This is want I mean, if you can't remain in control of it and it's effects don't use them.
California prepares to legalize marijuana on New Year's Day
- Thread starter maklabouhlel
- Start date
This is want I mean, if you can't remain in control of it and it's effects don't use them.
Lol so you think people who smoke weed only drive slow, lol
Soldato
- Joined
- 26 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 9,707
- Location
- North
In my experience yes
it’s a mellowing / relaxation drug. It’s effects typically don’t encourage you becoming brave or gaining courage. Racing or speeding would be doing the opposite of how you feel.
In my experience yes
I've been in a car with a guy under the influence of cannabis and he was definitely not chilled.
It doesn't always induce relaxation
One major effect of the law is that it causes a massive inflation of the price. Farmers are poor. As soon as it gets into the hands of someone willing to cross a border with it and break the "law" it's magically worth up to one hundered thousand percent more!
Lets just say there were absolutely no drug laws, and drugs were valued for what they are, vegetables; what would the effect on society actually be? Would everyone be snorting cocaine all day?
I know one thing that would happen, crimes committed for the acquisition of drugs would decrease heavily. Junkies wouldn't need to commit as many burglaries if they can get a gram for 10 pence as opposed to £50.
Lets just say there were absolutely no drug laws, and drugs were valued for what they are, vegetables; what would the effect on society actually be? Would everyone be snorting cocaine all day?
I know one thing that would happen, crimes committed for the acquisition of drugs would decrease heavily. Junkies wouldn't need to commit as many burglaries if they can get a gram for 10 pence as opposed to £50.
Soldato
- Joined
- 26 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 9,707
- Location
- North
Might have been on coke too, you never know...
Fair enough, I did say more often than not.
In this case it is not the fault of the cannabis.
If you are an experienced cannabis user, and are aware that the cannabis inhibits your ability to drive as well, then it is the person's fault.
No I do. Was just weed. Also had to deal with paranoid incidents too.
Soldato
- Joined
- 26 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 9,707
- Location
- North
Lol trust me it's not the case.In my experience yes
Soldato
- Joined
- 26 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 9,707
- Location
- North
See above, I’m wrong.
It costs society more money...but arguably people who are getting smashed are paying more by way of increased duties anyway. I'm not convinced increased healthcare costs are a water tight justification for prohibition.
The thing is they don't take into account when they say "twice as likely" is that that alcohol is a disinhibiting effect. If you smoke and drive you know you cant drive and you're aware. A drunk who is drunk enough to drive will have no idea anything let alone the consequences.
It's not just healthcare costs. Something stupid like 80% of all crime on Friday and Saturday nights is alcohol related!
Antibiotics, not psychoactive substances which is obviously the context of this thread and my comments.
sure but the point was that this idea that the state can't "morally" regulate drugs is a bit dubious as in some cases you agree with the regulation of some drugs for "public health" reasons... when arguably there are plenty of good reasons to regulate other drugs too
That's not exactly what I originally said though,
The context being psychoactive drugs. I didn't say that the state has no business regulating drugs of any kind.
I know you didn't but you then came out with this:
putting aside the keyboard warrior nonsense about taking the life of police officers this argument that "morally" the state does not have the right to regulate some drugs but you're happy that it can regulate others is rather dubious
it's got little to do with regulations being inherently immoral, you just don't want the state to regulate say weed etc.. it is simply your opinion/view - likewise the other poster who earlier wanted to argue that it was "illogical" to regulate stuff that can be grown naturally was making a pretty dubious statement