News1 min ago
Brave Or Stupid?
46 Answers
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ToraToraTora. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I think that the notion that canabis leads onto other drugs is valid - but importantly, it is not automatic.
People who move in a circle of people who use canabis, move in a circle of people who take drugs, and therefore their exposure to other drugs is obviously higher than average.
However, that does not mean that every canabis user chooses to start using other drugs, and that is where that argument falls down. The inference that one will and must lead to the other is a false assumption, usually made by people who have no direct experience of drugs, and imagine that canabis users get their cannabis from shifty men in raincoats in backstreet pub toilets.
Wrong.
People get cannabis from their friends, and the camaraderie of taking drugs together is a bonding experience.
Turning to the notion of legalising cannabis - i think it is, and always has been, worth trying.
Let's face it, the double standards of our culture - no to cannabis, yes to alcohol, is facile, and the so called 'war on drugs' has singularly failed to make any meaningful impact.
So, as a society, we have to accept that we have a drugs culture, there is no choice in that - only a choice in how we deal with it.
Legalising cannabis is a step in the right direction - it will make a dent in the drug cartels' finances and power.
From society's point of view, we have nothing to lose.
Legalisation need not be for ever more - if it fails in its aim, then the legislation can be reversed, so we can only move forward, or stay where we are now.
The problem for our governments, is that far more voters are against legalisation than in favour of it, so even discussing the idea represents political suicide, so we have a long way to go before the idea is tried out in the UK.
People who move in a circle of people who use canabis, move in a circle of people who take drugs, and therefore their exposure to other drugs is obviously higher than average.
However, that does not mean that every canabis user chooses to start using other drugs, and that is where that argument falls down. The inference that one will and must lead to the other is a false assumption, usually made by people who have no direct experience of drugs, and imagine that canabis users get their cannabis from shifty men in raincoats in backstreet pub toilets.
Wrong.
People get cannabis from their friends, and the camaraderie of taking drugs together is a bonding experience.
Turning to the notion of legalising cannabis - i think it is, and always has been, worth trying.
Let's face it, the double standards of our culture - no to cannabis, yes to alcohol, is facile, and the so called 'war on drugs' has singularly failed to make any meaningful impact.
So, as a society, we have to accept that we have a drugs culture, there is no choice in that - only a choice in how we deal with it.
Legalising cannabis is a step in the right direction - it will make a dent in the drug cartels' finances and power.
From society's point of view, we have nothing to lose.
Legalisation need not be for ever more - if it fails in its aim, then the legislation can be reversed, so we can only move forward, or stay where we are now.
The problem for our governments, is that far more voters are against legalisation than in favour of it, so even discussing the idea represents political suicide, so we have a long way to go before the idea is tried out in the UK.
"The problem for our governments, is that far more voters are against legalisation than in favour of it"
Very true. The vast majority of people will not change their views when presented with new evidence - they prefer to just stick to their opinions no matter what. That way they don't have to think.
Very true. The vast majority of people will not change their views when presented with new evidence - they prefer to just stick to their opinions no matter what. That way they don't have to think.
Andy, how would you address the issue of "passive" cannabis use?
In my industry, finding drugs in a routine screening represents instant dismissal. the tests used are so sensitive that cannabis can still be detected many weeks after use. Thus I could lose my job just being in the same room as a "legal" cannabis user. How can you justify that? Or is that just my hard luck, just collateral damage in a social experiment?
In my industry, finding drugs in a routine screening represents instant dismissal. the tests used are so sensitive that cannabis can still be detected many weeks after use. Thus I could lose my job just being in the same room as a "legal" cannabis user. How can you justify that? Or is that just my hard luck, just collateral damage in a social experiment?
//From society's point of view, we have nothing to lose. //
I would take issue with this I think there are significant risks
If legalisation lead to increased use then we would see greater cases of psychosis, more cases of driving under the influence, probably more Cancer cases.
There are potential benefits of course but it's not obvious whether the net result would be positive or not.
Actually if Cannibis were a 'gateway drug' (which I dispute) this would actually be a strong argument for legalisation as it would remove a supposed soft entry
I would take issue with this I think there are significant risks
If legalisation lead to increased use then we would see greater cases of psychosis, more cases of driving under the influence, probably more Cancer cases.
There are potential benefits of course but it's not obvious whether the net result would be positive or not.
Actually if Cannibis were a 'gateway drug' (which I dispute) this would actually be a strong argument for legalisation as it would remove a supposed soft entry
The issue of drugs could be dealt with - as with most of society's social problems - with appropriate education.
I have banged on for years that until we educate children that alcohol poisoning should not equate with a 'great night out' - we will always have binge drinking.
The prevention is not to try and 'fight a war' against established drug and alcohol use, it is to prevent its attraction in the first place, and that can only be done by education.
But nursery and primary eductaion costs money, which is why nursery nurses earn minimum wages, and nothing changes.
