment for weed - if it was legal he wouldnt have had to consort with that type of person in the first place. Also, when I have bought it in the past, a lot of more dangerous drugs , ecstasy, coke, etc. have been available to me.
it's because u need a middle man to get the weed, unless u grow it urself or have contact with the source, and the middleman is in it for the $$ (or the drugs), so if u want it, u also get caught up in lots of other things...cocaine isnt that bad, it just ****s up ur heart if overused and for those people who have addictive personalities, they become addicted
0
Ryoku
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#24
Report 16 years ago
#24
(Original post by fionah)
It's one of those things that is different to establish cause/effect - the lunatic aunty I mean..

Anyway, I voted yes, because of tax reasons, the fact it wouldnt make a difference, because alcohol is legal, and because if it was legal a lot of situations would be less dangerous for young people.

I knew someone (edit: my brother knew someone really, I just knew OF him) who was murdered because of some trouble over payment for weed - if it was legal he wouldnt have had to consort with that type of person in the first place. Also, when I have bought it in the past, a lot of more dangerous drugs , ecstasy, coke, etc. have been available to me.
here here, good point! Come on Mr Blair, if u can get top up fies to get the go ahead, this should be a piece of cake, space cake at that!
0
lushes
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#25
Report 16 years ago
#25
(Original post by The_Barman)
Yeah but if your gonna say that bout hash then what about alcohol....its a slow way of killing your health aswell!! Like i said it is the same as drink! I aint sure bout legalising grass....well not yet anyways...first legalise the sifter stuff then we'll see :-D
i dunno it depends will more ppl get huked if tis legal thou i do believe it cures sum helth probs n sud b used 4 that
0
Dr-Green
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#26
Report 16 years ago
#26
(Original post by fishpaste)
What about the health aspects of cannabis? We've all seen the imperial stats on how cannabis rots your lungs at 4x the speed of tobacco. Can we really afford to be treating more people for lung cancer? Or provide therapy and drugs for people who do not react well mentally after smoking it? And can we afford to lose those working days when people are too high to make it to the office? Hyperbole maybe, but it's a point, taxes are there to correct externalities which exist, the idea of legalising to tax would be like creating an externality then using a tax to get rid of iit. A bit silly.
But what EVERYONE fail to realise is that there are other ways of taking cannabis than smoking it. The smoking of it is practically promoted by the government, its a very narrow minded way of looking at a drug and ways of getting its effects. Especially when "smoking cannabis is bad for you" is their way of keeping children/people away from it.
What about eating it? Nobody ever seems to bring up that possibility in the news, government or any cannabis health discussion. There are ways of inhaling cannabis without smoke using a vapouriser, but that's never mentioned or brought to the public's attention. Take away the smoke and the health risks disappear.
When looking at it from that point of view, it seems like the government WANT to keep it illegal, and want to waste money on locking people up for growing a seed and posession of a bit of nature. Its as if they're hiding the other methods of getting stoned, or if not hiding them, promoting the smoking of it and the health risks so much , that the public believe that its bad.

But as its more widely discussed, and the other ways of consuming it are STARTING to surface, lo and behold mental health problems arise! I agree that it can bring on schytsophrenia earlier in life IF IT WAS GOING TO HAPPEN ANYWAY, but it doesn't CAUSE it to happen in "normal" people. Out of the people who did develop schytsophrenia, how many people haven't?
People often fail to realise how many people do actually smoke cannabis. They might not admit to it because of their professional situation or what others might think etc, but a lot more people do smoke it, or at least use its effects somehow, than people believe.

Does it matter that the most successful and loved bands of the 60's were under the influence of god knows what when writing their number 1 hits? Not at all, they didn't know it at the time, they loved their songs and they loved their band, so how could you possibly change your mind when you find out they were "on drugs".

But a point I just realised when writing this comment now, classic rock was awesome. As cannabis was made out to be bad between now and the 60's, has anyone noticed the decline in good music, from bands like The Who, Led Zeppelin and Jimi Hendrix etc, to Steps, Spice Girls, Gareth Gates and S Club 7.

