"alcohol is at least twice as harmful to users than cannabis and 5 times more harmful to society"

[RDM]

You answered your own question. You try other approaches while not making it legal.

And what other approaches would you suggest? Other than legalising it and the current failed practices? You need to be able to reduce the damage done to society, the cost to police, the cost to treat and the impact on crime levels.

They tried that with smoking and it failed. The only thing that is working is legislation banning it in a growing number of places.

Is it working? Drug use seems to be either increasing or staying stable, large amounts of crime is drug related, rehabilitation programmes are minimal. We seem to be failing society, victims and users with our current policy.

 

[do_ron_ron]

So do you believe alcohol should be illegal too then? If not, please explain why it shouldn't be but cannabis should. That's the point of this thread afterall, but somehow I doubt you'll have a leg to stand on other than "drugs r bad mmk".

My own personal opinion is that alcohol should be more expensive to buy. The point of the thread is, if you have read the title, a whinge that it is unfair that one drug should not be legal because another drug causes more harm if abused.

I'd much rather buy it from sainsburys with a bit of duty on it like I do alcohol, and it seems silly to me to deny myself something I enjoy because of hypocritical laws existing where I happened to be born.

Which is the point I made earlier that users want their drug without less fuss.
It is amazing how arrogant some people are. It is my vice so it should be made legal and because I disagree with it I will continue breaking the law.

 

[do_ron_ron]

Is it working? Drug use seems to be either increasing or staying stable, large amounts of crime is drug related, rehabilitation programmes are minimal. We seem to be failing society, victims and users with our current policy.

I was talking about smoking, if you read the post. The number of smokers has declined. The policy is a success.

 

[RDM]

I was talking about smoking, if you read the post. The number of smokers has declined. The policy is a success.

Surely that would suggest that a legal and education programme is a good approach to reducing drug use? Education on the actual damage the drug can do combined with financial and medical support to quit?

 

[zenf]

It is alcohol abuse that is the problem not alcohol. Alcohol is not inherently addictive and plenty of people manage to drink responsibly.

Cannabis may or may not be addictive but the nicotine in the tobacco used is.

People can’t show a modicum of restraint with legal substances whether it is alcohol or legal highs so deregulating / legalising another substance which is open to abuse in the UK will only leave its consumption open to abuse.

I would not oppose carefully prescribed use for pain management. The side effects of some strong painkillers can be extremely damaging and significant.

You see the same old arguments from pro-cannabis lobbyists which ultimately don’t stack up or hold weight with the majority. Trying to use alcohol as a smokescreen is deeply flawed.

I don't disagree that legalising cannabis could allow more people to abuse it but I don't believe in the "nanny state"; if those individuals choose to do that to themselves then why should we stop them?

If you support the idea of protecting people from themselves, surely you must think alcohol and tobacco should be illegal? They kill millions... Why should they be legal?

I know I keep coming back to this point but I'm still waiting for someone to justify it.

 

[zenf]

My own personal opinion is that alcohol should be more expensive to buy. The point of the thread is, if you have read the title, a whinge that it is unfair that one drug should not be legal because another drug causes more harm if abused.

You really don't see the hypocrisy, do you? You say alcohol should be more expensive; could they not make cannabis similarly expensive? You still haven't given one simple reason why cannabis should be illegal which couldn't be applied to alcohol/tobacco. It's not whinging, it's pointing out the ridiculousness of it.

Which is the point I made earlier that users want their drug without less fuss.
It is amazing how arrogant some people are. It is my vice so it should be made legal and because I disagree with it I will continue breaking the law.

Arrogant?

What if they made alcohol illegal like they did in 1920s America? I imagine we'd see a situation similar to what happened then, and also what happens with cannabis right now; people would carry on drinking but organised crime would take control of it. What's the point of that exactly?

For the people who drink alcohol but don't take drugs... If alcohol did become illegal but you could still get hold of it pretty cheaply and easily, would you still drink?

 

[Scrutinize]

If you support the idea of protecting people from themselves, surely you must think alcohol and tobacco should be illegal? They kill millions... Why should they be legal?

I know I keep coming back to this point but I'm still waiting for someone to justify it.

Tobacco doesn’t really need to be but it is being subject to ever tightening regulations and taxation upon sale.

Alcohol is in the same position.

However the current legality of either substance is not justification for legalising cannabis. If Tobacco and Alcohol were currently illegal, would there be sufficient evidence to justify legalisation based on the current understanding of effects? I suspect not.

