Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Lambie's Pigeon Feed

Should Weed Be Legal?

Should weed in the UK be...  

537 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

But then couldn't there be drugs that could be used to spike people's drinks more readily available? Much like rohypnol(spelling?)

I've been spiked with ecstasy twice in my life and it is not a pleasant experience, especially when I'm already on mood uppers and downers for my bipolar disorder. My medication has an effect on my kidneys and as you know ecstasy reeks havoc with your waterworks and I could have nearly died if it weren't for my mates being there for me.

I'm not against legalisation but there has to be some consideration. Weed should definitely be legalised, there is no argument against it. Ecstasy and other hard drugs.. I don't think it's an easy one.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Pie & Bovril mobile app

Is rohypnol currently illegal? I don't really know, so can't answer. But it's hardly a justification to criminalise it, either way. I don't even know if rohypnol is used for anything else, but the spiking is what should be illegal, not necessarily the drug.

So, you have a bad experience with being spiked by ecstasy - a currently illegal drug - and think there "has to be some consideration" of legalisation? Hmm, okay.

Were ecstasy to be legal it would be controlled and monitored like any other drug. It absolutely can be administered and consumed safely. Users would also know exactly what products they are buying. Would it stop other people being spiked with ecstasy? Possibly, depending on the nature of controls, but that's hardly the intention.

The running argument that is oft presented is "X had a bad experience with illegal drugs therefore we need the war on drugs" has never flied, frankly, these bad experiences can absolutely be minimised by legalisation and control. It is an easy case to legalise supposedly "harder drugs" arguably an even better case than marijuana. It's disgraceful the harm heroin causes given it is a drug that could, quite easily, be consumed with significantly less negative side effects. The most harmful drugs are the ones that need legalised most, if we are considering harm reduction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But then couldn't there be drugs that could be used to spike people's drinks more readily available? Much like rohypnol(spelling?)

I've been spiked with ecstasy twice in my life and it is not a pleasant experience, especially when I'm already on mood uppers and downers for my bipolar disorder. My medication has an effect on my kidneys and as you know ecstasy reeks havoc with your waterworks and I could have nearly died if it weren't for my mates being there for me.

I'm not against legalisation but there has to be some consideration. Weed should definitely be legalised, there is no argument against it. Ecstasy and other hard drugs.. I don't think it's an easy one.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Pie & Bovril mobile app

 

Is rohypnol currently illegal? I don't really know, so can't answer. But it's hardly a justification to criminalise it, either way. I don't even know if rohypnol is used for anything else, but the spiking is what should be illegal, not necessarily the drug.

 

So, you have a bad experience with being spiked by ecstasy - a currently illegal drug - and think there "has to be some consideration" of legalisation? Hmm, okay.

 

Were ecstasy to be legal it would be controlled and monitored like any other drug. It absolutely can be administered and consumed safely. Users would also know exactly what products they are buying. Would it stop other people being spiked with ecstasy? Possibly, depending on the nature of controls, but that's hardly the intention.

 

The running argument that is oft presented is "X had a bad experience with illegal drugs therefore we need the war on drugs" has never flied, frankly, these bad experiences can absolutely be minimised by legalisation and control. It is an easy case to legalise supposedly "harder drugs" arguably an even better case than marijuana. It's disgraceful the harm heroin causes given it is a drug that could, quite easily, be consumed with significantly less negative side effects. The most harmful drugs are the ones that need legalised most, if we are considering harm reduction.

Well of course personally I'd be hesitant to legalise ecstasy, however I'm not an individual case, and there will be plenty of other people who have been spiked by other drugs other than ecstasy and this includes a high number of rape victims who would find it quite scary that the drugs that people use to take advantage of people are a lot more readily available and potentially more potent due to purification that would follow legalisation.

It's just an opinion though, and clearly it's biased but to dismiss the arguments against hard drugs as negligible is a bit careless.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Pie & Bovril mobile app

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well of course personally I'd be hesitant to legalise ecstasy, however I'm not an individual case, and there will be plenty of other people who have been spiked by other drugs other than ecstasy and this includes a high number of rape victims who would find it quite scary that the drugs that people use to take advantage of people are a lot more readily available and potentially more potent due to purification that would follow legalisation.

It's just an opinion though, and clearly it's biased but to dismiss the arguments against hard drugs as negligible is a bit careless.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Pie & Bovril mobile app

How are these arguments against legalising hard drugs? Ecstasy could quite easily be consumed under supervised conditions and not used to spike anyone. As could other drugs.

