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

    2
    (Original post by necessarily benevolent)
    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.
    Fair enough, I'm often just playing devils advocate on TSR as well, without really stating an opinion.

    What is your view on legalising drugs having listened to the replies of Bagration and myself?
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CandyFlipper)
    Fair enough, I'm often just playing devils advocate on TSR as well, without really stating an opinion.

    What is your view on legalising drugs having listened to the replies of Bagration and myself?
    I'm still against it, due to the fact that active legalisation would send out the wrong message. In a society where we're trying to discourage people from smoking, drinking and taking drugs, the apparent legitimacy that would be attached to it by legalising it, wouldn't exactly set a good example. If it was already legal, then I wouldn't advocate criminalising it, but that's not the situation unfortunately.
    Offline

    2
    (Original post by necessarily benevolent)
    I'm still against it, due to the fact that active legalisation would send out the wrong message. In a society where we're trying to discourage people from smoking, drinking and taking drugs, the apparent legitimacy that would be attached to it by legalising it, wouldn't exactly set a good example. If it was already legal, then I wouldn't advocate criminalising it, but that's not the situation unfortunately.
    But you say we're a society that is against smoking, drinking and taking drugs - do you have any idea how many people do some or all of those things? It's such a huge amount it's probably in fact the majority of people.

    I reject the notion that this is some kind of collective decision that everybody in society agrees on. This is your own personal ideology, and you overruling the personal beliefs of other people. While it's fine for you to have your own opinion and to be against drugs: under legalisation you would be free to not do drugs and I would be free to do them. However under the prohibition of cannabis which you advocate I am not free because other people are forcing their morality onto me.

    Legalising drugs is not a message from the state that it's good to take drugs, indeed I advocate extensive drugs education saying exactly the opposite of that. When Portugal decriminalised all drugs, the amount of drug addicts declined. After Holland decriminalised marijuana, the percentage of the population who smoked weed decreased. In contrast the UK takes the prohibition approach, and ever since it has, drugs use has been rising and rising - are you sure it's not time for us to change our approach?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by foxo)
    Why shouldn't one have the ability to judge whether it is "acceptable" or otherwise, rather than having it dictated to them though? If you lived in a country where the government deemed that having a free press was unacceptable, would you quite happily accept that too?



    Here's a line of thought I bet hasn't occurred to you before - drugs also improve lives ("WHAT!?", I hear you say...). Well, it's very simple my dear friend. Drugs are for the most part pleasurable to take. If you deny this, you quite evidently don't know what on earth you're talking about. As humans, we actively seek and relish that which we find pleasurable - many would argue, myself included, that the purpose of life, or at least a major purpose, is the pursuit of that which brings happiness. Thus, if you take drugs, and you don't wish to stop taking them (assumedly because you find them pleasant), then you may find that they are in a way improving your life. Given that the vast majority of those who take drugs do so recreationally rather than out of an addiction, and given that the most popular drugs illegal in this country are not addictive - I think it's also fair to say most are not addicted and are simply taking them out of pleasure. Do you at any point disagree with this, and if so can you back that up with a rational argument?

    Taking that into mind: just because a minority of unfortunate sods "ruin their lives" taking drugs, does that really mean that drugs should remain illegal? Bear in mind that you could say almost precisely the same thing for gambling, alcohol, credit cards, the internet, shopping...

    As for mental health problems, there's still a fair deal of debate as to whether cannabis does cause such issues. Obviously it also pertains to the frequency of use.
    Not having a free press isn't harmful to your health, is it? There is a danger that if cannabis is legalised that there will be calls for other drugs to be be legalised as well, so where do you draw the line?

    Well i wouldn't know as i haver never taken illegal drugs. How do you know that the majority of people that take drugs are not addicted to them?.

    And as for cannabis causing psychosis, i've seen this happen with my own eyes.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Great points made.

    The problem with cannabis is that we simply don't know enough about what the long-term effects are. Very little has actually been proved - but cannabis is linked to depression, anxiety and other mental health problems - e.g. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/art...z&artid=135489. In health policy, you shouldn't take big risks - better safe than sorry. I'd be reluctant to legalise weed until we know what the long-term effects are. Once you've legalised it, its very hard to make it illegal again.

    Most people ITT rely too much on comparing cannabis with alcohol and cigarettes. Alcohol and ciggies are virtually impossible to make illegal because of the number of people hooked on them. Cannabis abuse is less harmful than alcohol or tobacco abuse, but we are in a position to stop cannabis use becoming as widespread as alcohol use. There is certainly an argument to say "better cannabis illegal and alcohol legal than both legal".

