Should Weed Be Legal?

[Hearts Daft]

Theres quite enough rancid tramps outside boozers smoking it, ta.

[Supras]

On the argument that all drugs should be legalised, I find that one completely unworkable, I can follow Supras's logic for it but (if I've got what he's saying)

Completely unworkable? You mean, exactly like the current system then? You'll question will be answered shortly, but if that is the biggest objection to drug legalisation here are mine to the war on drugs.

- Imprisoning of people for the mere crime of consumption.

- Causing untold deaths and misery by moving the supply to criminals.

- Forcing users to consume unsafe products.

- Billions spent worldwide, to absolutely no positive effect.

So if you disagree with legalisation and think it is "unworkable", what do you propose?

I can pop down to my local heroin clinic for my regular fix and alls peachy, I hand over my cash and I'm sorted. What would happen if I lose my job/retire and can't afford it now ? Do I get it off the NHS (why work then ?) or do I resort to the current system of committing crimes to feed my habit (government condoned/assisted) to buy illegal (and possibly cheaper crappier) replacements. Would I then deserve to be punished by the criminal justice system for building a habit that the government have had a hand in creating ? While I'm no fan of the nanny state surely they would have some kind of duty of care, possibly making any official 'heroin shops' fairly cost prohibitive for a lot of users.

What happens if you can't afford a product? You don't buy it. Simple, really. Of course, users will have immediate help should they decide to stop using the drug, and a structured plan of decreasing usage will be in place to wean them off the drug. It already happens in Canada, addiction can be cured by a structured process of decreasing dosage.

Of course, it'd would require a lengthy and detailed process to develop a pricing structure, but given the dosage you can buy is greatly restricted, and the almost non existent costs of production, I struggle to envision a situation when you won't be able to afford it.

Unlike the current, clearly insane, policy of prohibition I would never punish users for buying from illegal sources of heroin. These sources will be significantly more expensive, and of far reduced quality, so why in the hell would anyone buy it?

The government did not create the addiction, they provided a safe product to the overwhelming benefit of their citizens. I don't see any valid reasoning for making it "cost prohibitive".

There's also the 'masses' who vote for our policy makers, who rely on the 'masses' for their jobs. Suggesting to these masses that the government want to set up 'heroin shops' would be a vote loser so the masses would need to be 'educated' that its acceptable. Cannabis would, I would imagine be acceptable to a lot, if not most but much more than that I think no matter how much some may want it (and how much 'logic' they may use) they'll be pushing against public opinion which doesn't really have to rely on anything, personal prejudice can go a long way. Its back to convincing people that its the best course which is doubtful at best.

It wouldn't so much be a shop, as a government health facility. Which already exists. I think the majority of the population, idiotic though the masses are, have realised that the war on drugs is a ludicrous and unworkable policy. The zeitgeist, certainly amongst the young, is going towards drug legalisation. Not just here, but throughout the world. But of course I can, and do, play a part in educating people on this issue. Over the past few years why don't you look at the reaction to these threads? The zeitgeist is moving, and very quickly too. Here's Nick Clegg - http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/feb/08/clegg-britain-must-join-drugs-debate

Finding people who are passionately in favour of the war on drugs is extremely difficult, and has been for years. These people don't exist. If you understand the war on drugs, you don't agree with it.

They get assistance from the NHS as you know, my point was that heroin shops would be quite expensive if the current booze/tabs tax levels were used to make the service more or less cost neutral. This may push people down the current root so what happens to these people ? Alcoholics/alcohol abusers who commit crimes aren't immune from the long arm of the law so I would assume that Drug users/addicts would be the same. The other strand of my argument is the acceptance angle and you agree surely that right or wrong people would be against it which firmly throws it back to the 'pro' camp to convince people to change their attitudes. The catch 22 of politicians and the voters would suggest (to me anyway) that the 'logic' of legalising all drugs would not be pushed (geddit) on us by politicians.

Why would "heroin shops" be expensive? But still, even if we do consider the cost of setting up additional health facilities, it would be a drop in the ocean compared to the policing costs of the war on drugs, the cost of imprisoning users and the cost of lost production from addicts. The economic argument is unequivocally in favour.

