[News] Canada legalises recreational cannabis use.

[LlcoolJ]

I didn't ignore it, I missed it, or skimmed over it, as I was mostly responding to dave's posts.

If more people take it throughout their lives, I think that will have a negative effect on their long term health, and therefore have an effect on the NHS.

Again avoiding the point that decriminalisation is actually more likely to reduce the number of users rather than increase it. And avoiding the point that if cannabis use would be a burden on the NHS if it was legal then it already would be a burden now. But it's not. Fat people are the big problem.

 

[StonehamPark]

That's not a counter. Some things can have both good and bad affects. Cannabis can be harmful. btnbelle pointed out that it's bad for health for many people, dave argued that that's not the reason it's illegal, and I disagree. The fact that it can also be good for a minority of people doesn't change that.

Nonsense.

You said Cannabis is bad.

Cannabis has good properties which can affect any consumer.
There's a wealth of information, evidence and studies out there which prove this.

Since StonedhamPark referred to people having their argument dismantled, I guess he wasn't referring to me.

Of course I was. You argue for the sake of it in multiple threads, and have done so for years. You're boring.

 

[Triggaaar]

You said Cannabis is bad.

Yes it can be.

Cannabis has good properties which can affect any consumer.

Can. So it may or may not be good. Which is what I said.

Of course I was. You argue for the sake of it in multiple threads, and have done so for years.

I realise you think that, but you're wrong.

You're boring.

And you're a tw@t.

 

[LlcoolJ]

Since StonedhamPark referred to people having their argument dismantled, I guess he wasn't referring to me.

When I'm wrong, I always say so. You're quite right though, that is rare.

On this argument your point has been completely dismantled. You've chased a shadow and it's turned out to be an egg which is now all over your face. Sometimes it's just best to admit that you've made a mistake. But I realise that's not in your nature. Like the frog and the scorpion. [emoji6]

 

[StonehamPark]

Yes it can be.
Can. So it may or may not be good. Which is what I said.

I realise you think that, but you're wrong.
And you're a tw@t.

You said 'it is'. Twice.
So you've pack-pedalled a bit, fair enough.

You do argue for the sake of it, you've done so for many years, and I genuinely think you get off on it, for reasons unknown. Although I could probably guess fairly accurately.

'Tw@' would have been fine, no need to add the final 't', it's unnecessary.

 

[Triggaaar]

Again avoiding the point that decriminalisation is actually more likely to reduce the number of users rather than increase it.

I didn't avoid that point, because I didn't read that point. If decriminalising it would lead to less consumption, that would be a good thing IMO. Although I guess Stoned will disagree, as it's good for you, not bad for you, so decriminalising it will mean less people benefit from it

But it doesn't seem to be a fact that decriminalisation leads to less use:
https://www.popsci.com/science-decriminalize-legalize-drugs-marijuana-weed
"Do people use marijuana more after their home state decriminalizes it?
No, or not much. Studies of use after decriminalization generally find either no effect or a small increase in use."

But I'm not against decriminalisation anyway.

Fat people are the big problem.

So what are you proposing is done about that?

 

[Triggaaar]

You do argue for the sake of it, you've done so for many years, and I genuinely think you get off on it, for reasons unknown.

I realise you think that, but you're wrong.

Although I could probably guess fairly accurately.

 

[Triggaaar]

On this argument your point has been completely dismantled.

Which argument? The argument I was having was regarding btnbelle's point, and dave's response. I was correct about that, so I don't know what you're talking about?

You've chased a shadow and it's turned out to be an egg which is now all over your face. Sometimes it's just best to admit that you've made a mistake.

Are you high?

But I realise that's not in your nature.

Wrong.

 

[LlcoolJ]

I didn't avoid that point, because I didn't read that point. If decriminalising it would lead to less consumption, that would be a good thing IMO. Although I guess Stoned will disagree, as it's good for you, not bad for you, so decriminalising it will mean less people benefit from it

But it doesn't seem to be a fact that decriminalisation leads to less use:
https://www.popsci.com/science-decriminalize-legalize-drugs-marijuana-weed
"Do people use marijuana more after their home state decriminalizes it?
No, or not much. Studies of use after decriminalization generally find either no effect or a small increase in use."

