Viewing Thread:
"Cannabis"

Well, the drug is being (or has been) downgraded to class C. What does this mean? The government are keen to point out that it is still illegal, that those in possession will still be arrested.

On the news tonight, they used the phrase "Cannabis, a drug tens of thousands of people choose to smoke each week". I think they are seriously underestimating how widespread its use is. I wager everyone on here knows somebody who smokes it, I certainly do. Could decriminalizing the drug work in this country? There are huge benefits for the government in the way that it would free up a lot of police time, which could be used for catching those dealing/possessing harder drugs.

Is there any point whatsoever in downgrading the drug as they have done?

Do you have any views on the drug, or the questions I have asked above?

Yukikaze wrote:
> Maverick42 wrote:
> That's actually a compelling argument.
>
> How come everyone's against you?
>
> Erm, well I'm guessing any person arguing against me is actually
> currently taking Cannabis or plans to do so.


I don't take cannabis. I don't plan to either, whatever that means. But I do find your arguments mostly pathetic, small-minded and largely ridiculous. Because they are.

Where do I fit into your grand scheme of things, Bell?

And you still haven't explained why you think Timmargh is a waster for using a drug to relieve pain in his own home, not damaging another soul in the process.

You can argue and rant and rave all you like, be my guest - every word you type just makes you smaller and smaller and smaller. I'd urge any sensible people who happened to have wandered into this topic to just leave him to it, he'll only tie himself in knots further. It's really quite amusing.

Yukikaze wrote:
> However enojy your Class C's while you can, 'cause come the next
> Conservative government it goes right back to Class B alongside
> tougher penalties for poessession and use. Ha ha ha.

No worries there, then.

Ban smoking and leagalise cannabis.

Hash cake for all! ;-D

Fair enough.

But the kids are getting their hands on it either way so leagalising it wouldn't make that worse. It just means that they'd get purer, less dangerous strains, rather than a dealer-made mixture of drug and mixed crap (like tar and other additives) to make more out of it.

And although it does mess with people's heads, acceptable limits could be tested for safe driving etc. and safe recommended limits of use to prevent damage to the body etc - just like we have for alcohol.


And even if it wasn't leagalised, it's not the sort of threat to our society that commands the absolute crackdown on it, the sort the right wing have in mind.

Maverick42 wrote:
> Strafio wrote:
> So why do YOU think it should be so illeagal?
>
> I think it is good that it can be used for medicinal purposes, and
> that that should continue.
>
> I think it should be illegal because it is yet another highly
> addictive health hazard, it affects people's states of consciousness
> and will in turn lead to many knock-on problems such as driving under
> the influence and psychosis. Besides, with the amount of underage
> tobacco smokers, do we really want to open up something else for
> young teenagers to get addicted to?

thankyou maverick42 you have hit the nail on the head,now ban smoking as well.

Strafio wrote:
> So why do YOU think it should be so illeagal?

I think it is good that it can be used for medicinal purposes, and that that should continue.

I think it should be illegal because it is yet another highly addictive health hazard, it affects people's states of consciousness and will in turn lead to many knock-on problems such as driving under the influence and psychosis. Besides, with the amount of underage tobacco smokers, do we really want to open up something else for young teenagers to get addicted to?

Yukikaze wrote:
> But that is not what happens, and that is why we have a problem.

Ah, but I'm sure you must agree that the law must not be so black and white.

I know friends who were pressured into underage smoking, for example. They're not exceptions to a rule - but everything must be seen in its own light for true justice.

Yukikaze wrote:
> With it being the weekend before the Hutton report is delivered I
> kind of find it ironic that a labour person could talk about
> lying...when a Labour poltician has almost certainly lied before
> Parliament, the country, and several inquiries.

Point taken.

I'm just primarily anti-conservative, and, lets face it, the Lib-Dems are going nowhere fast. Labour's the only other option. But hey - I'm 16 and can't vote, so I don't pretend to know much about politics. My opinion may change as I start to give a damn.

Yukikaze wrote:
> I guarantee you that if any of this lot here were to be arrested for
> Cannabis use they would, if it even got that far, swear blind in
> court they would not touch the stuff again, and be smoking it once
> more that very weekend.
>
> Yet if any were to discover their houses burgled and the criminal
> caught, sorry, "alleged criminal", they'd want him stopping
> and probably in prison.

Big difference.
When you take drugs, you're hurting you, not anyone else.
Sure, it can lead to anti-social behaviour, but anti-social behviour is the problem then, not the drug taking (even if the drug taking isn't exactly the problem).

People don't feel so threatened by a criminal who's only hurting themselves. Is a burgler hurt themselves or their victim?

Ofcourse you know that, and you're just trying to be a pain in everyones asss.

Or could it be that you don't know the difference between right and leagal?


I know you're not that stupid, but you really come across that way sometimes.

Bell understands that cannabis is illeagal.

Well done Bell.


But by reading your scathing remarks at Timmargh, I can see you don't understand WHY.

Now instead of using right wing pseudo-quotes, try and think about why cannabis is illeagal.


For what it does to people's health?
Well... in Timmargh's case it's good for his health, and that the good effects outweigh the bad (almost non-existant effects) of his moderate use.

Now bear in mind that leagal alcohol and leagal tobacco are just as bad, and in some ways worse.



So why do YOU think it should be so illeagal?