• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Call for licensed cannabis sales

I have friends who would use it. And It would be a lot better for me knowing I wouldnt get arrested while they were getting high. They arent paranoid when I open A beer or have a mixed drink. I cant relax around them CAUSE of the law its - stupid outta date garbage.
 
Last edited:
CLARIFICATION:

Senior police are calling for cannabis to become a class B drug again after it was reported that a government advisory body will say it should remain class C.
Click to expand...


I was thinking of another another link when I wrote the caption for the BBC police one! Indeed, on a wider scope than just the one cop boss I found, our police officers know first hand that drugs like pot can breed crime both for the funds to buy it as well as because people who take it can be insalubrious anyway! (As I discovered regularly when working as a shop assistant.)

_______________________________________________


And It would be a lot better for me knowing I wouldnt get arrested while they were getting high.
Click to expand...

Well nip to the pub. If you see pot smoking as morally harmless as home taping, then you'll have no guilt about actually knowing of criminal activity whilst you're away.



I cant relax around them CAUSE of the law its - stupid outta date garbage.
Click to expand...

In one sense, masturbating in public toilets is quite harmless. But if I was to do it and get booked, who would sympathise with me if I was to put forward that defence?!
 
Last edited:
Republic_Of_Public said:
Ours wanted it downgraded to Class B again. Not because it's OK like the propaganda says, but merely because it's not something like heroin.

BBC NEWS | UK | Police want cannabis reclassified
Click to expand...

Yes, we're all aware they want it downgraded - downgraded also means there's less chance of prison, of being arrested and because prevalence when there's more important crimes to investigate means that individual "user" cases just take up police time.

Add "recession" and "reduction in police numbers" to the mix and the public will be more worried about the police arresting rapists and murderers than people in possession of a spliff.

Republic_Of_Public said:
-- In fact, under New Labour, top cops and judges were employed BECAUSE they were liberal and 'on-message' with the latest PC rubbish.

Twunts: Don't put burglars in jail (unless they hurt someone), courts told | Mail Online

That goes double: Police given politically correct guidelines

Police officers banned from asking for 'Christian' names - Telegraph

Politically correct police force hiring officers 'who can't do the job' | Mail Online

http://michael-millett.com/hop.php?go=a106

New Labour's political police must be reformed or abolished – Telegraph Blogs

Politically correct stupidity - 2005

..... etc.
Click to expand...

/Yawn

Republic_Of_Public said:
-- Plus it's interesting to note that one wavy liberal argument is that by legalising something you cut the crime rates. Well, if these determined people want to get high without the worry of not having to pay their 80 quid fines, they still have to explain why they can't be satisfied with fags and whisky like the rest of us. - Come on! Dare you enlighten us!
Click to expand...

I don't think you always think through what you're posting but regarding the "wavy liberal" argument - crime rates are one thing, police asking for re-classification is another. Policemen have targets like many of us poor sods in the public sector. Most policemen could easily fulfil their daily "target quota" by arresting cannabis users but they want a re-classification.

Can you work out why....? Are they liberals? Are they hard left?

Republic_Of_Public said:
-- The rest of the drugs are illegal for many good reasons.
Click to expand...

Yes, the police aren't asking for a reclassification of heroin or crack, again - can you work out why? (hint: left / right / liberal / "waycist" / extra large lettering / irrelevant links have nothing to do with the answer)
 
Add "recession" and "reduction in police numbers" to the mix and the public will be more worried about the police arresting rapists and murderers than people in possession of a spliff.
Click to expand...

However, that's no need to use that as a cover to advance the cause of the likes of junkies.



Yawn
Click to expand...

A question answered is a question boring!

Well, that's those pieces of evidence rebutted!



Policemen have targets like many of us poor sods in the public sector. Most policemen could easily fulfil their daily "target quota" by arresting cannabis users but they want a re-classification.
Click to expand...

That still doesn't explain why drug users and addicts are so hellbent on having their weed of choice legalised, when there are already fags and booze to keep them off-kilter.



Yes, the police aren't asking for a reclassification of heroin or crack.
Click to expand...

No, they're not. It's pot they're on about because some argue about the danger level, which few rate as 'piffling', other than those who want to do it. I rate it at 'bloody'.
 
Last edited:
Republic_Of_Public said:
However, that's no need to use that as a cover to advance the cause of the likes of junkies.
Click to expand...

No, you tried to pass the downgrading off as propaganda or because it wasn't like heroin. The police already either give cautions for possession of a joint or ignore it completely. They don't waste police and CPS time with minor users.

