Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by glassheart)
    How the ****** can you compare smoking weed, and that?
    Well you said that it should be illegal because it's illegal. We changed the law on that because it was wrong, as we have many others, so why not this as well?
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tis_me_lord)
    Again I covered this. Try buying weed in Holland when you're under 18. Coffee shops are so strict on ID and why would drug dealers sell cannabis? They don't carry any because not enough people buy it illegally when they buy it legally instead. Hence the poor children go without drugs.

    When it's illegal on the other hand, and drug dealers carry cannabis - children can easily buy some. Drug dealers are less strict on ID.

    Yeah but kids still get alcohol by others to buy it:rolleyes:

    And what about the rolemodels issue?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 2026)
    Then why not just get rid of the NHS? Your half-way approach is comical.
    What are you talking about my half way approach? Everybody pays in to the NHS (which won't be gotten rid of you need to get REAL) for a basic level of health care, once you start adding significant risk to your life through your inputs you should pay more so that the burden everybody else pays isn't increased. It's just basic common sense and decency which you clearly lack. You've tried to make me look stupid and make me look like my beliefs don't fit but you've failed miserably. FAIL.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elipsis)
    What are you talking about my half way approach? Everybody pays in to the NHS (which won't be gotten rid of you need to get REAL) for a basic level of health care, once you start adding significant risk to your life through your inputs you should pay more so that the burden everybody else pays isn't increased. It's just basic common sense and decency which you clearly lack. You've tried to make me look stupid and make me look like my beliefs don't fit but you've failed miserably. FAIL.
    Uh, thats a pro-legalisation argument? Tobacco smokers do exactly this through taxes, why would anything be different with other drugs if they were legalised and taxed accordingly?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elipsis)
    Well you said that it should be illegal because it's illegal. We changed the law on that because it was wrong, as we have many others, so why not this as well?
    I'm not going to write an essay like you did, I don't have time or will power. And I believe that whatever I write, will not change let alone alter your mind, so I am saving myself from writing pointless words.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Might as well legalise under 18 drinking...becuase people do it anyway
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elipsis)
    What are you talking about my half way approach? Everybody pays in to the NHS (which won't be gotten rid of you need to get REAL) for a basic level of health care, once you start adding significant risk to your life through your inputs you should pay more so that the burden everybody else pays isn't increased. It's just basic common sense and decency which you clearly lack. You've tried to make me look stupid and make me look like my beliefs don't fit but you've failed miserably. FAIL.
    - Firstly, there are many countries in the world, including developed countries, who do not have a universal health care system so your suggestion that the NHS is permanent and can never be eradicated is utter rubbish.

    - Secondly, you propose to tax people merely for risk. A know smokers and obese people in their fifties who are more healthy than some people in their twenties. Saying you smoke so you must pay extra is not only authoritarian, it's unjust.

    - Thirdly, do you propose we levy taxes on people who use cars? I assume you do since they cause pollution (which damages health) and car accidents. If not, why not? If so, where do we stop?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Spizzey)
    And it would! Big Tobacco have ulterior motives sure, but they don't partake in sex trafficking.
    Perhaps not sex trafficking, but exploitation of farmers for sure through paying ridiculously low sums for their crops and providing no welfare for their producers.

    The 'ulterior' movtives of these tabacco firms rely solely of exploitation - which i guess if you're talking economics is a very liberal idea, -but morally is abhorrent. Tabacco companies also exploit their customers through lying about their product and putting many unecessary chemicals inside ciggarettes ( but i am inclined, in a way, to agree with you that smoking is a lifestyle choice and therefore find it difficult to sympathise with this 'willing' party )
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Spizzey)
    Uh, thats a pro-legalisation argument? Tobacco smokers do exactly this through taxes, why would anything be different with other drugs if they were legalised and taxed accordingly?
    What are you talking about? I am for people paying taxes on goods which harm them... it makes perfect sense. Cannabis users are currently harming themselves (even if it is a minority) and it makes sense that they pay for this harm accordingly, which under a criminalisation scheme is impossible.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Spizzey)
    Uh, thats a pro-legalisation argument? Tobacco smokers do exactly this through taxes, why would anything be different with other drugs if they were legalised and taxed accordingly?
    This post proves that this is all moving too fast for my brain.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 2026)
    - Firstly, there are many countries in the world, including developed countries, who do not have a universal health care system so your suggestion that the NHS is permanent and can never be eradicated is utter rubbish.

    - Secondly, you propose to tax people merely for risk. A know smokers and obese people in their fifties who are more healthy than some people in their twenties. Saying you smoke so you must pay extra is not only authoritarian, it's unjust.

    - Thirdly, do you propose we levy extra charge on people who use cars? I assume you do since they cause pollution (which damages health) and car accidents. If not, why not? If so, where do we stop?
    Great, now we're down to using personal examples rather than facts. Smokers stand a 50% chance of dying of a smoking related illness, why should the 80% of non-smokers have to pay anything towards this? It's not authoritarian is it?

    You've also failed to take into account that although yes there are countries who don't have universal health care there are very few if any who have had universal health care and then gotten rid of it, there would be an uproar and it would never ever happen.

    And finally, incase you hadn't notice drivers pay loads more in taxes: road tax and fuel tax amounts to enough to keep the roads in check and pay for any accidents+ a lot lot more.

