Legalising cannabis

[Mrs Ten Names]

Lets legalise knives, hand guns, assault rifles etc etc....better control will make things ok!!!

Knives, guns, rifles etc are already heavily controlled and licensed.

Oh, you can walk down the street with them? Like you want to do with can abis etc?

You made a silly comment about legalising knives, guns, rifles, etc as a comparison to legalising Cannabis within certain controls.
I pointed out that weapons are already tightly controlled, and legal in some circumstances.
No-one in their right mind would suggest that the controls would be identical.
Only you assumed the controls and licensing of Cannabis and weapons would be identical.

When controls and licensing of anything is introduced, the risks and dangers of the specific items are considered, and the controls tailored to those risks.
For example, the controls and licensing of Gas inspections are very different to the control and licensing of MOT certification.
If you want a sensible discussion, you need to make sensible contributions.

 

[Odds]

The 'Great Binge' of La Belle Époque contributed to the widespread of the noble herb but it had been around for most of the 19th century after being imported from India and an 1898 report into the affects concluded there was no reason to prohibit its use. America began the discrimination during the First World War, concerned about the Mexican peons picking cotton getting wasted on what they called marijuana, leading to a ban in 1914, i think. All kinds of things became restricted during the war but, as JohnD says, it wasn't until 1928 it was banned in this country.

The first 'war on drugs' came in the 1930s after an outcry oveer the movie 'Reefer Madness', a blatant anti-narcotic hatchet job that showed people getting crazy after taking the drug with tobacco...another crusade for the prohibitionists who were still smarting after alcohol was legally reinstated in 1931. Then, in the 50s, it was the turn of jazz musicians who were taking it widely, then rock musicians took it on and revived La Belle Époque in the Counter-culture of the 60s. Nixon started another 'war on drugs' in '71 - Elvis Presley was keen to help, but the FBI didn't think it a good idea and the current 'war' has been going on since Bush snr. went off on the Cartels in the early 90s.

So, for about 100 years authorities have tried to clamp down on narcotics and subsequent use has not only become commonplace but increasigly widespread and much easier to obtain. Decriminalisation is the best way to seperate Class-B drugs from the more harmful A-listers but it's crystal clear the urge to get high will never be erased from society.

 

[Mrs Ten Names]

It doesn't look like it to me.

Of course it is. Comparing the licensing and control of knives, guns, etc, which is based on the risks they present, to the control and licensing of Cannabis, which would also be based on the risks and dangers that that presents, is a nonsensical argument.
There is no valid comparison.

The argument that because something can't be eradicated, it should legalised is flawed.

if there is no common sense in a law, it is often repealed.
For instance, there is no need of a law that states Taxi cabs must carry a bale of hay for the horse.
It's a nonsensical and out-dated law.

Paedophilia will never be eradicated, therefor according your argument, it should be legalised.
Murder will never be eradicated, therfore legalise it and the crime of murder will disappear.

No-one is suggesting that all crimes be legalised.
The repeal of the law of taxis carrying bales of hay, did not include all law relating to transport.
You're resorting to the argument of the extreme.
That's a typical strawman argument.

 

[Mrs Ten Names]

I am probably more of a socialist than you.
Don't make the mistake of confusing social conservatism with Toryism.

The Labour party of old had decent values, what has Starmer and his mob got to offer.

A better deal with the Germany and France.

 

[Mrs Ten Names]

Alcohol was legal for centuries before prohibition, as such it was so ingrained in American culture that it was impossible to ban it completely.
As far as i know smoking cannabis doesn't have similar history in the UK, legalising it would make the practice more widespread along with the associated social problems it causes.

Why was alcohol banned in the US?
Why was the prohibition repealed?
Wen you've considered the answer to those questions, you may be some way to answering the question why is Cannabis illegal and why should it be legalised.

Constitutional prohibition in the U.S. took place from 1920 to 1933 and was enacted ostensibly as a response to pre-existing social issues like domestic violence and child abandonment whose presumed cause was alcohol. But prohibition and temperance (self-imposed abstinence) are not uniquely American ideas, nor are they particularly recent.

Prohibition: A Glimpse into American Political Dynamics | Dispatches from the Potomac | Marubeni Corporation

Marubeni Corporation's Official Website

www.marubeni.com

Nationwide Prohibition quickly fell out of favor with the American public because of ineffective enforcement, harsh enforcement techniques, crime related to the illegal liquor traffic, a need for tax revenue during the Great Depression, and widespread defiance of the law.

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10991#:~:text=Repeal%20of%20the%20Eighteenth%20Amendment&text=Nationwide%20Prohibition%20quickly%20fell%20out,widespread%20defiance%20of%20the%20law.

What are your views on the legalisation of opium for recreational use.
It worked out well for the last British government to get involved in drug dealing and not so well for its customers in China.

