Don Brash: "We should decriminalise marijuana"

[Edbear]

Some medicines are necessary... smacks of double standards plain and simple. I break the law to manage my sleep, my weight, my "irritability" and I enjoy the side effect of getting a minor high and suffer no other side effects. Why can't I medicate myself my way Ed? I'm not talking about living on it.

Sleeping pills haven't worked and I haven't used them since I found that they got me high instead of putting me to sleep. Don't believe me, try it for yourself.

I tried sleeping pills a long time ago and would never use them again, nor would I recommend them.

You can do what you want, but you have to accept anything that occurs because you are breaking the law. I doubt there is nothing else that will do what you want, and it is no doubt the enjoyment that keeps you using it.

One point you should be aware of is that like tobacco, the product causes the irritability you smoke it for. Höw often have you heard someone say, "Ï need a smoke to calm the nerves!"

I trained myself to cope with sleeplessness by using mental controls, but if one can't sleep, the worst thing to do is worry about it.

No double standards at all in saying some medicines are necessary, that is simply a matter of fact. Without certain drugs, I would not be able to function.

My issue is not with drugs or alcohol, per se, it is with people who claim they have to break the law to enjoy their highs as they do not have anything else. I also disagree with those who take known harmful substances then expect the medical profession to treat them on the public purse when they get cancer or other consequences. If you get cancer from smoking what will you do?

[blackdog]

This has truly been a thread that goes round in circles. What is plainly obvious is there are two sides to every argument.

In the pro corner are smokers that think they should be allowed to smoke the same as drinkers are allowed to drink. I think we have established that smoking (to excess) has at worst a less detrimental effect on society than drinking (to excess) has. This is both in terms of damage to the user, and a drain on society.

In the con corner are those that have no idea of the actual effects because they have never experienced actually smoking. They merely point out the negative effects on society that are actually caused by it being illegal. If decriminalised it immediately takes away the criminal element. No more gang involvement, no more guns to protect crops, no more money going back into the hands of those that are an actual danger to society.

What gets me is the 'holier than thou' attitudes of those that purport to being experts after reading something or other on the internet without actually having experience from both sides of the fence.

By decriminalising weed we immediately cut off those who are truly a threat. The gangs, the big time dealers, and the genetically wired cunts who use the sales of cannabis to subsidise their penchant for raping your daughters and investing in other gunrunning and P manufacturing enterprises.

To be fair I'm sick of the preachers in this thread, you know who you are. You are like fucking Jehovahs Witnesses. Knocking on my door telling me that if I follow your example I will be saved from the evil inside me.

I call bullshit.

I am not a pot smoker right now by the way. I have enjoyed it in the past, and who knows if I feel like it in the future I will have no problems enjoying it again. I have however had problems with alcohol in the past, and that almost destroyed me in a way pot never could.

[MisterD]

My issue is not with drugs or alcohol, per se, it is with people who claim they have to break the law to enjoy their highs as they do not have anything else. I also disagree with those who take known harmful substances then expect the medical profession to treat them on the public purse when they get cancer or other consequences. If you get cancer from smoking what will you do?

That's not the argument Ed. The argument is that given the undisputed facts of the cost of current enforcement policy and its lack of effectiveness, shouldn't we try something different? Decriminalise possession for personal use, retain prohibition on manufacture and supply and threfore allow us to focus more resource on seriously harmful drugs.

Re-read your own words - cannabis should be treated as a health issue!

[Edbear]

This has truly been a thread that goes round in circles. What is plainly obvious is there are two sides to every argument.

In the pro corner are smokers that think they should be allowed to smoke the same as drinkers are allowed to drink. I think we have established that smoking (to excess) has at worst a less detrimental effect on society than drinking (to excess) has. This is both in terms of damage to the user, and a drain on society.

In the con corner are those that have no idea of the actual effects because they have never experienced actually smoking. They merely point out the negative effects on society that are actually caused by it being illegal. If decriminalised it immediately takes away the criminal element. No more gang involvement, no more guns to protect crops, no more money going back into the hands of those that are an actual danger to society.

What gets me is the 'holier than thou' attitudes of those that purport to being experts after reading something or other on the internet without actually having experience from both sides of the fence.

By decriminalising weed we immediately cut off those who are truly a threat. The gangs, the big time dealers, and the genetically wired cunts who use the sales of cannabis to subsidise their penchant for raping your daughters and investing in other gunrunning and P manufacturing enterprises.

To be fair I'm sick of the preachers in this thread, you know who you are. You are like fucking Jehovahs Witnesses. Knocking on my door telling me that if I follow your example I will be saved from the evil.

I call bullshit.

(from someone who doesn't smoke pot BTW)

Truly spoken by someone who does not do any study or research for himself. How many medical journals and articles have you read by qualified researchers? My own opinions are based upon research and personal experiences. I've been around a long time and experienced teh best and worst life can offer, short of actually dying.

You don't need to smoke weed or get drunk to know the effects. You don't need to crash to know it hurts. You don't need to drown to warn someone of the dangers.

