legalise cannabis?

[Big RICHARD]

Originally posted by DaBeeeenster
If kids cannot get hold of cannabis, how is it going to be easier for them to get harder drugs? They won't know any drug dealers, will they? If you remove the cannabis market in the UK, there are going to be LESS DRUG DEALERS. That's simple market economics. Less drug dealers means it will be harder to get hold of hard drugs.

How is alcohol a gateway drug? What's the first drug you tried? What's the first drug 99% of kids in Britain try?

There seems to be a large amount of naivity here. Do you really believe that kids can't get hold of cannabis? How won't they know any drug dealers in future, when kids NOW know drug dealers?

Removal of cannabis means that the dealers will just need to find a different way of making money. Since the kids won't be able to access cannabis as easily they'll accept the next best thing. Speed maybe? Cocaine? Acid? It obviously isn't as simple as you think.

Originally posted by DaBeeeenster
If it was made legal, they would not be funding drug dealers, would they!

They are funding drug dealers NOW aren't they? So how are they 'good people'?

Originally posted by DaBeeeenster
Either make a statement and back it up or dont make it at all. Saying stuff like "it seems that all cannabis users yada yada yada" is not adding anything at all to the discussion IMHO. If that were the case all the time, anyone could say whatever they like, and we wont get anywhere.

Study author, Professor George Patton, of Murdoch Children's Research Institute in Victoria, said although rebellious youngsters might be socially more prone to cannabis use, unemployment and crime, there was also probably a biological reason. From here

Originally posted by DaBeeeenster
What's the first drug you tried? What's the first drug 99% of kids in Britain try?

OK. So where are the figures for how many people start with alcohol and move to harder drugs and the comparative figures for how many people start with cannabis and move to harder drugs?

[Big RICHARD]

Found a link you might like to read.

http://members.madasafish.com/~wombat20/miscan.html

[DaBeeeenster]

Originally posted by Big RICHARD
There seems to be a large amount of naivity here. Do you really believe that kids can't get hold of cannabis? How won't they know any drug dealers in future, when kids NOW know drug dealers?

So the reason we should not remove the FIRST link from kids to drug dealers is because they already know drug dealers?!?!? Are you serious? That's some twisted logic. You are arguing against yourself! The reason they already know drug dealers is because of the current situation!!!

Originally posted by Big RICHARD
Removal of cannabis means that the dealers will just need to find a different way of making money. Since the kids won't be able to access cannabis as easily they'll accept the next best thing. Speed maybe? Cocaine? Acid? It obviously isn't as simple as you think.
[/B]

But they can ALREADY ACCESS THESE DRUGS! Because they know the dealers (see above)! If the money made from taxation was spent on health, education and policing of drugs, I'm sure it would have an impact on the sitauation.

Originally posted by Big RICHARD
They are funding drug dealers NOW aren't they? So how are they 'good people'?
[/B]

They are only funding drug dealers because they have no choice! Only a fool would choose to give their money to a drug dealer as opposed to a hospitcal or a school! THEY ARE BEING FORCED INTO THIS SITUATION BECAUSE OF THE CURRENT LAWS! You seem to be arguing for me quite well
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Big RICHARD
Study author, Professor George Patton, of Murdoch Children's Research Institute in Victoria, said although rebellious youngsters might be socially more prone to cannabis use, unemployment and crime, there was also probably a biological reason. From here
I'll read this tomorrow...tis 0.40 AM now...

Originally posted by Big RICHARD
OK. So where are the figures for how many people start with alcohol and move to harder drugs and the comparative figures for how many people start with cannabis and move to harder drugs? [/B]

Oh come on! Are you seriously telling me that more kids try a joint before they try a can of beer?

[Big RICHARD]

Originally posted by DaBeeeenster
So the reason we should not remove the FIRST link from kids to drug dealers is because they already know drug dealers?!?!? Are you serious? That's some twisted logic. You are arguing against yourself! The reason they already know drug dealers is because of the current situation!!!

Kids will always want to try drugs, partially because they are 'wrong'. Partially because they know someone who says they are 'good'. Do you think kids will stop if cannabis is made legal? They will just try the next thing in the list.

