Legalize drugs to stop the violence?

[Forwyn]

No, I took it as a silly opinion that you're putting forth because of a sig. Nevermind that I made a normal, logical post, and attempted to contribute to the conversation.

As far as your respect goes, you can keep it. I don't really care.

 

[lavadog]

Weed is no stepping stone for hard drugs. Weed does not cause half as much damage as cigarettes and alcohol do. Weed does not cause violent behavior like alcohol does and does not cause overdosing. Not a single case of weed overdosing has ever occurred, while alcohol kills hundreds of thousands of people each year due to liver failure and brain damage. Smokers keep dying from lung cancer, while, contrary to popular belief, weed does close to no damage to the lungs.

Yet and still, weed is illegal while alcohol and cigs are not even condoned but also freely sold to anyone who wants to buy em.

I mean, I smoke weed quite often, I have a blank criminal record, do good in school and probably have a better physical condition than 85% of the population. How exactly is it bad for me?

 

[Scorpio]

With more pot users, there will also be more addicted users that need harder drugs, thus searching an illegal way around to get their hands on those.

Sorry Scorpio, but firstly an 'addicted pot user' doesn't really exist. Secondly, the idea that hard drugs are a natural progression from weed just isn't true. I'll admit there's something to be said for people who like to experiment discovering one high and then wanting to try another. But the idea that cannabis somehow makes you crave harder drugs is just wrong.

[size=-2]ps. luv you[/size]

Haha I'm open for a debate (just as long as my reactions aren't called bullshit)

Well I do mean a slidely increasing need for something stronger.
I am not a user, and never will be so I don't know that one for sure, but I do know that there are people who get addicted more easy. As TheNamelessWonder already proved, there is website-based info for everything so
http://www2.scholastic.com/browse/article.jsp?id=4826

 

[Twigley]

As far as your respect goes, you can keep it. I don't really care.

I think i just read win :O

@ Whoever said that the Government couldnt compete with drug dealers cutting prices - learn economies of scale ;D
The Government will win every time.

So what will those who cant compete with the Government do?
Steal and most likely use violence to aquire their money?

It's a fail to legalise drugs to stop violence.
You just create another problem.

 

[lavadog]

a lot of pot users don't feel the need for something more. Most people I know that do harder stuff didn't even smoke weed till after they did harder stuff.

 

[timtadams]

Forwyn, if you want me too i will. And dont think i wont, CFalcon wanted me to do the same and i did not this thread). But i have to go to uni now, so forgive me if arguing with you is not top of my priorities list.

[edit] and in the mean time, you can look at the post I made, and rebutt that, if you can, i.e. the first one i made in this thread, just before my second one

@ lavadog, if you want to know how pot is bad, then like i said, do some research

 

[CFalcon]

With more pot users, there will also be more addicted users that need harder drugs, thus searching an illegal way around to get their hands on those.

Sorry Scorpio, but firstly an 'addicted pot user' doesn't really exist. Secondly, the idea that hard drugs are a natural progression from weed just isn't true. I'll admit there's something to be said for people who like to experiment discovering one high and then wanting to try another. But the idea that cannabis somehow makes you crave harder drugs is just wrong.

[size=-2]ps. luv you[/size]

Haha I'm open for a debate (just as long as my reactions aren't called bullshit)

Well I do mean a slidely increasing need for something stronger.
I am not a user, and never will be so I don't know that one for sure, but I do know that there are people who get addicted more easy. As TheNamelessWonder already proved, there is website-based info for everything so
http://www2.scholastic.com/browse/article.jsp?id=4826

Well, the first example given in that link is an 11 year old girl who was already drunk when she tried it. I think that would be more of a parenting issue than a government one!

I also think it's important to be very clear about what we mean by addiction. By many definitions I'm addicted to playing the bass guitar. I feel a need to do it every day, and I'd get irritated if something prevented me. People like to repeatedly do things that are fun, and that's my relation with weed. Sure I feel a certain compulsion to have it again, but that's only because it's pleasant. I'm quite capable of going for weeks or months without any and not feeling any negative effects.

And I think this is the same for alot of people who claim they are 'addicted' to cannabis. They're not physically compelled, they just enjoy it alot, maybe so much that it's stopping them doing other things. It's the same as someone addicted to chocolate.

@timtadams

I'm not going to go so far as to say that weed has no negative effects. It carries basically the same problems as tobacco. That said, it's possible to smoke a hell of a lot more tobacco than weed, so do the maths.
It's also been shown that heavy cannabis use can aggravate underlying mental problems. In that case, don't use it! That's like having a liver disease and then drinking heavily. We shouldn't ban alcohol because of that.