Republic_Of_Public said:
-- A question answered is a question boring!

Well, that's those pieces of evidence rebutted!
Click to expand...

They're only evidence to irrelevance I'm afraid, you answered no question I asked there.

Republic_Of_Public said:
-- That still doesn't explain why drug users and addicts are so hellbent on having their weed of choice legalised, when there are already fags and booze to keep them off-kilter.
Click to expand...

Already answered. It's about police and arrest priorities. Currently, the punishments for possession and cost of prosectuting minor possession in most western nations makes cannabis arrests a complete waste of time. You can accuse all Western police forces of being liberal / extreme left or whatever else you tried passing as a description for those who argue for legalisation.

Republic_Of_Public said:
-- No, they're not. It's pot they're on about because some argue about the danger level, which few rate as 'piffling', other than those who want to do it. I rate it at 'bloody'.
Click to expand...

It's not just the danger level - it's also about liklihood of arrest, chances of sentence and the use of prison resources. It's also about just how widespread marijuana use is. Anyone in law enforcement realises that there's a rearguard action being fought and law enforcement is losing - which is why I said about 2 posts (or more) ago that it comes down to the public having the stomach to pay for the increased resources to enforce a ban on cannabis and other minor drugs.

You unfortunately see things as black and white and thus persist in calling anyone else "left" or "liberal" - those tags are completely meaningless when it comes down to cold hard financial matters.
 
The police already either give cautions for possession of a joint or ignore it completely. They don't waste police and CPS time with minor users.
Click to expand...

Well, it isn't like heroin, which is worse. Hence drug classification.


And just because coppers ignore things, either on their own initiative on on the orders of trendy superiors, doesn't mean to say they're that trivial:

Police choose to ignore thousands of violent crimes - Times Online

Revealed: Police failing to investigate 40% of crimes - because they are too hard to solve | Mail Online

Police 'ignore vice trade from Eastern Europe' - Crime, UK - The Independent

Police ignore rape allegations if victim has been drinking, says Sara Payne | Society | guardian.co.uk

Police told to 'ignore' outdoor sex , etc.



They're only evidence to irrelevance I'm afraid, you answered no question I asked there.
Click to expand...

Apart from the one about the police being liberal. And if truth is irrelevant, then no wonder both wider society and this board can seem a madhouse often.




SCUMBAG CENTRAL:

On Wednesday, one such person called for drug addicts to be given their illegal poison on the NHS. This is the scheme set out by Howard Roberts, a man with a law degree - and, of course, an old boy of that coven of liberal policing, Bramshill - who is now Deputy Chief Constable of Nottinghamshire.

Here is his plan: self-centred criminals who have chosen a life of stupefaction and debauchery, in defiance of the law, should have that choice condoned and subsidised. The money will come from postmen, dinner-ladies and the remaining millions of hard-working people who prop up our unfair and corrupt welfare state by paying penal rates of tax.

These citizens may have thought their taxes might fund treatment for the truly ill, or for a bit of dignity in their own last weeks on Earth.

But when they go to the NHS and ask for these things, they will find instead that they must lie in pain in dirty, mixed wards, being denied valuable medicines on cost grounds.

The money will have been spent on Mr Roberts's plan to give diamor-phine on prescription to wilful criminals. There could be no better summing-up of the wrong idea at the heart of our injustice system.
Click to expand...

Now our chief constables do the work of soppy liberals | Mail Online







Already answered.
Click to expand...

No it wasn't. You speculate on the attitudes of police, not the druggies.



I said about 2 posts (or more) ago that it comes down to the public having the stomach to pay for the increased resources to enforce a ban on cannabis and other minor drugs.
Click to expand...

The tax pot is awash with cash, it's just what our imbecile masters decide to waste it on. As I've said before, if our 8 billion Pound foreign aid budget was cut then there'd be a bit more cash to arrest junkies on for a start. Let's have someone else pay for the next Indian space mission if it means a few more crooks are behind bars for their miscreancy. (And that can go for any crook as well!)

And we can stop the pocket money of the EU as well. (If they can ensure we no longer rule ourselves, we shouldn't have to pay for our bondage).


http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=e...W9BA&ved=0CBkQBSgA&q=government+waste&spell=1

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=e...x+waste&aq=f&aqi=g2g-c1g-m3&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Bumper-Book-Government-Waste-squandered/dp/1897597797

http://www.google.co.uk/search?clie...ur+your+cash&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

http://tpa.typepad.com/waste/

http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8219000/8219534.stm
 
Last edited:
Republic_Of_Public said:
Well, it isn't like heroin, which is worse. Hence drug classification.
Click to expand...

i.e.prioritising which crimes to go for. Been trying to get that clear for you to understand.

