Should Weed be legalised?

[Chest Rockwell]

I have worked extensively with people who are addicted to weed. As with all addictions, they will do anything to get what they need. Robbery, muggings and prostitution are all ways I have known people take to feed the addiction.

 

I am absolutely stunned that anyone does these things for a spliff. Would you mind giving a bit more detail, if you can?

[King Pitcos]

I've seen lads punch each other for not going twos, or for disrespecting the three-drag pass.

[Up Chuck]

In my admittedly limited experience (never done it myself, know numerous people who do/have and have been around a few when they did), I've found that when stoned:

 

- People who are twats act like twats

- Nice, normal people who I get on with act like nice, normal people

- Douchebags who think they're the coolest thing ever because they smoke weed act like douchebags that think they're the coolest thing ever because they're smoking weed

 

I can't claim to know enough to speak for or against legalisation, but on a personal level, I've generally found that it amplifies whatever's already there. I can't recall it ever making someone I liked previously act in a way I found objectionable.

[Dead Mike]

Weed's not physically addictive, unlike Alcohol, Opiates or Cocaine although you can get mentally addicted to anything that changes your state of being, be it exercise, sex or chocolate. I'd also be interested in hearing about these experiences, are you a drug counselor? If so, your hardline approach surprises me as I've seen plenty of calls for the decriminalisation of cannabis from people working on the 'front-line' as such, police, youth workers et al as they seem more aware of the long term disadvantages of criminalising a large group of people for partaking in such a common practice.

[nfc90210]

LOL.

 

Seriously, Thunderplex, how many people are out on the street sucking cock in order to fund their weed habit? How many people have you met who have been doing that?

[Bus Surfer]

I think the people who Thunderplex is talking about are not just weed smokers. They sound like the kind of people that take ANY drugs they can get their hands on. I know a load of people like this.

 

People who may smoke a spliff inbetween lines of Coke, Meow and pills are different to the people who just like to smoke a joint and watch Come Dine With Me.

[Thunderplex]

I was a housing support officer for the last 16 years, dealing with people who could not sustain tenancies for one reason or another, and getting them away from the threat of eviction.

 

Two of the estates I worked on were heavy weed areas. This is where I saw the behaviour that is normally attributed to harder drug issues (Heroin for example). A couple of the prostitutes I worked with used most of their income for weed, and were in the vicious circle that they could not do what they did without it, and needed to do what they did to afford it.

 

The heavy users would think nothing of stealing off neighbours and friends to feed the habit. The more they had, the more paranoid they got.

 

I did a visit on a couple where the male partner had the issue. He was sat there in a state of oblivion while I discussed issues, and I then went into the kitchen with his partner to look at a repair issue, then left. I got a report from the police the next day that he had caved her cheekbone in with a mug as in his mind she tried it on with me in the kitchen. This was purely paranoia due to his use.

 

Yes, there are more incidents like the above as a result of alcohol and other drugs, but this is the experience I had with weed users. If they just sat there giggling and telling stupid stories i wouldn't have such a strong issue with it.

 

A few of my former colleagues wanted it legalised, and we spent many an hour debating it.

[WU LYF 4 LYF]

Economically, I support the legalisation of all drugs pretty much. That way, the country makes a fuck load of money from taxation (which would clear the deficit pretty quickly), and the quality and dosage of the drugs could be improved, leading to less overdoses with the proper risks and advice printed on the back of the packet. Legalisation would also remove some of the 'edge' of doing something illegal, which could curb users.

 

Start a demonisation campaign in the schools if you must, educate people on the dangers of addiction (in conjunction with similar classes on alcohol, tobacco and junk food). Crime goes down, and the victims of it. Nobody is on the streets pushing hard drugs to kids (although reports of things like this are wholly exaggerated anyway).

 

Most people who want to take drugs will take them regardless, so the state might as well be keeping them as safe as they can and making money off it.

 

On the weed front specifically, legalise it just to stop the boring lectures from stoners, often whose only political comment is 'make weed legal, it never hurt anyone'.

[David]

Most people who want to take drugs will take them regardless, so the state might as well be keeping them as safe as they can and making money off it.

Not necessarily. As things stand drugs kill a decent chunk of their users, either immediately through overdose or over time. This helps to keep the imbecile level within society down a bit, which is always a good thing.

