So you're effectively saying that you'd rather give your money to government than Joe Dealer? What about the established correlation between frequent cannabis use and disorders such as depression and anxiety, leaving aside higher psychotic disorders? What about the burden on the NHS, which faces increasing costs due to the interventions for anxiety and depression? Wouldn't you rather seek to discourage the use of any substance which induces or exacerbates either condition?Proinsias wrote:I don't live where you live and things are obviously different. Maybe I'm being selfish but I'd rather have the choice to buy cannabis from a fairtrade, organic source which was taxed than from a dubious illegal source. They may not stop the illegal market but I get the feeling there's far more money changing hands over legal alcohol than illegal alcohol in the UK.
I said: What if any correlation is there between legalising cannabis and reducing the levels of usage among cannabis users thus begging the question how would legalising cannabis reduce the level of (the ones we know of) psychosis-related illnesses and consequential family breakdowns?Proinsias wrote:I'd wager there is some sort of correlation between cannabis being legal and the level of cannabis related psychotic episodes. I'm not sure which way it would swing but to state that there is no correlation seems like a leap to me. Do you have an data for countries in which cannabis is legal and ones which it is not which show that psychotic episodes due to cannabis are the same?
I didn't make the statement you seem to think I did. I asked you to show me any correlation between legalisation and a drop in usage levels. The invitation is still open. Let me give you a quote, though:
"Downgrading a drug does not necessarily lead to a reduction in its use, no more than it necessarily leads to an increase; any increase in the use of any drug is proportionate to supply and demand, availability, and price, as evidenced by the increasing use of cocaine; messages that downgrading, or legalising cannabis lead to reduced use simply do not stand up to scrutiny, however that does seem to be the message of those who have an agenda to legalise all drugs are seeking to send out; legalising drugs will decriminalise them, it may or may not lead to an increase or a decrease in consumption; messages to the contrary are spurious."
http://www.edenlodgepractice.com/Articl ... rticle.pdf
sponsoring this lethal drug; and make no mistake that it is lethal
Of course it is. Unless you think that a drug which causes a wide range of mental disorders, destroys whole families and the very fabric of society is not a lethal drug?? Cannabis has nothing "going for it".Proinsias wrote:Is it? They sponsor nicotine which has been shown to be lethal, one of the few arguments cannabis has going for it is that it is not lethal , lazy and pychotic maybe but I've not seen anything which claims it is lethal.
"Cannabis smokers have a heightened risk of lung infection. Long term users may increase the risk of chronic cough, bronchitis, emphysema, together with cancer of the head neck and lungs. That smoking three or four joints is as bad for our lungs as smoking 20 cigarettes. Smoke from cannabis contains 50-70 per cent more carcinogenic hydrocarbons than ordinary tobacco smoke:
In view of the above, and the strong messages that we have been receiving for some years about the dangers of smoking, together with the concerted efforts to introduce a virtual ban on smoking, why on earth did Mr. Blunkett, see fit to send out a message that cannabis is relatively harmless? Taken to its logical conclusion, or in this case illogical conclusion, we may not be permitted to light up an ordinary cigarette in public, but it's OK to light up a 'joint'.
Perhaps Mr. Blunkett took the advice on the UKCIA web site:
'Cannabis is remarkably safe for most people-if it's treated with respect, it's unlikely to cause problems to health or well-being, there's no toxic overdose potential with cannabis so unlike almost every other substance you can't die from its drug effect by taking too much of It'.
Unless the warnings on cigarette packets, such as 'Smoking Kills', are untrue, that statement would have to be regarded as disingenuous. Further, with Charles Clarke now suggesting that quantities for 'personal use' could be increased to sufficient to roll 500 'spliffs', then assuming an average consumption of 10 a day, we have people smoking the equivalent of 50 cigarettes a day for seven weeks, which, if we listen to UKCIA and one or two other like minded groups is 'remarkably safe'. On the other hand the more likely scenario is stoned, possibly psychotic, users suffering from anxiety, depression and chronic pulmonary congestion."
http://www.edenlodgepractice.com/Articl ... rticle.pdf
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is literally NO argument in favour of legalising cannabis. The fallacious argument of alcohol and tobacco already being legal is one of the most pathetic, logic-lite arguments to have ever surfaced in this debate.
The argument that cannabis is 'relatively harmless' is also an argument with not a shred of evidence to support it.
There is NO correlation between the legalising of cannabis and a reduction in cannabis use.
There is NO evidence to suggest the legalising of cannabis will put even a significant dent in the illegal selling of the drug.
In the end, the argument to legalise cannabis is one of the most ill-thought out arguments in the history of drugs debates. It is an argument pushed by those with an agenda or those with a shocking grasp of the actual harms which frequent cannabis smoking can cause; either this or they literally do not care.