 

[krooton]

Surely that would suggest that a legal and education programme is a good approach to reducing drug use? Education on the actual damage the drug can do combined with financial and medical support to quit?

Pwned.

 

[zenf]

Tobacco doesn’t really need to be but it is being subject to ever tightening regulations and taxation upon sale.

Alcohol is in the same position.

However the current legality of either substance is not justification for legalising cannabis.

I disagree, I think the fact that tobacco and alchohol are legal completely justifies legalising cannabis. If people are allowed to make the decisions for themselves when it comes to those drugs, why not others?

If Tobacco and Alcohol were currently illegal, would there be sufficient evidence to justify legalisation based on the current understanding of effects? I suspect not.

You're quite right, if the government had a strict policy of all drugs being illegal then I obviously wouldn't be able to use this argument. However, their policy is more like "these recreational drugs are OK but these ones are REALLY BAD!!", when in fact the evidence strongly suggests they've got it backwards.

Yes, I want cannabis to be legalised but not so that I could get it more easily as another poster suggested earlier. It would only be to have the Daily Mail stigma removed from it, the idea that because I smoke cannabis I'm some useless waster. 2 million people in the UK smoke cannabis, you've probably met plenty of them and had no idea purely because of the stigma attached with talking about it. But going on a week long binge in Magaluf with the lads? Np.

 

[do_ron_ron]

Surely that would suggest that a legal and education programme is a good approach to reducing drug use? Education on the actual damage the drug can do combined with financial and medical support to quit?

I agree that the way is that direction rather than legalising use.

 

[Tefal]

If Tobacco and Alcohol were currently illegal, would there be sufficient evidence to justify legalisation based on the current understanding of effects? I suspect not.

there would however based on the crippling impact it would have on our legal system as it tried to cope with the huge influx of new criminal cases especially with people having a right to a jury trial....

 

[RDM]

I agree that the way is that direction rather than legalising use.

The problem you have there though is that you are going to restrict access to the education programme and reducation programme because people will first have to admit to being criminals before they can gain access. Also the health implications are not actually as severe for some of the currently illegal drugs.

Then you have the Daily Mail esque "Why are we wasting so much money on these criminals" attitude towards spending.

Why is the approach to smoking right whilst taking the exact same approach to other drugs wrong?

 

[do_ron_ron]

You really don't see the hypocrisy, do you? You say alcohol should be more expensive; could they not make cannabis similarly expensive? You still haven't given one simple reason why cannabis should be illegal which couldn't be applied to alcohol/tobacco. It's not whinging, it's pointing out the ridiculousness of it.

You do not see the ridiculous nature of your arguement. Allow X because Y is more harmful instead of trying to get people to reduce/off the more harmful product. Making cannabis more expensive is self defeating because drug gangs would simply fill the market with cheap product.

Arrogant?

What if they made alcohol illegal like they did in 1920s America? I imagine we'd see a situation similar to what happened then, and also what happens with cannabis right now; people would carry on drinking but organised crime would take control of it. What's the point of that exactly?

For the people who drink alcohol but don't take drugs... If alcohol did become illegal but you could still get hold of it pretty cheaply and easily, would you still drink?

You argue as if the two were somehow linked in some way. Alcohol is legal mainly for historical reasons but widespread use of cannabis is not. Why should Govt. legislate a product that is still harmful and maybe more harmful when length of use show brings more studies.

A lot of people here are saying that they will only obey laws they agree with and that is arrogant.

 

[do_ron_ron]

The problem you have there though is that you are going to restrict access to the education programme and reducation programme because people will first have to admit to being criminals before they can gain access. Also the health implications are not actually as severe for some of the currently illegal drugs.

Then you have the Daily Mail esque "Why are we wasting so much money on these criminals" attitude towards spending.

Why is the approach to smoking right whilst taking the exact same approach to other drugs wrong?

It is historical. Even then the first ban was James 1 who banned it from his court.

The police give a caution for 1st offence. You do not have to wait till you are caught to try to get off it.

Allow people use of a drug so you can educate them to come off it? Strange argument.

 

[zenf]

You do not see the ridiculous nature of your arguement. Allow X because Y is more harmful instead of trying to get people to reduce/off the more harmful product. Making cannabis more expensive is self defeating because drug gangs would simply fill the market with cheap product.

Well, the more harmful drug is quite clearly alcohol and yet it's actively marketed to encourage people to buy it, completely legally and in the process it kills millions of people every year. Despite this, I don't think alcohol should be illegal but people should drink responsibly and be well educated on the subject, and yes I drink. And yet a drug that is relatively harmless (please don't mention the debatable psychological issues as they really don't compare to death of millions) can get you sent to prison. It's more an issue of "allow X because not allowing it causes more problems and it really doesn't make logical sense".

