It's like I said, I don't have any evidence or anything to back my stuff up, I'm just spouting my assumptions. I know I'm wrong, I thought we established this, we'll leave it at that.Elcarsh said:So, you believe that a sizeable portion of the part of the population which consists of people who never drink are instead likely to take up frequent smoking of cannabis?FreelanceButler said:It's not so much I think the same people would care less, it's that there'd be more people influenced. "New people", if you will, who don't drink much but would be doing some sort of substance every other hour, now out on the road since it seems a little more acceptable.
Heck, maybe the same people would act differently under drugs rather than alcohol. Going out with the mindset "I haven't drunk anything, I'll be fine".
You don't think the people most likely to smoke cannabis are the people who already drink alcohol frequently?
That does sound infinitely more likely.
Prohibition. In the 20s. It didn't last long. We need to win over weed. WE CAN DO IT.ravensheart18 said:Either outlaw booze or legalize and regulate weed.
That's true but does it really matter? The idea here is personal responsibility. If a man kills someone, does it make a difference if the man was intoxicated or not? The answer to that question is another question: would the man still committed murder if he wasn't intoxicated or wasn't sober? As there are no drugs that directly cause a man to murder, the man must've had the potential to commit murder in him. It was the man's fault and not the drug's. Furthermore, if the man is the sort who can commit murder, that most heinous of crimes, I daresay he would not be dissuaded from drug use, the most benign of crimes. The only time that a drug could be blamed for the murder is if the drug in question causes most men to murder.Generic Gamer said:The only problem with that is when people get others killed whilst on drugs. People on cocaine can become incredibly aggressive and almost uncaring of injury, they're the kind of people you don't want a bar full of.Liberaliter said:Even if weed was harmful (it isn't) it should be legal anyway. I'd say we should have the right to do and take whatever we want. Whilst on the subject, all drugs should be legalised. That way those stupid enough to take things like cocaine and heroin would be killed, gene pool cleansing baby.
If everyone took drugs and then sat quietly I'd not really care, but they don't. They take drugs and then they get real stupid and try and do things, people on drugs aren't very good at doing things.
Source for that?Generic Gamer said:Cannabis is an odd one. In theory it's harmless but in practice the UK saw a huge upsurge in usage when it was reduced to class C, this wouldn't have been a problem but we also started to see increasingly strong evidence of cannabis being linked to mental illness. Another factor that became increasingly clear was that the 'gentle stoner' stereotype was as much a product of the old cannabis culture as it was of the drug itself, as the number of users grew their connection with the 'stoner' ideal disappeared and plenty of violent crimes were committed while high. Basically the English brought our traditional slightly Nordic approach to drinking (a lot at once) to cannabis use and people were simply not doing what you'd expect stoners to do.
...Please explain this part of your argument. I'm pretty sure being lazy is not the worst in people.TwitchyGamer101 said:It can bring out the worst in people.
So only stupid poor people smoke pot?whiteblood said:Keep that shit illegal. Peoiple are stupid and mentally fogged up enough already, why hand them another way to go the way of the retard? Keep them hungry, desperate, poor and on the run.
You see the problem is, it is the increase in "retards" we will see that should keep it illegal. If you are saying about 50% can't handle it (which I know may not be true) then we don't want it easier for those people to obtain it as well as increase in people smoking weed. Yes, it is unfair on you guys that can handle the drug but we have to consider society as a whole.Skeleton Jelly said:Keep this in mind anti-weed folks. Is it the drug that's bad, or the retards YOU'VE seen?
As a "stoner" (I really hate that term) I can say a good %50 of weed smokers shouldn't be smoking weed because they simply can't handle it. They're immature, inconsiderate or out of control.
David Nutt?Red Right Hand said:Source for that?Generic Gamer said:Cannabis is an odd one. In theory it's harmless but in practice the UK saw a huge upsurge in usage when it was reduced to class C, this wouldn't have been a problem but we also started to see increasingly strong evidence of cannabis being linked to mental illness. Another factor that became increasingly clear was that the 'gentle stoner' stereotype was as much a product of the old cannabis culture as it was of the drug itself, as the number of users grew their connection with the 'stoner' ideal disappeared and plenty of violent crimes were committed while high. Basically the English brought our traditional slightly Nordic approach to drinking (a lot at once) to cannabis use and people were simply not doing what you'd expect stoners to do.
As far as I know, it was raised back to Class B against the advice of that guy who's name I forget. Anyone know? It was the guy that was fired for disagreeing with the decision.
I was about to post this, word for word.ravensheart18 said:Either outlaw booze or legalize and regulate weed.
Drug driving - it may not increase to a point as bad as drunk driving but it will increase.Elcarsh said:What harm do they do to society that justifies a complete ban on the substance?Adam28 said:You see the problem is, it is the increase in "retards" we will see that should keep it illegal. If you are saying about 50% can't handle it (which I know may not be true) then we don't want it easier for those people to obtain it as well as increase in people smoking weed. Yes, it is unfair on you guys that can handle the drug but we have to consider society as a whole.