All I have done is tell what the properly reasearched and published evidence is saying, and anyone can confirm it for themselves. If I what I post irritates anyone, tough! I call a spade a spade and don't tickle anyone's ears for their sakes. If you disagree with me, that's entirely your prerogative, but name calling and getting angry, demeans you and discredits you. It merely suggests you have no real argument you can support with reason or evidence and don't know what you are talking about.

[mashman]

I tried sleeping pills a long time ago and would never use them again, nor would I recommend them.

You can do what you want, but you have to accept anything that occurs because you are breaking the law. I doubt there is nothing else that will do what you want, and it is no doubt the enjoyment that keeps you using it.

One point you should be aware of is that like tobacco, the product causes the irritability you smoke it for. Höw often have you heard someone say, "Ï need a smoke to calm the nerves!"

I trained myself to cope with sleeplessness by using mental controls, but if one can't sleep, the worst thing to do is worry about it.

No double standards at all in saying some medicines are necessary, that is simply a matter of fact. Without certain drugs, I would not be able to function.

My issue is not with drugs or alcohol, per se, it is with people who claim they have to break the law to enjoy their highs as they do not have anything else. I also disagree with those who take known harmful substances then expect the medical profession to treat them on the public purse when they get cancer or other consequences. If you get cancer from smoking what will you do?

So my saying that I use it for a purpose other than getting high, when there are legal ways for me to get high (that I don't use), really means that I just want to get high. I can think of nothing constructive to say to such an ignorant viewpoint.

Those poor young children who have Cancer... perhaps they shouldn't have taken up smoking. My Gran (69) never smoked and dies from Cancer. My step mother (44) died from Cancer 20 years after giving up. My step Dad (63) died from Cancer last week, heavy smoker. My Great Gran died from natural causes (91) smoked and drank like a chimney and a fish. My Uncle (64) died earlier this year (Heart Attack) smoker, his wife (40ish) died of Cancer never smoked, My grandad (81) died a few years ago, natural causes, (hadn't smoked for 40 years). The Grandad I never met (42) didn't smoke (heart attack)... in fact the 3 "healthiest" members of my family died the youngest by quite some margin. My mum is still alive (hasn't smoked in 30 years), as is my dad (recently quit after 50ish years)...

It's a risk we all take. Some of us don't take that risk and still die from Cancer.

[Edbear]

That's not the argument Ed. The argument is that given the undisputed facts of the cost of current enforcement policy and its lack of effectiveness, shouldn't we try something different? Decriminalise possession for personal use, retain prohibition on manufacture and supply and threfore allow us to focus more resource on seriously harmful drugs.

Re-read your own words - cannabis should be treated as a health issue!

The problem with this is that in support of the desire to see it legalised, those who use it for pleasure try to claim it is harmless. Certainly the issue of legality is for the Government of the day to decide, but trying to claim that Cannabis use is both harmless and beneficial is never going to work.

If the Government does decide to legalise, or decriminalise it for personal use, that is what I would have to accept, just as I have to accept the speed limit, or WOF's or registration. My personal issue is with its health effects, not with the legality or otherwise of it and those who try to deny the effects for their own interests in contradiction to qualified medical research.

[Edbear]

So my saying that I use it for a purpose other than getting high, when there are legal ways for me to get high (that I don't use), really means that I just want to get high. I can think of nothing constructive to say to such an ignorant viewpoint.

Those poor young children who have Cancer... perhaps they shouldn't have taken up smoking. My Gran (69) never smoked and dies from Cancer. My step mother (44) died from Cancer 20 years after giving up. My step Dad (63) died from Cancer last week, heavy smoker. My Great Gran died from natural causes (91) smoked and drank like a chimney and a fish. My Uncle (64) died earlier this year (Heart Attack) smoker, his wife (40ish) died of Cancer never smoked, My grandad (81) died a few years ago, natural causes, (hadn't smoked for 40 years). The Grandad I never met (42) didn't smoke (heart attack)... in fact the 3 "healthiest" members of my family died the youngest by quite some margin. My mum is still alive (hasn't smoked in 30 years), as is my dad (recently quit after 50ish years)...

It's a risk we all take. Some of us don't take that risk and still die from Cancer.

Again you miss the point somewhat. Do you truly believe there is no legal way to treat what you want?

My point re: cancer, is for those who knowingly take substances or do things that have a proven risk then expect the rest of us to pay for their treatment.

Just like those who refuse to register or warrant their vehicles, or drive drunk and crash because of it. Or burglers who injure themselves while committing a burglary.

Life sucks at times and the most careful can die or get sick, not my argument if you read it right.

[mashman]

Again you miss the point somewhat. Do you truly believe there is no legal way to treat what you want?

My point re: cancer, is for those who knowingly take substances or do things that have a proven risk then expect the rest of us to pay for their treatment.

Just like those who refuse to register or warrant their vehicles, or drive drunk and crash because of it. Or burglers who injure themselves while committing a burglary.

Life sucks at times and the most careful can die or get sick, not my argument if you read it right.