The Pro camp don't need to present their argument, I'm more than happy to do so, but I want someone to tell me why they think people who voluntarily consume drugs should be imprisoned? Can anyone even attempt to answer that question? Those opposed should be standing up and justifying the complete failure of their policy.

And would drug users who commit crimes be punished? Well, obviously.

[chomp my root]

You keep re'hash'ing the same arguments and you obviously believe them which is fair enough. You seem to want to wrap the whole drugs thing into one easy 'fix' which it isn't. As for costs, its all speculation but I would imagine the whole process would not be cheap. Thats assuming that all the 'users' of the system play the game and instead of being spontaneous just pick up the phone and book an appointment for a week next thursday instead of saying "I want it now". Naivity in the extreme I'd suggest.

I don't know if this war on drugs that seems to excite you is a 'war on terror' big picture thing or just the general push by law enforcement to arrest criminals so I've no idea and can't and won't comment. Probably because I'm one of the idiotic masses though. Thats probably the reason I don't buy into your all or nothing approach (or is it MY way or the highway, hmmm)

It is the pro change groups role to err, push for change, they're the ones who don't like the status quo. If you are thinking of starting a pressure group I'd get someone else to be the 'poster boy', theres a few people out there who don't appreciate being described as idiotic and you might not sway them with your charm.

[Smurph]

Should weed become legal how would it be sold? Would specialised weed shops just start opening up and people could pop in and buy it or would it be available in bars/coffee shops or would it be in special weed sections of supermarkets? Only sold online perhaps?

I'd love shops that sold nothing but marijuana and various paraphernalia. Go in, have a chat with the guy and see what's what. They'd have so many different strains. It would be beautiful. Coffee shops/bars would nullify the reason to go to Amsterdam on holiday and I really like Amsterdam. f**k supermarkets; go to your local weed supplier.

[Lambie's Pigeon Feed]

You keep re'hash'ing the same arguments and you obviously believe them which is fair enough. You seem to want to wrap the whole drugs thing into one easy 'fix' which it isn't. As for costs, its all speculation but I would imagine the whole process would not be cheap. Thats assuming that all the 'users' of the system play the game and instead of being spontaneous just pick up the phone and book an appointment for a week next thursday instead of saying "I want it now". Naivity in the extreme I'd suggest.

I don't know if this war on drugs that seems to excite you is a 'war on terror' big picture thing or just the general push by law enforcement to arrest criminals so I've no idea and can't and won't comment. Probably because I'm one of the idiotic masses though. Thats probably the reason I don't buy into your all or nothing approach (or is it MY way or the highway, hmmm)

It is the pro change groups role to err, push for change, they're the ones who don't like the status quo. If you are thinking of starting a pressure group I'd get someone else to be the 'poster boy', theres a few people out there who don't appreciate being described as idiotic and you might not sway them with your charm.

The tone of his posts in these threads is often OTT but everything he says is correct.

Your only come back was cost which is your own misinformed opinion.

Heroin isn't going to be sold as a recreational drugs and legalisation is will not increase usage, in fact the evidence shows it decreases uses as in Portugal.

With smack you are still trying to get people off it, bit providing a safe controlled way to do it.

Ecstasy and weed would be sold as recreational drugs in a very controlled environment. These drugs are less harmful and less addictive to the user than alcohol or tobacco.

In the nicest way possible you haven't figured it out yet, that's not a slight on you, 99% of the population recoil in horror when someone proposes legalising all drugs but it is the best thing for everyone.

That's why he keeps telling you its hard to find a staunch proponent of the war on drugs who will debate the issue, its because they can't win the arguement and even they know it.

[chomp my root]

The tone of his posts in these threads is often OTT but everything he says is correct.

Your only come back was cost which is your own misinformed opinion.

Heroin isn't going to be sold as a recreational drugs and legalisation is will not increase usage, in fact the evidence shows it decreases uses as in Portugal.

With smack you are still trying to get people off it, bit providing a safe controlled way to do it.

Ecstasy and weed would be sold as recreational drugs in a very controlled environment. These drugs are less harmful and less addictive to the user than alcohol or tobacco.

In the nicest way possible you haven't figured it out yet, that's not a slight on you, 99% of the population recoil in horror when someone proposes legalising all drugs but it is the best thing for everyone.

