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?

One of the points raised in a debate about cannabis was that if it was to be legalised for medicinal use some sort of system would have to be put in place to be able to get the stuff without going to a dealer, as A) it would remain untaxed and B) would put people in the position of being able to move onto harder drugs more easily.

Belldandy wrote:
> There are trials of legal drugs based on the element that is in
> Cannabis, and they remain trials because of the unknown nature of the
> effects the drug has. If Cannabis was proven to have no harmful
> effects then there would be no need for drug trials.

There is not a single drug in existence today, legal or otherwise, that doesn't have side-effects in some or all users. Just because the side-effects of cannabis are not fully known, it doesn't mean that they're all going to kill you.

Some good points there NB. I would be interested to know if cannabis is as harmful when eaten, as opposed to being smoked, though. I would assume it would be far less, although I suppose that would need to be officially tested.

Heroin is an evil, evil drug. I realise cannabis can be addictive, I guess it's all down to the person smoking it, some people have addictive personalities. But heroin has no place outside of medicinal use. Its ability to completely destroy people is widely known. Many people die of overdoses per year, and even more through indirect ways such as contracting disease, malnutrition etc.

Cannabis may cause people to slide down a slippery slope, but no more so than say an alcoholic. People like this need help, but I do believe it is down to the person, and not the drug. Some people just cannot control their addiction to things, it doesn't necessarily have to be drugs - some people cannot stop eating, which causes them terrible health problems.

You could say that breaking the law is never morally acceptable as they are there for the greater good. In which case the safety and protection of the many outweighs the needs of the few.

Which leads to my point which I'm not sure if I ever made or not.

In the case of cannabis, the needs of the few, i.e. the disable can be catered for by legalising it as a prescription pain relief. It is more effective than any prescription drug according to an MS sufferer I know.

However, legalising cannabis for everyone I wouldn't be happy about. It is addictive. It is more carcinogenic than cigarettes and it would become more popular. And hence lead to increased strain on the NHS. It would need to be taxed very heavily for the taxes raised to make up for extra costs.

I don't know what part of cannabis causes pain relief, however if it could be extracted and taken away from the harmful elements, then it would make a better pain killer. And that would be the best solution.

Of course, if cannabis was legalised for medicinal purposes, in time no doubt someone would campaign for legalisation of heroin for medicinal purposes, as it too is a painkiller. It was developed by Bayer from Morphine, to replace it because morphine was addictive. It was thought to have such potential that it was used as part of the reparations for World War One. That was just a side point that was vaguely related.

Belldandy, I am NOT trying to justify breaking the law. I am simply trying to point out occasions where people will break it and WHY they will break it.

You seem to think that everyone in this country breaks the law just to say they got one over on the government. As though they do it just for the sake of doing it.

If I rushed home and ran some poor kid over, I would deserve to be put away. There is no excuse. I am simply trying to illustrate WHY I would break the law in the first place, as you seem to think that there is no reason good enough.

Timmargh wrote:
> You haven't answered my question, Belldandy.
>
> Timmargh wrote:
> So, at what point did you change your mind about it being pathetic
> *except* when used for "pain management" and decide I was a
> waster?

OOPS

Mr Snuggly wrote:
> Timmargh wrote:
> And, while I was trawling, I came across Belldandy's first comment
> on
> the subject ...
>
> Yukikaze wrote:
> I think anyone who needs illegal drugs for anything other than clear
> medicinal reasons (such as pain management) is pretty pathetic. A
> few
> legal ones are also pretty sad - cigarettes for one.
>
> That's my unforgiving Conservative view, just in case you couldn't
> tell.
>
>
> So, at what point did you change your mind about it being pathetic
> *except* when used for "pain management" and decide I was
> a
> waster?
>
>
> POP

Because I gave it more thought. You cannot differentiate between those who break the law on the same level because that is just not fair. There are trials of legal drugs based on the element that is in Cannabis, and they remain trials because of the unknown nature of the effects the drug has. If Cannabis was proven to have no harmful effects then there would be no need for drug trials.

Ahh, Snuggly thought he wasn't going to get an answer...

You haven't answered my question, Belldandy.

Timmargh wrote:
> So, at what point did you change your mind about it being pathetic
> *except* when used for "pain management" and decide I was a waster?

ßora† SagdiyeV wrote:
> Belldandy wrote:
> Contradictory statements. You clearly say "if you were in a
> car". OWNEDZZ etc
>
> the word for this my friend is pedantic. I'm trying to have a civil
> discussion about times where breaking the law may be morally
> acceptable, and you are picking holes in the way I've worded it.

But you did that in the first place by pedantically pointing out that the call could come while you were out of the car ?

Breaking the law can be morally acceptable but only ever by the definition of a person's own morality and it still does not excuse any kind of illegality.

So, using your scenario, say I hammer home at 50MPH but as I go past the school (which I do everyday) a kid runs across the road and because I'm doing 50MPH is basically mashed to bits. I

If that is your kid then you are not going to go "oh, okay that person needed to get home", no, you are going to want that person in prison for life and no jury is likely to accept any reason for your actions.

> C'mon, I thought you were at least above that sort of childishness.

If you were levelling that at more than just me I'd take notice, but I figure act to suit the environment of the topic.

Timmargh wrote:
> And, while I was trawling, I came across Belldandy's first comment on
> the subject ...
>
> Yukikaze wrote:
> I think anyone who needs illegal drugs for anything other than clear
> medicinal reasons (such as pain management) is pretty pathetic. A
> few
> legal ones are also pretty sad - cigarettes for one.
>
> That's my unforgiving Conservative view, just in case you couldn't
> tell.
>
>
> So, at what point did you change your mind about it being pathetic
> *except* when used for "pain management" and decide I was a
> waster?


POP