Originally posted by §P0oONY
Actually, just had a rethink, I meant it in a medical sense, over moral.And in the Netherlands it is not legal, it's illegal but there is no prosecution.
In that case it is right in some cases and not right in others.
Well, sales and uses are tollerated, so it is right by fact, though not by legislation, that is true.
Originally posted by ragesRemorse
everything brings benefits aswell as consequences...the question is...do the benefits outweigh the consequences? This person says NO. Addiction, numbed senses refelexes and train of thought, followed by loss of ambition over prolonged use do not seem very appealing to me. Oh yeah, the after effects of quitting pot can last up to 6 months. Depression definitely follows after quitting pot after a prolonged use
Another person says YES. Which is why everyone should choose for themselves. Easy, eh?
Originally posted by Bardock42
Another person says YES. Which is why everyone should choose for themselves. Easy, eh?
why because you like it?
If we cant choose to have foods cooked in trans fat or the freedom to have a cigarette outside of a building...why should we be able to choose a toxin as hindering on the human body?
Originally posted by ragesRemorse
why because you like it?If we cant choose to have foods cooked in trans fat or the freedom to have a cigarette outside of a building...why should we be able to choose a toxin as hindering on the human body?
I don't like it. I had the most horrible times in my life on pot.
Anyways...you can cook your food in whatever you want at home...you can smoke cigarettes at home...your examples have nothing to do with the issue at hand.
Besides, I am against those legislations too.
Originally posted by Bardock42
your examples have nothing to do with the issue at hand.
Besides, I am against those legislations too.
has everything to your last remark...People have no outlet for choosing for themselves. The public had no say in banning transfat from being used in restaurants, as well as smoking.
The point is, you do not choose...the government chooses for you. Doesnt amtter how many people say yes or no. If people agree with smoking or trans fat ban...they in return have to agree with the government's decesion on having pot illegal. 😄
Originally posted by ragesRemorse
has everything to your last remark...People have no outlet for choosing for themselves. The public had no say in banning transfat from being used in restaurants, as well as smoking.The point is, you do not choose...the government chooses for you. Doesnt amtter how many people say yes or no. If people agree with smoking or trans fat ban...they in return have to agree with the government's decesion on having pot illegal. 😄
No, the government just chooses for you in public. You can still do either at home. And it only chooses because it thinks it harms you (in the case of the fat (which it shouldn't do)) or someone else (in the case of cigarettes (which is valid)) And that is incorrect reasoning. It would be just as possible to agree on fat and cigarette bans and be for the legalization of pot...it is very different issues.
Originally posted by ragesRemorse
has everything to your last remark...People have no outlet for choosing for themselves. The public had no say in banning transfat from being used in restaurants, as well as smoking.The point is, you do not choose...the government chooses for you. Doesnt amtter how many people say yes or no. If people agree with smoking or trans fat ban...they in return have to agree with the government's decesion on having pot illegal. 😄
poor examples/excuses
the transfat ban falls under government guidelines in restaurants not poisoning patrons, be it strychnine or synthetic cooking oil.
the restaurant/bar smoking ban concerns public health and the dangers of second hand smoke. it concerns everyone's right to not breath in someone else's toxic smoke.
there is no law banning an individual's right to cook with artificial oils, nor is there a law against consumption of tobacco, barring a health risk to others who would not welcome it.
Re: Re: Re: Drug Users
Originally posted by Deathblow
Crack has destroyed whole communities in countless urban areas in most countries of the world. It's harming more than just users. And once someone is addicted to crack, meth, smack or even coke, their lives are ruined. They're a slave to something that's destroying their bodies and dissolving their brains, they often become blind to reason and unless they do something about kicking the habit, it's a guarenteed downward spiral. Because once you're an addict, all that matters is the kick.There is a reason some drugs are classified as 'A' and have huge consequences for convicted sellers. They ruin lives. Fact.
Crack has also been used in society with no consequences of the sort.
So I'll repeat; If it doesn't affect anybody else, it's not a problem, and if people misuse it, it's not the drug's fault.
Originally posted by §P0oONY
Illegal drugs are not good for you, they harm you, there is legal equivalents for dealing with those problems listed, if you want to take drugs like cannabis then that's fine, but don't preach that it's right.
Don't preach that it's wrong either. Pot is less harmful than two legal drugs that do more damage than any illegal one, so you shouldn't let legality cause your opinion.
A lot of things "harm you", so let them harm the people who want to harm themselves, if that's what you think it's doing.
I ask this question to Rage and Spoony:
How many times have you bought and used illegal drugs?
-AC
I don't think cannabis should be legalised... Not in the UK anyway as we're having a semi-crackdown on smoking so legalising cannabis would just be a step in the wrong direction. I have no great quarrels with the drug itself, I don't really see it as anything worse than alcohol but as a binge drinking nation I'd hate to see the state of affairs with cannabis in full public mix..
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Crack has also been used in society with no consequences of the sort.So I'll repeat; If it doesn't affect anybody else, it's not a problem, and if people misuse it, it's not the drug's fault.
Don't preach that it's wrong either. Pot is less harmful than two legal drugs that do more damage than any illegal one, so you shouldn't let legality cause your opinion.
A lot of things "harm you", so let them harm the people who want to harm themselves, if that's what you think it's doing.
I ask this question to Rage and Spoony:
How many times have you bought and used illegal drugs?
-AC
Originally posted by §P0oONY
I don't think cannabis should be legalised... Not in the UK anyway as we're having a semi-crackdown on smoking so legalising cannabis would just be a step in the wrong direction.
i fail to see the connection, unless they are trying to make cigarettes illegal.
