|
Post by vinny on Jul 10, 2024 10:03:23 GMT
|
|
|
Post by montegriffo on Jul 10, 2024 10:39:06 GMT
Not sure what homicide rates or burglaries have to do with the legalisation of cannabis or organised crime. Homicides are mostly domestics often caused by alcohol and thefts are most closely related to poverty.
|
|
|
Post by vinny on Jul 11, 2024 0:15:48 GMT
If people are too stoned to assault or kill others... That's not a bad thing.
|
|
Steve
Hero Protagonist
Posts: 2,556
|
Post by Steve on Jul 11, 2024 8:20:30 GMT
If people are too stoned to assault or kill others... That's not a bad thing. And if they're too drug deranged to not realise they are killing innocent people?
|
|
|
Post by vinny on Jul 11, 2024 10:29:21 GMT
Yeah ok, but drug gangs aren't stabbing shooting each other now cos they've gone out of business.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2024 11:32:11 GMT
That'd be no brainer like someone high as a kite driving into me on a road would it. Tell you what legalise cannabis just as long as you accept anyone found high in charge of a car, child, any weapon, any other dangerous machinery or making life critical decisions gets to be banged up for 5 years first offence, doubled second etc. Deal? You could say the same thing about alcohol. And you also appear to be labouring under the illusion that making it illegal actually stops anybody. It doesnt. It just means we have no control on the strength or quality of the product, no control over the age of purchasers, and unmissable opportunities for criminals and street gangs. Lets be clear about this. Cannabis is not a harmless drug. It can seriously damage mental health, especially in younger people, and like all intoxicants it impairs ability to function and judgement whilst under it's influence. Though it is also true that the harmful effects associated with alcohol tend on balance to be more severe, particularly in terms of violent crime, domestic abuse, antisocial behaviour, and addiction. Nevertheless none of the harmful aspects of cannabis are in any way diminished by it's illegality, but in some ways are made worse by it, and it certainly does more societal harm as an illegal drug than it would as a legal one. Mind you, I do have to laugh at the Lib Dem's glaring example of a total lack of joined up thinking. Legalising cannabis whilst banning smoking. That's a bit like legalising aircraft whilst banning wings, lol. How do they imagine the average spliff gets consumed? Shoving it up your arse perhaps? Mixing it in with a glass of beer? A lager and soggy joint cocktail? lol Clowns, lol
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Jul 30, 2024 11:40:55 GMT
I think the Lib Dem policy was banning smoking tobacco.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2024 11:41:30 GMT
If people are too stoned to assault or kill others... That's not a bad thing. And if they're too drug deranged to not realise they are killing innocent people? If you think stoned people can be so deranged whilst stoned that they can kill people without realising it - unless they already have an existing psychotic condition - then you have quite clearly never smoked a spliff or been around people who have. I have done both in spades when a lot younger many decades ago. The idea that you could kill someone without knowing you are doing it when stoned is laughable to anyone with any experience of it. And this is a problem with many on the anti side of the debate. They don't know what they are talking about. What you suggest might be conceivable with LSD perhaps. But not a spliff, lol
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2024 11:43:07 GMT
I think the Lib Dem policy was banning smoking tobacco. Most spliffs are made with a mixture of tobacco and weed. A spliff containing weed alone would tend to be far too strong and also burn far too quickly. And the justification for banning tobacco is primarily its carcinogenic and other lung related negative impacts. Far less has been done in terms of studying long term effects of cannabis inhalation, but some early studies have suggested that it might be more carcinogenic than tobacco. But this is far from being conclusively proven just now. Nevertheless making it illegal to smoke something currently legal, whilst making it legal to smoke something currently illegal demonstrates - shall we say - a certain lack of consistency. Certainly until or unless it can be demonstrated to be less harmful than tobacco.
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Jul 30, 2024 12:47:58 GMT
Honestly I think the burden of proof is the other way round.