[Kiffy]

I did a visit on a couple where the male partner had the issue. He was sat there in a state of oblivion while I discussed issues, and I then went into the kitchen with his partner to look at a repair issue, then left. I got a report from the police the next day that he had caved her cheekbone in with a mug as in his mind she tried it on with me in the kitchen. This was purely paranoia due to his use.

 

This is the bit I really take issue with, how on earth do you know his violent possessive wife beating tendencies were due to his weed use? I mean that behaviour's certainly been present in non weed smoking types. So how have you made the definate connection that in this case, it's down to his marijuana use?

Seems like a bit logic gap's missing there.

 

[Kiffy]

Most people who want to take drugs will take them regardless, so the state might as well be keeping them as safe as they can and making money off it.

Not necessarily. As things stand drugs kill a decent chunk of their users, either immediately through overdose or over time. This helps to keep the imbecile level within society down a bit, which is always a good thing.

 

Most of the deaths from, say, heroin, would be wiped out at a stroke by legalisation. Smack in and of itself isn't that harmful, and if you're able to sensibly regulate your dosage and remove all the impurities added by it being illegal and cut, it really shouldn't kill many people at all. Intravenous use would go right down, having drugs illegal kills far more people than legalising them could hope to.

And even then, it still doesn't kill too many at the moment, which is quite impressive really.

[WU LYF 4 LYF]

Not necessarily. As things stand drugs kill a decent chunk of their users,

 

I'd be interested to find where this statistic came from. I know there was a stat I read where you were more likely to die going horse riding than you were taking ecstasy, as a percentage.

 

As Kiffy says, most of these drugs aren't too harmful to most users in the short term as long as they're taken properly in proper doses. If pure drugs in properly managed quantities came on the open market with the relevant health warnings and advice for consumption, it would prevent many drugs deaths. The 'MDMA deaths' in London a couple of weeks back were not caused by MDMA but by whatever shit was being sold as it. This sort of thing is avoided if the drug is legalised.

 

It's tougher to argue for the legalisation of more addictive, damaging substances such as Crystal Meth. But cigarettes are addictive and damaging and they're still sold, and furthermore although something like cocaine is physically addictive, the majority of people who use it don't get addicted at all.

[Halitosis Romantic]

Most people who want to take drugs will take them regardless, so the state might as well be keeping them as safe as they can and making money off it.

Not necessarily. As things stand drugs kill a decent chunk of their users, either immediately through overdose or over time. This helps to keep the imbecile level within society down a bit, which is always a good thing.

 

I can remember you using this sort of moral relativism in the past, right? Keeps the imbecile level down? I mean, c'mon... Project T4.

[Thunderplex]

I did a visit on a couple where the male partner had the issue. He was sat there in a state of oblivion while I discussed issues, and I then went into the kitchen with his partner to look at a repair issue, then left. I got a report from the police the next day that he had caved her cheekbone in with a mug as in his mind she tried it on with me in the kitchen. This was purely paranoia due to his use.

 

This is the bit I really take issue with, how on earth do you know his violent possessive wife beating tendencies were due to his weed use? I mean that behaviour's certainly been present in non weed smoking types. So how have you made the definate connection that in this case, it's down to his marijuana use?

Seems like a bit logic gap's missing there.

 

The tendancy was more than likely there in the background, the problem was the paranoia that was a result of the weed made him think that his Mrs was dropping them to all and sundry. It was not me who made the connection, as at the time I knew little of the effects of long term, constant use. It was the findings of the case report that gave me the information.

[David]

I did a visit on a couple where the male partner had the issue. He was sat there in a state of oblivion while I discussed issues, and I then went into the kitchen with his partner to look at a repair issue, then left. I got a report from the police the next day that he had caved her cheekbone in with a mug as in his mind she tried it on with me in the kitchen. This was purely paranoia due to his use.

 

This is the bit I really take issue with, how on earth do you know his violent possessive wife beating tendencies were due to his weed use? I mean that behaviour's certainly been present in non weed smoking types. So how have you made the definate connection that in this case, it's down to his marijuana use?

Seems like a bit logic gap's missing there.

The tendancy was more than likely there in the background, the problem was the paranoia that was a result of the weed made him think that his Mrs was dropping them to all and sundry. It was not me who made the connection, as at the time I knew little of the effects of long term, constant use. It was the findings of the case report that gave me the information.

You're 100% certain he wasn't on anything else?