Originally posted by DaBeeeenster
But they can ALREADY ACCESS THESE DRUGS! Because they know the dealers (see above)! If the money made from taxation was spent on health, education and policing of drugs, I'm sure it would have an impact on the sitauation.

The money from tobacco and alcohol hasn't done this, why would the money from cannabis do it?

Originally posted by DaBeeeenster
They are only funding drug dealers because they have no choice! Only a fool would choose to give their money to a drug dealer as opposed to a hospitcal or a school! THEY ARE BEING FORCED INTO THIS SITUATION BECAUSE OF THE CURRENT LAWS! You seem to be arguing for me quite well

So you are saying that anyone who buys cannabis from a drug dealer is a fool. (about 3-4 million people in this coutry). So why are you fighting for these fools, when they should be giving their money to schools and hospitals?

Originally posted by DaBeeeenster
Oh come on! Are you seriously telling me that more kids try a joint before they try a can of beer?

As you said before:

Originally posted by DaBeeeenster
Either make a statement and back it up or dont make it at all. Saying stuff like "it seems that all cannabis users yada yada yada" is not adding anything at all to the discussion IMHO. If that were the case all the time, anyone could say whatever they like, and we wont get anywhere.

You made the statement about what kids try first, where is your back up?

[DaBeeeenster]

Originally posted by Big RICHARD
Kids will always want to try drugs, partially because they are 'wrong'. Partially because they know someone who says they are 'good'. Do you think kids will stop if cannabis is made legal? They will just try the next thing in the list.

But surely they will try the next thing anyway? And the fact that they already know a dealer means they are more likely to try...

Originally posted by Big RICHARD
The money from tobacco and alcohol hasn't done this, why would the money from cannabis do it?[/B]

Because the money made could be used exlusively for drug prevention and treatment. Also remember that an enormous amount of police time would be freed up...

Originally posted by Big RICHARD
So you are saying that anyone who buys cannabis from a drug dealer is a fool. (about 3-4 million people in this coutry). So why are you fighting for these fools, when they should be giving their money to schools and hospitals?
[/B]

Please listen to what I am saying. I'm saying that people who smoke cannabis now HAVE to give their money to a dealer, they have no choice. Given a choice, of course more of them would give their money to the state as opposed to a dealer. They dont have that choice tho.

Originally posted by Big RICHARD
You made the statement about what kids try first, where is your back up? [/B]

http://www.ias.org.uk/alert/01issue1/adolescent.htm

[Big RICHARD]

Originally posted by DaBeeeenster
But surely they will try the next thing anyway? And the fact that they already know a dealer means they are more likely to try...

Which came first, the chicken or the egg? They will look for a dealer if they want drugs, or more probably the dealers will look for them to sell their drugs to..... Of course they're gonna try the next thing!

Originally posted by DaBeeeenster
Because the money made could be used exlusively for drug prevention and treatment. Also remember that an enormous amount of police time would be freed up...

In an ideal world, where the system weren't run by politicians!

Originally posted by DaBeeeenster
Please listen to what I am saying. I'm saying that people who smoke cannabis now HAVE to give their money to a dealer, they have no choice. Given a choice, of course more of them would give their money to the state as opposed to a dealer. They dont have that choice tho.

Of course they have a choice! DON'T TAKE DRUGS. Then they wouldn't be giving that money to drug dealers......

Imagine how good our 'school' and 'hospital' are doing now!!! They've just both won top awards because they were given the money that would have otherwise gone on feeding someone's cannabis addiction.

[Big RICHARD]

i have read your link at it seems to be missing how many people (as a percentage) out of those who take cannabis move to harder drugs and actually in fact doesn't show any figures of how many drinkers take harder drugs too....

[DaBeeeenster]

You are not listening to me mate.

If it were legalised, the money made from selling cannabis (in terms of tax) could be used in schools and hospitals and within the police force. OK?

I presume you are in agreement with the refutation regarding the gateway drug, as you have not replied to that...?

[Big RICHARD]

Originally posted by DaBeeeenster
You are not listening to me mate.