Probably isn’t overly important as Lib Dems are not in power and probably will not be any time soon…..
|
|
Steve
Hero Protagonist
Posts: 2,556
|
Post by Steve on Jul 30, 2024 16:17:05 GMT
That'd be no brainer like someone high as a kite driving into me on a road would it. Tell you what legalise cannabis just as long as you accept anyone found high in charge of a car, child, any weapon, any other dangerous machinery or making life critical decisions gets to be banged up for 5 years first offence, doubled second etc. Deal? You could say the same thing about alcohol. And you also appear to be labouring under the illusion that making it illegal actually stops anybody. It doesnt. It just means we have no control on the strength or quality of the product, no control over the age of purchasers, and unmissable opportunities for criminals and street gangs. Lets be clear about this. Cannabis is not a harmless drug. It can seriously damage mental health, especially in younger people, and like all intoxicants it impairs ability to function and judgement whilst under it's influence. Though it is also true that the harmful effects associated with alcohol tend on balance to be more severe, particularly in terms of violent crime, domestic abuse, antisocial behaviour, and addiction. Nevertheless none of the harmful aspects of cannabis are in any way diminished by it's illegality, but in some ways are made worse by it, and it certainly does more societal harm as an illegal drug than it would as a legal one. Mind you, I do have to laugh at the Lib Dem's glaring example of a total lack of joined up thinking. Legalising cannabis whilst banning smoking. That's a bit like legalising aircraft whilst banning wings, lol. How do they imagine the average spliff gets consumed? Shoving it up your arse perhaps? Mixing it in with a glass of beer? A lager and soggy joint cocktail? lol Clowns, lol 'And you also appear to be labouring under the illusion that making it illegal actually stops anybody.'Of course it does, it may not stop everyone but it would stop many. To suggest it would stop no one is ridiculous. And we've already done the alcohol -Cannabis comparison. It's a false one. Alcohol use is readily derected on the breath, skunk cannabis use not. Alcohol is a depressant but THC is very much a stumulant and hallucinogen too. Much more dangerous when driving etc.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2024 20:37:10 GMT
You could say the same thing about alcohol. And you also appear to be labouring under the illusion that making it illegal actually stops anybody. It doesnt. It just means we have no control on the strength or quality of the product, no control over the age of purchasers, and unmissable opportunities for criminals and street gangs. Lets be clear about this. Cannabis is not a harmless drug. It can seriously damage mental health, especially in younger people, and like all intoxicants it impairs ability to function and judgement whilst under it's influence. Though it is also true that the harmful effects associated with alcohol tend on balance to be more severe, particularly in terms of violent crime, domestic abuse, antisocial behaviour, and addiction. Nevertheless none of the harmful aspects of cannabis are in any way diminished by it's illegality, but in some ways are made worse by it, and it certainly does more societal harm as an illegal drug than it would as a legal one. Mind you, I do have to laugh at the Lib Dem's glaring example of a total lack of joined up thinking. Legalising cannabis whilst banning smoking. That's a bit like legalising aircraft whilst banning wings, lol. How do they imagine the average spliff gets consumed? Shoving it up your arse perhaps? Mixing it in with a glass of beer? A lager and soggy joint cocktail? lol Clowns, lol 'And you also appear to be labouring under the illusion that making it illegal actually stops anybody.'Of course it does, it may not stop everyone but it would stop many. To suggest it would stop no one is ridiculous. And we've already done the alcohol -Cannabis comparison. It's a false one. Alcohol use is readily derected on the breath, skunk cannabis use not. Alcohol is a depressant but THC is very much a stumulant and hallucinogen too. Much more dangerous when driving etc. You clearly have little knowledge of actual facts on the ground if you think the law stops anyone at all. In my experience it doesnt stop any, let alone many. Uncharacteristically, you are speaking ill informed nonsense on this one. Anyone who wants cannabis knows where to get it or can easily find out. I have not touched the stuff for decades, but know with certainty that if I wanted to get some for any stupid reason, I could find somewhere to get it within the hour if not minutes. It has been this way for as long as I can remember. If you think the law is in any way effective in stopping people from smoking the stuff you are just kidding yourself. And of course cannabis use impairs driving ability, but that does not alter the fact that the law does not stop anyone who wants it from getting it. And whether or not it impairs it to a greater or lesser extent than alcohol entirely depends upon how much