I have banged on for years that until we educate children that alcohol poisoning should not equate with a 'great night out' - we will always have binge drinking.
The prevention is not to try and 'fight a war' against established drug and alcohol use, it is to prevent its attraction in the first place, and that can only be done by education.
But nursery and primary eductaion costs money, which is why nursery nurses earn minimum wages, and nothing changes.
Tora - your point may well be valid, but attacking cannabis use on the basis that it may lead to heroin addicition is comparable to attacking young drivers because a proportion of them become boy racers.
It is taking a social development and using it as a weapon, and as usually occurs, the logic is faulty, and the antitdote is flawed.
Education could prevent alcohol and drug abuse, and driving at speed, but it takes money, which the governments wilfully refuse to invest.
It is taking a social development and using it as a weapon, and as usually occurs, the logic is faulty, and the antitdote is flawed.
Education could prevent alcohol and drug abuse, and driving at speed, but it takes money, which the governments wilfully refuse to invest.
//mushroom - if you are in the same room as a legal cannabis smoker, surely there is no issue. Cannabis is now legal, ergo, no testing, no potential job loss.//
not so Andy. Alcohol is legal, but that doesn't mean I can turn up to work completely off my face. So far as I'm aware, you cannot "passively" be under the influence of someone else's drinking.
not so Andy. Alcohol is legal, but that doesn't mean I can turn up to work completely off my face. So far as I'm aware, you cannot "passively" be under the influence of someone else's drinking.
mushroom - as far as I am aware, the debate is about legalisation of cannabis use - hence my response to your point.
If we are talking current conditions - then surely your employer must be aware of the effects of 'passive' cannabis use, and make allowances for that?
If not, then the workforce is going to be seriously curtailed, given that one user can probbably affect the rest for twenty or more colleagues.
If we are talking current conditions - then surely your employer must be aware of the effects of 'passive' cannabis use, and make allowances for that?
If not, then the workforce is going to be seriously curtailed, given that one user can probbably affect the rest for twenty or more colleagues.
If the whole nation turns into zombie potheads, productivity falls, accidents at work soar and all of that, then it will be seen to be stupid :)
As others have already commented, the war on drugs can hardly be described as a success - trillions of dollars have been spent globally on fighting drugs, a tremendous drain on resources and manpower, to very little effect. History tells us that Prohibition is not the answer.
So maybe legalising pot and maybe some other drugs, like E or Cocaine, might be the way forward. And if the Uruguay experience comes back positive, well then they will have proved to be brave.
As others have already commented, the war on drugs can hardly be described as a success - trillions of dollars have been spent globally on fighting drugs, a tremendous drain on resources and manpower, to very little effect. History tells us that Prohibition is not the answer.
So maybe legalising pot and maybe some other drugs, like E or Cocaine, might be the way forward. And if the Uruguay experience comes back positive, well then they will have proved to be brave.
jackthehat - "Not one of the many dope-users of my acquaintance have ever gone on to heroin.......most of them gradually stopped their dope-smoking as their lives and careers developed."
Same here, and I suspect that is so for a lot of people.
In terms of personal drug use - I tried smoking at 13, for about three weeks, and never did it again.
i tried alcohol at seventeen, got drunk on purpose twice to see how it felt, and never did it again.
I took LSD as my first illegal drug, seven times in total under strictly supervised conditions, and loved every minute of it, then stopped, and never did it again.
Tried cannabis - see under smoking.
Have never been tempted by heroin or any other drug.
People are individuals, you cannot have these vapid generalisations which are usually coined by people who wouldn't know a joint if they fell over one!
Same here, and I suspect that is so for a lot of people.
In terms of personal drug use - I tried smoking at 13, for about three weeks, and never did it again.
i tried alcohol at seventeen, got drunk on purpose twice to see how it felt, and never did it again.
I took LSD as my first illegal drug, seven times in total under strictly supervised conditions, and loved every minute of it, then stopped, and never did it again.
Tried cannabis - see under smoking.
Have never been tempted by heroin or any other drug.
People are individuals, you cannot have these vapid generalisations which are usually coined by people who wouldn't know a joint if they fell over one!
andy-hughes
/// I took LSD as my first illegal drug, seven times in total under strictly supervised conditions, and loved every minute of it, then stopped, and never did it again. ///
Interesting, what "strictly supervised conditions" were those Andy, and why would you count the amount of times (7) unless it was every day for a week, and if you loved LSD so much, what made you give it up, did your drug supervisor move on?
/// I took LSD as my first illegal drug, seven times in total under strictly supervised conditions, and loved every minute of it, then stopped, and never did it again. ///
Interesting, what "strictly supervised conditions" were those Andy, and why would you count the amount of times (7) unless it was every day for a week, and if you loved LSD so much, what made you give it up, did your drug supervisor move on?
