Should Cannabis be legalised?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Should Cannabis be legalised?
Have just watched the BBC Lunchtime news which gives the impression that everyone in the UK has smoked cannabis and would be favour of it's legalisation.
I find I am getting more and more angry with the media who seem to be presenting more and more biased views on current affairs.
Let me say straight away that as the father of two teenagers there is no way that I would support legalisation (other than for medical use) and I am getting rather fed up with the law enforcement agencies pontificating on what they think the policy should be!
You might say what has this got to do with flying? Well if it's legalised what will the law be with respect to pilots and use of cannabis?
I would be interested to hear all views!
------------------
I find I am getting more and more angry with the media who seem to be presenting more and more biased views on current affairs.
Let me say straight away that as the father of two teenagers there is no way that I would support legalisation (other than for medical use) and I am getting rather fed up with the law enforcement agencies pontificating on what they think the policy should be!
You might say what has this got to do with flying? Well if it's legalised what will the law be with respect to pilots and use of cannabis?
I would be interested to hear all views!
------------------
Guest
Posts: n/a
Yes, IMHO I think it should be legalised. The prisons in the USA and elsewhere in the world are clogged with minor drug offenders which serves no useful purpose.
Let's release the already stretched resources of law enforcement to deal with more important issues.
Then the silly people who want to befuddle their brains can be subject to similar laws which regulate alcohol.
Just cause it's legal doesn't mean it is compulsory to participate.
Let's release the already stretched resources of law enforcement to deal with more important issues.
Then the silly people who want to befuddle their brains can be subject to similar laws which regulate alcohol.
Just cause it's legal doesn't mean it is compulsory to participate.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Fireflybob,indeed not everyone in the UK has smoked cannabis or is in favour of its legalisation. However its use has been prevalent for at least three decades. Nearly everyone under fifty who gets out a bit, surely including yourself and your teenagers has been 'exposed to cannabis' haven't they? Quite normal people, that you know, have used it and don't take kindly to being branded as criminals or a danger to society. Most of the rest can see that their user acquaintances are not worse people than those who like a social drink.
Cannabis does affect judgement and coordination to some degree. Cannabis and flying? They don't mix.
Cannabis does affect judgement and coordination to some degree. Cannabis and flying? They don't mix.
Guest
Posts: n/a
"Just cause it's legal doesn't mean it is compulsory to participate."
That's true but surely the force of law is yet another reason not to participate. I just feel that making it a legal activity will send out the wrong message to a lot of young people (my kids included) that it's ok to smoke pot!
------------------
That's true but surely the force of law is yet another reason not to participate. I just feel that making it a legal activity will send out the wrong message to a lot of young people (my kids included) that it's ok to smoke pot!
------------------
Guest
Posts: n/a
Agree with Oleo. Make it legal, doubt it can be worse that cigarettes/alcohol from a health standpoint. Put an age limit on it and some information about possible risks.
People who is intent on self destruction will do it anyway with any means, legal or not.
What should really be taken off the streets is guns. They always seem to end up in the hands of mental ill people and teenagers out to kill their school mates.
Make love not war.......
------------------
Men, this is no drill...
People who is intent on self destruction will do it anyway with any means, legal or not.
What should really be taken off the streets is guns. They always seem to end up in the hands of mental ill people and teenagers out to kill their school mates.
Make love not war.......
------------------
Men, this is no drill...
Guest
Posts: n/a
"do you consider cannabis to be different (for any reason other than that it is presently illegal) from alcohol, nicotine, pro-plus or caffeine?"
Lawyerboy, I realise that there is an arguement that says that, in principal, cannabis is no different from alcohol, etc. (other then it's currently outside the law) but what I am saying, as a parent, is that I am not at all happy with my children being given an implied message that it's ok to smoke cannabis. Much of the information says that there are considerable risks. I also don't want my children getting involved with the wrong peer group which may lead onto other more "serious" drugs.
I know that there is a lobby for legalisation but I for one am not at all happy with it.
Why have the members of the shadow cabinet who have admitted use of cannabis in their younger days not stated publicly that this was wrong (at least it was illegal) and that they do not approve?
