Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

dæl wrote:
Who cares, I'd rather have our streets filled with happy, philosophical, hungry people on a saturday night than the aggressive, loud, filling up A&E and police cells crowd we currently have.

Well, I do for one. I already get more than enough 2nd hand smoke from regular fags (and the odd bit of weed every now and again) just walking around - don't particularly want more, and I certainly don't want to have 2nd hand smoke that could cause me to get fined/etc if I live/work/etc near a pot den and then get pulled over by the police for driving under the influence.

So yeah, alcohol may go down 25% but will pot smoiking rise by the same amount? Or more? Or less? I already have to practically wade through cigarette ends and smokers to get into some buildings (and even places it is illegal to smoke, shock horror) - don't particularly want to get high whilst doing it...

You're not going to get high walking through a cloud of pot smoke, plus the rules governing consumption outdoors would probably be similar to those for booze, i.e. a fine if you get caught using on the street.

SilverMK2 wrote:

dæl wrote:
Who cares, I'd rather have our streets filled with happy, philosophical, hungry people on a saturday night than the aggressive, loud, filling up A&E and police cells crowd we currently have.

Well, I do for one. I already get more than enough 2nd hand smoke from regular fags (and the odd bit of weed every now and again) just walking around - don't particularly want more, and I certainly don't want to have 2nd hand smoke that could cause me to get fined/etc if I live/work/etc near a pot den and then get pulled over by the police for driving under the influence.

So yeah, alcohol may go down 25% but will pot smoiking rise by the same amount? Or more? Or less? I already have to practically wade through cigarette ends and smokers to get into some buildings (and even places it is illegal to smoke, shock horror) - don't particularly want to get high whilst doing it...

Well the cafes the prof. proposed wouldn't have people smoking outside, but you would rather the domestic abuse, car accidents, overstretched NHS, brawling and other social problems so long as you dont have to wade through cigarette ends? Which is stupid anyway, because there would be ZERO chance that would happen. But cheers for your opinion, the "I'm all right jack" attitude never gets enough airing. What do you actually want, is other people being allowed to live their lives not enough? How about lower taxes/better services? Less violent crime? Being able to go to hospital on the weekend?

It is believed that after an initial spike then use would stay at the rate it is used now.

Well, I'm gald to report the fines for smoking in places where it is illegal mean that no one smokes, for example, in the bus station that I pass through twice a day and usually have to dodge past people puffing away and walk over what sometimes feels like a literal carpet of cigarette ends... Hell, there are even empty and part empty cans of booze all over the place too...

At least the fines for littering are working...

SilverMK2 wrote:Well, I'm gald to report the fines for smoking in places where it is illegal mean that no one smokes, for example, in the bus station that I pass through twice a day and usually have to dodge past people puffing away and walk over what sometimes feels like a literal carpet of cigarette ends... Hell, there are even empty and part empty cans of booze all over the place too...

That's not my experience. Wait... You're in Stockport, aren't you?


Yeah, sounds about right!

SilverMK2 wrote:Well, I'm gald to report the fines for smoking in places where it is illegal mean that no one smokes, for example, in the bus station that I pass through twice a day and usually have to dodge past people puffing away and walk over what sometimes feels like a literal carpet of cigarette ends... Hell, there are even empty and part empty cans of booze all over the place too...

At least the fines for littering are working...

I offer you less tax, violent crime, hospital waiting times, domestic abuse, police expenditure and you come back with "look at all this litter" and "people smoke at bus stops." I worry about some people. It would still be illegal to smoke in the street, of course it would.

That's an abysmal argument that you should be ashamed for making. You may as well ask "If we acquit one, why not acquit them all?" It presumes either guilt or innocence, which is just about the stupidest thing anyone can do.

Or, inversely, "That alcohol stuff is bad for, and its a liquid, therefore we must make all liquids illegal."

They all have the same criteria. They affect the individual and society. We acknowledge that we cannot stop weed distribution illegally. The same can be said for other drugs. The best thing to reduce funds eaten up by the war on drugs is to legalise all illegal drugs.

I'm not opposed to legalising crystal meth.

I offer you less tax, violent crime, hospital waiting times, domestic abuse, police expenditure and you come back with "look at all this litter" and "people smoke at bus stops." I worry about some people. It would still be illegal to smoke in the street, of course it would.

Don't count your chickens before they hatch. I doubt it will go as smoothly.

Mr Hyena wrote:

I offer you less tax, violent crime, hospital waiting times, domestic abuse, police expenditure and you come back with "look at all this litter" and "people smoke at bus stops." I worry about some people. It would still be illegal to smoke in the street, of course it would.

Don't count your chickens before they hatch. I doubt it will go as smoothly.