That's why he keeps telling you its hard to find a staunch proponent of the war on drugs who will debate the issue, its because they can't win the arguement and even they know it.

Just because you agree with him and no matter how hard you wish it were the case it is unworkable. Your heroin user goes along to the government clinic/shop (it sell stuff, its a shop to me, doesn't mean I think it'll be next to RS McColls on the 'High' st.) and gets his stuff, job done. Next day for whatever reason he's having a shit day he wants another hit of the good stuff but the heroin shop says sorry mate you had yours yesterday you'll have to wait XX days/hrs. What does our user do ? Say "fair enough chief I'll pop back then" or does he get it from somewhere else ?

All the talk of prohibition not working is a bit of a smoke screen, what (seems to me anyway) is being said is the government can get better safer drugs. The system being proposed isn't going to be a 'get what you want, when you want, as long as you can pay' approach, whats being suggested is a 'professional' telling you how much you can get and how often. A form of prohibition. While this might work for some do you really think this will work for all ? So we have the heroin shops, we still have illegal drug trafficking and the crime associated with people committing crime to get their fix. This doesn't exactly fit the utopian vision presented to end this 'war on drugs' stuff (forgive my ignorance of all its ramifications). So we still have police trying to stop the 'bad' non state drug sellers and criminals who commit crimes to get them. We also have a situation where people can 'justify' even if only to themselves that its not their fault and as we all know wheres there blame theres a claim so its the governments fault.

While in your eyes, I don't get it, I could argue the reverse and suggest your approach is very naive and possibly dangerous to many (as it is now I realise) but state sanctioned and therefore potentially a different financial burden on the state. Before Supras asks me for my 'specific' solutions (for his no doubt unbiased consideration) to the problem I don't have it, sorry, it's not something that I've given a great deal of thought to but as ever I try and keep an open mind and theres not been any real 'logic' in this thread that works in the messy world of people (for me).

I have to say as a closing comment that if 99% don't get it then maybe its the 1% that are at odds. Keep trying to change peoples minds by all means but I would suggest that legalising cannabis would be the first step rather than the all or nothing angry approach.

[throbber]

chomp my root is a ridiculous name

[chomp my root]

I'm a ridiculous kind of a cat

[throbber]

I'm a ridiculous kind of a cat

[chomp my root]

OK, but if there's any bumming involved, I've changed my mind about the drugs !

[Supras]

You keep re'hash'ing the same arguments and you obviously believe them which is fair enough. You seem to want to wrap the whole drugs thing into one easy 'fix' which it isn't. As for costs, its all speculation but I would imagine the whole process would not be cheap. Thats assuming that all the 'users' of the system play the game and instead of being spontaneous just pick up the phone and book an appointment for a week next thursday instead of saying "I want it now". Naivity in the extreme I'd suggest.

Er, I have many arguments for promoting drug legalisation. I have covered some of them here, but certainly not all. Who on earth is saying there is one easy fix? There is an existing disastrous policy, and a significantly better alternative.

Your cost argument is going no where, conveniently entitled "speculation", because you seem to think heroin is expensive to produce. Which it really isn't. Who said anything about appointments? But you're right, drug users with consistent access to drugs will behave in a much more reasoned and consistent manner. The evidence for that is clear in Canada, and the trial in the UK.

I don't know if this war on drugs that seems to excite you is a 'war on terror' big picture thing or just the general push by law enforcement to arrest criminals so I've no idea and can't and won't comment. Probably because I'm one of the idiotic masses though. Thats probably the reason I don't buy into your all or nothing approach (or is it MY way or the highway, hmmm)

This paragraph says nothing.

But it is hardly an all or nothing approach, more of an evolutionary approach. Those who don't understand the war on drugs support it, those who have a partial understanding support decriminalisation and anyone who has looked into it in any depth supports legalisation.

It is the pro change groups role to err, push for change, they're the ones who don't like the status quo. If you are thinking of starting a pressure group I'd get someone else to be the 'poster boy', theres a few people out there who don't appreciate being described as idiotic and you might not sway them with your charm.

This paragraph also says nothing.

But if you're concerned or surprised by me calling the "general public" idiotic, these are the same people who sustain medieval institutions like the monarchy. They will be considered idiotic, until they demonstrate otherwise.