I think you missed the point of my "make cannabis more expensive" reply to your suggestion of making alcohol more expensive.

You argue as if the two were somehow linked in some way. Alcohol is legal mainly for historical reasons but widespread use of cannabis is not. Why should Govt. legislate a product that is still harmful and maybe more harmful when length of use show brings more studies.

A lot of people here are saying that they will only obey laws they agree with and that is arrogant.

Of course they're linked in a massive way, they're both recreational drugs. Alcohol is legal for revenue reasons and for the fact that society is so used to it now that trying to ban it would just drive organised crime.

If you're driving on a completely open stretch of road, you can see clearly for miles in the middle of nowhere, you wouldn't even go slightly over the limit? I can make judgements for myself thanks.

 

[crinkleshoes]

It's nice to see this debate coming round again... especially after the postive moves from Lib Dems and Labour recently to re-evaluate the current situation.

It's interesting to see how many poorly informed people there are still out there... the main argument against legislation (not legalisation) being protecting people from themselves. What right do you have to tell someone what they can or cannot do? You have a right to choose for yourself, but not to impose idiotic mis-information on others!

If I choose to abuse a drug and it has 0 effect on anyone but myself, that's up to me. NOT YOU!

In reality, I'm a realitively heavy user... of weed... I hate tobacco and hardly ever drink, never to excess since leaving studenthood. There haven't been many evenings over the last year when I haven't had a pure joint / bong hit / vape bag... I've noticed no real negative effect.

If I over-indulge, I can feel a bit slow in the morning... so guess what... when I'm working the following day, I don't over-indulge! It's quite simple really...

As for those touting addiction... weed is not addictive, it creates no physical addiction of any form. I do quite a few international trips lasting a week or more and can easily do without... sometimes if I've been indulging in quite a bit, it can affect the following nights sleep if I don't toke, that's the worst effect it has had on me and I'm happy to choose to suffer from that once in a blue moon. What it can do, however, is create a desire to continue indulging as it feels nice and it's a nice place to be... if it's in front of me, yeah - i'll pick it up. If it isn't, I've never had any cravings.

Despite how I may portray myself from time to time, I'm an extremely intelligent person and my mind never stops... cannabis is a release from that when I don't need it. It's nice to be stupid once in a while...

Since being a regular user, I haven't suffered from a single migrane (I used to get at least one/month on average) in over a year & it was rather beneficial when I went through a few bouts of insomnia.

I certainly wouldn't class myself as "needing" the medicinal benefits of the drug, but it's nice to be available to me.

Despite being a lazy stoner, I have a very good job and contribute a silly amount of my paycheque to "society"... my source does not fund the vietnamese cartels that have sprung up thanks to prohibition and my source would never let a kid anywhere near it. I can say without a shadow of a doubt, the only person suffering any negative effect from my use is me and I class the risks as acceptable, which should be my choice!

Why am I a criminal?

What have I done wrong to warrant being sent to prison for?

I would also like much more research to be done on the substance, which is extremely hard due to it's illegality.

_______________________________

Moving on from me... I've seen the wonderful effects this drug can have on people. A friend of mine suffers from cerebral palsy, it's so bad that under normal circumstances he can barely form words and has other twitches/motor issues. It's sad to see, especially as he's a very intelligent person who has a lot to say! One joint later and he's relaxed... the twitching has gone, but more amazingly... he can speak, almost normally. For him, it's the only way he can function socially. Oh look... he's a criminal too!

There are many more examples like this I've seen first hand... and countless that I've read about.

_______________________________

I'm certainly not one to start saying "tobacco and alcohol are legal, that means weed should be too!"... because in my eyes, if you're going to use that silly argument without backing it up then yes, it begs the question... why aren't alcohol and tobacco illegal too?

But it does have to be stated... alcohol and tobacco both have a much bigger risk of negative effects, both socially and personally, and yet us citizens are entrusted with the ability to imbibe and smoke as much as we want... so why can't we toke?

It's also unfair that users of a safer, less addictive and harmful drug should be penalised under the law when tobacco and alcohol isn't... but of course, fairness doesn't help in unjust law now, does it?

We should look at the real reasons to legislate it, not some childish "this is, so why isn't this?" argument.