In Holland you can buy cannabis in cakes and tea. Where are the health risks involved in going down to the local coffeeshop, having a cup of skunk tea and eating a bit of space cake while chatting with friends. Apart from the possibility of getting knocked down by a drunk driver on your way over there of course...

I rest my case.
0
Ryoku
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#27
Report 16 years ago
#27
Yeah! Thats a very good point for a newbi! Each to their own, there's even evidence that oxygen in the air's bad for you (oxidises the lining of the lungs) But who's gonna stop breathing? Everything has it's good and bad points, life is a matter of balance, not denile, that's a concept brought on mostly by christianity, who want us to sit in a stupid church every day of our lives, viva la fredom!
0
Jonatan
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#28
Report 16 years ago
#28
As a medicament yes. Cannabis should be given a status similar to Morphine. That is, available for treatment after prescription from a doctor under strict regulations.

However I dont think you should legalise the use of it as a way of getting high. The damage from it is to large and peopel do not know the consequences of it. Whereas people go around saying it is not physically addictive (this only means that you will not need larger and larger doses to get high, you may still get addicted. Cocaine aint PHYSICSALLY addictive either) close to noone knows that it disturbs the hormon system. Comparisions to cigarettes have litle relevance as cigarettes would most likely be prohibited had they been invented today. Only reason nicotin not banned uis due to historical reasons.
0
wanderer
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#29
Report 16 years ago
#29
The damage to health cannot be a morally acceptable reason for outlawing the drug as long as sufficient education is provided. It is beyond the moral authority of the state to regulate what people can and cannot do to their own bodies.
0
Ryoku
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#30
Report 16 years ago
#30
(Original post by Jonatan)
As a medicament yes. Cannabis should be given a status similar to Morphine. That is, available for treatment after prescription from a doctor under strict regulations.

However I dont think you should legalise the use of it as a way of getting high. The damage from it is to large and peopel do not know the consequences of it. Whereas people go around saying it is not physically addictive (this only means that you will not need larger and larger doses to get high, you may still get addicted. Cocaine aint PHYSICSALLY addictive either) close to noone knows that it disturbs the hormon system. Comparisions to cigarettes have litle relevance as cigarettes would most likely be prohibited had they been invented today. Only reason nicotin not banned uis due to historical reasons.
well, each to their own, if they leagalised canabis, you wouldn't be forced to smoke it, and alcohol is a much more social retarding drug, as you fall over, get into fights and slur your words half way through the evening
0
Jonatan
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#31
Report 16 years ago
#31
(Original post by Ryoku)
well, each to their own, if they leagalised canabis, you wouldn't be forced to smoke it, and alcohol is a much more social retarding drug, as you fall over, get into fights and slur your words half way through the evening
First of all, I would not care if some idiot knew cannabis was dangerous and smoked it anyay. The problem is that people do not know the harmfull effects of it. I do not know how many people actually beleive that Cannabis is completely harmless. When it comes to alcohol it is actually good for the hearth and bloodsystem if consumed in moderate amounts (Getting drunk every saturday is not moderate amounts). Furthermore, very little is known about the harmful effects from cannabis, but what one do know does not look promising. As an example, cannabis is known to trigger schizofrenia amongst people preexposed to it, and it does affect the same receptors as progesteron (a hormon involved in wommens menstruation cycle). Also, cannabis require far lower concentrations than alcohol to affect the nerve system and so it is likely to have greater side effects. Remember that it took more than 60 years to show that smoking caused cancer. One has only recently started to investigate the harmfull effects of cannabis propperly.
0
Jonatan
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#32
Report 16 years ago
#32
(Original post by wanderer)
The damage to health cannot be a morally acceptable reason for outlawing the drug as long as sufficient education is provided. It is beyond the moral authority of the state to regulate what people can and cannot do to their own bodies.
I would agree with you if it was not because of the publi health system. In the end the money used to treat people who get schizofrenia and other diseases related to cannabis abuse has to come from somewhere. Since the government pays for hospital treatment with tax money everyone eventually have to pay for one persons abuse. Furthermore, if we take alcohol as an example, people are killed in traffic because of it even if they have never taken a sip. You must take into consideration all externalities connected to the drug.
0
Ryoku
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#33
Report 16 years ago
#33
(Original post by Jonatan)
First of all, I would not care if some idiot knew cannabis was dangerous and smoked it anyay. The problem is that people do not know the harmfull effects of it. I do not know how many people actually beleive that Cannabis is completely harmless. When it comes to alcohol it is actually good for the hearth and bloodsystem if consumed in moderate amounts (Getting drunk every saturday is not moderate amounts). Furthermore, very little is known about the harmful effects from cannabis, but what one do know does not look promising. As an example, cannabis is known to trigger schizofrenia amongst people preexposed to it, and it does affect the same receptors as progesteron (a hormon involved in wommens menstruation cycle). Also, cannabis require far lower concentrations than alcohol to affect the nerve system and so it is likely to have greater side effects. Remember that it took more than 60 years to show that smoking caused cancer. One has only recently started to investigate the harmfull effects of cannabis propperly.
So, smoking=bad, drinking(in excess)=bad, breathing=bad, is that gonna stop people from doing them? Educate the people, and let them decide for themselfs, look at all the people who support the legalisation of canabis, we live in a (suposible) free contry, with a Republic. If it's what the people want, shouldn't it be what the people get?
0
Jonatan
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#34
Report 16 years ago
#34
(Original post by Ryoku)
So, smoking=bad, drinking(in excess)=bad, breathing=bad, is that gonna stop people from doing them? Educate the people, and let them decide for themselfs, look at all the people who support the legalisation of canabis, we live in a (suposible) free contry, with a Republic. If it's what the people want, shouldn't it be what the people get?
Yes, look at all the peopel supporting a legalisation. Why dont you think it is legalised ? Because most people do NOT support a legalisation. Perhaps among university students or left oriented liberalists majorities support it, but the majority of those who may vote thinks it is better to be carefull. Thats why most political parties do not want to legalise it. It is not benefitial from a political view.

