[News] Canada legalises recreational cannabis use.

[pastafarian]

Is that right? that is quite a frightening statistic.

My preference would be to legalise the who spectrum but then again i personally think that it is better to legalise drugs across the board to make them safer.

But that is probably another discussion.

Legalise skunk too?

 

[BadFish]

Legalise skunk too?

Yeah legalise the lot of it.

I think we should take control of the drug market to make them safer for users. I also think that any tax revenue created by sales should go into rehabilitation services, safe injection spaces and most importantly proper, honest and accurate education of their uses and associated problems.

the knock on benefit would be that we take the money and power out of the hands of criminal and into the hands of the........ ah....... this is where my argument falls down. Who do we get to run the market and make sure the money goes where it is needed?

I know that i will get shot down in flames for this idea but i seem to remember reading some information a few years back that made a lot of sense. Portugal have stepped into this world and from what i remember reading it has been a success.

A quick google (sorry going to play football so don't have time to read the links so they may be inaccurate) seems to indicate that i haven't lost my mind.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2009/sep/13/legalise-drugs-john-gray

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politic...g-drugs-overwhelming-wont-governments-listen/

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-23374228

 

[pastafarian]

Yeah legalise the lot of it.

I think we should take control of the drug market to make them safer for users. I also think that any tax revenue created by sales should go into rehabilitation services, safe injection spaces and most importantly proper, honest and accurate education of their uses and associated problems.

the knock on benefit would be that we take the money and power out of the hands of criminal and into the hands of the........ ah....... this is where my argument falls down. Who do we get to run the market and make sure the money goes where it is needed?

I know that i will get shot down in flames for this idea but i seem to remember reading some information a few years back that made a lot of sense. Portugal have stepped into this world and from what i remember reading it has been a success.

A quick google (sorry going to play football so don't have time to read the links so they may be inaccurate) seems to indicate that i haven't lost my mind.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2009/sep/13/legalise-drugs-john-gray

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politic...g-drugs-overwhelming-wont-governments-listen/

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-23374228

This is where i opt out
I couldnt really care less if someone wants to smoke "natural" grass at home bothering no one(obviously not operating machinary or driving a car under the influence when they have finished puffing) but suggesting skunk should be legalised is bonkers. I have never seen anyone that says skunk doesnt cause problems......maybe all the dope heads on skunk in OZ are happy go lucky chaps living a fruitful life but over here they tend to be complete knobbers.

 

[beorhthelm]

This is where i opt out
I couldnt really care less if someone wants to smoke "natural" grass at home bothering no one(obviously not operating machinary or driving a car under the influence when they have finished puffing) but suggesting skunk should be legalised is bonkers. I have never seen anyone that says skunk doesnt cause problems......maybe all the dope heads on skunk in OZ are happy go lucky chaps living a fruitful life but over here they tend to be complete knobbers.

making the distinction between this type and that type is half the reason why it wont be legalised. it makes the argument in favour inconsistent "this strength is ok but not that strength" isnt sound grounds for legislation.

limiting change to prescription, change to classification and decriminalising is more likley because you dont have to address such difficult questions.

 

[BadFish]

making the distinction between this type and that type is half the reason why it wont be legalised. it makes the argument in favour inconsistent "this strength is ok but not that strength" isnt sound grounds for legislation.

I am not sure what the research says about the different effects of the different strength of product. It would be interesting to read the detail of studies to find out what they are actually testing.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[btnbelle]

What measure are you using to come to the conclusion that the law is operating we? Surely a law operating well would be one that is stopping people from breaking it? When I was growing up I could count on one hand the number of people I knew who didn't get stoned. I don't live in the UK anymore but i can't believe things have changed that much.

The fact that the laws are not operating well is the reason other countries are trying different stuff isn't it?

The law sets a boundary. It is normal for people to push boundaries, particularly teenagers. It works well because people break the law privately. People have different friendship groups. My family don't do it and the majority of my friends don't either. Plenty of people do it and plenty of people don't. I am not against people making their own decisions but I am anti drugs personally. Only recently two teenagers died in Hampshire at a festival from taking some pills. Okay they did that anyway but the message must always be SAY NO TO DRUGS. The government has a responsibility to set a good moral stance and to take into account what the demand will be on NHS.

 

[btnbelle]

Nor should you be bullied into changing your opinion, but it should be possible to reason with you shouldn't it?

The evidence is out there that contradicts your opinion, but it seems you will not seek it out, there are issues around the smoking of cannabis, but prohibiting the smoking of cannabis also has issues, and on balance, it seems clear that legalisation has far fewer issues than prohibition. I do understand having your long and firmly held beliefs challenged can feel like being bullied, but I think most here have simply asked you to have a more open mind and look at it again.

