If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
But we're talking about the most popular drug in the Western World...with millions upon millions of smokers, some of whom consider themselves devoted to the plant...effects which are wide-ranging and hugely enjoyable...you have an entire culture surrounding the plant...a huge economy...and it's unique.
I hardly think Sudan 1 Food Dye can really compete, can it?
No body, country, court, government or organisation should ever have the right to tell people what they can or cannot do with their own bodies.
End of.
You just keep on going round in circles.
We've already established the difference between acts which harm others and acts which harm no-one but potentially the individual.
We're talking about legalising a soft drug - not bringing down the rule of law :rolleyes: .
Do you not think someone could derive pleasure from eating food coloured with Sudan 1. Just because you don't find it pleasurable and don't see the need to have it in your food is no reason to ban it for others, is it?
Out of interest, do you disagree with seat belt legislation?
Don't think I'm saying that smoking cannabis isn't pleasurable, or that cannabis isn't widely consumed, or that it is more harmful than other legally available substances. I just don't think those arguments are good enough.
How about detention under the Mental Health Act?
Yes, it is.
Well not really...if i want to get stoned and watch a film then i can't snort some coke as a substitute. There is nothing as a substitute. If i've got a week of nothing to do, I'll get wasted everyday and have a very good time...there's nothing else which can serve as a substitute. The experience of smoking cannabis is an activity in itself, which is all consuming...it's not just a case of getting stoned to "pass some time".
Well if Sudan 1 had good, worthwhile recreational effects, seeing how low the risk supposedly is, i'd give it a go. But considering the fact that, in reality, it's a dye with no purpose than cannot be served by something else safer, I don't really see how anyone could honestly derive pleasure from its consumption. But if some lunatic was to aquire a taste for it, i don't see any reason for the law to intervene...
Fine, as long as we're clear that you disagree with allowing every potentially harmful substance to be consumed according to demand.
I wonder what your thoughts on asbestos are?
You've never experienced it, so you can't really comment...
Hallucinogens are a distinct category of substances...completely different to alcohol, cocaine, speed, caffeine, whatever...there is a niche for their use in society that can't be replaced, and cannabis dominates that niche.
Only a buffoon would make such a comparison.
Don't you realise the absurdity?
How does a thread about cannabis legalisation become a debate over whether people should be allowed to expose themselves to asbestos as recreation?
You're raving shit.
Seems somebody is intent on ignoring the fact that millions have been smoking cannabis for thousands of years without any significant health factor noted.
No really, if it was a hazardous as asbestos, we'd have hospitals full of people with cannabis psychosis, or whatever diagnosis some dodgy shrink comes up with. And we haven't.
Not even proof that a higher level of cannabis smoking amongst mentally ill people is causal rather than symptomatic.
Kentish, you seem to have an irrational antipathy to cannabis that simply isn't backed up by the facts.
Substance X exists and is illegal.
The government thinks that substance X is harmful.
Person Y would like to consume substance X.
Should person Y be allowed to consume substance X?
As long as you view tobacco and alcohol as both legally and morally acceptable substances then you absolutely have to agree with the legalisation of cannabis. There is no argument that I’ve heard that proves marijuana is an exceptional substance. I hate paraphrasing, but the “nanny state” just simply goes too far on this occasion. Protecting people from other people is fine; making decisions for people, about them, is morally repugnant.
Apart from anything else once you’ve made the drug nice and taxable you can start making up for cash deficits in other areas. Legalising marijuana makes legal, financial and common sense.
Except that there isn't evidence to show that its as harmful as asbestos.
kentish, how would you like it if tomorrow the government decided that booze and fags were too dangerous and made them illegal (which you couldn't really argue with seeing as there are more deaths and related illnesses than from pot)..........you'd prolly stand up in arms about human rights, as would half the country..........the fact is cannabis is overhyped, it's a fairly ordinary drug, which you would know if you tried it.........it's so widely consumed that it's availability simply eliminates any potential reason for prohibition, same would happen if you banned booze and fags..........can you not see this? forget the health reasons, after decades isn't it clear that prohibition isn't working? shouldn't we look to another solution?.......................
the simple fact is there's one law for cannabis, and another for more harmful drugs like alcohol and fags.......there is no conclusive research to support this stance is there, just admit it..............cannabis is demonised, do you really think it's more dangerous than booze and fags and if not why can't you see the hypocrisy? it's slapping you in the face.......
so a few crims poison a few young folk with diesel and goat shit...big deal.
my vote goes to organised crime ...fuck the health issues.
(Where did I say I'd never tried cannabis?) Legalisation is only a "solution" to the problem of prohibition because, by definition, it removes the problem.
Substance B kills 50 people per year.
Substance C kills 1 person per year.
Substances A and B are legal, Substance C is illegal.
Should we legalise substance C?
Like i said before, i don't think you realise how widespread cannabis use is despite prohibition..........are you saying marijuana use is costing the NHS a lot of money now? that's bollocks it would be all over the news.......and it has been said umpteenth times but the tax off pot would automatically pay for healthcare and then some..........there goes that point.
so are you saying the govt. approves of fags and booze, are they saying it is safe to consume? no they are saying, we can't stop you, so go ahead.......how is pot any different?........there goes that point.
ok that's an assumption on my part, have you? ever been a heavy/long-time user? thought not, or you wouldn't have such unfounded opinions........
no argument from me there, look at holland and canada..... :thumb:
this just proves your ignorance and inability to read what others have already said i'm afraid, there are NO proven deaths from cannabis, in thousands of years, 0.......there goes that point...........anything else? c'mon kentish the cotton wool has been pulled over your eyes..........0 recorded deaths in thie history of mankind, doesn't that suggest it is in fact one of THE safest drugs on the planet?.......more people die from aspirin, peanuts, even playing football ffs......
ps Replace "kills" with "harms" for substances A.B and C and maybe you will get over the "but this is worse than that" thing that seems to be a limitation of your argument.
1. Yes, marijuana use is costing the NHS money.
2. You never hear of it because it's difficult to quantify and mental health isn't sexy enough for the tabloids.
3. You can't tax cannabis if it's grown and used at home (nor can you assure quality).
4. The govt doesn't "approve" of alcohol or tobacco but there's nowt they can do about it, legislatively. Legalising a currently illegal substance is entirely different.
5. Legalising a substance will solve the problem of people breaking the law (doesn't take a genius to work that out).
6. Deaths through cannabis may be rare or nonexistent but that doesn't make cannabis harmless.
pot is grown at home and used now, but if it was legal this would only be for personal use really (any objection to that?), as i'm more likely to go down boots and buy some prime weed than off some homegrower.......so they could tax most of it, right now they are giving all the money to criminals, doesn't make a lot of sense if you're trying to fight crime does it....
the problem of prohibition is not simply about people breaking the law, your argument is too simplistic........
why couldn't the govt. illegalise booze and fags? it's not in the rulebooks afaik, where'd you get this idea?.......
i'd say deaths are a fairly relevant way to measure how harmful a drug is wouldn't you?.....tell me how do they measure the relative harm of booze and fags? deaths is definitely right up there.........
the most sensible and truthful post yet, i can garauntee you kent if you smoked one joint (i know you won't but hypothetically speaking) you would understand the crap you're talking, but at least it's intelligent crap, unlike luke's typical "you're all scumbags, you're all going to die when you'r 25", yes morrocan roll, you died 25 years ago.