------------------
Lawyerboy, I realise that there is an arguement that says that, in principal, cannabis is no different from alcohol, etc. (other then it's currently outside the law) but what I am saying, as a parent, is that I am not at all happy with my children being given an implied message that it's ok to smoke cannabis. Much of the information says that there are considerable risks. I also don't want my children getting involved with the wrong peer group which may lead onto other more "serious" drugs.
I know that there is a lobby for legalisation but I for one am not at all happy with it.
Why have the members of the shadow cabinet who have admitted use of cannabis in their younger days not stated publicly that this was wrong (at least it was illegal) and that they do not approve?
------------------
Guest
Posts: n/a
There are a number of arguments for the legalisation (or, rather more accurately, the decriminalisation) of cannabis, and I'm sure you've heard most of them before.
The most obvious - and most oft used - is that cannabis is no more harmful to you than smoking too many cigarettes, having 10 espressos in a row or having ten pints in the Hogshead on a Friday night. The counterargument is that, in fact, there is evidence that it does nasty things to you: smoke it neat (i.e. without tobacco), or smoke a particularly well refined bit of the dark stuff and you might hallucinate, or it can lead to short term amnesia, buggers up your brain cells and so on. But then is it worse - we know it has an effect - than the other so far legal drugs which we take with barely a thought for the effects?
Other arguments (and to my mind far more powerful ones) include:
(1) Laws are effectively social engineering; laws are passed because we, as a society, have determined that a certain course of action is detrimental to society as a whole, and therefore needs to be legislated against. Cannabis use falls under this heading, presumably. But because laws are effectively social engineering they are only really enforceable if society - as a whole - agrees with them. It appears that this day and age very few people do in fact agree that cannabis should be an illegal substance. The police will very often let you off with a good telling off if cannabis is found on you, at worst they will issue a caution. Rarely, if ever, will you be prosecuted and those rare occasions which have led to prosecutions have often failed (in respect of pure possession, at least) because juries have refused to convict. There is also the argument that to force prosecutions to go ahead will lead to a whole section of society (a particularly large one) suddenly receiving criminal records where previously they were perfectly law abiding.
(2) It is said that cannabis use leads onto more serious, harder drug use. So far, there is not one hard shred of evidence that that is in fact the case, but - for the sake of argument - let us assume that it does. Predominantly, this is because as things stand in order to obtain cannabis you come into contact with fairly shady characters. You feel like you're doing something dangerous, something slightly naughty, and you're psychologically more prepared than you otherwise would be to try other things. Those who smoke cigarettes - highly addictive - do not necessarily immediately go off and buy a kilo of heroin. Why not? Those who smoke cannabis - not at all addictive - according to this theory do. Why? Remove the element of illicitness, start charging tax on a packet of 20 Cannabis, and you would find that there is no longer such an obvious progression. In fact you would find the opposite; at present cannabis is an illicit substance, a banned drug. So is cocaine, so is heroin. All one big happy family. Cigarettes - which to my mind are far worse for you - are perfectly OK, therefore one does not lead to the other. Decriminalise cannabis so that it is no longer associated with hard drugs and you would find - as with cigarettes - that there is no longer such an obvious connection between the two.
My point is simply that cannabis is
1. no worse for you than other, presently legal and accepted drugs;
2. was made illegal simply because it was found later than tobacco (ever asked yourself what would have happened had cannabis been found first and tobacco second?);
3. is, whether you like it or not, actually accepted by society, and no longer capable of control by criminal enforcement;
4. has never been proved to have led either to serious injury, death or criminal activities.
Why is it banned?
The most obvious - and most oft used - is that cannabis is no more harmful to you than smoking too many cigarettes, having 10 espressos in a row or having ten pints in the Hogshead on a Friday night. The counterargument is that, in fact, there is evidence that it does nasty things to you: smoke it neat (i.e. without tobacco), or smoke a particularly well refined bit of the dark stuff and you might hallucinate, or it can lead to short term amnesia, buggers up your brain cells and so on. But then is it worse - we know it has an effect - than the other so far legal drugs which we take with barely a thought for the effects?
