Should cannabis be legal

[munky]

In droves - but the druggie-loving posters will argue beyond any logic that it's just great for you and hasn't done them any harm at all. Prats.

 

I love you barty.

 

You've got your fingers so far in your ears that your actually tickling your brain.

 

I don't think any self respecting smoker would try to "argue beyond any logic that it's just great for you " as they generally appriciate that this is their thing and it aint for everyone.

 

Where as you've actually gone to the other side of the scale and tried desparatly hard to prove that you are right and all "druggies" can't possibly have a point or be anywhere near correct.

 

You rock!

[babychickens]

. . and on that same token, have you any idea how many studies and reports were done in america to prove that global warming doesn't exist.

 

The official stance of the american government on global warming was "it doesn't exist" and when to extreme lenghts to back this up, which as we all know was utter tosh made in order to avert mass panic from the non-thinking sector of the american pubic.

 

 

i take it you're using the global warming argument as an exampe of why research is wrong? american government scientists are under pressure to support their stoopid governments' liking for oil. independend scientists however are under no such pressure to prove that substance abuse and mental problems are linked. i'm sure most such scientists wouldn't argue taht cannabis can have some very positive effects also, particularly as a pain suppressant for those who need it. however, just because the american government may have in the past denied certain aspects of global warming (which, incidentally, is not universally accepted as a whole by the scientific community, although some aspects of it are) it doesn't mean that cannabis use doesn't have any implications on mental health.

[babychickens]

Because alcohol use was so well established by the time the government started looking at banning anything that it would have been impossible to enforce a ban.

 

Plus they realised that by taxing it instead they were onto a good think.

 

The question ought to be why some substances are treat differently to others. The government has no consistent policy, nicotine, caffeine, alcohol, cannabinoids, etc, etc... They are all drugs, there should be a consistent way of controlling them, be that a rating and then appropriate controls or whatever.

 

 

i think that's actually the only answer relevant to the OP. well done, cyclone, for not getting entirely off the point unlike me and one or two others.

[munky]

so you think the scientists are wrong and you know better?

 

personally in the face of peer-reviewed and accepted scientific evidence i don't think that there's much argument to be had, but by all means proove me wrong - would you care to pick the research apart and tell us why it's wrong?

 

i don't think i've rammed anything down your neck, anyway, i'm just adding to the debate that you seem so keen to have.

 

I aint saying scientific studies are right or wrong chicks, what I am saying is scientific studies are just that, studies of stuff from a scientific point of view.

 

Although they can provide more awareness of a particular drug, culture or whatever has been studied and provide more understanding about certain aspects of whatever, they cannot prove without a shadow of a doubt anything at all.

 

E.g Smoking causes cancer. Scientific studies have proved this. .

Or did the scientific studies actually discover that smoking significantly increases your chances of getting cancer as non smokers can still get cancer.

[never wrong]

For every study done, another comes along contracting it

[munky]

i think that's actually the only answer relevant to the OP. well done, cyclone, for not getting entirely off the point unlike me and one or two others.

 

. . and that's a fair point too.

 

The reason it aint legal is cos there's no money in it for the government.

 

Mr X gets spannered with his mates, wrecks the pub, roit van turns up with ambulances for the bystanders caught in the crossfire. Adding that up, you've got furniture sales, glaiser, public service workers all work put thier way indirectly through alcohol.

 

What would they get from legalising cannabis, less people would go out and kit-kat sales would increase slightly.

[evildrneil]

Conspiracy theories would say it was banned by a combination of Du-Pont and William Randolph Hearst when a process was developed to pick and decorticate hemp which would make hemp based paper cheap and plentifull and make the sulphuric acid wood pulping process owned by Du-Pont (wich significant holdings by Hearst). With hemp being an anually re-newable resource (unlike the many years that it takes to grow a tree to a suitable size for felling and pulping) and the cost of hemp paper production being about half that of wood pulping a slide in Du-Pont's and Hearst's worth wouldn't be hard to anticipate. To avert this Hearst used his papers, magazines, tabloids and news reels to spread sensationalist stories about how evil Canabis was. Firstly how is would turn people into psychotic killers and then when this was rebuffed how it would make American boys too apathetic to 'fight in our wars'. Whether this is true or not I've no idea, but I love a good conspiracy theory!

[bladesufc1]

Am i right in thinking that cannabis can cause physical problems as well though? plus the mental problems it can cause.

 

yes it can over time and high useage. but so can everything else if taken in moderation its safe just like drink, doctors drugs etc

[Heyesey]

i think that's actually the only answer relevant to the OP. well done, cyclone, for not getting entirely off the point unlike me and one or two others.

 

It's also not strictly true. In the 19th century, and - I believe - part way into the 20th, cannabis (and cocaine, and various other substances) were legal.

 

 

 

And the main thrust of the argument still isn't answered. What logical reason is there to outlaw cannabis - a mild drug which will occasionally cause mental health problems - and legalise nicotine, a highly addictive drug which comes packaged with a buttload of known carcinogens? Or worse, alcohol, an even more addictive drug which is highly likely to turn people aggressive and dangerous?

[bladesufc1]

yes, it does - not only does ruin your memory, motivation, and ability to not wind up the people you work with by being incredibly slack, it increases your chances of mental illness (including schizophrenia), and it causes (amoungst other things) sexual dysfunction - i have an ex boyfriend who smoked and smoked and smoked the stuff. he was a fantastic guy, although we were clearly not supposed to be together, but his major problem was that while he could get an erection, he couldn't ...ur...carry it through - orgasm and ejection were nigh on impossible for him. i think he only achieved either once while i was was him, and he'd never managed either before he met me, not even by himself, he'd been smoking the stuff for that long (or he'd forgotten about it, thanks to years of smoking affecting his memory). yeah, he was quite chilled about it thanks to the drugs, but personally i think it's not worth it.

 

i think he must have been smoking it in bed wth you, or just put a joint out.. but so can beer, it effects more so i'd say