If it were legalised, the money made from selling cannabis (in terms of tax) could be used in schools and hospitals and within the police force. OK?

I presume you are in agreement with the refutation regarding the gateway drug, as you have not replied to that...?

But at the moment these people are being fools by giving their money to drug dealers, WHEN THEY HAVE A CHOICE.

If you read my post earlier you'll see that I don't agree at all about cannabis not being a strong gateway drug.

[DaBeeeenster]

Originally posted by Big RICHARD
Found a link you might like to read.

http://members.madasafish.com/~wombat20/miscan.html

That's the biggest load of FUD I've ever read!

[DaBeeeenster]

Originally posted by Big RICHARD
But at the moment these people are being fools by giving their money to drug dealers, WHEN THEY HAVE A CHOICE.

If you read my post earlier you'll see that I don't agree at all about cannabis not being a strong gateway drug.

This sounds like another argument FOR the legalisation of cannabis. You are NOT going to stop people smoking cannabis. Trying to do so is pointless. If it was legalised, those billions of pounds could instead go to the state, to spend on health, education and policing of all drugs.

[Knoxville]

Originally posted by DaBeeeenster
This sounds like another argument FOR the legalisation of cannabis. You are NOT going to stop people smoking cannabis. Trying to do so is pointless. If it was legalisted, those billions of pounds could instead go to the state, to spend on health, education and policing of all drugs.

Too true, you can't stop it, so make some money of a drug thats just as life threatening (less so imo) then alchohol and tobacco.

It'll pay for education and policing of drugs that will cause far more damage. and take a method of income from people who do far worse criminal activities.

btw, damn good read this thread is.....time for a rating methinks

[Big RICHARD]

Originally posted by DaBeeeenster
This sounds like another argument FOR the legalisation of cannabis. You are NOT going to stop people smoking cannabis. Trying to do so is pointless. If it was legalised, those billions of pounds could instead go to the state, to spend on health, education and policing of all drugs.

I am simply looking at both sides of the argument. Not many people seem to do that on such a controversial issue.

So because we have an issue with burglaries and that so many people do it we could legalise burglary, tax burglars based on how many houses they rob per day and use the revenue to put into policing murders (which are more serious crimes). You are not going to stop people breaking into houses and stealing stuff, so why don't we legalise it?

What about ecstasy? Lots of people take ecstasy. Shall we legalise that too? It means we don't have to police it and the tax money could go towards stopping heroin smuggling. We could educate people about drugs, so they don't take too many e's in a night and know how much dancing they can do before they fall over!

Why don't we legalise assault? The police waste so much time on assault cases. We could put that money into stopping rape and paedophilia! I think you get my point.

Just get real! We can't legalise something because we have no solution at present to effectively police it!

[Big RICHARD]

Originally posted by DaBeeeenster
That's the biggest load of FUD I've ever read!

Is it a load of FUD because you don't agree with it? He has included sources for his information. Just because you don't like what a source is saying or agree with what it's saying doesn't mean it's nonsense!

[DaBeeeenster]

OK. First point. It's written by someone who is not objective.

I have created a web page for the NDPA (National Drug Prevention Alliance). The NDPA is a network of concerned citizens and prevention professionals who believe that drug-free healthy lifestyles will protect and enhance society and its stability for present and future generations.

That's the first thing. Secondly:

There is also a lot of anecdotal evidence to suggest that cannabis is far from dangerous. However, this does not constitute scientific research. To date, not one reputable scientific paper has reported cannabis to be harmless.

It is not possible to overdose on cannabis. That's medical fact. The source is my (non-cannabis smoking) friend who is a trained doctor and surgeon. I've seen it written in black and white in his medical journal.

The section on cannabis and MS is just plain wrong. There are countless studies demonstrating the benefits of cannabis to MS sufferers. Then there's the MS sufferers themselves!

The section on the effects of decriminalisation in Holland is also way off. I'm just off out but I will address this later.

The fact that the web site was written by someone unable to demonstrate complete objectivity renders it useless, IMHO.

[Slick]

Originally posted by DaBeeeenster
Slick, can we have evidence of schizophrenia related to smoking?

How about here?

That took all of 5 seconds on google