How long until Cannabis is legal in the UK?

[Cyclone]

I used to quite enjoy shooting (air guns mostly) as a lad living on a farm, would still like to own/shoot handguns.

 

Not allowed any more, even though I wouldn't be impacting anyone else.

 

I'm a bit hesitant to post that as I suspect the thread may get derailed into another debate now, but fingers crossed.

 

Not a particularly good analogy though.

 

Target shooting doesn't affect anyone else, but using the same tool to shoot a person does. Nor is shooting an example of doing something to yourself, which were the words I used earlier.

And to top it all off, banning legal ownership of handguns did nothing to reduce gun crime (indeed it went up faster post ban than it had done pre ban), apparently adding weight to the argument that prohibition doesn't work, whereas licensed, controlled use, does.

 

About the closest you could get with cannabis though, would be legalisation resulting in someone smoking it in a bus stop and anti-socially inflicting it on others there. Which happens today with tobacco.

The amount of harm caused by the change would be vastly outweighed by the amount of harm reduced though. Overall society would be better off.

Legalisation is the rational harm reduction strategy to take towards drugs (controlled legalisation, not some kind of anarchic free for all).

[psynuk]

In the case of Cannabis, if the mental health issues are a genuine issue, a heavy user could potentially make himself unable to work. The taxes won't cover that.

 

Just out of curiosity, any idea if there is an equivelant to the alcohol breath test that can be administered easily at the roadside?

 

I sure as heck wouldn't want people (legally) smoking pot at the wheel (I know, some will be already), but without a test can we enforce that?

 

---------- Post added 25-11-2014 at 15:20 ----------

 

Of curiosity, those of you arguing for legalisation of cannabis, where would you stand on drugs like cocaine or heroin?

 

I've known a few people over the years who simply don't work in the traditional sense. Some were full time/part time dealers some were layabouts on benefits. But I've known many more who hold down full time jobs and still partake. I've done many jobs stoned and some others I wouldn't dream of doing except when sober.

To be honest it can remove some peoples motivation quite quickly, but it's simply not that straight forward some people can function, some can't.

I've only driven once stoned and didn't enjoy it. I'd rather some one was very stoned rather than blind drunk as most people I've known won't entertain the idea of being stoned at the wheel yet quite a few of them would drink drive.

there are roadside tests.

 

As for heroin It should be given away at cost on the nhs for registered users.

cocaine, I have absolutely no opinion on.

 

I used to quite enjoy shooting (air guns mostly) as a lad living on a farm, would still like to own/shoot handguns.

 

Not allowed any more, even though I wouldn't be impacting anyone else.

 

I'm a bit hesitant to post that as I suspect the thread may get derailed into another debate now, but fingers crossed.

 

banning handguns was an ill thought and ineffective bit of legislation.

I can see why they did it and partially agree with it. But the gun laws are/were very strict and they did the job pretty well wrt legal ownership. however saying that dunblane and hungerford were legal guns but their owners were idiots to say the least. would the new law have stopped those crimes?

I don't know.

the reason I say it was ineffective was because gun crimes are still perpetuated.

[harvey19]

So was Cannabis.

 

---------- Post added 25-11-2014 at 11:00 ----------

 

 

Outweighs what?

Post 191. Views expressed.

 

---------- Post added 25-11-2014 at 18:27 ----------

 

The point is that your opinion (or mine, or anyones) is not grounds to stop someone else, doing to themselves, what they wish.

 

You can think what you like about tobacco, but that doesn't make it ethical or moral for you to impose your will on someone else.

We will have to agree to disagree.

Edited November 26, 2014 by esme
quote tags

[Cyclone]

Can you justify why your will should supersede that of another adults with regards to their own body?

[Xt500]

No one is. That's why it needs legalising

 

---------- Post added 24-11-2014 at 09:39 ----------

 

 

By "the past", I take it you're referring to, before the 60/70's? I know for a fact that my parents used to buy alcohol when they were under18. The police knew about it too. If anything it was probably just as relaxed, if not more relaxed.

 

Ask any parent who has seen their kid go from motivated,bright and enthusiastic,to a drop out waster who cant get out of bed before dinner time wether they think this crap should be legalised.

Only someone on drugs would think it should be!

[Cyclone]

You do realise that most of the people who support legalisation aren't actually using it? So clearly what you just said is wrong.

It's just a fact that the way to minimise harm is to legalise and control it, prohibition has failed, it's always failed, it can only fail. Legalised control is the best harm reduction strategy, and morally more correct.

[harvey19]

Can you justify why your will should supersede that of another adults with regards to their own body?

Already explained. To protect them.

Post 209 is the reality of why the drug should not be legalised.

 

---------- Post added 26-11-2014 at 09:40 ----------

 

You do realise that most of the people who support legalisation aren't actually using it? So clearly what you just said is wrong.

It's just a fact that the way to minimise harm is to legalise and control it, prohibition has failed, it's always failed, it can only fail. Legalised control is the best harm reduction strategy, and morally more correct.

I don,t know any non user of illegal drugs that want them legalised.

Prohibition has worked in stopping some people not using them.

[Bonzo77]

Ask any parent who has seen their kid go from motivated,bright and enthusiastic,to a drop out waster who cant get out of bed before dinner time wether they think this crap should be legalised.

Only someone on drugs would think it should be!

 

Wrong. People who don't use drugs also would like to see it legalised.

 

Tell me, how would legalisation cause more of the above scenarios you described to take place?

 

---------- Post added 26-11-2014 at 09:49 ----------

 

Prohibition has worked in stopping some people not using them.

 

I can provide evidence to prove that legalisation/decriminalisation doesn't cause a significant increase in use of drugs.

 

Can you provide evidence to support your above statement?

[Cyclone]

Already explained. To protect them.

Sorry, I meant a justification, morally.

 

In an effort to make you think about the morality of what you're suggesting. Suppose you like football (chose something you do like if it helps). There are clearly risks associated with whatever it is, no matter how small.

Now suppose that I decide that the risks are too great. Is it moral that I can "for your own protection" impose my decision on you that you shall not perform that activity anymore?

Don't quibble with me about the risks, just think whether it's moral that I decide something for you. As if my judgement is somehow better than yours or supersedes yours for some reason.

Because that is what you're suggesting is right regarding "drugs" (which I hope you realise is a pretty meaningless moniker. For example, caffeine is a drug, potentially harmful)....

I don,t know any non user of illegal drugs that want them legalised.

Prohibition has worked in stopping some people not using them.

 

Yes you do. There are many of us posting on this thread.

 

Prohibition has failed. There is no evidence that it has ever stopped anybody using drugs who wanted to do so. There is lots of evidence that prohibition increases harm significantly.

Edited November 26, 2014 by Cyclone

[harvey19]

I fully understand the point you are making and in many cases would agree with you but in the case of tobacco there are no beneficial effects only proven terrible diseases caused by them.

Ref non users advocating changes in drug legislation on the forum. These number very few as I am sure are members of society as a whole.

There will always be users who want change and will argue strongly for it to justify their own behaviour but what has to be considered is the common good and not the wishes of a few.

There are probably some responsible users but the law is there to protect the vulnerable.