Cannabis is a naturally grown weed and is cut with virtually nothing so there is absolutely no reason at all for government to still have it illegal. A few mates and I were having this debate as well during one of our smoking sessions, I guess that wouldn't make it a debate seeing we're all swinging for the same side but we did come up with a few rules if it was to be made legal;

Up to six plants per half annum for personal use/selling.
No smoking in public.
A set limit as to what constitutes illegal dealership.
18+
General safety ie; no operating heavy machinery blah blah blah.
Not only will Cannabis be made legal but any other product derived from THC is also made legal ie Budder, Hash etc

I could cope with that I reckon. Even though I don't see why weed is still illegal and think that the laws are totally archaic I understand that it wouldn't be a good thing if it was open for wide use so I don't think we should have shops, bars, machines that sell it, if ya want it grow it yaself.

The people that do it as well are being targeted, wrongly, by the police (growers/dealers more so than users) all for making a bit off extra cash, and I really mean 'bit,' and are being brought to court like hard criminals? Fuckers. I remember seeing something like 'If you purchase cannabis you're funding terrorism' and that sent my blood boiling, now, there's certain people I wouldn't even consider buying my gear off but buying a couple of grams to help him send his kids off to good schools? Yes, of course. But most of the money went to growing the plants anyways so it's not as if he made a massive return on it anyways.

So yeah, I'm all for legalizing it and I would if I were in charge but maybe I'm too biased to make any argument? Ah well... there's my view.

Why was this even posted, you've all seen what drugs to people, if they were legal they would cause so much havoc you wouldn't even know it.

Lolno. It's illegal under the guise of ill effects to your health but is really illegal for other reasons, I'd like to say it's to have more control on the substance and the users/dealers. If it were the case wouldn't alcohol be illegal?

Jesus Christ your post is both ill informed and completely nonsensical.

Takeshi that is

Cause Havoc you say?
So am I to understand it would turn the entire world into Zoophiles?

Much worse!

Beastials?

I agree that some drugs can be perfectly legal and should be left up to ones personal responsibility. But there are some drugs, such as Cocaine, that are such an assault on the human body and get you hooked so insanely fast that they are better left illegal.

It has always struck me as weird that weed is illegal almost everywhere except for Holland and that everyone keeps believing it is so harmful, while the stuff has been legally for sale for as long as I can remember and I don't remember weed ever causing any sort of problem.

It's an interesting thing though, I do think if you were to suddenly legalize a lot of hard drugs there would be a temporary spike in overdoses and hospitalizations. Even if people would learn to use it responsibly I don't think that's worth the initial trouble.

Actually in case of abuse it causes severe mental disorders, such as schizophrenia and psychosis, especially in those users who are initially prone to such disorders (this kind of people don't even have to abuse it to aquire mental problems). Otherwise it's not harmful.

My opinion is that drugs should be used only as a form of medication. Though drug abuse problem can't be completely solved only through bans - it's more of a social and cultural problem. Persecution of heavy drug manufacturers and dealers is very important, however.

CANNABIS USE DOES NOT FUCKING CAUSE SCHIZOPHRENIA

Holy shit. Did you actually follow the citation on wikipedia before posting that?

Can you provide your evidence for that statement? I think there are some scientists that would love to see such evidence because so far there is even a general consensus on such things in the scientific community.

E: @ Zaarin, not WoF

I say it doesn't cause any schizophremia. I can confirm that.

It doesn't cause schizophrenia, but it does have a slight chance to cause a negligible increase in your chances of it developing.


If you're already likely to get it, that is.

What if you already have it?
Ahhhh.

Everybody shut the fuck up about weed and schizos already. Scientists see a possible correlation, but have not proven a causation. They don't know if schizos are more prone to seek usage of weed or if weed might awaken it in those with a possibility of developing it.

I assure you, the science is not in.

Wow, calm down))) Actually, I didn't read that on wikipedia. You can't tell that it causes mental disorders in every case since the nature of the processes involved are still unclear in many ways but there are reports showing positive correlation.

Anyway, you must know it first-hand since you are so firmly confident in your statement :D.

