Dope: Should it be legalised.

[Theben]

Originally posted by Ted Striker


You're first doper!

I'm gonna take a Whopper with extra cheese and smack you upside the head!!!

While your wang may have extra cheese (you should see a doctor about that) I'd hardly call it a whopper. And quit pointing it at me.

[Theben]

And weed should be legal. No public consumption, except in businesses that specifically cater to that crowd, and no 'operation of machinery' under the influence. And heavily taxed.

btw I don't think all drugs should be legal. Some are too dangerous. Crack or meth, FE. But we could make coca leaves legal. Preferably treated somehow to prevent their being made into cocaine.

[JimmyCracksCorn]

And heavily taxed.

Why? So the price will skyrocket? Don't kid yourself, if its taxed and gets too expensive, people will still continue to buy it illegally off the street. I know I would...

[Lawrence of Arabia]

Open to debate. While I am pro-cannabis, I have conceded that it is harmful to ones health. A good point nonetheless, though of course, I do not believe that smokers should be allowed to smoke in public.

Yeah, but public implies open to everybody, so it should be open to smoking. And if its illegal to smoke in public, does that mean that if I drive to a deserted highway and smoke there its illegal? So where is the limit then? How many people? What areas?

[Kuciwalker]

No one should be forced to inhale secondary smoke. It is in fact almost as bad wrt health risks as actually smoking. So shut the **** up and go smoke in your house.

[Oncle Boris]

Originally posted by skywalker
No one should be forced to inhale secondary smoke. It is in fact almost as bad wrt health risks as actually smoking. So shut the **** up and go smoke in your house.

And what about your SUV? You may as well shut the **** up and go drive it in your garage. The longer the better.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

[Drogue]

What about your SUV? They aren't harmful to passers buy to the extent that smoking is. Sure, they have a general pollutant effect, but little acute effect to a particular area.

I agree with Theben and skywalker

[Lawrence of Arabia]

Uh yeah they are. Just look at the general air quality of say LA.

[Drogue]

Yes, they damage the environment, and they cause pollution. However LA is the cumulative effect of a lot of cars. Cars serve an important purpose. Thousands of people die on the roads each year, but that is a price society is willing to pay for the use of our cars.

What is the use of smoking in a public place. You can do it privately just as effectively. Cars have a purpose, a use, and one that must be accomplished in public. Smoking's only use is pleasure, and it can be partaken in private or in public with the same effectiveness. It is incredibly selfish to force your smoke on others, whereby cars provide a positive to society that it has deemed more important than the negatives.

[Drogue]

Also, show me one credible study that has show that SUV drivers have a higher probability of getting lung cancer or any other serious disease. I doubt you could, certainly not in the way of smoking.

[Theben]

Why? So the price will skyrocket? Don't kid yourself, if its taxed and gets too expensive, people will still continue to buy it illegally off the street. I know I would...

Yeah they would, IF the total cost of the legal drug is more than the street. I figure that even taxed the companies& govt would insure the price is cheaper, and quality better. Sorry if I thought it didn't need explaining...

And what about your SUV? You may as well shut the **** up and go drive it in your garage. The longer the better.

A vechicle is necessary for modern convenience and work. Luxury items like drinking & smoking pot/tobacco are not. You can argue that one couls buy a more fuel efficient vechicle, but for drugs it's a lousy comparison.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
And what about your SUV? You may as well shut the **** up and go drive it in your garage. The longer the better.

My (nonexistant ) SUV isn't giving you lung cancer.

[Oncle Boris]

Originally posted by skywalker


My (nonexistant ) SUV isn't giving you lung cancer.

I was just poking fun at you anyway.

Still, the question remains: if it's OK to breathe your neighbor's lawnmower fumes, I don't think you should prevent someone from smoking weed in the street just because you might get a glimpse of the smoke.

When inside a building, it should the owner's decision.

[Kuciwalker]

Lawnmowers are useful and (sort of) necessary, and it can't be done inside. Not true for smoking.

[Oncle Boris]

Originally posted by skywalker
Lawnmowers are useful and (sort of) necessary, and it can't be done inside. Not true for smoking.

That would be assuming that it is necessary to have grass around your house... Or that it is useful to live in a suburb...