You reduce alcohol consumption by anything close to 25% and all of those problems are lessened considerably.

No, I just ask what kind of rise pot smoking is expextedto get and whether the cut in booze drinking (and related benefits) will offsetthe downsides associated with pot, some minor ones I have posted about, and which you seem to think that because I have raised them (being rather obvious problems that can't really be argued against existing even if they are minor when compared to cancer, memory loss and other damage and problems) they are the only things I care about - those that impact on me because I am representing some 'silent majority of alright jacks'...

And I'm still to hear just what kind of increase in pot smoking we are supposed to expect... And whether that is better for the country as a whole than having 25% more drinkers than we could have...

SilverMK2 wrote:No, I just ask what kind of rise pot smoking is expextedto get and whether the cut in booze drinking (and related benefits) will offsetthe downsides associated with pot, some minor ones I have posted about, and which you seem to think that because I have raised them (being rather obvious problems that can't really be argued against existing even if they are minor when compared to cancer, memory loss and other damage and problems) they are the only things I care about - those that impact on me because I am representing some 'silent majority of alright jacks'...

And I'm still to hear just what kind of increase in pot smoking we are supposed to expect... And whether that is better for the country as a whole than having 25% more drinkers than we could have...

Tbh you just sound a bit whingy talking about littering, a problem which has nothing to do with the legalisation of cannabis, and if you've ever walked past a kebab shop on a sunday morning you might well see the silliness of raising the point when comparing cannabis to alcohol. Melissa raised the excellent point earlier that's its those whose self interest isn't immediately served who hold back progress. Surely the fact you'd be able to use a hospital on the weekend would be pretty damn useful.

Perhaps you should read the thread and the article to see what benefits are on the cards, and my post earlier on expected usage rates.

I'm posting on my phone, so am somewhat limited in how much I can type (given it takes so long) and also on what I can read as my reception is quite low.

My posts were coming from the other side of the argument given there are those who seem not to want to accept there are downsides to weed both in the short and long term, and also that just because there are laws on where and when things can be done, doesn't mean they will be obeyed. After all people smoke weed already don't they? And litter? And smoke in places that are supposed to be smoke free?

And working in a hospital, where you save on patients coming in to one area, you just shift them onto some other service, either now or with some lag.

You work in a hospital!? Then surely you can see the detriment that alcohol misuse is to our society. Noone is claiming that weed would be without a downside, just that if people reduce their alcohol consumption the upside would far outweigh it.

You don't see much smoking weed in the street currently do you? It does happen but it's quite rare. There is nothing to suggest that providing people a place to smoke it would increase this, quite the opposite in fact. You would reduce the "gateway drug" position that weed currently has as well.

I don't see the problem with weed. In my experience, it's a peaceful drug that doesn't do much harm, except for the tobacco with which you roll a spliff. Blunts aren't that dangerous too. It's just a goddamned plant, nothing synthetic about it. Eating vegetables doesn't harm us either does it?

And it's true, alcohol gets people aggressive. Weed is the better option.

But legalizing it... If we are to buy our weed in coffeeshops, we are going to pay more for our weed. Here in Belgium it's cheaper to buy weed on the streets. Plus, buying a big amount, then dealers often give more then what you pay for. That's a good bonus. Coffeeshops don't do such deals.

True legalizing weed is good for the crime ratings to get down. But less people will buy it. If you grow your own weed, you can amplify the effects of it by adding various things to it.

Legalizing it or not, It won't make any difference for me.

I think this topic needs this epic song.

Oh Lord won't you buy me a Mercedes Benz. My friends all drive Porsches. I must make amends.

Worked hard all my lifetime with no help, from my friends. Oh Lord won't you buy me a Mercedes Benz.

Yes, I can see what alcohol can do to people and the cost it has and trying to reduce the peoblem is important - I've not said that isn't the case. What I am saying is that does the rise in pot use effectively cancel out much of the benefit of reduced alcohol use? And also what kind of facts and figures are there to support this either way?

Regards smoking outside - no, it is not particularly common even around here, but it does happen every now and then, same with drinking. Again, I've not seen any particular figures on whether pot smoking in the street would increase post making it legal, but my personal feeling would be people would be far more open to the idea of 'pushing the limits' and smoking wherever they wanted. Personal veiw, so would welcome correction if studies exist.

The various gateway drug studies sometimes throw up some strange results and like any sociological study it can be very hard to put into context. Having regulated places to smoke pot may protect some users from pushers but will the potential extra exposure of people to drugs just mean that more people fall off the wagon?

I don't particularly want to return to a time where you could send heroin to our boys on the front lines just by buying it in the chemists (don't want to make a slippey slope argument here, just an interesting and possibly entertaining aside)

Scrazza wrote:It's just a goddamned plant, nothing synthetic about it. Eating vegetables doesn't harm us either does it?