But I'm not against decriminalisation anyway.

So what are you proposing is done about that?

Cherry picking is not impressive. Check out the links already posted in this thread about the very subject that you've apparently not read anything about. They weren't posted by me btw. I honestly believe that you're just arguing for the sake of it on this as there's no other logical explanation. Night. [emoji106]

 

[Triggaaar]

Cherry picking is not impressive.

I'm not cherry picking. You mentioned about use going down with decriminalisation, and I thought that wasn't correct, so I quickly googled it. I typed "cannabis does use reduce with decriminalisation" into google, and clicked on the first link that looked like it might provide an answer (which is the 5th one down). I've not clicked on the others. That's not cherry picking, I posted what I read. And I still didn't try to argue that use goes up, I simply pointed out that it doesn't seem to be a fact that it goes down. It doesn't. And then I repeat that I'm not against decriminalisation, but still you want to argue, though I'm not sure what about.

Check out the links already posted in this thread

Not got time at the moment. I didn't open them, read a bit, and have them as unread tabs. Presumably they're cherry picked though?

about the very subject that you've apparently not read anything about.

I honestly believe that you're just arguing for the sake of it on this as there's no other logical explanation.

That's pathetic. You suggest my argument has been countered - what argument is that - specifically?

 

[BadFish]

This in a nutshell is why I cannot stand pot-smokers:

I overheard while walking past house boat last year, one dreadlocked white boy trustafarian talking to his equally drongo neighbour


"I'm actually using coconut water in my bong these days".

Silly arse.

You are using a lazy stereotype to dismiss a wide range of people who smoke cannibis. It really has nothing to do with what they choose to smoke they are just people you find irritating.

You can't judge other people on this experience just because they share an enjoyment of cannabis.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[Notters]

www.theguardian.com/society/2018/jun/23/lost-both-sons-drugs-want-to-legalise

 

[BN41Albion]

You are using a lazy stereotype to dismiss a wide range of people who smoke cannibis. It really has nothing to do with what they choose to smoke they are just people you find irritating.

You can't judge other people on this experience just because they share an enjoyment of cannabis.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

Exactly. I don't judge lager drinkers by solely looking at the twats on West Street on a Friday/Saturday night beered up.

Some interesting viewpoints on this thread. I really think that some people fail to look at the wider picture when thinking about drugs. It has been human nature since the beginning of time to be curious and experimental. Otherwise we wouldn't be where we are today. This includes, though, being curious about (and enjoying in many cases!) altering our state of mind. (Google prehistoric humans and drugs). Naturally, some people aren't as curious about mind-bending experiences as others. Naturally, some people experience problems as a result. But some people will experience problems as a result of anything - do we ban all fatty food? Betting? Coffee? Etc.

Simply speaking though, no amount of legislation or 'Just Say No' campaigns, for example, will ever work, because people (youngsters especially) will always want to experiment. Granted not all, but a sizeable proportion. It's simply a fact, otherwise the War On Drugs would have been won decades ago. Look at the prohibition era in the States as another classic example. It's human nature. The vast majority of these people will experience no long lasting issues as a result. A small percentage will be unfortunate.

Im not saying we should legalise all drugs (id like to see cannabis legalised though), and I agree that people should be warned of the potential dangers, but I do think we as a society need to look at drugs differently and stop criminalizing people for wanting to have a good time and doing no harm to anyone else. It's ironic that the one drug that causes most problems in terms of how some people act towards others is the one that's legal.

 

[Hugo Rune]

The supply of Cannabis will obviously need to be licensed if it becomes legal. An act will need to be drawn up based on licensing objectives. Here are the ones for Alcohol and the provision of entertainment etc:

The prevention of crime and disorder
Public safety
The prevention of public nuisance
The protection of children from harm

I wonder how they’d change?

 

[btnbelle]

There are a couple of posters in the thread that have failed to acknowledge that they are incorrect after having their argument dismantled and properly challenged.
Personally, I'd just hold my hands up; 'alright, fair enough'. Some people though, have sensitive egos.

I don't have a sensitive ego. I love debate but this is just a subject that I have formed my own opinion on based on evidence. My values are personal to me as are yours to you.