Seriously, you must come to the realization that we have to accept some sort of "danger"- as long as it is not too high. It has all come to a question of perception. And since drugs usually have a bad rep, everyone will jump in and ask for all kind of restrictions that would only be ridiculous when applied to other things, like:

-Restrict people to use their polluting cars only when they go to work
-Forbid the use of SUVs in the city, where they are not needed
-Forbid the use of plastic bags when you shop- you could as well carry with you one made of fabric
-We might as well close every polluting industry... because the definition of "usefulness" can be very broad and even dangerous.

I'm sure most would agree that smoking cigarettes outside is acceptable, and so should it be for weed or crack.

[Kuciwalker]

-Forbid the use of SUVs in the city, where they are not needed

People are supposed to buy another car, then, for driving in the city?

I'm sure most would agree that smoking cigarettes outside is acceptable, and so should it be for weed or crack.

No, they wouldn't. That sort of thing puts a lot of people at significant risk for lung cancer. It doens't hurt you to do it indoors only. It does hurt people to do those OTHER activities indoors. That's why they are allowed "in public".

[Theben]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
And since drugs usually have a bad rep, everyone will jump in and ask for all kind of restrictions that would only be ridiculous when applied to other things, like:

-Restrict people to use their polluting cars only when they go to work
-Forbid the use of SUVs in the city, where they are not needed
-Forbid the use of plastic bags when you shop- you could as well carry with you one made of fabric
-We might as well close every polluting industry... because the definition of "usefulness" can be very broad and even dangerous.

*ahem*

You can argue that one could buy a more fuel efficient vechicle, but for drugs it's a lousy comparison.

[niDe]

pack the cone.

light the cone.

smoke the cone.

weeeeeeeee

[Whaleboy]

From another thread, a draft of an article I have written on the matter that pretty much sums up my argument (I added the copyright later, it was originally intended to be posted up around college):

Should Cannabis remain Banned?

Introduction

One of the most pressing issues of our time centres around an innocuous looking green substance. Leaves of which, and other elements of its parent plant have been in use by humanity for thousands of years. The debate surrounding the legalisation of cannabis encompasses crime, punishment, health, logical legal consistency, issues of liberty and the individual.

Cannabis, to assume one of the many names for the leaves or the resin of the hemp plant can be smoked, inhaled or eaten to give the much talked-about “stoned” feeling. It has been illegal in Britain since 1928, but is consumed by a huge proportion of the population, a large number of whom, particularly the younger generations use it as a matter of routine, in the same manner as tobacco and alcohol. This article will attempt to show why it should no longer remain a crime to use this substance. It will take a very simple structure, the two opposing views and a final conclusion.

For a ban

Health
The strongest element of the argument that cannabis should remain contraband is the health problems that can be caused by its use. This includes a magnification of the effects of smoking, in terms of risk of cancer and heart disease, and also addiction. Though a recent (and highly flawed) study involving monkeys given the choice to inject themselves with cannabis resin showed that it could be physically addictive, that matter is still very much under dispute and cannabis is not generally regarded as a highly addictive substance like some class A drugs. However, there is a strong case for it being psychologically addictive, where people become reliant upon it. On balance, it is clear given current knowledge that cannabis is harmful to ones health. One must also consider the significant cost to the National Health Service of treating those suffering from cannabis-related conditions, acting as a drain on society.

Crime
Another problem is the link between cannabis and harder drugs. Through a system of middlemen, called “dealers”, members of the public can with relative ease and for a cheap sum, obtain cannabis, yet this can often lead to harder, more severe, addictive and unhealthy drugs, like heroin or cocaine. It has sometimes been the case for dealers to lace marijuana cigarettes with harder drugs in order to have more of an effect or get people addicted, a point from which they can move on to more profitable drugs. This leads to various social problems, not least to addicts throwing away an often promising life for the sake of their next high, resorting to a life of crime in some cases to fund the habit. There are a few disturbing cases of people suffering serious harm or even death due to use of these heavier drugs, after having started on cannabis. There is also the concurrent problem of organised crime providing drugs of all descriptions. In this sense, cannabis is regarded as a “gateway drug” and keeping it illegal is meant to suppress this route to more harmful substances. Such a notion is the cause of arguments blaming cannabis for the various ills caused by harder drugs such as heroin.