Having read your link Scorpio, and a few others, apparently weed can be addictive in particular instances, and only with heavy use. The same applies to alcohol. And yet alcohol is legal. AND it is possible to overdose on alcohol, it is not possible to overdose on weed. AND alcohol can make you violent, weed most certainly does not.

If I have to put up with people binge drinking then becoming violent or hospitalizing themselves, why shouldn't I at least be allowed to smoke some weed, where the worst I'll do to anyone else is fall asleep, and the worst I'll do to my health is no worse than smoking a cigarette?

You're all assuming that by wanting legalization we want complete freedom, bordering on anarchy. That's deliberately misunderstanding what we, or at least I, am arguing for. I would put cannabis on a level with alcohol and tobacco, and I'd treat the harder drugs in a similar way to the Switzerland Experiment (which, by the way, if you don't like, you may well have to put up with soon anyway, it's being tested over here now).

 

[TheNamelessWonder]

You're all assuming that by wanting legalization we want complete freedom, bordering on anarchy. That's deliberately misunderstanding what we, or at least I, am arguing for.

As I've tried to say several times, but there's so much AAAHHH DRUGS ARE BAD!!!11 getting in the way of clear thought on the part of several posters.

 

[Garrett]

At least with government controlling the distribution of drugs, they will have to give me an accurate measurement on the front label and I don't have to worry about all the pinching and light bags :roll: :lol: :lol:

or even with middle man cuts. pre distribution weight, 16 grams, in store weight 12 grams. lol the regulation on labels/advertising will be amusing in and of itself

 

[Alcibiades]

Considering that alcohol, a legalised substance, is causing more damage to British economy (in volume of crimes it creates and the cost of damages associated with it) - I can't see how the legalisation of hard drugs would do anything but worsen society.

Take a drive through any big town or city on a weekend (and most weekdays too, now), hang around for a while, and you'll witness en-masse the effects of legalised alcohol on society.

Now imagine all these binge-drinking alcohol drinkers are also on even more physically damaging substances that can cause an even greater loss of control (and in some drugs increase of aggression, paranoia etc.) - and that access to very addictive substances is available to anyone to get hooked on to the point of needing it, and what they will do when they can't afford more but are physically addicted (either costing our health service to get them off the drugs, or cost in crimes committed to fund the drugs)....

No, it's ridiculous.

The evidence of a legalised substance is visible for all: Alcohol. The thought of all of our streets and pubs drunken population also being fuelled by heroin, crack cocaine, crystal meth... or staggering around the streets hallucinating on acid as they try to make their way home at closing time... it's not a happy world.

Almost entirely win.

Weed does not cause half as much damage as cigarettes [...] do

Totally false.

 

[TheNamelessWonder]

Then what's your plan? I put the question to those of you who reject legalization, either for your own reasons or completely out of hand. Clearly our current drug policy is failing. If you don't like my plan, what's yours?

 

[Alcibiades]

There isn't anything you can do about it

Short of continuing drug education and 'hoping for the best' from 'adult, responsible' folk to do the right thing I don't see what you can do.

Obviously banning the drugs doesn't work; and legalizing them is not a feasible solution (not for all drugs; no contest on marijuana, although i think for various other reasons pot shouldn't be legalized. Laziness, lung cancer, mouth cancer, expense, increasing habitual use etc.)

So far, I haven't got a solution, but you can be certain as soon as i get one i'll be the first to trumpet it to the world at large.

 

[Garrett]

Weed does not cause half as much damage as cigarettes [...] do

Totally false.

right, weed does damage. smoking anything does damage. weed can aggrivate existing damage/asthma, but can never cause emphysema or asthma unlike cigarettes

 

[TheNamelessWonder]

Obviously banning the drugs doesn't work; and legalizing them is not a feasible solution (not for all drugs; no contest on marijuana, although i think for various other reasons pot shouldn't be legalized. Laziness, lung cancer, mouth cancer, expense, increasing habitual use etc.)

So to summarize in a fairly prickish way, let's continue the fail for lack of better ideas and for socialism's sake?

On a less prickish note, I'm glad you recognize that what we're doing is fail, I've talked to too many who think it's doing a pretty decent job. And if someone came up with a better idea than legalization I'd be happy to support it.

 

[harriergirl]

Wow so much , gimme a chance to catch it all

1) Most obviously I am for the legalization of marijuana and some but not all of other natural drugs. However

2) I think what we fail to address , whether drugs are legal or not, are the reasons people choose to experiment and/or use them in the first place. We as a global nation have many social ills and it is my firm belief that drug usage is a form of self medication. Therefore it is a symptom of our ills and not one of the core illnesses.