As for education I think you underestimate perr pressure. Did you know that 90% of those who smoke started before they were 18? The main reason people start using drugs is quite basicly because it is there. I think we both agree that for society as a whole it would be better if few people abused cannabis. Btw: Do you think one should legalise cocaine? Your arguments can be applied to any drug there is, which should give a hint that perhaps they are a little bit to generalised.

Also, regarding a democracy. Hitler was elected democratically. Sometimes a democracy may fail. Even if teh majority would think that cannabis should be legalised, it doesnt mean that they are correct. The spanish inquisition voted against Galileo's claim that the earth moves around the sun, that does not mean they were correct. Some questions are better left to the experts than to public opinion.
0
Ryoku
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#35
Report 16 years ago
#35
(Original post by Jonatan)
Yes, look at all the peopel supporting a legalisation. Why dont you think it is legalised ? Because most people do NOT support a legalisation. Perhaps among university students or left oriented liberalists majorities support it, but the majority of those who may vote thinks it is better to be carefull. Thats why most political parties do not want to legalise it. It is not benefitial from a political view.

As for education I think you underestimate perr pressure. Did you know that 90% of those who smoke started before they were 18? The main reason people start using drugs is quite basicly because it is there. I think we both agree that for society as a whole it would be better if few people abused cannabis. Btw: Do you think one should legalise cocaine? Your arguments can be applied to any drug there is, which should give a hint that perhaps they are a little bit to generalised.