Other arguments (and to my mind far more powerful ones) include:
(1) Laws are effectively social engineering; laws are passed because we, as a society, have determined that a certain course of action is detrimental to society as a whole, and therefore needs to be legislated against. Cannabis use falls under this heading, presumably. But because laws are effectively social engineering they are only really enforceable if society - as a whole - agrees with them. It appears that this day and age very few people do in fact agree that cannabis should be an illegal substance. The police will very often let you off with a good telling off if cannabis is found on you, at worst they will issue a caution. Rarely, if ever, will you be prosecuted and those rare occasions which have led to prosecutions have often failed (in respect of pure possession, at least) because juries have refused to convict. There is also the argument that to force prosecutions to go ahead will lead to a whole section of society (a particularly large one) suddenly receiving criminal records where previously they were perfectly law abiding.
(2) It is said that cannabis use leads onto more serious, harder drug use. So far, there is not one hard shred of evidence that that is in fact the case, but - for the sake of argument - let us assume that it does. Predominantly, this is because as things stand in order to obtain cannabis you come into contact with fairly shady characters. You feel like you're doing something dangerous, something slightly naughty, and you're psychologically more prepared than you otherwise would be to try other things. Those who smoke cigarettes - highly addictive - do not necessarily immediately go off and buy a kilo of heroin. Why not? Those who smoke cannabis - not at all addictive - according to this theory do. Why? Remove the element of illicitness, start charging tax on a packet of 20 Cannabis, and you would find that there is no longer such an obvious progression. In fact you would find the opposite; at present cannabis is an illicit substance, a banned drug. So is cocaine, so is heroin. All one big happy family. Cigarettes - which to my mind are far worse for you - are perfectly OK, therefore one does not lead to the other. Decriminalise cannabis so that it is no longer associated with hard drugs and you would find - as with cigarettes - that there is no longer such an obvious connection between the two.
My point is simply that cannabis is
1. no worse for you than other, presently legal and accepted drugs;
2. was made illegal simply because it was found later than tobacco (ever asked yourself what would have happened had cannabis been found first and tobacco second?);
3. is, whether you like it or not, actually accepted by society, and no longer capable of control by criminal enforcement;
4. has never been proved to have led either to serious injury, death or criminal activities.
Why is it banned?
Guest
Posts: n/a
There was a good bit on the BBC morning show (ex news), about 8.45 11th Oct with 2 doctors of different opinions.
Doc A was one involved in Cannabis trials for MS relief
1 - We do not use cannabis itself; only tablets containing a number if its active components.
2 - Smoked cannabis has more tar than tobacco.
3 - there are measurable reaction time penalties 2 days after smoking cannabis.
Doc B was a GP used as 'resident expert'
1 - I see no patients with lung diseases who only smoke cannabis.
2 - I also see patients with alcohol related problems.
3 - Apart from a few psycoses I see no patients with cannabis related problems.
Unfortunately item was too short for too many more arguments.
Given known severe health problems linked with tobacco, if it was discovered today would it be legalised??
Doc A was one involved in Cannabis trials for MS relief
1 - We do not use cannabis itself; only tablets containing a number if its active components.
2 - Smoked cannabis has more tar than tobacco.
3 - there are measurable reaction time penalties 2 days after smoking cannabis.
Doc B was a GP used as 'resident expert'
1 - I see no patients with lung diseases who only smoke cannabis.
2 - I also see patients with alcohol related problems.
3 - Apart from a few psycoses I see no patients with cannabis related problems.
Unfortunately item was too short for too many more arguments.
Given known severe health problems linked with tobacco, if it was discovered today would it be legalised??
Guest
Posts: n/a
Twenty or thirty years ago hardly anyone appreciated the long term effects of smoking cigarettes. It is now known and accepted that smoking cigarettes is a major cause of lung cancer.
How do we know what the long term effects of smoking cannabis are? It may well be that in years to come (should it become decriminalised) it is found to have harmful effects that were not currently fully appreciated.
Lawyerboy, I notice that you have not addressed my concerns with respect to my children and my hope that there never use cannabis - or any other illegal drugs for that matter.
