Should Weed be legalised?

[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.

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

 

The report didn't have anything else in it, and that estate is a renound "Weed estate". I took particular interest in this one as it was my case, and I was obviously implemengted in it with his accusations.

[Kiffy]

I guess the weed might have made him more paranoid, but the decision to beat fuck out of his woman once he decided she'd tried it on with you?

While you're absoloutely right to point out that the idea that weed somehow completely removes violent behaviour is utter bullshit. It's worth pointing out that in the vast majority of cases people are less likely to be violent when stoned. If this bloke was nutty enough to break his missus jaw because he thought she tried it on with you (which, granted, it would appear he only thought when he was stoned) then I'd say it's a fair bet that at some point he'd find some other indiscretion, imagined or not, while stoned or not, and fuck her up for that instead.

I think he, more than weed, is to blame here.

[Thunderplex]

I guess the weed might have made him more paranoid, but the decision to beat fuck out of his woman once he decided she'd tried it on with you?

While you're absoloutely right to point out that the idea that weed somehow completely removes violent behaviour is utter bullshit. It's worth pointing out that in the vast majority of cases people are less likely to be violent when stoned. If this bloke was nutty enough to break his missus jaw because he thought she tried it on with you (which, granted, it would appear he only thought when he was stoned) then I'd say it's a fair bet that at some point he'd find some other indiscretion, imagined or not, while stoned or not, and fuck her up for that instead.

I think he, more than weed, is to blame here.

 

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on that one.

[Kiffy]

Why? What evidence do you have the weed caused the violence?

[Chest Rockwell]

Fucking hell Kiffy. Let it go.

[Kiffy]

Discussion kinda the point of boards, no?

Sorry, this kinda of lazy thinking just pisses me off. The illegality of weed causes immense problems to society, and virtually no good. And it's attitudes like this (and sickboy's retarded, "I met some annoying stoners, therefore weed should be illegal" shite) that keep it that way.

[Chest Rockwell]

So apparently you are entirely unfamiliar with the meaning of the phrase "agree to disagree"?

 

Your brand of aggressive irritating knawing is not going to lead to any kind of productive discussion here; you're not going to cause him to have some kind of revelation. He's discussed it with far more qualified people than you - i.e. his co-workers who know the specific case history.

 

Leave it be. I wouldn't want to talk to you about it if I was him, and that doesn't mean he can't justify his position.

[Kiffy]

My brand of aggressive irritating knawing? Hee, that's quite the write up, thank you very much.

[Thunderplex]

Discussion kinda the point of boards, no?

Sorry, this kinda of lazy thinking just pisses me off. The illegality of weed causes immense problems to society, and virtually no good. And it's attitudes like this (and sickboy's retarded, "I met some annoying stoners, therefore weed should be illegal" shite) that keep it that way.

 

The evidence on the report which went into full detail of how and why the incident happend, and the fact that now this person has been off weed for 5 years, his personality has changed for the better.

 

I've spent quite a bit of time giving details for my opinion in this thread, so why is they classed as "Lazy thinking"?

 

Cant really see how I can discuss this more than I have. I've answered every question aimed at me. My opinion obviously goes gainst yours, and that will not change, hence the agree to disagree. Can't see why that is a problem.

[Chest Rockwell]

-

[Loki]

I think that what Thunderplex has been saying is really interesting, actually, as he's obviously got more experience with this sort of case than most of us.

 

I'd like to believe that the old waccy baccy is harmless fun, but then I don't smoke the sort of super-strong superskunk that his cases do, nor in that sort of quantities. Perhaps violent reactions to alcohol are more visible because booze is legal, dispensed on our highstreets, and we're all brought up to consume it in large quantities?

 

I still think that in general terms a casual use of it is much less socially invasive, if you will, than getting pissed, but I think we'd be churlish to try and argue anecdotal evidence of our fun times stoned against Thunderplex's experience of serious weed habits.

[Kiffy]

Discussion kinda the point of boards, no?

Sorry, this kinda of lazy thinking just pisses me off. The illegality of weed causes immense problems to society, and virtually no good. And it's attitudes like this (and sickboy's retarded, "I met some annoying stoners, therefore weed should be illegal" shite) that keep it that way.

 

The evidence on the report which went into full detail of how and why the incident happend, and the fact that now this person has been off weed for 5 years, his personality has changed for the better.