3) If the money spent enforcing, incarcerating, and other related items were diverted to addressing our social illnesses and educating people in a realistic manner about what drugs are and what they do, then the cost saved would be human life. I measure that in reduction of gang war, law enforcement losses, people who suicide rather than seek treatment ( a simple marijuana conviction over here carries penalties above and beyond the legal system such as job loss, unwillingness to be rehired, etc and the numbers could be exponential with the potential of improving quality of life.

4) I think it's ridiculous for any government or social organization to tell me what I can and cannot do as a taxpaying adult in the privacy of my own home.

All that being said, yes there are possibilities of increased usage, temporary setbacks that are natural as the pendulum swings and society rebalances around the new rules. But I think history has shown that legislation of morality is rarely effective.

 

[Alcibiades]

Weed does not cause half as much damage as cigarettes [...] do

Totally false.

right, weed does damage. smoking anything does damage. weed can aggrivate existing damage/asthma, but can never cause emphysema or asthma unlike cigarettes

Of course smoking anything does damage. But not all the damage pot does is limited to your lungs; there are numerous mental, social and physical side effects; that while not as damaging as something like heroin, or Crystal meth; are still severe enough in their own right.

Marijuana smoke and cigarette smoke contain many of the same toxins, including one which has been identified as a key factor in the promotion of lung cancer. This toxin is found in the tar phase of both, and it should be noted that one joint has four times more tar than a cigarette, which means that the lungs are exposed four-fold to this toxin and others in the tar. It has been concretely established that smoking cigarettes promotes lung cancer (which causes more than 125,000 deaths in the US every year), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (chronic bronchitis and emphysema) and increased incidence of respiratory tract infections

The part in bold is the most important, in comparison between regular cigarette smokers (let's say 1 full pack) is about 6 joints (according to the 4x concentration rule). And I suspect many habitual pot smokers smoke approximately that amount in a regular smoking 'session' if not in so many joints. I would honestly say that cigarettes might be mildly 'worse' for you only in that if you smoke cigarettes, you *probably* smoke more of those than joints. However, joints in and of themselves are at least as toxic as cigarettes 1:1.

There are further negative side effects to smoking marijuana that don't deal with the lungs, but enough space has been taken up here, if you wish to read further, that's what Google is for.

PS: Garrett I misunderstood the 'thrust' of your post. My apologies for the lecture

 

[Garrett]

jah i just wanted to point out one of the major differences where the misnomer comes from

 

[Alcibiades]

Obviously banning the drugs doesn't work; and legalizing them is not a feasible solution (not for all drugs; no contest on marijuana, although i think for various other reasons pot shouldn't be legalized. Laziness, lung cancer, mouth cancer, expense, increasing habitual use etc.)

So to summarize in a fairly prickish way, let's continue the fail for lack of better ideas and for socialism's sake?

On a less prickish note, I'm glad you recognize that what we're doing is fail, I've talked to too many who think it's doing a pretty decent job. And if someone came up with a better idea than legalization I'd be happy to support it.

of course it's fail. I never said or even meant to imply the current 'war on drugs' works. It's an abysmal waste of money, time and effort. We'd be better off pumping (some of) that money into dealing with the root cause of people's addictions, and in general education about drugs. I think you're bang on in that we need more civil awareness and education as far as drugs go; but i don't think the natural follow on from that is legalization because honestly, I don't think people are competent enough to make the responsible choice. Call my a cynic if you will....

*However* i do not think the solution is legalization (even gradual) of drugs.

Whilst I suspect the legalization of marijuana is coming it isn't really in the class of hard drugs as *so* many people have said in this thread. It is arguably a little more dangerous than cigarettes, and probably about equal to alcohol. I would not be against the legalization of marijuana, anything else tho is an 'instant veto'.

 

[TheNamelessWonder]

I don't think society (mine anyway) is ready for legalization across the board, not yet. I do think that on the whole we're ready to loosen up on pot. We're already seeing loosening of DEA regulations, and stuff like this will continue.

 

[lavadog]

Weed does not cause half as much damage as cigarettes [...] do

Totally false.

right, weed does damage. smoking anything does damage. weed can aggrivate existing damage/asthma, but can never cause emphysema or asthma unlike cigarettes

that kinda sums up what I was trying to say, thanks for putting it in a more detailed way ;P

btw alci, six joints in a session is quite a lot (I usually hit two or three)