Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Samalama)
    Why's it a bad thing if they want to prevent harm?
    Because I should, as an adult, have the right to choose what I want to do. Cars kill, lets ban them. I could argue that the state should ban cars to prevent harm. The State shouldn't tell its citizens what it can and can't do as long as it is not directly affecting other people.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by wilko1991)
    Because I should, as an adult, have the right to choose what I want to do. Cars kill, lets ban them. I could argue that the state should ban cars to prevent harm. The State shouldn't tell its citizens what it can and can't do as long as it is not directly affecting other people.
    The cars don't kill people, the drivers are responsible (most of the time). This is why there are speed limits, speed cameras and patrol cars.

    Besides, a car is a form of transport, you can't go to work on a spliff.
    Offline

    2
    (Original post by Samalama)
    Why's it a bad thing if they want to prevent harm?
    Because all of the cannabis users supposedly being protected are saying "look, we get the dangers, and we want to accept them anyway" - at that point, if it harms nobody else, I don't believe the state has the authority to intervene anyway (well it does have the authority, but it shouldn't.)

    Not to mention that prohibition does more harm to society than it prevents; it encourages a criminal underworld, it uses police resources, it deprives us of taxes, deprives us of jobs - not to mention making full use of the plants medicinal purposes and the hemps use as a fibre for making clothes, paper and so on.

    And all of this to prevent a harm that really isn't that horrific, I've used cannabis for a long time now and I never feel ill-effects from it.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Samalama)
    The cars don't kill people, the drivers are responsible (most of the time). This is why there are speed limits, speed cameras and patrol cars.

    Besides, a car is a form of transport, you can't go to work on a spliff.
    But if you ban cars then the drivers wont have the chance to kill themselves. It's the same with drugs. It's not the drugs that kill it is the person who decides to take them. People should be allowed to have that choice.

    The car example was stupid. How about mountaineering? There is little benefits to it and people die doing it. Should the state ban that? It is harmful and dangerous but people have the right to do what they want.
    Offline

    2
    Or better yet, the example of boxing. You might think mountineering is alright because it's fresh air and exercise, and that's good for you even though there are some dangers.

    However boxing is nothing but two people trying to injure eachother - however I believe its their decision to make, not the governments. If the government banned boxing and used the line that protecting society is a nice thing and everybody should be thankful for it - there would rightly be outrage, people just change their tune about cannabis because they've been brought up being told that its evil.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Oh snap!)
    please dont be one of those people who try to give themselves an ego boost by trying to start an argument over the internet with someone you dont even know. does anyone really give a flying **** . it is really ANNOYING
    "is that so lol"
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    No, Cannabis shouldn't be legalised, if you legalise it then you are implying that it is acceptable to take drugs when it's not.

    Drugs ruin lives and cannabis in particular can be detremental to a person's mental health, in some cases causing cannabis psychosis.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    A conclusive argument for cannabis.

    1. Tell me why it should be legalised! No. In a free society we have presumption of innocence. You have to show why something ought to be criminalised, not legalised, or else everything would be automatically criminalised and things only legalised when arguments have been made in their favour. That isn't the case. The burden of proof lies on the criminalisation lobby to show why it should have been criminalised in the first place and why criminalisation ought to continue. In short, YOU tell ME why it should be CRIMINALISED.

    2. Cannabis is not fun / cannabis is for idiots / cannabis is expensive / cannabis makes you look stupid: Ok. Whether those things are true or not is irrelevant. Your personal opinions on whether or not you like a drug (or indeed anything) are not justifiable grounds for it being banned. What determines how much of something is produced is a market, i.e. how many people desire it. Your opinions are subjective. Markets are objective. If, for example, cannabis was made legal and people started to consume it (ignoring the fact they already do consume it...) then that is evidence that one person's personal dislike of cannabis is not objective reason for its criminalisation. In short, you need a better argument than "I don't like it" to justify it's criminalisation.