    You are just arguing with me for the sake of arguing now, anyhoo I need to go home from work now it's getting late bai. This thread wasn't created with the intention of arguing about socialism by the way, speak about your views on cannabis or piss off.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by glassheart)
    I'm not going to write an essay like you did, I don't have time or will power. And I believe that whatever I write, will not change let alone alter your mind, so I am saving myself from writing pointless words.
    I wrote no such essay.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    There has never been a medical reason for criminalising Marijuana. It is a interesting subject. It really only criminalised because it is associated with "dangerous classes", eg, working people and poor people. For example in England around the 19th century, there was a theory, that Gin was criminalised and Whisky wasn't because Gin was what the poor folk drank. When a drug is class related it frequently gets criminalised.

    Marijuana can be perceptual enchancer and increase ones appreciation of music and visual arts and even increase persons levels of imagination and creativity. This can be all validated to people with an open mind.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Its only too long if your attention span is incredibly short. Well put together piece, I must say.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elipsis)
    Great, now we're down to using personal examples rather than facts. Smokers stand a 50% chance of dying of a smoking related illness, why should the 80% of non-smokers have to pay anything towards this? It's not authoritarian is it?
    Yes, it may be unjust for the 80% of non-smokers to have to pay anything towards this, but it's also unjust to make smokers who do not suffer smoking related illness. People should be response for the consequences of their actions, not others. Unless every single smoker or obese person suffers certain illnesses/diseases-which they do not-you cannot justify a blanket discrimination.

    Secondly, the NHS is 'unjust' from a liberal perspective anyway. I shouldn't have to pay for another persons health costs no matter what, whether it was a choice or not.

    (Original post by Elipsis)
    You've also failed to take into account that although yes there are countries who don't have universal health care there are very few if any who have had universal health care and then gotten rid of it, there would be an uproar and it would never ever happen.
    That's barely an argument. Just because it hasn't happened before [I'm just taking your word] there's no reason to assume that it cannot be eradicated and replaced with a US style insurance system, or another system perhaps.

    Secondly, if the NHS is fundamentally unjust, as many libertarians believe, the fact that some people would be upset at it's eradication ought not be a good enough reason to sit back and accept the status quo.

    (Original post by Elipsis)
    And finally, incase you hadn't notice drivers pay loads more in taxes: road tax and fuel tax amounts to enough to keep the roads in check and pay for any accidents+ a lot lot more.
    No, but they do not pay a particular charge to cover the impact they have upon the NHS. They may be heavily taxed, but that's for other reasons.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    (Original post by Rob 106)
    Yeah but kids still get alcohol by others to buy it:rolleyes:

    And what about the rolemodels issue?
    Again I maintain that kids can get it more readily by it being illegal ... same reasons as before.

    And rolemodels? Legalisation isn't saying it's a good idea. I have already suggested that some of the tax money would go towards drugs education aimed to discourage use. I'd hardly be glamorising it.

    Dutch children use cannabis less than America/UK children.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Collingwood)
    The 'mighty empire' of the past two centuries has been 'libertarian' Britain and its off-shoot America, while the various interations of Germanic and Russian tyranny are the ones that proved unsustainable.
    you can hardly argue that imperialist britain was a liberal society. The most powerful nations in the world have always been the most authoritarian, ancient greece fell to the facsist romans when it became liberal, the romans fell to the barbarians when they became liberal and corrupt, the british empire fell when we became liberal (and is continuing to fall if you consider the state of modern society). Germanic and russian tyranny was merely proved weaker in the face of ours. We didnt have a liberal society during the war periods, we had the defence of the realm act, the internment of conchies and a curtailment of free speech. Even during the cold war you had mcarthyism and the red scare.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elipsis)
    But which societies have been better for their citizens? I personally would rather live in Holland that Russia for instance. I would not advocate selling it in shops as such, like alcohol. But in off license style shops, where users can go in get their cannabis with information on it and go home, or smoke it in the open air freely.
    holland is apparantly becoming more right wing (with regards to immigration and such)

    however back to weed, the only issue would be keeping the second hand smoke away from people who are driving and such. They would need outdoor weed areas (if it were to happen in pubs and clubs and such).

    however one thing i would ask, does it do nothing to your brain whatsoever? im mean weve all seen the talk to frank adverts with the brains on...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    tl;dr. I don't have time to read that now, but if I remember later, I shall come back to it.

    Personally, I don't lean strongly either way when it comes to cannabis criminalisation/legalisation. If informed adults wish to smoke it, and they do not harm other people either in procurement of their stash or whilst under the influence, then I have no particular objection to them doing so. It should definitely be available on prescription (if necessary, at a higher cost to cover overheads) for those with cancer or multiple sclerosis.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tis_me_lord)
    Well yeah just have coffee shops like in Amsterdam. I wouldn't exactly endorse smoking near a primary school. In fact I wouldn't endorse cannabis at all necessarily, it remains a drug with health risks no matter how small I perceive those risks to be.

    And there is more to being a good society than lasting a long time. Russians were well off under Stalin but it doesn't make me feel that Stalinism was a good political philosophy!
    its all to certain degrees isnt it? for example to sultan of dubai is practically a dictator yet his people pay no taxes and are more or less happy (despite the curtailment of their freedoms).

    Do we think everyone is fully equipped to handle personal freedom responsibly? i personally think that some people are better off being told what to do and how to live...
 
 
 
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: July 18, 2008
Poll
Black Friday: Yay or Nay?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.