Why is it everyone bottles the debate and starts trying to pass some comment on my "tone"? Who the f**k cares

[Supras]

Just because you agree with him and no matter how hard you wish it were the case it is unworkable. Your heroin user goes along to the government clinic/shop (it sell stuff, its a shop to me, doesn't mean I think it'll be next to RS McColls on the 'High' st.) and gets his stuff, job done. Next day for whatever reason he's having a shit day he wants another hit of the good stuff but the heroin shop says sorry mate you had yours yesterday you'll have to wait XX days/hrs. What does our user do ? Say "fair enough chief I'll pop back then" or does he get it from somewhere else ?

You've said unworkable twice, and yet haven't actually demonstrated why it is unworkable. Nor have you put forward arguments for the current policy, the war on drugs, which is clearly and demonstrably unworkable.

Maybe he gets it somewhere else? Maybe he doesn't get it? You don't really have much of a point here. The recommended dosage will be determined by medical professionals, under no circumstances will the government decide to give users so much of a product they die. But that's assuming all drug users who are "having a bad day" instantly want heroin, and there is no evidence for this whatsoever. Why has this policy been such a dramatic success in Canada and in a trial in the UK? Er, cause it works. If I have a "shit day" I don't go home and drink a half bottle of vodka. I find it astonishing your justification for "unworkable" is conjecture you have just made up. Does any of what you're saying give a justification for imprisoning drug users?

All the talk of prohibition not working is a bit of a smoke screen, what (seems to me anyway) is being said is the government can get better safer drugs. The system being proposed isn't going to be a 'get what you want, when you want, as long as you can pay' approach, whats being suggested is a 'professional' telling you how much you can get and how often. A form of prohibition. While this might work for some do you really think this will work for all ? So we have the heroin shops, we still have illegal drug trafficking and the crime associated with people committing crime to get their fix. This doesn't exactly fit the utopian vision presented to end this 'war on drugs' stuff (forgive my ignorance of all its ramifications). So we still have police trying to stop the 'bad' non state drug sellers and criminals who commit crimes to get them. We also have a situation where people can 'justify' even if only to themselves that its not their fault and as we all know wheres there blame theres a claim so its the governments fault.

It's not a smokescreen, it is an absolutely fundamental part of the debate. Obviously.

Prescribing a safe amount of drugs is not prohibition. Again, obviously. I have no idea if it will work for all, it will provide everyone with the opportunity to live a normal life, whether or not they take it. It's certainly preferable to the current system, who offers nobody a choice, and which only works for criminals.

I find it greatly amusing you are using "drug trafficking and crime" as an argument AGAINST drug legalisation and FOR drug prohibition. There will be greatly reduced criminal involvement in drugs following legalisation. They, more than anyone, oppose it vigorously.

I imagine the police will treat non state dealers the same way they treat those who sell illegal alcohol or cigarettes. Committing a crime, but clearly idiots who are hardly important enough to devote significant resources to. Don't really know what this has got to do with drug legalisation, however.

Your last sentence makes no sense.

While in your eyes, I don't get it, I could argue the reverse and suggest your approach is very naive and possibly dangerous to many (as it is now I realise) but state sanctioned and therefore potentially a different financial burden on the state. Before Supras asks me for my 'specific' solutions (for his no doubt unbiased consideration) to the problem I don't have it, sorry, it's not something that I've given a great deal of thought to but as ever I try and keep an open mind and theres not been any real 'logic' in this thread that works in the messy world of people (for me).

I have to say as a closing comment that if 99% don't get it then maybe its the 1% that are at odds. Keep trying to change peoples minds by all means but I would suggest that legalising cannabis would be the first step rather than the all or nothing angry approach.

You don't get it, at all. This is demonstrated by your scatter gun, contradictory, posts. It's not naive, there is one of us here with a developed understanding of different drug policy alternatives. That person is not you. The current system is dangerous to all users, and indeed society as a whole. A legalisation system would be considerably less dangerous, for the reasons already outlined.

By different financial burden, you should be saying considerably reduced financial burden.