alcohol you have consumed. One spliff can get you very stoned, additional spliffs rather than getting you more stoned just tend to keep you just as stoned for longer. But how drunk you get entirely depends upon how much alcohol you consume. So yes, a spliff will impair your driving ability more than a couple of pints. But five or six pints or more will definitely impair your driving ability more than any amount of cannabis. Take it from somebody who knows from experience and has been there, whereas you are clearly clueless in these terms and prone to believing what you read from unreliable sources it seems. I suspect you have been succumbing to confirmation bias in where you get your information. I have no skin in the game on this one, even though I can bring to the table my past personal experience of the stuff and the supply chain. But there is a reason why I gave it up a long time ago. It was not doing me any good. It can be fun which is why people do it, but it is harmful in so many ways for so many people. If making it illegal actually stopped worthwhile numbers of people from touching the stuff I'd be in favour, but it stops no one but its illegality makes it even more damaging for society in so many ways. Legalise it, control it's strength and age restrict it's sale to adults only. Take the criminals out of the equation whilst making it harder for under 18s to access it - the very age group it is most harmful to. And tax it and use the proceeds to help addicts kick their addictions. All that would do far more to reduce the harm caused by cannabis, than a law that is utterly ineffective. I have never known a situation where someone who wants cannabis cannot find somewhere to get it reasonably quickly, except very rarely.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2024 20:44:05 GMT
I would further add that anyone who ever drinks significant amounts of alcohol in sufficient quantities to become inebriated, who gets all preachy about cannabis use when most of the evidence suggests alcohol on balance does more harm is a brazen hypocrite.
I would have more respect for a teetotaller who also wanted alcohol banned making the same point. At least it would be consistent.
|
|
Steve
Hero Protagonist
Posts: 2,556
|
Post by Steve on Jul 30, 2024 20:55:35 GMT
'And you also appear to be labouring under the illusion that making it illegal actually stops anybody.'Of course it does, it may not stop everyone but it would stop many. To suggest it would stop no one is ridiculous. And we've already done the alcohol -Cannabis comparison. It's a false one. Alcohol use is readily derected on the breath, skunk cannabis use not. Alcohol is a depressant but THC is very much a stumulant and hallucinogen too. Much more dangerous when driving etc. You clearly have little knowledge of actual facts on the ground if you think the law stops anyone at all. In my experience it doesnt stop any, let alone many. Uncharacteristically, you are speaking ill informed nonsense on this one. Anyone who wants cannabis knows where to get it or can easily find out. I have not touched the stuff for decades, but know with certainty that if I wanted to get some for any stupid reason, I could find somewhere to get it within the hour if not minutes. It has been this way for as long as I can remember. If you think the law is in any way effective in stopping people from smoking the stuff you are just kidding yourself. And of course cannabis use impairs driving ability, but that does not alter the fact that the law does not stop anyone who wants it from getting it. And whether or not it impairs it to a greater or lesser extent than alcohol entirely depends upon how much alcohol you have consumed. One spliff can get you very stoned, additional spliffs rather than getting you more stoned just tend to keep you just as stoned for longer. But how drunk you get entirely depends upon how much alcohol you consume. So yes, a spliff will impair your driving ability more than a couple of pints. But five or six pints or more will definitely impair your driving ability more than any amount of cannabis. Take it from somebody who knows from experience and has been there, whereas you are clearly clueless in these terms and prone to believing what you read from unreliable sources it seems. I suspect you have been succumbing to confirmation bias in where you get your information. I have no skin in the game on this one, even though I can bring to the table my past personal experience of the stuff and the supply chain. But there is a reason why I gave it up a long time ago. It was not doing me any good. It can be fun which is why people do it, but it is harmful in so many ways for so many people. If making it illegal actually stopped worthwhile numbers of people from touching the stuff I'd be in favour, but it stops no one but its illegality makes it even more damaging for society in so many ways. Legalise it, control it's strength and age restrict it's sale to adults only. Take the criminals out of the equation whilst making it harder for under 18s to access it - the very age group it is most harmful to. And tax it and use the proceeds to help addicts kick their addictions. All that would do far more to reduce the harm caused by cannabis, than a law that is utterly ineffective. I have never known a situation where someone who wants cannabis cannot find somewhere to get it reasonably quickly, except very rarely. So according to you cannabis being illegal hasn't stopped a single person ever anywhere taking it. Dream on