    3. Cannabis is dangerous: Well, I think that's contentious. The facts are that there is a debate, and quite a large one, over whether cannabis is dangerous or not. Either it is or it isn't. There are reams of evidence, on the internet, anecdotal, theoretical, empirical, that show both sides of the argument (frankly, my anecdotal data has shown that cannabis is harmless. I have hurt myself/almost gotten into fights/said really stupid things when drunk. Not the case when stoned) so let's not fall back on "Well, it's been shown that cannabis X...". What we do know is that cannabis can be like anything else in the world.

    It can be dangerous. However, I have cut myself with my penknife before. That isn't an argument that penknives should be banned (nor is it an argument that cannabis ought to be legalised). But saying "Cannabis is dangerous, therefore it ought to be banned" leads to some interesting logical conclusions that have been totally ignored by our lawmakers (i.e., inconsistency). I've stuck to drugs here because otherwise I'd be making some logical fallacies myself.

    Conclusions of "Cannabis is dangerous, therefore it ought to be banned."
    a. Every drug that is more dangerous than cannabis ought to be banned.
    b. Cannabis is dangerous and therefore should be banned.
    c. If you smoke cannabis there should be legal repercussions.


    Which mean;
    a. Alcohol and tobacco should be banned.
    b. Alcohol and tobacco should be banned.
    c. The law controls the substances you put into your body.
    ca. The law understands your personal situation better than you, i.e. they know how best to regulate your intake.
    cb. Potentially anything could be criminalised and it's users convicted.


    Although some people advocate tobacco being banned they never advocate alcohol being banned.

    The point is twofold:
    a. Just because something is dangerous, there's no argument for it to be banned. Hell, shaving is dangerous and not particularly necessary. And people commit suicide with razor blades -- ban?
    b. IF something being dangerous is reason for its criminalisation, then to maintain consistency, you would have to ban everything more dangerous than cannabis. We can not allow our Parliament to be so hypocritical as to claim that something can be banned because it's dangerous and then leave unbanned everything more dangerous than it. It's a serious failure of justice.


    Btw, cannabis kills 0 people a year. Alcohol kills 22,000. Go figure. Of course, all those Parliamentarians sitting in their Westminster bar slotting shots of £300 a bottle whisky away don't care about that figure. No, they're just useless proles. But people consuming a naturally produced weed in the privacy of their own homes?!?! Intolerable!!

    4. Cannabis causes crime: No. Alcohol causes crime. Cannabis, on the other hand, reduces crime. People who are stoned do not go out and commit crimes. They don't attack people. They don't steal. They don't even move, they just sit there and spout crap about how deep they are.

    Now, it's true that people who deal cannabis are breaking the law. They're drug dealers, which is illegal. But that's nonsense. Laws exist for protection. They exist so that I don't go and slam my fist in your face, or to prevent tyrannicide throw a molotov cocktail through a window of 10 Downing Street. When a Parliament creates a law designed not to protect people but to model society around an image it believes desirable (which is really what drug laws are), it creates more social problems then it solves. Compare the situation pre-criminalisation to the situation now.

    In the 60s we did NOT spend billions of pounds hunting drugs. We did NOT have people living on the streets because of drug abuse. We did NOT have families breaking up because of drug abuse. What we DID have was a system in place whereby people of age could buy prescribed narcotics over the counter. Drug laws were created by fusty old Conservatives and authoritarian marxists.

    But anyway, when cannabis is outlawed, only outlaws will smoke cannabis. That's why it causes crimes. It's also disingenuous to claim that cannabis causes crime so it should be illegal. It causes crime because it's illegal. End.

    5. Cannabis is immoral: Um, no. In terms of inducing euphoria, cannabis is just the same as alcohol. Besideswhich, how can you claim that doing something that hurts nobody except yourself is immoral?

    But, I'll tell you what is immoral. Using force against people to persuade them to change their behaviour. Using the military and the police to attack innocent people and destroy their property. But the ultimate immorality in drug laws lies not in their implementaton. Not in the fact an eighteen year old can get a seven year jail sentence for possession of cocaine. Not in the fact that a sixteen year old can be slapped in chains and carted off to a police van for interrogation for possession. Not in the fact that people with drug problems find it hard to get help because of the illegality and stigma of drugs. No.

