Mrs Moroccan Roll...?

Former Member

Kentish wrote:

1. Yes, marijuana use is costing the NHS money.
3. You can't tax cannabis if it's grown and used at home (nor can you assure quality).
6. Deaths through cannabis may be rare or nonexistent but that doesn't make cannabis harmless.

i've already said the government would raise enough money from taxes to pay for health costs and even though you question it, you must admit the costs would be covered, do you know many people who grow tobacco plants and make cigarettes, i don't, cannabis seeds are readily available but you need female seeds and it really is too much bother to grow, not many people are going to go out of their way to grow marijuana when you can nip down to the local coffee shop and buy 3 spliffs, know what i mean, again, lots of things are harmless, goes back to costs thing does it not.

Former Member

apollo_69 wrote:

like to supply us with some figures about the costs? it's difficult to quantify because it's not clear to identify it as the cause of mental health problems, if it was the papers wouold be all over it they love to demonise pot........if everyone started smoking weed tomorrow do you honestly think the hospitals would be flooded? hmm.....

No, I can't give you figures and as you rightly point out, it is difficult to identify cannabis as the cause of mental illness. The papers were "all over it" when the latest research was published. And I think an increase in cannabis consumption would lead to an increase in NHS spending on cannabis related illnesses.

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....

Who are you expecting to make this stuff? Which pharmaceutical or food companies are going to be manufacturing cannabis and which shops would sell it? It would be medicolegal suicide when all the compensation claims come flooding in 5 years down the line.

the problem of prohibition is not simply about people breaking the law, your argument is too simplistic........

That wasn't my argument. Are you being deliberately dense?

why couldn't the govt. illegalise booze and fags? it's not in the rulebooks afaik, where'd you get this idea?.......

Come on, it's hardly realistic to ban alcohol and tobacco.

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.........

Again, this isn't about the relative harm of each substance. Alcohol may well be responsible for 1000x more deaths than cannabis, but that in itself is not a good reason for legalising cannabis. It's like saying we should legalise murder because road traffic accidents kill more people.

Death is not the only measure of harm. I'd say having a stroke and living is worse than having a stroke and dying. So if you judge only by death, you ignore the suffering of those who have a disease but do not die from it - morbidity vs mortality.

Former Member

turlough wrote:

i've already said the government would raise enough money from taxes to pay for health costs and even though you question it, you must admit the costs would be covered, do you know many people who grow tobacco plants and make cigarettes, i don't, cannabis seeds are readily available but you need female seeds and it really is too much bother to grow, not many people are going to go out of their way to grow marijuana when you can nip down to the local coffee shop and buy 3 spliffs, know what i mean, again, lots of things are harmless, goes back to costs thing does it not.

Yeah, that may be true. But does that mean we should legalise all harmful substances as long as it is economically viable and creates a net profit to do so?

Former Member

Kentish wrote:

It's like saying we should legalise murder because road traffic accidents kill more people.

aye but murder is death, cannabis isn't

seriously though, every law that is ever made will have positive and negative effects, look at the fox hunting one, there'll be more foxes now, that means less (whatever foxes eat) in the case of cannabis i think you must agree that it's all about a lesser of two evils and the positives slightly outweigh the negatives, please agree so this thread will be executed.

Former Member

Kentish wrote:

Yeah, that may be true. But does that mean we should legalise all harmful substances as long as it is economically viable and creates a net profit to do so?

i thought we were talking about cannabis here?

Former Member

turlough wrote:

i thought we were talking about cannabis here?

We're talking about the principle of legalising something that is known to cause harm.

Former Member

turlough wrote:

please agree so this thread will be executed.

Suffice to say, it will be interesting to see how attitudes to cannabis develop. You never know, it may fall out of fashion in years to come and this debate would have been purely academic anyway. Or it may be legalised, refined and we could all be enjoying a genetically modified spliff together in 20 years time.

I do enjoy these discussions though.

Former Member

.

Former Member

Kentish wrote:

Here's a tip: read the thread before posting. :thumb:

Here's a tip: Say something when you post. :thumb:

Former Member

CptCoatHanger wrote:

Here's a tip: Say something when you post. :thumb:

:thumb:

Former Member

Kentish wrote:

I do enjoy these discussions though.

thesis antithesis counter thesis counter antithesis and so on and what are we talking about?

Former Member

Kentish wrote:

We're talking about the principle of legalising something that is known to cause harm.

And is causing even more harm because of it's prohibition through black market supply...

You've ignored a multidude of reasons to legalise, all of which stand up to scutiny, while your own arguments are either based on flimsy "associations" from medical journals or complete absurdities.

Epitome of a closed mind.

Former Member

Spliffie wrote:

Epitome of a closed mind.

Spliffie, I have anything but a closed mind. I've read your arguments and I've put forward counter arguments. That's how it goes. There's no need to get defensive.

Former Member

Kentish wrote:

Spliffie, I have anything but a closed mind. I've read your arguments and I've put forward counter arguments. That's how it goes. There's no need to get defensive.

Vote Conservative, do we? Just out of interest...

Former Member

Spliffie wrote:

Vote Conservative, do we? Just out of interest...

What was that about a closed mind?

(No)

Former Member

Kentish wrote:

What was that about a closed mind?

(No)

Seemed to remember you aspousing support for either the Tories or UKIP...

Could be wrong.

Former Member

Spliffie wrote:

Could be wrong.

You are.

Former Member

Kentish wrote:

You are.

Once in 31 pages - not bad :thumb: .

Former Member

Former Member

Kentish wrote:

Suffice to say, it will be interesting to see how attitudes to cannabis develop. You never know, it may fall out of fashion in years to come and this debate would have been purely academic anyway. Or it may be legalised, refined and we could all be enjoying a genetically modified spliff together in 20 years time.

I do enjoy these discussions though.

There will always be a large proportion of society who smoke cannabis...regardless of fashion...likewise with alcohol...

People's attitudes are changing, ignorance is less becoming less prevelent, the government has to come in line with that at some point...we've already seen re-classification to class c...hopefully progressive changes leading to decriminalisation are a case of when, not if.