I'm firmly against drug use as it happens, but studying psychology for the last six years; I can't let your bullshit stand.

I think Admiral Zaarin is just a straight edge wuss who needs a reason to dislike weed so he doesn't feel like a loser for not trying it. Ever notice how people who are staunchly opposed to recreational drug use are the lamest stiffs you'll ever meet?

I'm going to go ahead and safely assume that weed doesn't cause schizophrenia, but I'm more than certain it will "enhance" it if you already have it. This goes for all mind altering substances though, including alcohol, and that's still legal.

If you're a diagnosed schizo and you still make the choice to take mindbending drugs, then you deserve whatever bad trip you get.

"I don't think he can possibly believe that. Leads me to think he's just looking for a response."

No, not that, but i did completely f*ck up.

I meant to infer it's a persons biological, or mental mindset, that gets them addicted. People become reliant on something 'cos they're filling a whole.

I only speak of this from experience, too. I've done a plethora of drugs, and i'm not addicted in the slightest. So the whole argument of 'drugs are bad! They're addictive!' kinda gets tossed out of the window.

I do, however, think a tonne of people are more than likely to get addicted. But not 'cos they're addictive themselves, but just 'cos their biological make up makes them so, or they've got other issues.

Whoever said Cocaine is the mother of all drugs, too, i have no idea where that has come from. Again. Speaking from experience. Of a well-rounded, recreational user of drugs.

I'd love to see a bar that just sells grams of MDMA rather than alcohol. The trouble there would be pretty much zero.

But yeh, like someone above said, there're a whole new host of problems that would pop up. ...but hey, if it does away with the black market and crime, gotta be a good thing, right?

Yeah, don't you wanna be like the cool kids Zaarin? Do drugs like the cool kids. Why can't you be fun and cool like the kids that do drugs?

E: Jacob, you didn't change your view or anything, you just elaborated on what you said before, basically the same thing but wordier, so you're still wrong.

Really? We should talk more.
Not necessarily, but I see your point.
i don't think that was exactly his point.
Kind of how when you got bullied at school, parents would say "they're just jealous". That sort of thing.

Yeah, sure...why not.

"E: Jacob, you didn't change your view or anything, you just elaborated on what you said before, basically the same thing but wordier, so you're still wrong."

Care to elaborate on why i am?

"Yeah, don't you wanna be like the cool kids Zaarin? Do drugs like the cool kids. Why can't you be fun and cool like the kids that do drugs?"

Actually genuinely abhor anybody who even believes that doing drugs makes you cool. It's the equivalent of having a bunch of 'cool' kids lording it over none coffee drinkers. It's cringey and disrespectful.

You do drugs for the experience. Not to be with the 'in' crowd.

Not to forget about your sh*t life.

To feel things that would otherwise pass you by.

Just to clarify, that bit at Zaarin wasn't directed at you, I couldn't tell by your post whether you thought it was or not.

As to why you're wrong, you say this:

This is false. To take cigarettes as an example, cigarettes contain nicotine. Nicotine is a stimulant and to an extent, euphoric. It is also chemically addictive. Drugs themselves are generally addictive substances. That is why you are wrong. If you want me to go into the science of it I probably can but I don't want to waste my time unless you're going to continue being stubborn.

I think that Jacob is overstating his case somewhat. It's ridiculous to say that certain drugs are not addictive at all - and I don't think that's actually what he's trying to say - but something in an individual person's body chemistry and neural makeup will control how strongly a drug will affect them. Some people can snort cocaine once, think to themselves 'That was interesting' and then never do it again. Whereas other people will get a full blown addiction and destroy their lives.

It is however true that some people have a physiological resistance against chemical addiction, just like an introverted personality is formed by being more neurologically sensitive than the population average.

Oh

Nate got there first

You are wrong again.
Most of the time it's just for the experience, but other times it is just to be with the 'in' crowd.

Also, I hate to be 'that' guy, but please could you start using quotes instead of speech marks? It just makes it easier to read, that's all.

I don't think you get it. Try inserting the word 'should' into his sentence.

Well that makes more sense. I do understand that some people have stronger will power to turn it down. But to say that drugs have no affect on the user - addiction-wise, is just silly.