Why ban smoking drugs IF..

[melthebell]

DENVER — As lawmakers debate the future of recreational marijuana Denver Police say they are investigating more marijuana-related crimes.

 

Denver, where 66 percent of voters approved Amendment 64, has a growing crime issue related to marijuana according to Denver crime statistics.

 

When Colorado’s medical marijuana law took effect in 2009, there were 10 medical marijuana related burglaries. In 2012, that number jumped to 102 marijuana related crimes. In the first three months of this year, thieves broke into 22 businesses.

 

Denver police said criminals are not just hitting medical dispensaries, but homes too.

and to put it into context, whats that about?

legal weed or illegal weed?

 

whats amendment 64?

[RootsBooster]

DENVER — As lawmakers debate the future of recreational marijuana Denver Police say they are investigating more marijuana-related crimes.

 

Denver, where 66 percent of voters approved Amendment 64, has a growing crime issue related to marijuana according to Denver crime statistics.

 

When Colorado’s medical marijuana law took effect in 2009, there were 10 medical marijuana related burglaries. In 2012, that number jumped to 102 marijuana related crimes. In the first three months of this year, thieves broke into 22 businesses.

 

Denver police said criminals are not just hitting medical dispensaries, but homes too.

 

So your argument is to legalise weed?

[Phanerothyme]

I'm happy to go on in this jokey vein, but I'm also prepared to break your position down point by point in order to try and understand it.

 

Can you handle it reasonably without resorting to ridicule, belittlement and explicit or implicit personal attacks, however humorous, and just discuss the serious objections you have, and rebut or refute my arguments against them?

 

What I mean by this is teasing out the moral, legal, and philosophical aspects of drug use, and sticking to the point at hand, rather than flying off at a tangent and addressing some other factor when the reasoning becomes irrefutable, as it will.

 

This means, to a certain extent, indulging in some socratic dialogue, but I'm happy to reciprocate if you have a line of reasoning you'd like me to follow.

 

And I'm happy for you to go first. If you can?

 

I guess not

 

So is one of your assertions that cannabis should be illegal because of the risks to the user, as listed in this article?

 

Look this up If you dare.

 

http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/drugs/Pages/Cannabisdangers.aspx

I looked it up, nothing new there.

Obviously it went over your head or you didn't read and digest.

 

maybe you'll find this a little easier:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_cannabis

 

None so blind as those who don't want to see.

 

What is the point you are making? That cannabis isn't harmless?

 

And yet some on here and one in particular claim Cannabis is harmless

Who's claimed that? Link me happy?

[RootsBooster]

Unfortunately not, but Chris is talking about pot, and angos is talking about smack.

Chalk and cheese are not even in the ballpark.

 

Ironic that Mr.Smith/Maxmaximus/Angos' example of people stealing to feed their Smack habit is pretty much an effect of it being illegal

[Magilla]

That's exactly what the medical fraternity gives them.

 

Quite!

 

I meant the type of non prescribed/recreational drugs under discussion in this thread but I guess it doesn't hurt to be clear

[janie48]

How does someone suffer the consequences of experimenting, by selling drugs?

 

I'll make my point clear, because I credit you with more sense than some on here. People only suffer from their own choice to smoke it, and they should be allowed to make that choice without interference. We don't blame the landlord or brewery when people need liver transplants, and we shouldn't blame drug dealers for what others choose to do.

 

Where some dealers are at fault, is for pushing harder drugs, which is a result of putting the trade in the hands of criminals.

I was meaning those who buy drugs from the seller, not the ones dealing.

I do blame dealers when aware of the risks, they sell the drugs regardless of caring whether or not the one receiving the drug is fully informed of the potential danger, but it would appear most are users themselves so I expect that's why.

 

I won't harp on about it, because I've expressed views on the subject before. I'll just say that I had hoped the "say no to drugs" schools education programme would have been a deterrent and had a more positive affect but i'm informed it hasn't worked?

 

I'm not suggesting all who use illegal substances are all bad people and addicts it would be ludicrous to think that.