Annoyance of Others
A further argument for the banning of cannabis is one that is often extended to smokers. General public annoyance. The term “passive smoking” is often used here, and is where non-smokers are obliged to breathe in another's smoke by being in the same area, a public building for example. This can cause significant irritation and health risks associated too. Extending from this is the problem of “stoners”; those who use cannabis and are subject to its relaxing and abstract effects. It has been argued that these people are harming the economy (such comments as “typical students” being symptomatic), and their escapism, whether or not that is a motivation, is said to be a waste of their time.

Refutation and Argument Against a Ban

Harder Drugs
The argument against the ban requires a refutation of the points above. Firstly, the connection between cannabis and harder drugs. The previous argument relies on the assumption that following, cannabis will still be primarily obtained through dealers, who would be inclined to move their customers onto harder drugs. This is somewhat implausible as legitimately obtained marijuana would be cheaper due to lawful manufacture and lower costs. It would also be of higher quality than illegal cannabis, which is often contaminated by various substances, including harder drugs. Naturally, it would be far easier to obtain, presumably in the same manner one buys tobacco now. As a result of this simple economic situation, the drug dealers would be driven out of business. The degree to which this occurs, of course, is reliant on the nature of the law on cannabis. In Belgium, you are allowed five grammes of cannabis in your possession. Drug dealers are still able to operate there by providing a greater quantity, which would not occur if the legalisation of cannabis in Belgium was more complete.

Ironic
Far from being an argument for the ban on cannabis, the fact that legalisation would shatter the link between cannabis and harder drugs is a thoroughly good justification for it! It is surely a good thing for society to be rid of the scourge of drug dealers and those that prey on vulnerable people, often resulting in them using genuinely harmful substances for no perceptible reward.

In one unfortunate case, a young woman was reduced to a coma, forcing her child to be born, which died soon after birth, undoubtedly causing the suicide of her partner thereafter. Her situation was caused by a heroin overdose, yet this case has been used to argue for a continuation of ban on cannabis. Put simply, blaming cannabis for this woman's accident with heroin is like blaming the Wright brothers for 9/11! It is a tenuous, indirect, fallacious link, an easy target no doubt. It is heroin and the supplier of that drug that must be blamed, as well as the victim for injecting it into herself.

Inconsistent?
Another argument is the annoyance of non-smokers caused by cannabis users. However, this is also a problem with tobacco, and its associated health concerns, yet tobacco is legal. There is a movement to ban tobacco from public places in order to protect the masses from second-hand smoke, yet it would still be permitted in ones home, or private property. There is no discernible distinction between cannabis and tobacco in this manner, so the aforementioned point fails to assist the anti-cannabis argument.

As for the annoyance of the general public caused by people under the influence of cannabis, one can use the argument of individuality, where one should be allowed to behave, appear and speak as one pleases, providing one is not violent, threatening, or otherwise breaking the law. Also, such annoyance is often caused by those under the influence of alcohol, yet alcohol is very much legal.

Indeed, those who are drunk often become violent, whereas with marijuana, that is rarely the case, instead stimulating creativity, artistic expression and a peaceful demeanour. It is difficult to see how this can be seen to be a negative quality, though the idealistic state of mind has historically caused dissatisfaction with the “big picture” of life, spawning liberal political and philosophical action. This, in the authors opinion, threatens the establishment and those who support it, and cannabis is an easy scapegoat. Indeed, one must also consider the great philosophers, artists, writers and musicians in recent and former history that have been aided by cannabis.

We see here aspects of the question of cannabis that are almost identical to alcohol and tobacco respectively. It seems a logical and legal inconsistency to have one illegal where others are not, where there are no apparent palpable differences in the issues around them. The author will surely be forgiven for not understanding the reason for this inconsistency, where little or no reason is given for it. It is down to the pro-ban camp to differentiate between these drugs, and thus far they have failed to provide a sufficient reason. It usually boils down to a question of physical health, a matter that is woefully inadequate to support their position.

Health issues
The health problems associated with marijuana cannot be denied. The usage of the drug can harm ones health and mental state, particularly in regular large quantities. However, it is not an entirely damaging drug, as medical evidence has shown it to be useful in the relief of those suffering from such conditions as multiple sclerosis and arthritis, to name but a few. As shall be considered later in this article, the consideration of an individuals health is surely best left to that individual, and not for a “nanny-state” to dictate what one is to do. Indeed, the drug has been used for so long in history that it is possible to infer that it cannot be entirely damaging, the harsh world of our prehistoric ancestors would have quickly abandoned such a harmful luxury.