So I holds my hands up to being able to decide my own beliefs.

 

[Questions]

As to this argument concerning the illegal trade carrying on because people will have to have their stronger strains then have a look at most of the w.ankers in our towns and cities causing problems and drinking Carling, Carlsberg or Fosters............. all weak as piss in the beer stakes. Don’t they realise you can get Belgium beer up to 11% in a lot of pubs. If they started on that at 7pm they could get thrown out of a pub before 10, start a fight and still be in bed for 11. I despair of the youth of today.

 

[Baldseagull]

The supply of Cannabis will obviously need to be licensed if it becomes legal. An act will need to be drawn up based on licensing objectives. Here are the ones for Alcohol and the provision of entertainment etc:

The prevention of crime and disorder
Public safety
The prevention of public nuisance
The protection of children from harm

I wonder how they’d change?

I think that in Canada, the legalisation has limitations, it will be Illegal to have more than 30 grams in your possession in public places, no more than 4 plants can be grown at any one time at home, and the penalty for supplying a minor carries a jail sentence, I think I read of 14 years maximum.

 

[Baldseagull]

I don't have a sensitive ego. I love debate but this is just a subject that I have formed my own opinion on based on evidence. My values are personal to me as are yours to you.

So I holds my hands up to being able to decide my own beliefs.

It seems though that you formed your opinion a long time ago and on poor or false information. If we never reviewed anything when new or better information became available, then we would still be giving Thalidomide to pregnant women.
Previous Governments have appointed people to look at this issue of drugs misuse in the past, but they do not always listen to the advice. In 1970 Cannabis was downgraded to a class B drug, previously it had been classed as dangerous as Heroin. In 1978 a further downgrading to class C was recommended by the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, but the Government of the day rejected that. The same body made the same recommendation in 2002 and this time it was accepted. The same body was asked to look again at cannabis as a class c drug after links to mental health issues were reported, the body decided the link was weak and that it should remain a class C drug, Government rejects advice and reclassifies as class B, a year later they sack Professor David Nutt for giving his expert opinion that illicit drugs should be classified according to the actual evidence of the harm they cause and pointed out that alcohol and tobacco caused more harm than LSD, ecstasy and cannabis, and that smoking cannabis created only a "relatively small risk" of psychotic illness.
The reason Cannabis remains illegal is political and not logical. The reason that politicians fear legalisation, is because until recently, much of the older generation are people with your mind set, and it does appear to be firmly set, and older people vote more.

 

[Triggaaar]

Previous Governments have appointed people to look at this issue of drugs misuse in the past, but they do not always listen to the advice. In 1970 Cannabis was downgraded to a class B drug, previously it had been classed as dangerous as Heroin. In 1978 a further downgrading to class C was recommended by the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, but the Government of the day rejected that. The same body made the same recommendation in 2002 and this time it was accepted. The same body was asked to look again at cannabis as a class c drug after links to mental health issues were reported, the body decided the link was weak and that it should remain a class C drug, Government rejects advice and reclassifies as class B

Most of that sounds about right.

a year later they sack Professor David Nutt for giving his expert opinion that illicit drugs should be classified according to the actual evidence of the harm they cause and pointed out that alcohol and tobacco caused more harm than LSD, ecstasy and cannabis, and that smoking cannabis created only a "relatively small risk" of psychotic illness.

Why does alcohol cause more harm? Is it because you can get it from the supermarket, get have it with you meals out, and then go around all the pubs in town downing loads more with your mates? Is there evidence to suggest that an alcoholic beverage a day is worse for you than a splif a day?

 

[Megazone]

Most of that sounds about right.
Why does alcohol cause more harm? Is it because you can get it from the supermarket, get have it with you meals out, and then go around all the pubs in town downing loads more with your mates? Is there evidence to suggest that an alcoholic beverage a day is worse for you than a splif a day?

Surely a pint a day will cause you more physical damage than vaporising weed once a day?

Plus, an addiction to alcohol is far more life damaging than a weed addiction. Most of the homeless I see seem to be drinking cans of beer, not smoking weed. I've actually never heard of someone homeless or begging to maintain their weed addiction, alcohol on the other hand...