|
Post by Delta9 on Nov 6, 2016 17:54:28 GMT
I was thinking more of class A drugs, but I take your point. Some cannabis is very very strong, and is causing flashbacks That is complete bullshit.
|
|
|
Post by Delta9 on Nov 6, 2016 17:55:46 GMT
We could also confiscate the driving licences of all people found to be purchasing alcohol... I was thinking more of class A drugs What difference does that make. Most class A's are less harmful than alcohol.
|
|
|
Post by Mr Stabby on Nov 6, 2016 18:14:15 GMT
Some cannabis is very very strong, and is causing flashbacks That is complete bullshit. Your user name suggests that you may have a vested interest here.
|
|
|
Post by peterboat on Nov 6, 2016 18:44:53 GMT
Some cannabis is very very strong, and is causing flashbacks That is complete bullshit. Fraid nor Riccy the lad from the unit next door had a real mid day episode Dave the boss ended up sacking him and had to paint the side of the car again................the correct colour!!
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Nov 6, 2016 18:53:10 GMT
Human beings have been getting out of their skulls with the assistance of some chemical or another since the stone age. It seems to be deeply ingrained in human society.
With such an age old problem, you would think by now, we would have pretty well sussed out the best way to deal with the problems that addiction can cause.
The arguments for decriminalising are persuasive but there are tremendous practical and moral problems that follow on from that.
Do you "dole out" for free drugs to addicts to prevent them committing crimes to finance their habit and if you do how do you set the level ?
do you only supply just enough so that they can barely function and thus "buy" drugs possibly funding them by crime.
Or do you give them as much as they want and allow Darwinian principles to limit the total amount that an individual is given.
What drugs do you supply? do you include cannabis and alcohol in the list of supplied drugs and if only "hard" drugs .......how hard ? crystal Meth ?
Lots of tough choices whichever side of the argument you are on
|
|
|
Poppies
Nov 6, 2016 19:08:57 GMT
via mobile
Post by tonyqj on Nov 6, 2016 19:08:57 GMT
I was thinking more of class A drugs What difference does that make. Most class A's are less harmful than alcohol. Really? I didn't know that. I stand corrected.
|
|
|
Post by bodger on Nov 6, 2016 21:12:53 GMT
Human beings have been getting out of their skulls with the assistance of some chemical or another since the stone age. It seems to be deeply ingrained in human society. With such an age old problem, you would think by now, we would have pretty well sussed out the best way to deal with the problems that addiction can cause. The arguments for decriminalising are persuasive but there are tremendous practical and moral problems that follow on from that. Do you "dole out" for free drugs to addicts to prevent them committing crimes to finance their habit and if you do how do you set the level ? do you only supply just enough so that they can barely function and thus "buy" drugs possibly funding them by crime. Or do you give them as much as they want and allow Darwinian principles to limit the total amount that an individual is given. What drugs do you supply? do you include cannabis and alcohol in the list of supplied drugs and if only "hard" drugs .......how hard ? crystal Meth ? Lots of tough choices whichever side of the argument you are on I have no experience of drugs or druggies, but it occurs to me that if there was no dealer involved (because the dealing profession would die out through lack of demand in the face of NHS competition), most experimental users of available substances like marijuana will never progress to hard drugs, so the problem should be minimal after a generation or so. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 7, 2016 9:57:42 GMT
Do you not think something else will come along? It seems that half of the appeal of a drug is the notion of being outside society, living on the edge, counter culture, or whatever term you choose. That is, until the drug of choice takes over. My only concerns with legalisation, as with drink, is the difficulty of restricting users around vehicles and machinery. Transport can be dangerous enough without having to contend with individuals who are not fully focussed. Just look at the effects of people on phones whilst driving. Legislation will never control peoples behaviour, but I think it's only really intended to keep a lid on the situation. The aim of the war on drugs was to attempt to control the situation, not eradicate it, in my view. Personally I don't mind what substances you wish to imbibe. I'd rather you weren't my bus driver, pilot or taxi driver at the time however (as examples). My drug of choice is Laphroaig Rog
|
|
|
Post by bodger on Nov 7, 2016 13:18:39 GMT
you seem to assume that making drugs legal will increase their use, while the opposite may be the result.
in any event, I don't believe that the use of cannabis by a driver is any more dangerous than alcohol, and the law should take care of it. Before you say the law hasn't stopped drink driving, I remember in the 60s we (myself and a large group of contemporaries) thought nothing of imbibing several pints of beer and then immediately driving, and racing each other, often from Devon to London on a Sunday night. I don't think many of us would do that these days.
in any event, cutting down on drugs-related crime, in particular mugging and burglary, would be the single biggest benefit for millions of respectable folk.
|
|