What I want? What do I want Ed? I know what works for me

You can't have it both ways Ed. Cancer is Cancer, wether you smoke or not. I pay my "fees", why shouldn't I be looked after? You took a risk driving your car that day, why should I pay for you because you decided to drive the transport with the worst injury record?

That's disappointing to hear.

So your argument isn't about watching what you put into your body in order to prolong your life expectancy for your family and those around you?

[imdying]

The problem with this is that in support of the desire to see it legalised, those who use it for pleasure try to claim it is harmless. Certainly the issue of legality is for the Government of the day to decide, but trying to claim that Cannabis use is both harmless and beneficial is never going to work.

I don't want to see it legalised, I want the hypocrisy to end and booze made illegal. Neither has a place in society given the potential ills.

[Clockwork]

.... I also disagree with those who take known harmful substances then expect the medical profession to treat them on the public purse when they get cancer or other consequences. If you get cancer from smoking what will you do?

Fair's fair. If he gets cancer from smoking, well it's not like he hasn't paid any tax for the health care now is it?

And as I recall, that was the justification for whacking tobacco taxes up in the first place!!!

[Mad-V2]

The "Qualified Medical Researcher" crap doesn't work with me either
The qualified medical researcher you get your info from only knows half the story.
You can't beat personal experience.
Can you teach someone to fly a plane when all you know about flying is what you've read in a book?
Yes there are health risks in smoking/vapourising/eating cannabis.
But the risks are less than most other drugs on the market we take for health purposes. Prescription and even non prescription drugs kill more people every year than cannabis ever could.
If a qualified medical researcher handed you a bag of weed and said "take this twice daily untill finished" would you take it?

[blackdog]

Truly spoken by someone who does not do any study or research for himself. How many medical journals and articles have you read by qualified researchers? My own opinions are based upon research and personal experiences. I've been around a long time and experienced teh best and worst life can offer, short of actually dying.

You don't need to smoke weed or get drunk to know the effects. You don't need to crash to know it hurts. You don't need to drown to warn someone of the dangers.

All I have done is tell what the properly reasearched and published evidence is saying, and anyone can confirm it for themselves. If I what I post irritates anyone, tough! I call a spade a spade and don't tickle anyone's ears for their sakes. If you disagree with me, that's entirely your prerogative, but name calling and getting angry, demeans you and discredits you. It merely suggests you have no real argument you can support with reason or evidence and don't know what you are talking about.

So easily trolled my friend. As for research and study, that is what I do.

Just like ACC stats and evidence, you can bend it anyway you like. You say potato I say potato. Your manipulation of statistics to suit your own means ranks you right up there with Nick Smith in my opinion. And it is just that. My opinion. And yours.

You are entitled to yours, but again it reminds me of the JW's trying to press there opinions and beliefs on others.

Ever considered politics?

[Edbear]

What I want? What do I want Ed? I know what works for me

You can't have it both ways Ed. Cancer is Cancer, wether you smoke or not. I pay my "fees", why shouldn't I be looked after? You took a risk driving your car that day, why should I pay for you because you decided to drive the transport with the worst injury record?

That's disappointing to hear.

So your argument isn't about watching what you put into your body in order to prolong your life expectancy for your family and those around you?

I was driving legally and safely with my vehicle up to standard and in fact better than standard. Th e SCU apportioned no blame to me or teh vehicle but concluded I slipped on oil that was invisible in the rain. As I said, life sucks at times.

But the argument here is about legalising Cannabis for personal use. If you want it legalised for personal use, lobby the lawmakers. But to claim there is nothing else that is a legal alternative is wrong and to deny the medical evidence flies in the face of reason and can do your cause no good at all.

One can rationalise almost any viewpoint, but stick to facts and honesty. It is your choice to use Cannabis because you want to and you can't seek to justify it against the factual evidence and expect people to support you.

All you can do is to simply say, "I choose cannabis to do what I want and that's the end of the argument."

[Edbear]

The "Qualified Medical Researcher" crap doesn't work with me either
The qualified medical researcher you get your info from only knows half the story.
You can't beat personal experience.
Can you teach someone to fly a plane when all you know about flying is what you've read in a book?
Yes there are health risks in smoking/vapourising/eating cannabis.
But the risks are less than most other drugs on the market we take for health purposes. Prescription and even non prescription drugs kill more people every year than cannabis ever could.
If a qualified medical researcher handed you a bag of weed and said "take this twice daily untill finished" would you take it?

Sigh...

So easily trolled my friend. As for research and study, that is what I do.

Just like ACC stats and evidence, you can bend it anyway you like. You say potato I say potato. Your manipulation of statistics to suit your own means ranks you right up there with Nick Smith in my opinion. And it is just that. My opinion. And yours.

You are entitled to yours, but again it reminds me of the JW's trying to press there opinions and beliefs on others.

Ever considered politics?

Show me where I've "manipulated statistics" again..?

[Edbear]

Fair's fair. If he gets cancer from smoking, well it's not like he hasn't paid any tax for the health care now is it?

And as I recall, that was the justification for whacking tobacco taxes up in the first place!!!

It is a medically proven fact that smoking causes cancer, so to knowingly take up smoking in the face of this, what does that say about the person?