There is no logic that appeals to the messy logic of people? Well, people crave for substances that alter their state of mind. They will also want drugs. We as a society have neither the capability nor desire to stop the production of drugs. Therefore, the current system is fatally flawed and doomed to failure, as it has done on every level. To develop an alternative policy requires a certain amount of scholarship in addition to practical studies. Which is why the system in place in Canada, and the trial in the UK, are so important in determining the best way to progress.

Your closing comments laughably assumes that 99% of people support the war on drugs and only 1% support legalisation. This simply isn't true. Legalising cannabis is a positive move, and step one of full scale legalisation.

I am "angry" about the war on drugs the same way the abolitionists were "angry" about slavery. When you see human beings suffering, and know of ways to alleviate it, of course you will vigorously support the implementation of a new policy.

[Sergeant Wilson]

So what have you done to advance the legalisation cause?

[chomp my root]

On a busy choo choo and on phone so not too practicle to break down all your various 'shotgun' points but I'll have a go later. I will say that on planet Sheldon your policy might work but are you really that naive that you think people will just what they're supposed to ? As for your abolishionist comparison, which I was half expecting, I'll counter with the age of consent issue, kids under sixteen are shagging should we abolish the age of consent ? We govern ultimately by concensus (sort off) through our elected members (not a perfect system, maybe you've got ideas to improve that too). Like I say, you just need to convince either (or both) the MP's or the idiotic masses. I'd work on your people skills first though.

Just in case you're not aware, the Sheldon reference is from a popular TV (television) programme.

[Kaz]

Supras has every right to adopt the tone he does in these threads. He has obviously done his research. If someone decides to enter a debate and spout uninformed pish why should he tip toe around pointing that out to them?

[Dee Man]

You've said unworkable twice, and yet haven't actually demonstrated why it is unworkable. Nor have you put forward arguments for the current policy, the war on drugs, which is clearly and demonstrably unworkable.

Maybe he gets it somewhere else? Maybe he doesn't get it? You don't really have much of a point here. The recommended dosage will be determined by medical professionals, under no circumstances will the government decide to give users so much of a product they die. But that's assuming all drug users who are "having a bad day" instantly want heroin, and there is no evidence for this whatsoever. Why has this policy been such a dramatic success in Canada and in a trial in the UK? Er, cause it works. If I have a "shit day" I don't go home and drink a half bottle of vodka. I find it astonishing your justification for "unworkable" is conjecture you have just made up. Does any of what you're saying give a justification for imprisoning drug users?

It's not a smokescreen, it is an absolutely fundamental part of the debate. Obviously.

Prescribing a safe amount of drugs is not prohibition. Again, obviously. I have no idea if it will work for all, it will provide everyone with the opportunity to live a normal life, whether or not they take it. It's certainly preferable to the current system, who offers nobody a choice, and which only works for criminals.

I find it greatly amusing you are using "drug trafficking and crime" as an argument AGAINST drug legalisation and FOR drug prohibition. There will be greatly reduced criminal involvement in drugs following legalisation. They, more than anyone, oppose it vigorously.

I imagine the police will treat non state dealers the same way they treat those who sell illegal alcohol or cigarettes. Committing a crime, but clearly idiots who are hardly important enough to devote significant resources to. Don't really know what this has got to do with drug legalisation, however.

Your last sentence makes no sense.

You don't get it, at all. This is demonstrated by your scatter gun, contradictory, posts. It's not naive, there is one of us here with a developed understanding of different drug policy alternatives. That person is not you. The current system is dangerous to all users, and indeed society as a whole. A legalisation system would be considerably less dangerous, for the reasons already outlined.

By different financial burden, you should be saying considerably reduced financial burden.

There is no logic that appeals to the messy logic of people? Well, people crave for substances that alter their state of mind. They will also want drugs. We as a society have neither the capability nor desire to stop the production of drugs. Therefore, the current system is fatally flawed and doomed to failure, as it has done on every level. To develop an alternative policy requires a certain amount of scholarship in addition to practical studies. Which is why the system in place in Canada, and the trial in the UK, are so important in determining the best way to progress.

Your closing comments laughably assumes that 99% of people support the war on drugs and only 1% support legalisation. This simply isn't true. Legalising cannabis is a positive move, and step one of full scale legalisation.