There is evidence on both sides of the debate, as there is with many health stories these days. Victoria Derbyshire ran a programme this week on this debate. I am a reasonable person and can change my mind on things. Just this is one subject that I have already formed an opinion on and I am happy with that.

I wasn't feeling bullied by having my beliefs challenged. I don't expect to be made out to be a dunce by one poster because I hold a different point of view to other people. In society there are many people who hold the same opinion as mine. I have respect for other people to choose their own beliefs and I will choose mine.

 

[btnbelle]

As has been stated you don't need 'legal boundaries' for parenting. And if it's in private then you wouldn't witness it would you?

I accept that you feel the law is correct and operates well. However there is a very large (and growing) body of opinion that profoundly disagrees with you and feels the current law does not work well at all.. And when Tory ministers, ex-ministers and the Daily Telegraph are all part of that body then you know the desire for change permeates all levels of society.

Legal boundaries do assist a parent to send a message. I accept some people have changed their minds. I haven't changed mine.

 

[LlcoolJ]

The law sets a boundary. It is normal for people to push boundaries, particularly teenagers. It works well because people break the law privately. People have different friendship groups. My family don't do it and the majority of my friends don't either. Plenty of people do it and plenty of people don't. I am not against people making their own decisions but I am anti drugs personally. Only recently two teenagers died in Hampshire at a festival from taking some pills. Okay they did that anyway but the message must always be SAY NO TO DRUGS. The government has a responsibility to set a good moral stance and to take into account what the demand will be on NHS.

People die (VERY occasionally it must be said) from taking pills because they don't know what they are taking. If they were legal and regulated then those people at the festival would still be alive. Being illegal didn't stop them getting or taking the pills, being illegal killed them.

The massive point that you're missing is that people will not all say no to drugs. That's never going to happen. As you say, despite being illegal millions of people take them. Drugs are everywhere and are very easy to obtain. Unfortunately it also means giving money to criminals and being unsure of what you're actually buying.

So you have two choices, prohibition, which doesn't work, kills people, costs billions and creates massive amounts of crime, or decriminalisation, regulation and taxation of the product which is being proven to work.

It's just logic.

 

[btnbelle]

People die (VERY occasionally it must be said) from taking pills because they don't know what they are taking. If they were legal and regulated then those people at the festival would still be alive. Being illegal didn't stop them getting or taking the pills, being illegal killed them.

The massive point that you're missing is that people will not all say no to drugs. That's never going to happen. As you say, despite being illegal millions of people take them. Drugs are everywhere and are very easy to obtain. Unfortunately it also means giving money to criminals and being unsure of what you're actually buying.

So you have two choices, prohibition, which doesn't work, kills people, costs billions and creates massive amounts of crime, or decriminalisation, regulation and taxation of the product which is being proven to work.

It's just logic.

I say no to drugs. Criminals will always exist whether its legal or not. They will just adapt to commit other crimes.

 

[BBassic]

People die (VERY occasionally it must be said) from taking pills because they don't know what they are taking. If they were legal and regulated then those people at the festival would still be alive. Being illegal didn't stop them getting or taking the pills, being illegal killed them.

The massive point that you're missing is that people will not all say no to drugs. That's never going to happen. As you say, despite being illegal millions of people take them. Drugs are everywhere and are very easy to obtain. Unfortunately it also means giving money to criminals and being unsure of what you're actually buying.

So you have two choices, prohibition, which doesn't work, kills people, costs billions and creates massive amounts of crime, or decriminalisation, regulation and taxation of the product which is being proven to work.

It's just logic.

There's a classic Bill Hicks line which is pertinent here:

George Bush says we are losing the War On Drugs. Well, do you know what that implies? There's a war going on… and people on drugs are winning it!

 

[terryberry1]

There is evidence on both sides of the debate, as there is with many health stories these days. Victoria Derbyshire ran a programme this week on this debate. I am a reasonable person and can change my mind on things. Just this is one subject that I have already formed an opinion on and I am happy with that.

I wasn't feeling bullied by having my beliefs challenged. I don't expect to be made out to be a dunce by one poster because I hold a different point of view to other people. In society there are many people who hold the same opinion as mine. I have respect for other people to choose their own beliefs and I will choose mine.

In society you are in a massive minority. People want change and they want it now. It's views like your that gives cannabis a bad name. Everything you state about cannabis is based on your opinion and out dated information. Why people are still trying to change your opinion is beyond me because it doesn't take a genius to work out the your opinion will not change regardless of the facts put infront of you. Cannabis is going to be legalised. Its just a matter of time. Your negativity will not stop that.