That said, the people being spiked by currently illegal drugs being against drug legalisation? What a bizarre position to take up. What happened to these people was illegal, it would remain illegal, the only difference is that the overwhelming majority of people who want to take these drugs legally - and not spike anyone - are no longer committing a crime because of voluntary consumption.

What you are arguing is tantamount to making hammers illegal because sometimes people are attacked with them and sometimes people are threatened and possibly raped by someone with a hammer. It doesn't stack up logically. If someone is intent on spiking someone (and potentially raping them) they are not being stopped because ecstasy is illegal, are you seriously suggesting they are? People with that mindset would, easily, get a hold of these drugs and commit their (significantly more serious crimes) regardless of legal status. The war on drugs doesn't deter them at all, it just unnecessarily criminalises a large section of society and forces them to take significant risks with untested and unsafe products.

There is another drug that people use to take advantage of people, hugely popular, and it's known as alcohol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whats this thing about hemp and the paper industry, never heard of that?

When weed is grown, you can't tell whether the plant will be male or female until you've started growing it. I can't remember which way around it is but one (male or female) produces the weed and the other is hemp. So if more of the plants are being grown then the amount of hemp will increase which can be used for stuff like paper, clothes and loads of other things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The spiking argument holds no water for me, you could be a life long teatotaller whos never tasted alcohol and someone puts a big hoose half of gin in youre lemonade, since it doesnt have the strong taste and instant gag reaction that say vodka or whisky does when you take an unexpected mouthfull , you might not taste it. and as someone who doesnt drink youre tolerence to alcohol is poor so you can be relatively drunk on very little amounts.

not the most likely scenario but not impossible either, spiking is illegal, rape is illegal, making drugs legal wont make a blind bit of difference to date rape cases.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been spiked with ecstasy twice in my life

What makes you think that? Were you tested for it? What reason would someone have to spike you with an eccie?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been spiked with ecstasy twice in my life

 

What makes you think that? Were you tested for it? What reason would someone have to spike you with an eccie?

Does seem like a bizarre choice of drug to spike a drink with. Did the culprits want to watch him dance or something?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It definitely should be legalised. There are no logical arguments against legalising it. I don't see it happening any time soon though, which is a shame.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been spiked with ecstasy twice in my life

 

What makes you think that? Were you tested for it? What reason would someone have to spike you with an eccie?

Funnily enough I was. I did have to go to hospital since like I said my kidneys were near enough fucking up.

God knows why anyone would want to spike someone with an eccie.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Pie & Bovril mobile app

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But people are right when they say you shouldn't automatically be against drugs if you were subject to a bad experience, but it's only natural.

Like I've said weed really should be legal and there is no legitimate argument against it. Even people who claim that it triggers schizoaffective tendencies are no longer believing that pish anymore.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Pie & Bovril mobile app

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It means we are all and it refers to everyone on this thread.

But why am I getting drawn on this? I have never taken Crystal meth, nor do I have any desire to do so.

Now, please provide a reason why crystal meth should remain within the auspices of the war on drugs and not be legalised? Your lack of response to this question implies I have crushed you already, which is record speed for me.

As flattered as I am at your suggestion that everyone on this thread is on tenterhooks waiting on my reasons for why crystal meth should remain illegal - after you took it upon yourself to speak on a bunch of stranger's behalfs - I think the reality is more likely to be that folk will be gathered round their computers, pointing and laughing at the screen at the daft c**t who is claiming it should be legalised.

I've already told you that it really should not have to be broken down and explained to you. If you can't wrap your head around it all by yourself then I don't imagine you have the common sense to understand any amount of reasons why it shouldn't be legal.

For all the use it's going to do you, here's a couple of reasons why it shouldn't be legalised to help you on your way:

Common Immediate Effects

Euphoria

Increased energy and alertness

Diarrhea and nausea

Excessive sweating

Loss of appetite, insomnia, tremors, jaw-clenching

Agitation, irritability, talkativeness, panic, compulsive fascination with repetitive tasks, violence, confusion

Increased libido

Increased blood pressure, body temperature, heart rate, blood sugar levels, bronchodilation

Constriction of the walls of the arterties

In pregnant and nursing women, methampetamine crosses the placenta and is secreted in breast milk

Effects Associated with Chronic Use

Tolerance (needing more of the drug to get the same effect)

Drug craving

Temporary weight loss

Withdrawal symptoms including depression and anhedonia

"Meth Mouth" where teeth rapidly decay and fall out

Drug-related psychosis (may last for months or years after drug use is discontinued)

Edited by Dee Man

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

It means we are all and it refers to everyone on this thread.