But when the habit gets out of control, as it can to those who become dependant; we have to interfere if we want to help them, so why avoid interfering before it reaches that point, especially if the potential addiction is going to also impede on the lives of those around them.

[RootsBooster]

I was meaning those who buy drugs from the seller, not the ones dealing.

I do blame dealers when aware of the risks, they sell the drugs regardless of caring whether or not the one receiving the drug is fully informed of the potential danger, but it would appear most are users themselves so I expect that's why.

 

I won't harp on about it, because I've expressed views on the subject before. I'll just say that I had hoped the "say no to drugs" schools education programme would have been a deterrent and had a more positive affect but i'm informed it hasn't worked?

 

I'm not suggesting all who use illegal substances are all bad people and addicts it would be ludicrous to think that.

But when the habit gets out of control, as it can to those who become dependant; we have to interfere if we want to help them, so why avoid interfering before it reaches that point, especially if the potential addiction is going to also impede on the lives of those around them.

If that's an argument to keep weed illegal it falls flat fairly quickly. Alcohol, nicotine, prescription drugs, solvents and more are all legal (but age restricted), they carry the same or greater risks for young people experimenting with them.

[Chris_Sleeps]

I won't harp on about it, because I've expressed views on the subject before. I'll just say that I had hoped the "say no to drugs" schools education programme would have been a deterrent and had a more positive affect but i'm informed it hasn't worked?

The "Just Say No" argument. Have we not moved an inch since the 80s?

 

Alas, in the real world, people still use drugs, and they're still easy to buy. The "War on Drugs" is as fruitless as the "War on Terror".

But when the habit gets out of control, as it can to those who become dependant; we have to interfere if we want to help them, so why avoid interfering before it reaches that point

Why avoid interfering with people who aren't addicts and aren't out of control?

 

Possibly because they aren't addicts and they are in control.

[janie48]

If that's an argument to keep weed illegal it falls flat fairly quickly. Alcohol, nicotine, prescription drugs, solvents and more are all legal (but age restricted), they carry the same or greater risks for young people experimenting with them.

Yes but we're not talking about nicotine and alcohol etc.

 

The argument about keeping weed illegal is still open to question as far as Im concerned, until we see a change put into practice we don't know.

 

Since seeing a TV documentary "America's Stoned Kids" I think it was called, It was evident weed had been responsible for much suffering to the young who had been started on it at a very young age. We made a mistake with nicotine when it wasn't realised how harmful and addictive it is, so you can understand the concerns about cannabis.

 

The trouble is its being denied to some who need it for medical reasons because of all the conflicting reports.

If legalising it proves to be successful in the US States experimenting with the plan then I expect we will follow the same line.

It certainly seems disgusting to jail and criminalise people without giving them rehabilitation treatment, which is what we so often hear about.

[angos]

Logically falable. Utterly laughable.

 

I knew someone who used to rob tools from sheds to pay for Christmas presents for his kids. Your logic means Christmas has victims.

 

It does, millions of children are told by adults that Santa exists, this is a lie which can lead to children being bullied if they believe the lie for to long.

 

---------- Post added 24-10-2013 at 21:07 ----------

 

like ive already said , isnt that down to prohibition tho? wouldnt it be different if it was legalised? is there studies that show heroin on methadone from their dr has reduced their crime rate? im sure thered be ways of managing and reducing crime if it was legal

 

I think you misunderstand, they didn't commit crime to buy the stuff, they committed crime because they were high on the stuff, much like people commit crime when they are drunk.

 

---------- Post added 24-10-2013 at 21:09 ----------

 

I'd say it exacerbates a pre-existing condition. Though the jury is still out on that, mostly because of it's legal status.

 

Clearly people who're depressed/schizophrenic should not be taking mind altering substances.

 

Decriminalisation would only help here, since help could be provided rather than a criminal record. Prohibition makes it much harder to ask for help as well as leading to adulterated drugs, higher prices and the need to see a dealer who's interest is to get you onto something more expensive/potent (the "gateway" effect).

 

 

 

Another clarion call for regulation then, regulate like cigarettes, which are only sold to adults.

 

Are you sure, I think you should look round because kids these days appear to be doing the most smoking.