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2024 21:46:46 GMT
You clearly have little knowledge of actual facts on the ground if you think the law stops anyone at all. In my experience it doesnt stop any, let alone many. Uncharacteristically, you are speaking ill informed nonsense on this one. Anyone who wants cannabis knows where to get it or can easily find out. I have not touched the stuff for decades, but know with certainty that if I wanted to get some for any stupid reason, I could find somewhere to get it within the hour if not minutes. It has been this way for as long as I can remember. If you think the law is in any way effective in stopping people from smoking the stuff you are just kidding yourself. And of course cannabis use impairs driving ability, but that does not alter the fact that the law does not stop anyone who wants it from getting it. And whether or not it impairs it to a greater or lesser extent than alcohol entirely depends upon how much alcohol you have consumed. One spliff can get you very stoned, additional spliffs rather than getting you more stoned just tend to keep you just as stoned for longer. But how drunk you get entirely depends upon how much alcohol you consume. So yes, a spliff will impair your driving ability more than a couple of pints. But five or six pints or more will definitely impair your driving ability more than any amount of cannabis. Take it from somebody who knows from experience and has been there, whereas you are clearly clueless in these terms and prone to believing what you read from unreliable sources it seems. I suspect you have been succumbing to confirmation bias in where you get your information. I have no skin in the game on this one, even though I can bring to the table my past personal experience of the stuff and the supply chain. But there is a reason why I gave it up a long time ago. It was not doing me any good. It can be fun which is why people do it, but it is harmful in so many ways for so many people. If making it illegal actually stopped worthwhile numbers of people from touching the stuff I'd be in favour, but it stops no one but its illegality makes it even more damaging for society in so many ways. Legalise it, control it's strength and age restrict it's sale to adults only. Take the criminals out of the equation whilst making it harder for under 18s to access it - the very age group it is most harmful to. And tax it and use the proceeds to help addicts kick their addictions. All that would do far more to reduce the harm caused by cannabis, than a law that is utterly ineffective. I have never known a situation where someone who wants cannabis cannot find somewhere to get it reasonably quickly, except very rarely. So according to you cannabis being illegal hasn't stopped a single person ever anywhere taking it. Dream on Speaking informed truth to ignorance is so reminiscent of the other forum. What experience on the ground do you have? And I don't mean shit you read in the papers. In my experience it never stopped anyone who wanted it from getting it for long. You telling me to dream on when I speak from experience and you clearly don't, is reminiscent of a debate with Jonksy. It is like trying to bring facts informed by personal experience to someone who insists on believing what he is emotively driven to believe based upon no personal experience at all. People like you kidding yourself that the law actually works when most of us know it doesnt are an obstacle to intelligent and informed debate, let alone pragmatic change that can reduce the harm. Cannabis dealers love people like you. You make sure they stay in business, lol. I suggest we desist from this debate. If you insist on believing stuff that demonstrably isnt true informed by no experience at all, nor by any apparent supporting evidence for your contention that the law is effective at stopping many people from smoking cannabis - and ignore the facts being presented to you by someone talking from experience, this debate between us is pointless. If I want that kind of debate I'll go and find Jonksy. And even if a handful of people here and there choose not to smoke the stuff because of the law, that hardly counteracts all the additional bad effects illegality causes society, including drug gangs and street violence by these gangs, no control whatsoever on the strength of what is sold, no means whatsoever of preventing kids from buying it, the very ones most susceptible to being harmed by it, as well as being the factor that makes it a gateway drug by insuring that it's supply is in the hands of the same people selling much more harmful drugs. If you cannot understand all that logically because you cannot get beyond your own kneejerk emoting on this subject, that's your problem. I have better things to do with my time than making it mine.
|
|