Socrates disagrees.

dæl wrote:

Scrazza wrote:It's just a goddamned plant, nothing synthetic about it. Eating vegetables doesn't harm us either does it?

Socrates disagrees.

In what way?

Actually he doesn't. He's dead.

Scrazza wrote:

dæl wrote:

Scrazza wrote:It's just a goddamned plant, nothing synthetic about it. Eating vegetables doesn't harm us either does it?

Socrates disagrees.

In what way?

Died from eating hemlock.

dæl wrote:

Scrazza wrote:

dæl wrote:

Scrazza wrote:It's just a goddamned plant, nothing synthetic about it. Eating vegetables doesn't harm us either does it?

Socrates disagrees.

In what way?

Died from eating hemlock.

Frazzled wrote:Actually he doesn't. He's dead.

This.


Besides, Weed is not for eating. Except for space cake. But it takes a hell of a lot of weed to make that.

CAKE...IN...SPAAAAAAAACE!

Frazzled wrote:CAKE...IN...SPAAAAAAAACE!

indeed. Makes you feel like you're in space. You'll feel like your floating.

But now I'm just derailing this thread.

Nothing to see here, go on with the discussion people.

Ahem...

DAMNIT! replied to something at the end of page 1, ignore this.

From what I've read, Weed is not harmful in any way. Not sure about the intelligence loss, but Weeds gets you a hell of lot more creative.

EDIT: Damnit.

Scrazza wrote:From what I've read, Weed is not harmful in any way. Not sure about the intelligence loss, but Weeds gets you a hell of lot more creative.

EDIT: Damnit.

That's not strictly true, smoking things causes respiratory disease and cancer, high levels of THC (which are strictly regulated in Holland) can trigger underlying psychological issues, and it can also be psychologically addictive (but then everything can).

dæl wrote:

Scrazza wrote:From what I've read, Weed is not harmful in any way. Not sure about the intelligence loss, but Weeds gets you a hell of lot more creative.

EDIT: Damnit.

That's not strictly true, smoking things causes respiratory disease and cancer, high levels of THC (which are strictly regulated in Holland) can trigger underlying psychological issues, and it can also be psychologically addictive (but then everything can).

Yes, everything can. And in most cases, the only thing that is harmful in a spliff, is the tobacco you put in with it. Unless you roll a blunt I suppose. I'm not saying it's not harmful, I'm saying that the tobacco is more harmful than the weed you put in.

dæl wrote:
Absolutely everything I've heard from him has been backed up with evidence, one doesn't become Head of a Department at one of the top ten Universities in the country (Imperial College London), and probably one of the best in the world in your field, by making arguments based on faulty or incomplete evidence.

Sure you do, people do it all the time, they just don't do it in accredited journals; you should read some of the stuff put out in work for popular consumption by otherwise eminent scholars. And, seeing as Parliament isn't an accredited journal...

Never assume that because someone has done good work in the past that they are doing good work now, or that everything they say is based on good work. If you're doing that then you're doing their job for them.

Mr Hyena wrote:
They all have the same criteria. They affect the individual and society. We acknowledge that we cannot stop weed distribution illegally. The same can be said for other drugs. The best thing to reduce funds eaten up by the war on drugs is to legalise all illegal drugs.

I'm not opposed to legalising crystal meth.

They may all have the same criteria, but they fulfill those criteria in different ways and to different degrees. Don't mistake categorical comparability for equivalence in terms of fulfilling the criteria necessary for that category.

Moreover, simply reducing the amount spent on the war on drugs isn't the end goal, the end goal is reducing the amount spent by the government as a whole, which may well increase if all illicit substances are legalized.

People commit robbery looking for that next meth fix, they generally don't do it looking for that next joint.

Frazzled wrote:YELLOW CAKE...IN...SPAAAAAAAACE!

What? Those commie space bastards are making nukes!?!

dogma wrote:Never assume that because someone has done good work in the past that they are doing good work now, or that everything they say is based on good work. If you're doing that then you're doing their job for them.

Just don't say it to George Saliba's face. He'll find some ancient Islamic folk tale that proves your wrong

Frazzled wrote:
YELLOW CAKE...IN...SPAAAAAAAACE!

What? Those commie space bastards are making nukes!?!

To be clear although funny you put "Yellow" in and then responded, in case anyone thinks I started that. Funny though.
Does this mean we have to launch Operation Space Freedom?

Frazzled wrote:
Does this mean we have to launch Operation Space Freedom?

No, we have to back a losing faction in the Sea of Tranquilitese War, otherwise a domino effect will lose us the whole moon.

Just one more hot flash in our cold war against the United Martian Socialist Republic.