I cannot confirm whether or not this is true but I have been told by a colleague that the train driver involved in the Clapham rail disaster had smoked pot within the previous 24 hours - perhaps someone out there might know?
------------------
[This message has been edited by fireflybob (edited 12 October 2000).]
How do we know what the long term effects of smoking cannabis are? It may well be that in years to come (should it become decriminalised) it is found to have harmful effects that were not currently fully appreciated.
Lawyerboy, I notice that you have not addressed my concerns with respect to my children and my hope that there never use cannabis - or any other illegal drugs for that matter.
I cannot confirm whether or not this is true but I have been told by a colleague that the train driver involved in the Clapham rail disaster had smoked pot within the previous 24 hours - perhaps someone out there might know?
------------------
[This message has been edited by fireflybob (edited 12 October 2000).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
If your children are going to try pot then the law will not be what stops them, as this is no longer seen as a great deterant for using the drug (espicially to teens)
Instead educate them about the long term effects that pot smoking has on the mind eg. short term memory loss, and the de-motivating factors of the drug. You then have to trust their better judgment and common sense on this matter and not the countries laws to protect them from this drug.
Instead educate them about the long term effects that pot smoking has on the mind eg. short term memory loss, and the de-motivating factors of the drug. You then have to trust their better judgment and common sense on this matter and not the countries laws to protect them from this drug.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I did address your concerns, sort of...
First of all, if - as I contend - cannabis is in fact not as bad for you as alcohol, tobacco and other presently legal drugs, why should you be any more concerned that your children decide to indulge in it than if they decided they'd give ciggies a go? Decriminalising cannabis will no more encourage your children to use it than to take up smoking, and your efforts to dissuade them to should be in proportion to your efforts to dissuade them from using any other permissable drug.
You'll note that I am not suggesting you allow your children to use illegal drugs. You seem quite hung up on the idea that your children should not be encouraged to consider an illegal drug as 'OK' - that would not, plainly, be the case if use of the drug were decriminalised.
Secondly, you mention that we don't know what the long term effects of cannabis use are because its use has been illegal. The two propositions don't follow, though.
Simply because the use of cannabis has been leglislated against in this country does not mean (a) that it hasn't been used, nor that (b) it's been illegal to use it in any other country. Its use has, in fact, been perfectly legal in Holland, as you probably know, for some time, and the whole reason for the current debate is because it's been used here for many years as well.
So far, no known long term serious damaging effects, beyond those otherwise associated with drugs such as alcohol or tobacco.
Although I cannot confirm the fact, you may be quite right in your recollection that the driver of the train (or at least one of them) involved in the Clapham rail disaster had smoked pot in the 24 hours before the day. Has a connection been made between the two events that I don't know about, then?
First of all, if - as I contend - cannabis is in fact not as bad for you as alcohol, tobacco and other presently legal drugs, why should you be any more concerned that your children decide to indulge in it than if they decided they'd give ciggies a go? Decriminalising cannabis will no more encourage your children to use it than to take up smoking, and your efforts to dissuade them to should be in proportion to your efforts to dissuade them from using any other permissable drug.
You'll note that I am not suggesting you allow your children to use illegal drugs. You seem quite hung up on the idea that your children should not be encouraged to consider an illegal drug as 'OK' - that would not, plainly, be the case if use of the drug were decriminalised.
Secondly, you mention that we don't know what the long term effects of cannabis use are because its use has been illegal. The two propositions don't follow, though.
Simply because the use of cannabis has been leglislated against in this country does not mean (a) that it hasn't been used, nor that (b) it's been illegal to use it in any other country. Its use has, in fact, been perfectly legal in Holland, as you probably know, for some time, and the whole reason for the current debate is because it's been used here for many years as well.
So far, no known long term serious damaging effects, beyond those otherwise associated with drugs such as alcohol or tobacco.
Although I cannot confirm the fact, you may be quite right in your recollection that the driver of the train (or at least one of them) involved in the Clapham rail disaster had smoked pot in the 24 hours before the day. Has a connection been made between the two events that I don't know about, then?