Also, regarding a democracy. Hitler was elected democratically. Sometimes a democracy may fail. Even if teh majority would think that cannabis should be legalised, it doesnt mean that they are correct. The spanish inquisition voted against Galileo's claim that the earth moves around the sun, that does not mean they were correct. Some questions are better left to the experts than to public opinion.
so, in other words, you would rarther live in a society where the specialists rule with an iron hand, while the rest of the poplulation lives like peasents, a society ruled by those deamed 'better people'? No thanks, and if people want to use cocane, they should be able to, just so long as they know what it does to them, and are given all the help they can get should they want to quite. I believe that most people who start on the harder drugs do so because it is illegal, make it legal, and you take away the fun
0
Jonatan
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#36
Report 16 years ago
#36
(Original post by Ryoku)
so, in other words, you would rarther live in a society where the specialists rule with an iron hand, while the rest of the poplulation lives like peasents, a society ruled by those deamed 'better people'?
These are your words not mine. The extremes are doubt to be bad, but that applies to democracy as well. You should not want people without knowledge in teh field vote about which drug to use in hospitals...

(Original post by Ryoku)
No thanks, and if people want to use cocane, they should be able to, just so long as they know what it does to them, and are given all the help they can get should they want to quite. I believe that most people who start on the harder drugs do so because it is illegal, make it legal, and you take away the fun
A few doses of cocaine is enough to get you addicted for life. given that 1% of those who have started smoking manage to quit, and that Nicotin is only mildly addictive as compared to cocaine, it should be obvious that such a liberal policy on Cocaine will collapse in the long run. You say people should get help to quit. Who shall pay for this? The taxpayers?
0
Ryoku
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#37
Report 16 years ago
#37
(Original post by Jonatan)
A few doses of cocaine is enough to get you addicted for life. given that 1% of those who have started smoking manage to quit, and that Nicotin is only mildly addictive as compared to cocaine, it should be obvious that such a liberal policy on Cocaine will collapse in the long run. You say people should get help to quit. Who shall pay for this? The taxpayers?
well, if we had less people tracking down the dealers, and tax being collected from the sale of these drugs, there should be plenty of money
0
Jonatan
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#38
Report 16 years ago
#38
(Original post by Ryoku)
well, if we had less people tracking down the dealers, and tax being collected from the sale of these drugs, there should be plenty of money
Id like to see how you came to that conclusion. Medical treatment is an expensive service. Just check what a private hospital would charge your insurance company for something like a broken foot, then put it into perspective that the process of going clean from a hard drugs typically last for several months with medical treatment and doctor supervision. Furthermore, even with help the number of people able to quit are remarkably small. Even if you could make these numbers add up, yoyu will in the end not get away from teh fact that large resources are being used on hard drugs.
0
Ryoku
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#39
Report 16 years ago
#39
(Original post by Jonatan)
Id like to see how you came to that conclusion. Medical treatment is an expensive service. Just check what a private hospital would charge your insurance company for something like a broken foot, then put it into perspective that the process of going clean from a hard drugs typically last for several months with medical treatment and doctor supervision. Furthermore, even with help the number of people able to quit are remarkably small. Even if you could make these numbers add up, yoyu will in the end not get away from teh fact that large resources are being used on hard drugs.
yeah, but not all people would do the hard drugs would want to quite, plus they'd still have their jobs, so can support their habbit themselfs. Plus, i believe that the reason why people do drugs a lot of the time is because it is illegal, by legalising it, the thrill of standing against the system will be gone, so too will be the apeal of taking drugs
0
Jonatan
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#40
Report 16 years ago
#40
(Original post by Ryoku)
yeah, but not all people would do the hard drugs would want to quite, plus they'd still have their jobs, so can support their habbit themselfs. Plus, i believe that the reason why people do drugs a lot of the time is because it is illegal, by legalising it, the thrill of standing against the system will be gone, so too will be the apeal of taking drugs
1, Regarding the legal Issue: Alcohol is legal and we see that the use has dimnished to almost nothing.... errr NOT!

2, As for people doing hard drugs still having their Jobs, You dont know much about the mental long run effects of Heroin and Cocaine do you? They both give rise to insanity, and Heroin is one of the most socially devestating drugs one know about. Do you take economics? Ever heard of a little concept known as a negative externality?
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

People at uni: do initiations (like heavy drinking) put you off joining sports societies?

Yes (530)
66.75%
No (264)
33.25%

Watched Threads

View All