    Personally I am for legalisation on the grounds that it isn't sufficiently harmful for the state to be getting involved; and because the fact that cannabis is illegal means that people have to go to dealers which means they are exposed to harder drugs and have less safety... but I see the other side.
    Offline

    2
    (Original post by jacketpotato)
    Great points made.

    The problem with cannabis is that we simply don't know enough about what the long-term effects are. Very little has actually been proved - but cannabis is linked to depression, anxiety and other mental health problems - e.g. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/art...z&artid=135489. In health policy, you shouldn't take big risks - better safe than sorry. I'd be reluctant to legalise weed until we know what the long-term effects are. Once you've legalised it, its very hard to make it illegal again.

    Most people ITT rely too much on comparing cannabis with alcohol and cigarettes. Alcohol and ciggies are virtually impossible to make illegal because of the number of people hooked on them. Cannabis abuse is less harmful than alcohol or tobacco abuse, but we are in a position to stop cannabis use becoming as widespread as alcohol use. There is certainly an argument to say "better cannabis illegal and alcohol legal than both legal".

    Personally I am for legalisation on the grounds that it isn't sufficiently harmful for the state to be getting involved; and because the fact that cannabis is illegal means that people have to go to dealers which means they are exposed to harder drugs and have less safety... but I see the other side.
    I see your point of view, and I would never claim that cannabis is harmless and that it can't cause anxiety/depression - although it is very fair to say that these are very debated 'facts' and we simply don't know, so to say it should be illegal because it causes anxiety is as wrong as to say it should be legal because it doesn't cause anxiety. Nobody can claim to know either way; nobody knows.

    A lot of studies have been done on cannabis, and most countries have taken an anti-marijuana stance. If they're funding studies it's safe to assume that they're fairly eager to find all the dirt on marijuana and really use all the information they can. But the fact is that no studies have really proven anything: and indeed past studies e.g. the brain damage one in America have been refuted as the studies have been shown years later to have been misleading and using false information.

    What I'm really trying to say is, how long will it take to find out the long-term effects? Cannabis has been used for thousands of years, and its been in the media spotlight for decades, there have been so many studies and tests. Why is the burden even on those who wish to legalise it, to prove it's safe, so it can be legal? It should be the other way around - you need to prove it's dangerous before you criminalise it!

    And crucially, I don't even want drugs legal because they're safe. Some people only want safe drugs legalised and for those people the debate ends with what I've already said - and they'll disagree with the following. But I think my following point is more important than my previous one, and it's a side of the debate that your post failed to address:

    If cannabis is dangerous, why is it helpful for it to be illegal? Half the population have tried it, that's roughly 30 million, and how many prisons do we have in the country? (I believe it's 80,000 but I could be wrong.) Clearly we can't put all of them into prison, we can't prevent cannabis use entirely. It is always going to exist and be prominent in society whether it's legal or illegal. If you want to increase police funding and prison populations - be my guest, you'll spend a lot of taxpayers money but you wont eliminate cannabis from society, I've been to countries with the death sentence for it, and they all smoked it anyway.

    So given that prohibition utterly fails at prevention, and supposing now that this drug is harmful rather than harmless (and this isn't so much the case for weed, but imagine I'm talking about heroin/methadone/crack now) - how is it better to treat it as a criminal issue. Arresting a percentage of those involved, and turning a blind eye to the rest. I just don't see what it achieves. Treating drugs as a legal and medical issue means that no stone is left unturned; it means that people don't need to hide their addictions and the amount of people volunteering for rebah would skyrocket (it doubled in Portugal in a matter of years) - and also money would stop going towards drug dealers and instead would go in taxes towards the NHS, to rehab clinics, to education on drugs.

    Legalisation would decrease drug use for those reasons, it would make the substances safer, it would reduce overdoses and HIV/AID's cases, it would generate wealth and jobs, it would let police concentrate on preventing violent crimes etc

    I was going to end my post there but I remembered one more good point: putting people into prison for cannabis is ridicilous, it often gets them hooked on harder drugs (which are common in prisons), and it also makes it difficult to get a regular job afterwards, do it encourages them to turn to crime instead.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Democracy)
    Yeah it should be legal for everyone not just MS patients, mainly cause it's not my business what you choose to smoke.

    I don't smoke cannabis, personally I think it's for 14 year old stoner potheads, but hey ho if that's what makes you tick, then why not? Especially if it helps alleviate pain

    That said I would advocate restricting it to 18+ and taxing it heavily Except if you're taking it for medicinal purposes obviously.
    Thats the problem i see with legalization. Heavy taxing would be ridiculour. I already have to pay 10$ a gram, i don't want to paying like 20. Personally since its a natural growing plant it would only be like 5$ a G but oh well i guess, im living with it for nwo.
 
 
 
  • 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
    Are unpaid trial work shifts fair?
    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.