 

But why am I getting drawn on this? I have never taken Crystal meth, nor do I have any desire to do so.

 

Now, please provide a reason why crystal meth should remain within the auspices of the war on drugs and not be legalised? Your lack of response to this question implies I have crushed you already, which is record speed for me.

As flattered as I am at your suggestion that everyone on this thread is on tenterhooks waiting on my reasons for why crystal meth should remain illegal - after you took it upon yourself to speak on a bunch of stranger's behalfs - I think the reality is more likely to be that folk will be gathered round their computers, pointing and laughing at the screen at the daft c**t who is claiming it should be legalised.

I've already told you that it really should not have to be broken down and explained to you. If you can't wrap your head around it all by yourself then I don't imagine you have the common sense to understand any amount of reasons why it shouldn't be legal.

For all the use it's going to do you, here's a couple of reasons why it shouldn't be legalised to help you on your way:

Common Immediate Effects

Euphoria

Increased energy and alertness

Diarrhea and nausea

Excessive sweating

Loss of appetite, insomnia, tremors, jaw-clenching

Agitation, irritability, talkativeness, panic, compulsive fascination with repetitive tasks, violence, confusion

Increased libido

Increased blood pressure, body temperature, heart rate, blood sugar levels, bronchodilation

Constriction of the walls of the arterties

In pregnant and nursing women, methampetamine crosses the placenta and is secreted in breast milk

Effects Associated with Chronic Use

Tolerance (needing more of the drug to get the same effect)

Drug craving

Temporary weight loss

Withdrawal symptoms including depression and anhedonia

"Meth Mouth" where teeth rapidly decay and fall out

Drug-related psychosis (may last for months or years after drug use is discontinued)

But people will take it regardless of its legal status. Surely by controlling the drug, who makes it and what goes into it will help to keep people safer when they decide to take it, not to mention cut the profits made by the criminal gangs which currently produce the drug?

As Supras said, the most dangerous drugs are the ones that should be legalized first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So drugs should be banned because they can do bad stuff to you immediately? Oh noes!!

A bottle of whisky will kill you if you drink it in a oner. A bottle of bleach will do similar.

Crystal meth is possibly nasty. If it becomes legal is everyone going to rush out and buy some when they go for their roll and paper in the morning?

People should live and die by their own choices. Natural selection will take care of the feckless and stupid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMO governments should legislate to stop people doing harm to themselves and other.

Crystal Meth, Cocaine and Heroin, for me, have far too many adverse effects to be decriminalised, even if properly regulated.

Cannabis, ecstacy and other recreational drugs. Batter in, of fucking course they should be legal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But people are right when they say you shouldn't automatically be against drugs if you were subject to a bad experience, but it's only natural.

Like I've said weed really should be legal and there is no legitimate argument against it. Even people who claim that it triggers schizoaffective tendencies are no longer believing that pish anymore.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Pie & Bovril mobile app

And that's why education is important. If you have had a bad experience with drugs you should be supporting it, not against it. Think of a heroin addict saying "oh I really hope drugs aren't legalised. They're currently illegal and they've really ruined my life".

Heroin doesn't need to ruin anyone's life, it can demonstrably be administered safely.

As flattered as I am at your suggestion that everyone on this thread is on tenterhooks waiting on my reasons for why crystal meth should remain illegal - after you took it upon yourself to speak on a bunch of stranger's behalfs - I think the reality is more likely to be that folk will be gathered round their computers, pointing and laughing at the screen at the daft c**t who is claiming it should be legalised.

I've already told you that it really should not have to be broken down and explained to you. If you can't wrap your head around it all by yourself then I don't imagine you have the common sense to understand any amount of reasons why it shouldn't be legal.