Considering the point of the cost to society of the health problems associated with cannabis, one can presume with some justification that were the drug to be legalised, it would be taxed to a similar degree as tobacco. The revenue generated by this taxation, assuming the high numbers of people already using it illegally would continue, and grow, can be measured in billions of pounds, easily paying for the cost to the NHS, and providing a welcome boost to the governments income. This money would be diverted to schools, hospitals, the police, or the national transport system that so sorely needs investment.

Freedom of the Individual
The most powerful argument against the ban on cannabis is that of a powerful political and ethical philosophy called libertarianism (from liberty). The term is used somewhat generically here, it covers a great range of different ideologies which fit and conflict with others, but put simply, the basic premise is that the individual should be given as much freedom as practicable. It follows that a person is best able to take decisions regarding ones own life, including matters of ones health and harm, rather than have them made for them by a government or authority.

Since the latter tend to be large institutions, they cannot consider the needs of each individual as a single person can for themselves, so it follows that as many decisions as possible regarding a person should be left to that person. This is especially so where those decisions have a limited effect on others around them, for example, matters concerning ones own body, freedom of expression, view or association.


Falling very much within these categories is marijuana. Let us also consider that each individual will have their own mitigating circumstances for using a particular substance, which can only be considered by that individual and those they know on a personal basis. To use a simple metaphor, the decision is something of a set of scales. On one side is the reason against, perhaps damage to health, and the cost of the drug. On the other may be personal factors that are perfectly valid, a desire for relaxation, escapism, pleasure, or relief of physical and mental pain.

It is therefore best placed for the individual to decide whether or not to use cannabis, based on the information one is provided, it should be considered the same as a person deciding to smoke tobacco for whatever reason, or drinking alcohol. In terms of freedom of expression, one can consider it of benefit to the individual and to society for an artist or those of an expressive profession to use marijuana when one believes it will benefit the work. While not necessarily encouraged, this must surely be accepted as part of an individuals basic right to express themselves.

Conclusion

This is not a clear cut argument. There are valid arguments for both views. However, based on the balance of evidence seen here, one can say that based on issues of crime, liberty and economics, it is irrational to maintain this present ban on cannabis, though a level of control similar to that of tobacco is required to regulate and tax the drug. The argument of health will not go away, though it is reasonably argued that this is a matter for the individual to decide, not have decided for them.

N.B. I cannot actively support here the illegal use of cannabis, nor encourage individuals to break the law. While I will not condemn anyone for breaking an unjust law, those that believe in this issue should make arguments for their view, protest, distribute articles such as this and keep the issue in the public view. Such is the nature of democracy that this should affect the change in the law that is clearly desirable. This article may be distributed freely and without limitation. The author has chosen to remain anonymous for my own protection against the college authorities that may wish to suppress my views.

[niDe]

That sure is a lot to read.

[Whaleboy]

Best get started then

[niDe]

Best gimme the jist.

[Whaleboy]

There is a case for both sides of the argument, but the weight of evidence leads to the conclusion that cannabis should be legalised.

[niDe]

wicked. i'm down with that. now you could of posted that initially hmm?

[Whaleboy]

Yes, but people may want to know the premises for my argument. If not, they can just skip to the conclusion.

I'm getting half an ounce of skunk for £20 on monday, and looaaddss for my birthday on the 1st! Whaleboy is a happy chap.

[niDe]

eh cool. I've been without for about 3 weeks now, went on holiday and all. might try get some more....although i brought 3 bottles of jamesons whiskey and 25 cuban cigars duty free...so maybe those will keep me happy for a while.

plus i need to build a new bong.

[Whaleboy]

Impressive! I only do spliffs and blunts, but I'm toying with the idea of a pipe.

Does anyone here grow it? I did back in the summer and it was... ok, but not great. Good stuff, just not lots of it, though made a surreal afternoon with Drogue and nihilism.

[niDe]

I grew some once, plant got about 10cm tall, I got worried my mum would find it, so got rid of it...might try again though

[Whaleboy]

Get hemp seeds from a pet shop. I won't tell you how to grow the stuff because germination is illegal in Britain and would get me in trouble if I told you how to do it. *Whaleboy resorts back to lower school plant biology*...