I am "angry" about the war on drugs the same way the abolitionists were "angry" about slavery. When you see human beings suffering, and know of ways to alleviate it, of course you will vigorously support the implementation of a new policy.

Nobody bottles the debate. You bore the tits off everyone with your eye raping posts. I could rip you to shreds if I could be arsed, but quite frankly I'd rather sandpaper my helmet and dip it in a bowl of salt and vinegar.

[chomp my root]

Supras has every right to adopt the tone he does in these threads. He has obviously done his research. If someone decides to enter a debate and spout uninformed pish why should he tip toe around pointing that out to them?

No doubt he's done research but he's presenting it like the word of God, to quote Disreali (or Twain) lies, damn lies and statistics. I'm sure anyone who decided to set themselves up as the guru on any topic could find 'facts' to back themselves up.

Oh and if he's wanting to convert people to his way of thinking, common courtesy is a good starting point, if he becomes sick of repeating himself (ha) then theres no need to re-enter the debate. No offence but you're coming across as the wee guy stood behind the big guy going "yeah, what he says".

[Supras]

So what have you done to advance the legalisation cause?

A wide spectrum of things, from writing articles to debating and funding.

On a busy choo choo and on phone so not too practicle to break down all your various 'shotgun' points but I'll have a go later. I will say that on planet Sheldon your policy might work but are you really that naive that you think people will just what they're supposed to ? As for your abolishionist comparison, which I was half expecting, I'll counter with the age of consent issue, kids under sixteen are shagging should we abolish the age of consent ? We govern ultimately by concensus (sort off) through our elected members (not a perfect system, maybe you've got ideas to improve that too). Like I say, you just need to convince either (or both) the MP's or the idiotic masses. I'd work on your people skills first though.

Just in case you're not aware, the Sheldon reference is from a popular TV (television) programme.

You'll have a go, will you? Looking forward to that

Er, your first question makes no sense. Your second makes even less sense. Of course the age of consent shouldn't be reduced. Poor attempt at deflection tbh.

People skills? This is an online football forum, I'm not going to pander to people who say stupid things and know f**k all. Sorry.

Supras has every right to adopt the tone he does in these threads. He has obviously done his research. If someone decides to enter a debate and spout uninformed pish why should he tip toe around pointing that out to them?

It's hardly fair, really, and it doesn't matter how gracious I am the significant knowledge gap will be evident, and the opponent will have his feelings hurt.

Nobody bottles the debate. You bore the tits off everyone with your eye raping posts. I could rip you to shreds if I could be arsed, but quite frankly I'd rather sandpaper my helmet and dip it in a bowl of salt and vinegar.

You could rip me to shreds? On a topic you know nothing about, and I know a lot about? Of course you could, kiddo. What's next, I take you could rip Stephen Hawking on physics? Maybe teach Mourinho on football management?

You fucking fantasist. I've comprehensively destroyed you already on this thread, and I'm more than happy to do so again.

No doubt he's done research but he's presenting it like the word of God, to quote Disreali (or Twain) lies, damn lies and statistics. I'm sure anyone who decided to set themselves up as the guru on any topic could find 'facts' to back themselves up.

Oh and if he's wanting to convert people to his way of thinking, common courtesy is a good starting point, if he becomes sick of repeating himself (ha) then theres no need to re-enter the debate. No offence but you're coming across as the wee guy stood behind the big guy going "yeah, what he says".

Unlike you, of course, who has no facts. And is trying to turn this into a discussion on me for some reason

Is it because you are doing so badly on the topic itself?

Common courtesy doesn't covert people, facts do. And if people aren't converted by facts, then they are the idiots I previously referred to. Funny that you're green dotting each other, though, alone you were failing, and together you are doing even worse.

[Jimmy85]

I'll need to come back to annihilate you when I have more time.

Nobody bottles the debate. You bore the tits off everyone with your eye raping posts. I could rip you to shreds if I could be arsed, but quite frankly I'd rather sandpaper my helmet and dip it in a bowl of salt and vinegar.

[Sergeant Wilson]

I think your style of posting is detracting from your argument. If that is repeated in the other fields you're not going to convince anyone who is opposed to legalisation.

It's a bit like Peter Tatchell, most of what he said was right, bit he got peoples backs up and his message was lost.