For all the use it's going to do you, here's a couple of reasons why it shouldn't be legalised to help you on your way:

Common Immediate Effects

Euphoria

Increased energy and alertness

Diarrhea and nausea

Excessive sweating

Loss of appetite, insomnia, tremors, jaw-clenching

Agitation, irritability, talkativeness, panic, compulsive fascination with repetitive tasks, violence, confusion

Increased libido

Increased blood pressure, body temperature, heart rate, blood sugar levels, bronchodilation

Constriction of the walls of the arterties

In pregnant and nursing women, methampetamine crosses the placenta and is secreted in breast milk

Effects Associated with Chronic Use

Tolerance (needing more of the drug to get the same effect)

Drug craving

Temporary weight loss

Withdrawal symptoms including depression and anhedonia

"Meth Mouth" where teeth rapidly decay and fall out

Drug-related psychosis (may last for months or years after drug use is discontinued)

...except you are the only one on the thread who thinks it should be illegal.

The trouble is, none of these are arguments against legislation. Certainly not "increased libido" - now are you sure you've understood the question. Why don't you tell us exactly why the war on drugs is a superior policy to drug legalisation?

Crystal meth could be safely administered, it's negative effects monitored and controlled. And people can pay for the privelage to consume it in a safe environment. It is a drug that could, very easily, be made in huge quantities under strict regulations. It would never be advisable to take it, but so what? If you want to take it do so, you'll pay tax and the costs associated with it. There's no point criminalising people for consumption, or forcing them to take unsafe product.

Ironically, Crysal Meth is a prime example of the catastrophic failure of the War on Drugs, especially in the South West of the USA. It has destroyed communities and lives - and guess what, this is whilst it is very illegal. So clearly making it illegal doesn't prevent Crystal Meth harming people, so what exactly is the justification for making it illegal? Be extremely specific now.

So drugs should be banned because they can do bad stuff to you immediately? Oh noes!!

A bottle of whisky will kill you if you drink it in a oner. A bottle of bleach will do similar.

Crystal meth is possibly nasty. If it becomes legal is everyone going to rush out and buy some when they go for their roll and paper in the morning?

People should live and die by their own choices. Natural selection will take care of the feckless and stupid.

Exactly, if people want to harm themselves with crystal meth that's their prerogative. Why are we spending billions locking them up for the crime of voluntarily consuming a product?

Smoking and drinking excessively is perfectly legal, but given it would shorten my life span and harm my quality of life I don't do it. So the notion that if you make Crystal Meth legal all lawyers and accountants will start lighting up is, well, stupid.

Edited by Supras

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMO governments should legislate to stop people doing harm to themselves and other.

Crystal Meth, Cocaine and Heroin, for me, have far too many adverse effects to be decriminalised, even if properly regulated.

Cannabis, ecstacy and other recreational drugs. Batter in, of fucking course they should be legal.

Heroin can, very easily, be administered safety under controlled circumstances. There is an abundance of studies that show the best thing for heroin addicts, if they want to come off the drug, is regular (and eventually decreasing) doses of heroin. But still, there are examples of GPs for example taking heroin for years and still functioning perfectly well as GPs.

Cocaine too, if you know what you are doing and the product is safe, can be consumed for many years with minimal negative side effects. I don't know about Crystal Meth as much because I haven't done as much research on it, but pretty much anything would be preferable to the current system of criminalising users and forcing them to consume unsafe products.

This notion of "it's bad lets make it illegal" is popular, but doesn't stand up in either sense. Of course it's bad, but legalising it can make it a lot safer. Heroin is the best example of this, making it illegal and criminalising users has been a colossal failure, but there is an abundance of evidence that demonstrates beyond doubt it can be administered safely. So when on earth would we keep it illegal?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only argument I can see for keeping some drugs illegal is the argument that their decriminalisation would lead to much greater usage which would lead to greater harm than that which would be mitigated by decriminalisation.

It doesn't stand up to scrutiny on a moral/intellectual level, but I think it's the only possible justification.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where do you stand on seatbelts Supras. An infringement on liberty I'd imagine?

I think you are confusing me with Reynard here.

Of course I support seat belts, it's a very sensible policy. In that sense, it's the anathema to the war on drugs which is not sensible, achieves nothing, and is a colossal waste of money.

It's hard for me to debate against the war on drugs, when so few people are willing to put forward any arguments in favour of it? So far you've gone with the "drugs are bad, m'kay" and my above post demonstrates that a flawed argument. What more can I do?

Theoretically, if there was a Jekyll and Hyde drug that made you want to murder people, then of course it should be illegal and it should override any concerns of liberty. Such a drug is only a theoretical concept, it doesn't exist in reality. So what, exactly, are the arguments supporting the current policy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...