For:
- It has a profoundly positive effect on a large number of illnesses
- It brings pleasure and relaxation to people
- We should have the right to do what we choose to our own bodies
- The "gateway drug" theory has been batted about for a while. Using Portugal, Spain and Amsterdam as examples, the number of heroin/crack addicts plateaued when it was legalised/"tolerated"... the reason it could potentially be considered a "gateway drug" is only because of prohibition and the exposure people get to harder drugs when attempting to procure the softer substances
- Prohibition has failed, wherever there is a demand someone will find a way to supply it. Legislation takes the drug deals out of the hands of the bad guys (for the most part) and overnight creates a new multi-billion pound industry. It's not like the biggest gangs are even British either, the majority of the illegal money is being funnelled out of the country
- Hemp is a brilliantly versatile crop
- Prohibition itself is based on lies and mis-information with selective science running rampant
- Not one death in the thousands of years of mj use has a single death been attributed to it


Against:
- Counter to my final point above, I do not believe it's a miracle wonder-drug with no side-effects... there are inherent issues with smoking anything. However, this can been noticeably reduced by using a water pipe... then even less detriment to health by using a vapouriser... then there are edibles! If legalised, the health detriments could be properly documented.
- If smoked when under the age of 16, it has been linked to mental health issues... it would be so much harder to procure if legislated. Sure people would abuse the system to buy it for youths... but there would be a lot fewer kids toking!
- Yes, people will abuse it... but that's their choice and I for one would be much much happier in a world where people were getting stoned on their couch watching cartoons rather than getting wasted on alcohol and starting fights/causing damage/etc... have you ever seen an angry stoner?

Sorry for turning my againsts in to pros... it wasn't my intention, just couldn't help it! I'll admit, yes I am biased to my own desired outcome, but I believe I have enough justification to back it up. I'll also admit there are probably some negatives I haven't thought about while writing this...

False information:
- Cannabis, in and of itself, is a gateway drug - WRONG
- Cannabis is addictive - WRONG




I'm actually pro-legislation for all drugs... yes, the hardest of the hard included. Another side-effect of prohibition is dealers mixing nasty things in with the substances (grit-weed included). If legalised, the chemicals would be pharmaceutical grade... so you would know exactly what went in to them and studies could be done to become much more familiar with the exact effects rather than the worst of the worst getting all the attention. Needle banks etc could significantly reduce the spread of hepititis etc... the list goes on.

I'm all for a trial period of some form... I'm sure it would be next to impossible to pull off... but something like "it'll be legal for a year and we'll see how it goes" would be ideal because then we could get a real world sample of how our country will react to it. I wish it could work like that...



Before someone picks up on some silly spelling error in my post... please bear in mind I'm dyslexic

 

[zenf]

I don't really see what's silly about saying that if alcohol, the mass-murdering drug is legal, that cannabis should be too, given the reason for cannabis being illegal is to protect people. Ya know, if they tried to ban go-karting for being too dangerous but allowed sky-diving I'd probably have a similar argument. But other than that, I agree!

To me it always just seems to come down to the viewpoint that a lot of people have that doing "drugs" is wrong or bad in some way and that people who do it are bad people, and yet they keep on drinking their drug of choice quite happily.

 

[Dirk]

There is not one logical argument that can be made in favour of one being legal while the other isn't.

 

[RDM]

Allow people use of a drug so you can educate them to come off it? Strange argument.

People are already using drugs despite them being illegal. Lots of the problems associated with drugs are due to their illegality. Making it legal allows you to contol it a lot better than when it is illegal.

 

[do_ron_ron]

Well, the more harmful drug is quite clearly alcohol and yet it's actively marketed to encourage people to buy it, completely legally and in the process it kills millions of people every year. Despite this, I don't think alcohol should be illegal but people should drink responsibly and be well educated on the subject, and yes I drink. And yet a drug that is relatively harmless (please don't mention the debatable psychological issues as they really don't compare to death of millions) can get you sent to prison. It's more an issue of "allow X because not allowing it causes more problems and it really doesn't make logical sense".

I think you missed the point of my "make cannabis more expensive" reply to your suggestion of making alcohol more expensive.



Of course they're linked in a massive way, they're both recreational drugs. Alcohol is legal for revenue reasons and for the fact that society is so used to it now that trying to ban it would just drive organised crime.

If you're driving on a completely open stretch of road, you can see clearly for miles in the middle of nowhere, you wouldn't even go slightly over the limit? I can make judgements for myself thanks.

They are not linked in any way and that is were your argument falls flat. If you wish to convine people than your drug should be legalised then make positive statements for it's use, what good it will do etc instead of trying to say it is less harmful which is no reason to allow it.