How are anyone's views on opium relevant to the current discussion?
Or is this another argument resorting to extremes?

 

[Mrs Ten Names]

The minion has shown evidence of the effect on children, is that not enough?

Where is this evidence?
Show us. Let's discuss it. We can't discuss something that is so secret, you won't show us.

 

[Odds]

How are anyone's views on opium relevant to the current discussion?
Or is this another argument resorting to extremes?

If it wasn't for opium Romantic poetry would be very dull. Shelley, Coleridge, Keats and Byron were all into Laudanum, a tincture of opium, in the early 19th century. And when you read the poetry of William Blake or look at his art, you have to wonder what he was smoking.

 

[Mrs Ten Names]

If it wasn't for opium Romantic poetry would be very dull. Shelley, Coleridge, Keats and Byron were all into Laudanum, a tincture of opium, in the early 19th century. And when you read the poetry of William Blake or look at his art, you have to wonder what he was smoking.

Best of luck teaching English Lit to DIYnot GD forum.

Maybe many modern pop songs were composed 'under the influence'.

Best heard with headphones.

 

[Nwgs2]

Can you show us the results of any tests and comparisons of the various strains of cannabis?

That’s from my own personal experience and experiences of my friends.

I don’t smoke anymore.

 

[Mrs Ten Names]

That’s from my own personal experience and experiences of my friends.

I don’t smoke anymore.

Extremely subjective then, from someone who has stopped using Cannabis, I assume.
How long have you been 'stopped'? It's not a personal question, I have no judgement in your use of Cannabis. Nor would I dream of weaponising it. It's just to gain an understanding of how long or how old on which your subjective view of the strength of Cannabis is based.

 

[Brigadier]

Decent values

Beat me to it.

I am probably more of a socialist than you.
Don't make the mistake of confusing social conservatism with Toryism.

The Labour party of old had decent values, what has Starmer and his mob got to offer.

Rubbish.

The only - realistic - opposition in the GE was Labour.

So the choice, under our system, was more of the same self-enrichment, culture wars, and erosion of the country..............or a vote for Labour.

I voted to kick the thieving charlatans out and, if I think there is a better (for the country) alternative next time, I'll vote for them.

 

[Odds]

Best of luck teaching English Lit to DIYnot GD forum.

I wouldn't presume.

Maybe many modern pop songs were composed 'under the influence'.

Best heard with headphones.

Yeah...but the influence of Mary Jane on Lucy in the Sky is a myth. Lennon says he got the idea from a drawing.

 

[Odds]

For the record, i don't think full decriminalisation is permissible, as somebody already mentioned the strength of modern weed is ridiculously high - and it's called Skunk for a reason: the smell is awful! Back in the day, when the Spirit of Woodstock burned bright, the aroma of Mary-Jane was sweet and mild. Too much could knock you out but it didn't contain the potential for a psychotic encounter with the Dark Side as the modern sh!t does. But the change in the law made in November 2018, allowing specialist doctors to legally issue prescriptions for cannabis-based medicines in the United Kingdom, it is estimated that 1.8 million people in the UK use cannabis for medical reasons; such as epilepsy, Crohn's disease and glaucoma. This, i think, is the future of Cannybliss in the UK.

 

[Mrs Ten Names]

For the record, i don't think full decriminalisation is permissible, as somebody already mentioned the strength of modern weed is ridiculously high - and it's called Skunk for a reason: the smell is awful! Back in the day, when the Spirit of Woodstock burned bright, the aroma of Mary-Jane was sweet and mild. Too much could knock you out but it didn't contain the potential for a psychotic encounter with the Dark Side as the modern sh!t does. But the change in the law made in November 2018, allowing specialist doctors to legally issue prescriptions for cannabis-based medicines in the United Kingdom, it is estimated that 1.8 million people in the UK use cannabis for medical reasons; such as epilepsy, Crohn's disease and glaucoma. This, i think, is the future of Cannybliss in the UK.

Yes, decriminalise it (Cannybliss) and allow it under controls and license, like alcohol, tobacco, etc.
It needn't be associated with smoking.

 

[Koolpc]

You made a silly comment about legalising knives, guns, rifles, etc as a comparison to legalising Cannabis within certain controls.
I pointed out that weapons are already tightly controlled, and legal in some circumstances.
No-one in their right mind would suggest that the controls would be identical.
Only you assumed the controls and licensing of Cannabis and weapons would be identical.

When controls and licensing of anything is introduced, the risks and dangers of the specific items are considered, and the controls tailored to those risks.
For example, the controls and licensing of Gas inspections are very different to the control and licensing of MOT certification.
If you want a sensible discussion, you need to make sensible contributions.

Only you would think the controls would be identical! I was making a point which went past you!