Should we legalise cannabis?

[Zero]

Now why would I say No to this question?

[Zero]

Originally posted by monolith94
Never had a coke in your life???

no, not the kind ur asking.. I dont drink pepsi either. Now, where my bro zylka at when u need him?

[Berzerker]

However sky, I should respond to this:

I usually only have 1 can. It's like saying that my dad, who MAY have beer every other month at some business function or whatever, is an alcoholic.

Most drug users aren't addicts, i.e., the ~equivelant of the alcoholic.

[Sava]

I agree Berz, I use pot maybe a dozen times a year.

[Skanky Burns]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
you know that smoking weed is worse than tobacco?

most tobacco products have filters and stuff

weed does not

Jon Miller

Marijuana is illegal, therefore there are not companies that produce filters for them.

Tobacco that people roll for themselves also don't have a filter.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Dissident
Cutting out the demand is how you eliminate the supply.

Exactly, that's why I am for legalising - put the money elsewhere such as education.

Clearly, Driving under influence and such should still be a crime, but not selling, buying, and possessing.

[Berzerker]

Tobacco that people roll for themselves also don't have a filter.

And then there's chewing tobacco and all that mouth cancer, ugh.

[Kuciwalker]

Personally, I think it'd be cool to gene-engineer a virus that would be uber-fatal to, say cannabis or tobacco, etc. No more supply problems AT ALL

[Berzerker]

Paraphrasing Thomas Jefferson, one can do no more good for civilisation than introduce a new plant of value. Like it or not, hemp and tobacco have provided millions of people pleasure and capital for a long time. But you'd do the opposite?

[Cruddy]

Originally posted by elijah
Albert: No-one is denying that legalisation will increase usage, and that there are health risks associated with the happy leaf.

The Dutch would. They didn't legalise, just created tolerance zones. NOT that Holland doesn't have drug related problems (usually foreigners who come in for the "easier" drugs scene). As for the health risks, I still haven't seen any evidence of a death caused by cannabis.

Originally posted by elijah
Growing cannabis is harder than fermenting alcohol (how was I supposed to know that plants need water ), and if one was to get it from other sources, it would soon be far more expensive than legit sources.

Then how do you explain the massive amounts of tobacco smuggling into the UK? Most organised gangs don't do this because it's easier than smuggling dope - they do it because it's more profitable. So much for the "high tax will beat the dealers" argument.

Originally posted by elijah
Legalising, from societies point of view, would eliminate much of the dealer problem, and make those that remain easier to detect due to the supply and demand of those harder drugs, and provide a valuable source of tax revenue, which could easily cover the potential health costs in national health systems.

Very doubtful. The tax generated on alcohol and tobacco doesn't cover the problems those substances generate.

[Jac de Molay]

Originally posted by Sava
That's true, but I know a few potheads who smoke quite a bit.

skywalker: do you drink alcoholic beverages? or coffee? should they be illegal as well?

the simple fact is, abuse of anything, whether it's pot, coke, heroine, coffee, fast food, porn, bad language, altoids is bad...

Then what role, if any, does the government ultimately have in deciding what's good and bad? Should the FDA be abolished? I think just because something is relatively less harmful than something else doesn't automatically qualify if for legalization. Prozac is less harmful than alcohol- should it be sold over the counter?

Very doubtful. The tax generated on alcohol and tobacco doesn't cover the problems those substances generate.

I agree with you completely on the whole "tax it and save the world" bit. Both alcohol and tobacco are taxed heavily in the US, and next to nothing has been done to address the massive health and safety problems they create. Let's have more of the same eh?

[MRT144]

Originally posted by Sava
I agree Berz, I use pot maybe a dozen times a year.

that makes two of us. would i consumer more if it were legal? no. i prefer being sober and being able to be active to being stoned. although there are a few days a year where youre very stressed out and sometimes you need an 8th...

[Whaleboy]

One can be stoned on a spliff (weed+tobacco) for a day or two, depending on metabolism, strength of weed, tolerance etc etc. On a pure blunt, we're talking an effect lasting 4-5 days, perhaps up to a week. Its not addictive either, so one can fully control it.

A dozen times a year is perhaps average, which is equivalent to about 120 cigarettes, which is rougly equivalent in terms of health, to a cigarette every 3 days.

This of course, does not include anything related to the health benefits, but be that as it may, I don't see why the health issue should have anything to do with legalisation, as long as its in ones own home or private premises. Its the individuals choice, and the tax generated by sales could easily cover the healthcare costs in national health services like the UK.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Jac de Molay
I agree with you completely on the whole "tax it and save the world" bit. Both alcohol and tobacco are taxed heavily in the US, and next to nothing has been done to address the massive health and safety problems they create. Let's have more of the same eh?

Maybe because the money goes to the *cough* drug war *cough*?

[Berzerker]

JdeM -

Then what role, if any, does the government ultimately have in deciding what's good and bad?

It can have a role (once the Constitution is amended to give it a role), but it shouldn't be able to compel us to accept what is called "good" and reject what is called "bad". Product information only...

Should the FDA be abolished?

It's policing powers should be limited to interstate fraud and product mis-representations in accordance with the Constitution, not deciding what we can or cannot consume.

I think just because something is relatively less harmful than something else doesn't automatically qualify if for legalization.

It's called hypocrisy, the sin condemned most often by Jesus.
Banning the less harmful and maintaining the legality of the more harmful negates ALL health related arguments wrt pot prohibition. How should a rational person view the following argument? "Ban pot because it's harmful, but don't ban alcohol and tobacco!" See? Kinda pathetic...

Prozac is less harmful than alcohol- should it be sold over the counter?

Yup.

I agree with you completely on the whole "tax it and save the world" bit. Both alcohol and tobacco are taxed heavily in the US, and next to nothing has been done to address the massive health and safety problems they create. Let's have more of the same eh?

First, legalising drugs would only reduce health care costs, not increase them. Much of the crime and violence in this country is a result of prohibition, and there is no evidence prohibition has reduced consumption. If anything, drugs are used much more widely than 100 years ago when they were legal. Second, the same people mis-appropriating our money wrt to your concern now are running prohibition. So maybe you answered your own question. And third, if the taxes collected ostensibly for health related matters involved with alcohol and tobacco use aren't being used for that purpose, it's probably going to education and other programs.

UR -

Maybe because the money goes to the *cough* drug war *cough*?