Republic_Of_Public said:
-- And just because coppers ignore things, either on their own initiative on on the orders of trendy superiors, doesn't mean to say they're that trivial:

Police choose to ignore thousands of violent crimes - Times Online

Revealed: Police failing to investigate 40% of crimes - because they are too hard to solve | Mail Online

Police 'ignore vice trade from Eastern Europe' - Crime, UK - The Independent

Police ignore rape allegations if victim has been drinking, says Sara Payne | Society | guardian.co.uk

Police told to 'ignore' outdoor sex , etc.

Apart from the one about the police being liberal. And if truth is irrelevant, then no wonder both wider society and this board can seem a madhouse often.
Click to expand...

But I asked first if similar policies around the western world meant you're accusing all police forces of being "liberal." If not, then please explain why they have similar thinking or why only our police are subject to the ridiculous claim and others spared...

Republic_Of_Public said:
-- Here is his plan: self-centred criminals who have chosen a life of stupefaction and debauchery, in defiance of the law, should have that choice condoned and subsidised. The money will come from postmen, dinner-ladies and the remaining millions of hard-working people who prop up our unfair and corrupt welfare state by paying penal rates of tax.
Click to expand...

the mail's solution is........? and before you simply type in "lock em up, cold turkey" - where are the prison spaces? where's the taxes to pay for this all?

Republic_Of_Public said:
-- No it wasn't. You speculate on the attitudes of police, not the druggies.
Click to expand...

You quoted the first part of my explanation only.

Republic_Of_Public said:
-- The tax pot is awash with cash, it's just what our imbecile masters decide to waste it on. As I've said before, if our 8 billion Pound foreign aid budget was cut then there'd be a bit more cash to arrest junkies on for a start. Let's have someone else pay for the next Indian space mission if it means a few more crooks are behind bars for their miscreancy.
Click to expand...

Then you have no understanding of what the aid budget achieves and what it prevents.
 
Natural, organic tobacco is not anywhere near as harmful as industry processed tobacco. While it's true that inhaling combusted material into the lungs in general is not good, there are definitely degrees of harmfulness. Aboriginals smoked tobacco in this continent without serious injury for thousands of years. It was the advent of the modern tobacco industry that lead to the skyrocketing health problems due to all the ancillary chemicals added.

As long as cannabis remains 100% and isn't augmented with the same crap that tobacco has been, I see no problem with licensed sales. It should frankly be decriminalized already. If the government wants to fine people as the next step, then okay, but that is still not a long-term solution and the fines should not be very much.

The main obstacle to reforming cannabis laws around the world has been the UN policy on drugs, and since the U.S. was the main informant to that policy, it is the U.S. that must take the lead in loosening the reigns on this plant. Cannabis grows naturally worldwide and in many different varieties. I see no reason to restrict this plant further. People have been using it responsibly and consistently since the dawn of time.
 
I came across this related article.

Cuts prompt police to call for debate on drugs and redirect resources

Intervention comes amid growing warnings from experts that prohibition does not deter drug use

One of Britain's most senior police officers has proposed decriminalising the personal use of drugs such as cannabis to allow more resources to be dedicated to tackling high-level dealers.

Tim Hollis, chief constable of Humberside police, said the criminal justice system could offer only a "limited" solution to the UK's drug problem, a tacit admission that prohibition has failed.
Click to expand...

Cuts prompt police to call for debate on drugs and redirect resources | Society | guardian.co.uk

And here is an interesting video that puts forward the case for decriminalisation (of all drugs): Revolutionary Politics::Revolutionary Politics : Portugal legalizes drugs. Crime/Usage falls. which I only yesterday posted in this http://www.debatepolitics.com/law-a...eating-fair-and-successful-drug-policies.html thread.

It looks like, finally, the penny is starting to drop. Prohibition doesn't work; all it does is bring all of society down.
 
Marijuana only brings society down too... Keep it illegal. Fine it to the highest degree, and then the state can "make revenue" on it. It's an illegal substance that it unhealthy and mind altering. So, in places where there is lots of violent crime we should just decriminalize violent crime and give up on enforcing it?
 
digsbe said:
Marijuana only brings society down too... Keep it illegal. Fine it to the highest degree, and then the state can "make revenue" on it. It's an illegal substance that it unhealthy and mind altering. So, in places where there is lots of violent crime we should just decriminalize violent crime and give up on enforcing it?
Click to expand...