    The ultimate immorality is in an authority telling people what they can and can't do with their body. The Government are not our parents. They are not our friends. They are NOT there to claim partial ownership over our bodies. That is slavery. I never consented to having them decide what I was allowed to put inside my body.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    i don't get why it's not getting legalized

    it does no harm and EVERYONE does it..so what's the big deal?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Samalama)
    ...you can't go to work on a spliff.
    :rofl:
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    So I think I ended this thread.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    It will never be legalised here because it is still illegal in so many other countries.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    What do the drug liberalisers think about the argument regarding the concern of family members and friends - as well as the argument that it is a "selfish" act? How would you address the argument that most people don't necessarily drink alcohol to get drunk, and that drunkenness is considered taboo anyway (so why should smoking pot not be)? That it is technically illegal to sell alcohol to someone who is intoxicated anyway.
    Offline

    2
    (Original post by necessarily benevolent)
    What do the drug liberalisers think about the argument regarding the concern of family members and friends - as well as the argument that it is a "selfish" act? How would you address the argument that most people don't necessarily drink alcohol to get drunk, and that drunkenness is considered taboo anyway (so why should smoking pot not be)? That it is technically illegal to sell alcohol to someone who is intoxicated anyway.
    I'm not going to say that drug use can't harm those close to you, people close to me have been involved in drugs since I have been very young. However first of all we should seperate cannabis from 'hard' drugs, because my mum for example smoked weed occassionally when I was growing up and if that's all she ever did, I'd not exactly care. But what did cause huge damage to her life and to mine as well was crack cocaine, methadone and also alcohol.

    Because of the physically addictive nature of alcohol, its very easy to become an alcoholic. It's easier than it is to be addicted to weed: and I know many alcoholics within my immediate family alone. You try growing up with an alcoholic, and only then can you tell me that its not a big deal and doesn't harm lives. I know somebody who was a heroin addict for nearly 30 years, and he has now quit the heroin, yet he remains an alcoholic to this day (and yes if he wanted to, he could get his hands on heroin.)

    If harming other peoples lives is your concern, and it makes a drug immoral, and deserving of prohibition - you should criminalise alcohol, end of. No argument about it, because I know from personal experience that it is way more damaging to family members lives than marijuana is.

    However I don't want alcohol to be illegal, or cannabis, or even crack cocaine. I understand that it sounds crazy to want all of these things to be legal when I should logically be dead against them. But I really believe that a policy which brought it into the open and treated the issue as medical rather than criminal would be beneficial for drug addicts and also for the family of addicts.

    As for it being selfish - it's not the role of the government to make selfish acts illegal, I can't believe that's even open for debate!
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CandyFlipper)
    I'm not going to say that drug use can't harm those close to you, people close to me have been involved in drugs since I have been very young. However first of all we should seperate cannabis from 'hard' drugs, because my mum for example smoked weed occassionally when I was growing up and if that's all she ever did, I'd not exactly care. But what did cause huge damage to her life and to mine as well was crack cocaine, methadone and also alcohol.

    Because of the physically addictive nature of alcohol, its very easy to become an alcoholic. It's easier than it is to be addicted to weed: and I know many alcoholics within my immediate family alone. You try growing up with an alcoholic, and only then can you tell me that its not a big deal and doesn't harm lives. I know somebody who was a heroin addict for nearly 30 years, and he has now quit the heroin, yet he remains an alcoholic to this day (and yes if he wanted to, he could get his hands on heroin.)

    If harming other peoples lives is your concern, and it makes a drug immoral, and deserving of prohibition - you should criminalise alcohol, end of. No argument about it, because I know from personal experience that it is way more damaging to family members lives than marijuana is.