 

I've spent quite a bit of time giving details for my opinion in this thread, so why is they classed as "Lazy thinking"?

 

Cant really see how I can discuss this more than I have. I've answered every question aimed at me. My opinion obviously goes gainst yours, and that will not change, hence the agree to disagree. Can't see why that is a problem.

 

Well that's the kind of evidence I was asking about it, which you hand't answered, and without which is just appears to be lazy thinking. If his behaviour has improved significantly and he's no longer violent since he's stopped smoking weed that puts your points in a different light.

I certainly wouldn't say it's impossible for some people to become more violent as a result of excessive weed use (I've certainly seen it have a negative affect on peoples mental state, and as your mental state deteriorates it's safe to assume accepted norms of social behaviour can deteriorate with it).

[Kiffy]

I think that what Thunderplex has been saying is really interesting, actually, as he's obviously got more experience with this sort of case than most of us.

 

I'd like to believe that the old waccy baccy is harmless fun, but then I don't smoke the sort of super-strong superskunk that his cases do, nor in that sort of quantities. Perhaps violent reactions to alcohol are more visible because booze is legal, dispensed on our highstreets, and we're all brought up to consume it in large quantities?

 

I still think that in general terms a casual use of it is much less socially invasive, if you will, than getting pissed, but I think we'd be churlish to try and argue anecdotal evidence of our fun times stoned against Thunderplex's experience of serious weed habits.

 

I think the key aspect is the differential between use and abuse.

Casual weekend binge weed smoking's statistically alot less likely to lead to violence than casual weekend binge drinking, I don't think there's much doubt of that. But when you get to the stage you're smoking strong weed constantly there's a much higher chance it'll fuck you up in some way, in the same way that being constantly drunk will probably fuck you up (though again, you'll get the odd happy drunk, nothing is absoloute with these things).

Smoking a bit of weed from time to time is harmless fun for most people (not to me though, makes me paranoid as fuck, so I don't smoke it, which seems an obvious response) in the same way as a drink here and there is fine for the vast majority of society. If we were to base the question of legality on the sort of extreme cases brought up by thunderplex I think we can all agree that, looked at under the same reasoning, booze would be banned tomorrow.

And that's kinda what piss's me off about the debate, people bring in the case of personal responsibility for alcohol and say you can't punish the many for the actions of the few. But in the case of weed and most other drugs, people demand we punish the many for the actions of the few. Seems like massive hypocrisy to me.

 

[Thunderplex]

Not really got anything else to add to this thread (unless a profound revolation is revealed, or silly comments are aimed towards me again), so am going to leave it there.

[Dirty Eddie]

I think the key aspect is the differential between use and abuse.

Casual weekend binge weed smoking's statistically alot less likely to lead to violence than casual weekend binge drinking, I don't think there's much doubt of that. But when you get to the stage you're smoking strong weed constantly there's a much higher chance it'll fuck you up in some way, in the same way that being constantly drunk will probably fuck you up (though again, you'll get the odd happy drunk, nothing is absoloute with these things).

Smoking a bit of weed from time to time is harmless fun for most people (not to me though, makes me paranoid as fuck, so I don't smoke it, which seems an obvious response) in the same way as a drink here and there is fine for the vast majority of society. If we were to base the question of legality on the sort of extreme cases brought up by thunderplex I think we can all agree that, looked at under the same reasoning, booze would be banned tomorrow.

And that's kinda what piss's me off about the debate, people bring in the case of personal responsibility for alcohol and say you can't punish the many for the actions of the few. But in the case of weed and most other drugs, people demand we punish the many for the actions of the few. Seems like massive hypocrisy to me.

 

That's pretty much how I feel about this matter.

 

Certain people obviously have underlying mental conditions that can be aggravated by cannabis. The same types of people may also be effected in similar ways from abusing alcohol or other drugs. It is a very small percentage though, and there are many substances out there that certain people just don't get on well with.

 

Education and regulation would be the answer. As it stands, anyone that wants to smoke themselves into oblivion still can, but those who use weed in a sensible manner (and have no adverse effects to it) still have to break the law to enjoy it and deal with "criminals" to get hold of it. There just doesn't seem to be much point in it's illegal status, all it does is waste a huge amount of Police time (and our money) arresting petty dealers and home-growers who otherwise don't break the law in any way.