Keep it illegal because it is illegal?

Prohibition and the resultant black market is what is bringing soceity down, not the marijuana.
 
marduc said:
Keep it illegal because it is illegal?

Prohibition and the resultant black market is what is bringing soceity down, not the marijuana.
Click to expand...

No, keep it illegal because it is dangerous and bad for society. I'm saying we should enforce it because it is illegal and not decriminalize it because pot smoking is widespread

Marijuana brings society down just like other drugs do. The black market is a result of drugs being consumed and illegally sold. Just because the black market is a problem doesn't mean we should legalize their wares.
 
digsbe said:
No, keep it illegal because it is dangerous and bad for society. I'm saying we should enforce it because it is illegal and not decriminalize it because pot smoking is widespread

Marijuana brings society down just like other drugs do. The black market is a result of drugs being consumed and illegally sold. Just because the black market is a problem doesn't mean we should legalize their wares.
Click to expand...

digs, pot isn't dangerous. and it's probably less dangerous than alcohol and cigarettes.
 
liblady said:
digs, pot isn't dangerous. and it's probably less dangerous than alcohol and cigarettes.
Click to expand...

No, it is dangerous and more unhealthy than cigarettes and alcohol. It contains 50-70% more carcinogens than cigarettes do as well. You can read more on marijuana here Marijuana - InfoFacts - NIDA
 
digsbe said:
No, keep it illegal because it is dangerous and bad for society. I'm saying we should enforce it because it is illegal and not decriminalize it because pot smoking is widespread

Marijuana brings society down just like other drugs do. The black market is a result of drugs being consumed and illegally sold. Just because the black market is a problem doesn't mean we should legalize their wares.
Click to expand...

Alcohol should be illegal by this reasoning.

And yes.. the black market is created because drugs are illegal, we should legalize their wares so we can control distribution instead of ceding control to a criminal element, you cannot legislate a persons desire to enter an altered state away.
 
marduc said:
Alcohol should be illegal by this reasoning.

And yes.. the black market is created because drugs are illegal, we should legalize their wares so we can control distribution instead of ceding control to a criminal element, you cannot legislate a persons desire to enter an altered state away.
Click to expand...

Alcohol is not as dangerous as marijuana, it's not as toxic and it's effects are more temporary. Alcohol isn't necessarily carcinogenic either.

So should we legalize nuclear material trafficking? I have already proved how marijuana is extremely bad for your health. Substances like that shouldn't be legalized. Marijuana is both more unhealthy, more carcinogenic, and has more long term effects on the brain than alcohol and cigarettes. You can legislate someone's desire to enter an altered state by making those substances illegal. People don't have the inherent right to screw up their brains with substances and consume toxins.
 
digsbe said:
Alcohol is not as dangerous as marijuana, it's not as toxic and it's effects are more temporary. Alcohol isn't necessarily carcinogenic either.

So should we legalize nuclear material trafficking? I have already proved how marijuana is extremely bad for your health. Substances like that shouldn't be legalized. Marijuana is both more unhealthy, more carcinogenic, and has more long term effects on the brain than alcohol and cigarettes. You can legislate someone's desire to enter an altered state by making those substances illegal. People don't have the inherent right to screw up their brains with substances and consume toxins.
Click to expand...

alcohol is NOT as dangerous as marijuana?

I am wasting my time here.
 
digsbe said:
Marijuana...It's an illegal substance that it unhealthy and mind altering.
Click to expand...

Why is its mind altering qualities viewed as bad for people. Most people I talk to who are against legalization, their real reasons boil down to this. Why is it considered bad to alter your mind? That is the benefit of it.
 
He does not realize that cannabinoids are being researched for their promising anti-cancer and anti-tumor properties, and that in studies where they expected and were looking to find elevated cancer risk pot smokers due to the tar concentrations, they did not, which also points to the - until recently - unexplored cancer fighting potential of cannabinoids.

Here is just one of many other studies.. this time showing promise for Breast cancer:

Molecular Cancer | Full text | Cannabinoids reduce ErbB2-driven breast cancer progression through Akt inhibition

The cancer canard is propaganda (as are many of the "facts" at NIDA)
 
Last edited:
marduc said:
He does not realize that cannabinoids are being researched for their promising anti-cancer and anti-tumor properties, and that in studies where they expected and were looking to find elevated cancer risk pot smokers due to the tar concentrations, they did not, which also points to the - until recently - unexplored cancer fighting potential of cannabinoids.