 

[daveinprague]

I lived in Den Haag for quite a long time. The one thing you noticed there, and in Amsterdam, was that coffeeshops were filled with mostly foreigners. Theres a street cred attached to not smoking weed for Dutch youth. They are mostly in coffeeshops playing pool, fussball and drinking cola.
The other thing you notice is...traditional life continues alongside coffeeshops. The fabric of Dutch society has not collapsed over it. Working for prob the biggest IT company in the world, my boss told me, he does not smoke. However, he would fight for the right of people who wanted to smoke. He added, I prefer people who smoke rather than drink. They turn up in the morning for work.

 

[golddene]

Amongst all the tomfoolery this is quite a sensible wish. What i cant understand are those that say the war on drugs has failed, lets stop the war on drugs. I was taken aback by a recent CH 4 documentary where the dealers were saying 75% of the dope they shift is skunk because that is what the market demands. The demand for skunk by illegal methods will surely be there if "normal" dope is still legalised so surely a war on this must continue......or is the thinking legalise marijuana and ignore the kids off their nuts on skunk too?

A lots been stated here and I've read most opinions, it's my belief that choice is the key here, my choice is to have a smoke when I want, in the safety of my own home or with like minded friends in theirs, I only smoke stuff where I know it's history,i.e. Grown naturally in soil with natural fertilisation and most definitely not hydroponically grown which in my experience is where the stronger strains are produced by excessive use of nutrients to enhance its strength and give it its smelly skunk phsyco properties! I may be just fortunate that I've been mentally able to deal with using this substance or maybe in denial of its affect on me personally but either way it should be my choice, I never have nor never will actively encourage others in their usage decisions but will always accept their right to choice.

 

[LlcoolJ]

I say no to drugs. Criminals will always exist whether its legal or not. They will just adapt to commit other crimes.

What's that got to do with anything I wrote? Come to think of it, don't bother.

 

[dingodan]

Amongst all the tomfoolery this is quite a sensible wish. What i cant understand are those that say the war on drugs has failed, lets stop the war on drugs. I was taken aback by a recent CH 4 documentary where the dealers were saying 75% of the dope they shift is skunk because that is what the market demands. The demand for skunk by illegal methods will surely be there if "normal" dope is still legalised so surely a war on this must continue......or is the thinking legalise marijuana and ignore the kids off their nuts on skunk too?

I can't see there being a demand for a very potent form of something when milder more pleasant forms are available from a regulated licensed source. It's like moonshine, does anyone want super strong home brewed spirits? You can't be sure of safety and it tastes foul compared to something produced professionally and with Q/A. Moreover, even if there was someone who wanted to get some overly strong unregulated product, it's availablity would be basically nil. Just like if you went out today in the hopes of picking up some stupidly strong home brewed liquor. Good luck finding it. Nobody can make any money from producing it because there isn't the demand and the competition from licensed and regulated products can't be competed with, so it's effectively been done away with.

We got rid of moonshine and Al Capone, not by continuing to chase alcohol underground - that made both stronger. You bring it into the light and under control with regulation. Legalizing alcohol significantly reduced the harm it caused, legalizing Cannabis will do the same.

 

[Triggaaar]

As the negative impacts of the drug are provably less than that of tobacco and alcohol, both of which are not considered to be 'hard-core drugs', marajuana is therefore not a hard-core drug

Tabacco is clearly very harmful, and had we have known how bad it is, it should never have been legal. The problem is suddenly making it illegal after so many were encouraged to smoke.

I don't believe alcohol in moderation has been proven to be that harmful?
I thought the jury was still out on marijuana? Aren't there long term affects that haven't been fully studied or understood?

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

Tabacco is clearly very harmful, and had we have known how bad it is, it should never have been legal. The problem is suddenly making it illegal after so many were encouraged to smoke.

I don't believe alcohol in moderation has been proven to be that harmful?
I thought the jury was still out on marijuana? Aren't there long term affects that haven't been fully studied or understood?

There's no law against taking alcohol in excess, and the social problems are horrendous.

I'm sure there are long-term affects to cannabis, I'm certainly not saying there is no risk. But it is a personal risk and shouldn't be legislated against, other than the obvious (no operating heavy machinery, no driving well stoned, etc)

But its certainly not a 'hard-core' drug, if tobacco and alcohol are not considered to be hard-core

 

[Triggaaar]

It is bad for your health. It is anti social, many people dislike the smell and don't wish to breathe the second hand smoke.

Wow. Maybe you need to research a little bit more, as none of those reasons are valid concerning its illegality.

Why are they not valid?

 

[LlcoolJ]

Why are they not valid?

I don't like people who stink but unfortunately not getting a shower isn't illegal at present.