Originally posted by §P0oONY
I have no great quarrels with the drug itself, I don't really see it as anything worse than alcohol but as a binge drinking nation I'd hate to see the state of affairs with cannabis in full public mix..
so by logic you would be for the outright banning of alcohol, yes? if not you really must ponder the hypocritical nature of your present stance on the issue.
Originally posted by Schecter
poor examples/excusesthe transfat ban falls under government guidelines in restaurants not poisoning patrons, be it strychnine or synthetic cooking oil.
the restaurant/bar smoking ban concerns public health and the dangers of second hand smoke. it concerns everyone's right to not breath in someone else's toxic smoke.
there is no law banning an individual's right to cook with artificial oils, nor is there a law against consumption of tobacco, barring a health risk to others who would not welcome it.
Oh look, it's Steal-Bardock's-Point-Man.
Originally posted by Schecter
i fail to see the connection, unless they are trying to make cigarettes illegal.so by logic you would be for the outright banning of alcohol, yes? if not you really must ponder the hypocritical nature of your present stance on the issue.
No, I'm not for banning alcohol but I really don't think we need more harmful substances legalised, It's not like the laws on cannabis are particularly strong anyway, I just don't think that a country's government should promote recreational drugs. I think they should be more strict with alcohol to be honest, it's easy as **** getting alcohol underage.
Originally posted by §P0oONY
I don't think cannabis should be legalised... Not in the UK anyway as we're having a semi-crackdown on smoking so legalising cannabis would just be a step in the wrong direction. I have no great quarrels with the drug itself, I don't really see it as anything worse than alcohol but as a binge drinking nation I'd hate to see the state of affairs with cannabis in full public mix..
You're aware you don't need to smoke cannabis, and that the act of smoking it is what gives it any remote cause for concern anyway?
People on cannabis causing trouble? I'd honestly have to see that to believe it.
So admitting you like it, why are you acting guilty? Legality means nothing regarding this drug.
Originally posted by §P0oONY
No, I'm not for banning alcohol but I really don't think we need more harmful substances legalised, It's not like the laws on cannabis are particularly strong anyway, I just don't think that a country's government should promote recreational drugs. I think they should be more strict with alcohol to be honest, it's easy as **** getting alcohol underage.
Cannabis? Harmful?
Provide fact. Not myth. I wonder, then, why there's many positive uses and even doctors, in their free time, have been known to ENDORSE its use.
Also, who said PROMOTING drugs? Not denying them and filling kids heads with guilt, shame and false fact is not PROMOTING them.
-AC
Originally posted by Magee
After just reading that closed thread and feeling quite strongly on the subject I thought I would make this. First of all the word drug ranges from paracetamol to cannabis to heroin. Its not good to just lump all illegal drugs in to the one category as it just does not work. Heroin/crack/meth these are the drugs that will with out a doubt ruin your life if you use on a constant basis.
Not to mention that you firstly and foremostly did not make a distinction between the ''user'' and ''abuser''.
''User'' can use drugs on a constant bases - without going to excess.
Do you count everyone who has few glasses of wine a week an alcoholic? I don't think so.
Anything in excess is bad - including food, which is otherwise essential.
Drugs are no exception.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
You're aware you don't need to smoke cannabis, and that the act of smoking it is what gives it any remote cause for concern anyway?People on cannabis causing trouble? I'd honestly have to see that to believe it.
So admitting you like it, why are you acting guilty? Legality means nothing regarding this drug.
Cannabis? Harmful?
Provide fact. Not myth. I wonder, then, why there's many positive uses and even doctors, in their free time, have been known to ENDORSE its use.
Also, who said PROMOTING drugs? Not denying them and filling kids heads with guilt, shame and false fact is not PROMOTING them.
-AC
I'm not saying that they'd cause trouble, I just don't think having the streets covered in stoners and pissheads is very appealing.
I'm not acting guilty, I have no problem with the drug, I have no problem using it, I just don't think it should be legalised.
Cannabis? Harmful?Provide fact. Not myth. I wonder, then, why there's many positive uses and even doctors, in their free time, have been known to ENDORSE its use.
Also, who said PROMOTING drugs? Not denying them and filling kids heads with guilt, shame and false fact is not PROMOTING them.
-AC
The most common way of tking canabis is smoking it, that is harmful, obviously, damaging lungs, heart, everything. There is also the worry of psychosis with prolonged use.
You honestly believe that legalising a drug isn't an instant way of promoting it?
Originally posted by §P0oONY
They're making it illegal to smoke in public in England, the law has already passed in Scotland, Ireland and Wales.
ok so then you're still free to start/maintain a smoking habit.
Originally posted by §P0oONY
No, I'm not for banning alcohol but I really don't think we need more harmful substances legalised,
but who are you (who is anyone) to draw the line between illegal and acceptable? based on what? a fallacious slippery slope?
Originally posted by §P0oONY
It's not like the laws on cannabis are particularly strong anyway, I just don't think that a country's government should promote recreational drugs. I think they should be more strict with alcohol to be honest, it's easy as **** getting alcohol underage.
i dont recall any government in history to date promoting any recreational drug...besides tobacco...especially tobacco...unfortunately.
Originally posted by Schecter
ok so then you're still free to start/maintain a smoking habit.but who are you (who is anyone) to draw the line between illegal and acceptable? based on what? a fallacious slippery slope?
i dont recall any government in history to date promoting any recreational drug...besides tobacco...especially tobacco...unfortunately.
If a country legalised cannabis, more taking of cannabis would occur, that in my eyes is promotion. Just because they don't put up adverts doesn't mean that it isn't being promoted. If a govenment says something is okay that didn't used to be okay that is it being promoted.