Here is just one of many other studies.. this time showing promise for Breast cancer:

Molecular Cancer | Full text | Cannabinoids reduce ErbB2-driven breast cancer progression through Akt inhibition

The cancer canard is propaganda (as are many of the "facts" at NIDA)
Click to expand...

i know....i don't pay much attention to this stuff because of the looniness on both sides. make it legal, already. tax it and regulate it.
 
I'm sorry, but the facts show and prove that marijuana is more carcinogenic, dangerous, and has lingering effects. It's worse than alcohol and tobacco and is a mind altering substance. Did you not read the governments report on marijuana I linked too? The effects of smoking pot can linger for almost a week after consumption. It impairs the brain. Sure there is the pot propaganda that pushes "the herb" and it's "medicinal effects." However, those "medicinal" effects do not outweigh the negatives and could most likely be isolated from the drug without actually having to smoke pot. I would rather trust the peer reviewed government run NIDA over pro-legalization websites that push faulty science without objectivity and for the sole purpose or propagating marijuana into a legal status.
 
digsbe said:
I'm sorry, but the facts show and prove that marijuana is more carcinogenic, dangerous, and has lingering effects. It's worse than alcohol and tobacco and is a mind altering substance. Did you not read the governments report on marijuana I linked too? The effects of smoking pot can linger for almost a week after consumption. It impairs the brain. Sure there is the pot propaganda that pushes "the herb" and it's "medicinal effects." However, those "medicinal" effects do not outweigh the negatives and could most likely be isolated from the drug without actually having to smoke pot. I would rather trust the peer reviewed government run NIDA over pro-legalization websites that push faulty science without objectivity and for the sole purpose or propagating marijuana into a legal status.
Click to expand...

You do realize the only reason it was made illegal was due to propaganda right. There is just as much propaganda on the side of keeping it illegal as the side of making it legal.
 
digsbe said:
I'm sorry, but the facts show and prove that marijuana is more carcinogenic, dangerous, and has lingering effects. It's worse than alcohol and tobacco and is a mind altering substance. Did you not read the governments report on marijuana I linked too? The effects of smoking pot can linger for almost a week after consumption. It impairs the brain. Sure there is the pot propaganda that pushes "the herb" and it's "medicinal effects." However, those "medicinal" effects do not outweigh the negatives and could most likely be isolated from the drug without actually having to smoke pot. I would rather trust the peer reviewed government run NIDA over pro-legalization websites that push faulty science without objectivity and for the sole purpose or propagating marijuana into a legal status.
Click to expand...

Last sentence first.. NIDA is not a scientific body, they are a political body, all they do is present (often as half truths) scientific works that support their cause and their efforts.

now I am being lazy.. I have been through all of this before.. too many times:

marduc said:
I am not going to argue that smoking anything is healthy for you, including marijuana, but the studies are consistently showing that despite having elevated amounts of tar and carcinogens there is a lowered instance of head/neck carcinomas and also lung cancer with marijuana users.

Your 2 articles that actually mention mj use and lung cancer was the same study of 79 patients with only a subset thereof being marijuana users, not a very large statistical sampling to be drawing definitive correlations.

Here are a few other studies to mull over:

fisrt this one, which was sponsored by the NIDA but after the results came in they decided against publishing it:



Study Finds No Link Between Marijuana Use And Lung Cancer

how could this be?? research is starting to find some interesting things, the following is but one of many other studies that are starting to come out pointing to cannabinoids and potential anti-carcinogenic properties:



Marijuana Cuts Lung Cancer Tumor Growth In Half, Study Shows

And while we are at it an abstract on a study of another common cancer with smokers:



A Population-Based Case-Control Study of Marijuana Use and Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma -- Liang et al. 2 (8): 759 -- Cancer Prevention Research

There are pulmonary issues as a result of marijuana smoking for sure, but the risk of developing cancers is significantly higher with cigarettes.

Either way both are moot, the Gov. has no business dictating what adults can and cannot do to their own bodies.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Here we see a blatant example of how the NIDA propagandizes and distorts facts:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/62548-marijuana-helps-grow-brain-cells-12.html


Post 113-119.
NIDA has an agenda, and uses propaganda to further it, they have zero credibility, they are not peer reviewed, nor do they peer review jack **** since their peers are the DEA, and not actual researchers. They do fund research, but when the findings do not go as they like they suppress it, and when they are not doing that they cherry pick, distort and omit from the peer reviewed research that is done to advance their purpose.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom