Debug Mode Posted February 7, 2011 Posted February 7, 2011 I've noticed that in 4 random threads I've posted in during my time hear, the drug problem gets referenced. Mainly the smoking related topics and in the 'Lets create a new Politcal Party' thread or some thing along those lines.. Cannabis: What's the Harm? A current BBC Three programme where James Alekos Alexandrou (Martin Fowler from Eastenders apparently?), investigates the truth regarding the most popular drug in the UK and the organised crime involved. The two episodes are on iPlayer. I think people have already seen my views around here before, but some people may have thought it off topic, may not have seen it or so on, so I figured I'd make this thread to recommend the programme and to bring in new discussion on quite a controversial topic. For my view on the problems of keeping it illegal, I will quote my previous post. (with some edits of course so it's in context with this thread, rather than it's initial purpose of a reply) The benefits of legalisation: Taxable. (The industry is likely worth billions) Wipe out a major funding of gangs. (Illegal Immigration, violence) Reduced expenditure of cannabis dedicated operations by police and customs. Barely harmful (you actually need a ridiculous amount to OD) Of course, there are the downsides of: Social problems caused (the signature laziness may lower worker efficiency) Ease of growth with the right equipment (not really a disadvantage, but Governments, especially the American Gov, are becoming increasing hostile to those who can sustain themselves without putting any money into the economy) The cannabis problem is greatly exaggerated. Addiction is only evident in extremely heavy users, no where near as harmful as alcohol in health and a social sense. I just can't seem to conclude in my mind that there is some major corruption going on. So, really the main questions here are, what are your views on the current classification of cannabis and does legalised cannabis have any place in society?
Nolan Posted February 7, 2011 Posted February 7, 2011 Either ban alcohol, or make drugs legal. It's been proven that that is a bad idea. Drinking rates went up during prohibition.
chairdriver Posted February 7, 2011 Posted February 7, 2011 It's been proven that that is a bad idea. Drinking rates went up during prohibition. Well do the latter then.
Debug Mode Posted February 7, 2011 Author Posted February 7, 2011 It's been proven that that is a bad idea. Drinking rates went up during prohibition. Although I do agree with Chairdriver in noticing the irony of alcohol being legal with the majority of problems it causes, you're definitely right about the increase in drinking. It's definitely one of those things that you want even more after it's restricted, like the human desire to have what you're not allowed. Also I should probably take the time to add that I am not a cannabis smoker. Haven't touched the stuff in two years but that's just personal choice, I'm just very intrigued as to what people here think regarding the issue.
Pit-Jr Posted February 7, 2011 Posted February 7, 2011 Ive used it before socially but i never got hooked on it. As to my personal opinion, i think both tobacco and marijuana should be legal and fairly taxed just like alcohol. I honestly think it would do wonders for the economy, which is an exponentially bigger issue than the morality of people smoking certain species of plants
AndyWylde Posted February 7, 2011 Posted February 7, 2011 You make cannabis legal and the dealers will then sell harder drugs cheaper. Not a good thing.
Cube Posted February 7, 2011 Posted February 7, 2011 You make cannabis legal and the dealers will then sell harder drugs cheaper. Not a good thing. They'll always find some way to make the money, even if it's black market poodles.
chairdriver Posted February 7, 2011 Posted February 7, 2011 You make cannabis legal and the dealers will then sell harder drugs cheaper. Not a good thing. Yes it is. Means people have to steal less to afford it.
Wesley Posted February 7, 2011 Posted February 7, 2011 (edited) I'm surprised that's all that's listed as the downside. Essentially a bit of potential laziness. I always wonder if people on the pro-drugs-are-awesome-make-them-legal thing have ever had any actual experience of drugs. And no, I don't mean doing some bullshit party drugs or a bit of weed or whatever bullshit. I mean actually living with people who have had serious drug problems, seeing them go from A to shit and what actually happened in that span. It also annoys me that people pull these stupid statistics to help their pro-drugs idea, about death rates and crime rates, etc. As if an issue this serious can really be boiled down to a few hard numbers. Of course when the government acts stupid and needlessly raises the class for a certain drug based on a few of their own numbers people cry about not seeing it in context. Anyway. In short: People who do drugs are benders. Edited February 7, 2011 by Wesley
nightwolf Posted February 7, 2011 Posted February 7, 2011 The only thing I have to say is this program really fucking annoys me, it's been on practically every night for the past week at about 1am on bbc three. Play something else! -.-
Dan_Dare Posted February 7, 2011 Posted February 7, 2011 It's a weird one- I think the psychogical effects of weed are probably underplayed by pro drugs folk and overplayed by anti. I've seen people get weird on weed and I'm of the opinion that the 'harmless' tag for weed is basically bullshit. It varies though, and it's certainly no more dangerous than alcohol.
Cube Posted February 7, 2011 Posted February 7, 2011 In short: People who drugs are benders. Just like people who drink alcohol or smoke cigarettes?
Jonnas Posted February 7, 2011 Posted February 7, 2011 I mean actually living with people who have had serious drug problems, seeing them go from A to shit and what actually happened in that span. Will it become that easy to stay "junked" if drugs become legal, and psychological counselling becomes a right? If lighter drugs are legal, yet regulated, wouldn't it mean that drug dealers won't actually sell them that often? And more importantly, don't junkies suffer roughly as much as alcoholics, except drugs are more expensive and unregulated? And drug addiction can actually be treated physically? I may be wrong in several aspects, considering I have almost no experience in drugs, light or otherwise, but...making drugs legal doesn't necessarily mean their use will rampantly rise.
nightwolf Posted February 7, 2011 Posted February 7, 2011 Will it become that easy to stay "junked" if drugs become legal, and psychological counselling becomes a right? If lighter drugs are legal, yet regulated, wouldn't it mean that drug dealers won't actually sell them that often? And more importantly, don't junkies suffer roughly as much as alcoholics, except drugs are more expensive and unregulated? And drug addiction can actually be treated physically? I may be wrong in several aspects, considering I have almost no experience in drugs, light or otherwise, but...making drugs legal doesn't necessarily mean their use will rampantly rise. If drugs are regulated, they'll be taxed to hell, which will probably be in my eyes cheaper to buy from a drug dealer than over the counter, so druggies will go for the cheaper option. Because frankly they can get more, that is how I see what will happen if drugs are legalised. I doubt there will be a sainsburies basic weed bag like there is vodka. Although that could be rather interesting..
jayseven Posted February 7, 2011 Posted February 7, 2011 Legal drugs would mean there'd be a market of safe drugs - no more brickdust, sawdust, washing-up powder, glass (even though actual levels of shite isn't as bad as people allege). Legal drugs would mean a more open society about drugs - so it would certainly appear that suddenly more people do drugs when it's just people coming clean about the MDMA they do every friday night. More people would feel that it's ok to try it, given the government essentially says it's ok. Education and information about the pros and cons of drugs would be come more widely distributed, and taught better not just in school but presumably by parents. Mine only really told me about their recreational use when I was in my late teens and it was clear I was experimenting. And while there may be a smaller anti-crowd of "lol we're outcasts LETS GET HIGH AND CRY," a higher exposure to drugs would presumably mean a higher number of people becoming seriously hooked. Recreational drug use has never been the problem. For society the danger is people becoming addicted and becoming socially inept, a burdon on the benefits system and a fiend to the criminal one. Sure, more tax money from drugs could fund rehab clinics and the like, but then surely it'd feel a bit... Brave New World? Blah. Anyway. Psychological factors are important. Some people are more addictive than others and if it's not coke it's booze and fags, or chocolate and coffee. Weed is a paranoia inducing, stupid-making, lethargy-ridden thing that made me feel clever and artistic and creative and relaxed. I'm not sure where I stand on legalisation, really. Education and information should really come first.
Jamba Posted February 7, 2011 Posted February 7, 2011 It's a weird one- I think the psychogical effects of weed are probably underplayed by pro drugs folk and overplayed by anti. I've seen people get weird on weed and I'm of the opinion that the 'harmless' tag for weed is basically bullshit. It varies though, and it's certainly no more dangerous than alcohol. Thanks for pointing this out. Weed is by no way harmless but I do think that the majority of people who smoke up do so more habitually than drinking. To me this where the issue is and I can't stress the hidden pitfalls of triggering major psychological conditions which people seem to overlook. On legalisation, I agree that control and tax would be a benefit. I would maybe even suggest banning the stronger forms just in the same way that very high APV drinks are banned here.
Cube Posted February 7, 2011 Posted February 7, 2011 One thing I'm worried about is that, if it does become legal, it'll be like alcohol in that some people (well, most people) will think it's strange if you don't do it.
MoogleViper Posted February 7, 2011 Posted February 7, 2011 I hate the "if we legalise drugs then gangs won't be able to make money from it." Why not also legalise human trafficking so they can't make money from that?
Jamba Posted February 7, 2011 Posted February 7, 2011 I hate the "if we legalise drugs then gangs won't be able to make money from it." Why not also legalise human trafficking so they can't make money from that? Now I might be wrong but I think that you're smart enough to distinguish something that is an adults choice and something that is hugely immoral, unethical, exploitative and breaks all modern definition of human rights. Have you been auditioning to write for the Daily Mail again?
The fish Posted February 7, 2011 Posted February 7, 2011 I hate the "if we legalise drugs then gangs won't be able to make money from it." Why not also legalise human trafficking so they can't make money from that? Well, the removal of immigration barriers has vastly different consequences to the removal of drug control laws, for starters.
or else you will DIE Posted February 7, 2011 Posted February 7, 2011 One thing I'm worried about is that, if it does become legal, it'll be like alcohol in that some people (well, most people) will think it's strange if you don't do it. You really worry about that?
MoogleViper Posted February 7, 2011 Posted February 7, 2011 Now I might be wrong but I think that you're smart enough to distinguish something that is an adults choice and something that is hugely immoral, unethical, exploitative and breaks all modern definition of human rights. Have you been auditioning to write for the Daily Mail again? I'm not saying that they're morally the same. I'm saying people using the legalising argument on it's own doesn't stand up. Things are illegal for a reason, making them legal doesn't make them right. The argument is whether cannabis (and other drugs) is wrong and should be illegal. Legalising it to reduce gangs' income is a benefit, not a reason.
chairdriver Posted February 7, 2011 Posted February 7, 2011 I'm not saying that they're morally the same. I'm saying people using the legalising argument on it's own doesn't stand up. Things are illegal for a reason, making them legal doesn't make them right. The argument is whether cannabis (and other drugs) is wrong and should be illegal. Legalising it to reduce gangs' income is a benefit, not a reason. Life is about weighing up pros and cons. [/can't be bothered expanding, but we all know how pregnant that thought is.]
Cube Posted February 7, 2011 Posted February 7, 2011 [/can't be bothered expanding, but we all know how pregnant that thought is.] I was going to say something witty about that and a recent event, but even I'm disgusted as how the thought even came into my head. I don't think ReZ would even go there.
Recommended Posts