    However I don't want alcohol to be illegal, or cannabis, or even crack cocaine. I understand that it sounds crazy to want all of these things to be legal when I should logically be dead against them. But I really believe that a policy which brought it into the open and treated the issue as medical rather than criminal would be beneficial for drug addicts and also for the family of addicts.

    As for it being selfish - it's not the role of the government to make selfish acts illegal, I can't believe that's even open for debate!
    Would you say that a government has no obligation to ensure the health and safety of its subjects? Is there really a difference between making self-harm and harm of others illegal, from their perspective? I don't know whether or not attempting suicide is illegal, but is there really a difference between protecting people from suicide, and protecting victims of murder?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by necessarily benevolent)
    What do the drug liberalisers think about the argument regarding the concern of family members and friends - as well as the argument that it is a "selfish" act? How would you address the argument that most people don't necessarily drink alcohol to get drunk, and that drunkenness is considered taboo anyway (so why should smoking pot not be)? That it is technically illegal to sell alcohol to someone who is intoxicated anyway.
    What do the substance criminalisers think about the concept of "proving beyond all reasonable doubt" ... ? What proof is there that would stand up in a court of law that there is any evidence that the legality of cannabis has a causal link to the well-being of family and friends? Furthermore, there are dozens of "unnecessary" and perhaps possibly "selfish" (how ridiculous) things that negatively affect family members that are more pressing. If our Government were to be consistent and criminalise alcohol because every argument they use for criminalisation of marijuana can apply to alcohol then there would be a revolution in this country. It can be therefore established that drug laws are only effective because of a state (and right-media) induced moral panic about narcotics and other substances.

    It doesn't matter that "most people" don't drink alcohol to get drunk (nonsense, by the way): the fact is that a tremendous number of crimes are related directly to alcohol. And the only crimes related to marijuana are those which would not exist if marijuana was legalised.

    (Original post by necessarily benevolent)
    Would you say that a government has no obligation to ensure the health and safety of its subjects?
    Not by coercion. Never. Not in a free society. I'm not opposed to the Government providing the facts (the facts, mind you: not mindless propaganda) for the sake of public health, not at all. I am opposed to the Government forcing people to follow its plan for national obedience.

    Oh, and to apply my previous paragraph: I can go out and buy a bottle of vodka every day. I can't go out and buy a 'teenth a day.
    Offline

    2
    (Original post by necessarily benevolent)
    Would you say that a government has no obligation to ensure the health and safety of its subjects? Is there really a difference between making self-harm and harm of others illegal, from their perspective? I don't know whether or not attempting suicide is illegal, but is there really a difference between protecting people from suicide, and protecting victims of murder?
    Of course there is a difference between murder and suicide. Of course there is a difference between self-harm and assault.

    The government might have some role in protecting the members of society, for example I want murder and assault to be illegal and I want the government to enforce this.

    The crucial difference which you don't seem to be taking into account: is that people don't have the right to harm someone else because that someone else isn't consenting and going against peoples consent is wrong. However when it's self harm, suicide or drug use: you're harming yourself and you're consenting to that. What would be going against consent in those examples is government prohibition - thats why prohibition is so wrong on an ideological level.

    So the government should protect the people: but when half the population smoke weed, is a policy of putting them into prison really protective? Or does it create more problems than it prevents?
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    Interesting points lads.
    Offline

    2
    (Original post by necessarily benevolent)
    Interesting points lads.
    Thanks, and I also want to pose you a question now:

    Should adultery be a crime? It ruins families, ruins lives - does the state have an obligation to prevent this and to protect people from this selfish and harmful act?
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CandyFlipper)
    Thanks, and I also want to pose you a question now:

    Should adultery be a crime? It ruins families, ruins lives - does the state have an obligation to prevent this and to protect people from this selfish and harmful act?
    I wasn't trying to question your points. I was just stating some arguments that people bring up, and was interested in hearing how you'd respond. And no, adultery shouldn't be criminalised, but the state has an obligation to resolve the effects of adultery through divorce proceedings and such.
 
 
 
  • 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.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
    Useful resources
  • 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.

  • 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

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