When the Netherlands legalised canabis, hasj, and magic mushrooms the criminality rates went down by 50%, that includes especially murders, there has not been a raise in mental illnesses and the average use per person of soft drugs compared to the countries around the Netherlands like Germany is at 25%.
Please tell me again how legalising it increases it's usage?
Most people here just give a shit, its legal, it's not special, nobody cares about it. only losers smoke it regulary, or people that need some fun can do it maybe in the weekend. Nobody is hurt from it, quality is much better than illegal shit.
/argument
I heard it has implications to undeveloped brains i.e kids? Is that true? If so I would support it as long as it comes with an age restriction like alcohol and smoking.Ive seen a couple of studies that said that. Up until like 25, it hurts brain development or something.
At a time when the evidence is pilling up regarding the link between cannabis use and mental illness, this is an insane policy. I don't know how any doctor could say this was a good idea. Also it clearly won't eliminate the black market-I'm assuming the Canadian government is going to tax it, limit THC content, and a variety of other restrictions. If there's a black market for tobacco and alcohol there will be for cannabis too.
There isn't a black market for tobacco and alcohol. Well, not legal alcohol and tobacco.I'm not sure what you mean when you say there isn't a black market for 'legal alcohol and tobacco'. If it's on the black market it cannot be legal. Tax something and you create a black market, and for tobacco it's worth perhaps as much as $3 billion in Ontario alone.
There has been no evidence to support the direct link between cannabis use and the creation of mental illnesses.Yes there has been.
The most dangerous drug in the world this year was alcohol. The safest, magic mushrooms. Whether you like it or not, the fact is that cannabis has never been named the direct result of any death in the history of ever.You're right, it hasn't killed anyone, just given a lot of people irreversible mental illness and who now spend their time on a locked ward in a mental hospital. I'd prefer death to that.
The industry in Canada is expected to grow to an industry worth over 4.5 billion dollars annually in under 5 years. How one can see any economical problems is totally beyond me.The tobacco industry also paid a lot in taxation. How much is Canada going to need to spend expanding mental health facilities though? How many taxpayers will be lost to the locked wards of mental hospitals? Sounds like it could be a false economy.
Tax something and you create a black marketThe opposite is also true. Keep something illegal and you have an ever bigger black market. One which can prove to be a lot more dangerous.
http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/healthadvice/problemsdisorders/cannabis.aspxTo me it seems that research has found that it -could- give you depression or other mental illnesses. It could, there is never a guarantee in these things. There's drugs which you can freely get in pharmacies that can do the same. Are there any figures for how many people are currently in mental institutions because of mental illinesses directly caused by cannabis use?
[...]
You're right, it hasn't killed anyone, just given a lot of people irreversible mental illness and who now spend their time on a locked ward in a mental hospital. I'd prefer death to that.
Cannabis is not legal in the Netherlands and never has been, so your argument falls. M
Cannabis is not legal in the Netherlands and never has been, so your argument falls. M
Pretty sure they passed legislation about proffessional weed growing. Please, Vincenzo and I know the politics of our own country.
Already in Febuary of this year parliament passed a law that would enable legal production and selling to coffeeshops. A simple google search would've helped you. You're a bit too aggressive without backing up statements.
*smack*Cannabis is not legal in the Netherlands and never has been, so your argument falls. M
Pretty sure they passed legislation about proffessional weed growing. Please, Vincenzo and I know the politics of our own country.
Already in Febuary of this year parliament passed a law that would enable legal production and selling to coffeeshops. A simple google search would've helped you. You're a bit too aggressive without backing up statements.
Well I double-checked the government's own website before I posted that, which confirmed what I thought to be the case which is that cannabis is not legal, merely decriminalised for personal use:
https://www.government.nl/topics/drugs/toleration-policy-regarding-soft-drugs-and-coffee-shops
So either the Dutch government is wrong, or you do not in fact know the politics of your own country.
Can we not start dividing people up into "legalisers" vs whoever else please? This really doesn't have to be polarising at all, it's just a discussion about what people think are pros and cons.We are talking about whether Canada is right to legalise cannabis, so by definition it is polarising. You polarised yourself by voting in the poll!
I appreciate what you're saying about Japan and South Korea, but they're completely different cultures; their strict anti-drug laws are a consequence of that, not a causative factor.Total rubbish. Japan had a massive problem with amphetamines in the 1940s and 1950s, which is where its tough drug laws originate from.
As for mental health, having a "psychotic-like experience" is not at all the same as being diagnosed with a psychosis like schizophrenia. In the majority of cases the episodes only occur when using cannabis and are self limiting. It's almost like it's a substance which alters your mental state. Huh, who'd have thought.I never said it was 'like schizophrenia', which is not the only mental disorder that can arise from smoking cannabis. There's plenty more, including violent behaviour:
I don't know about the 1/4 figure or where you got that, but that's because the police give several warnings first. It's presumably based on incidents (rather than people), in which case that makes sense as you get 2-3 warnings before anything else happens. Many will learn after getting caught the first couple times and won't get caught again.It's from the latest police figures, see here: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/cannabis-arrests-charges-fall-police-giving-up-drug-policy-uk-a7206036.html
Cannabis is not legal in the Netherlands and never has been, so your argument falls. M
Pretty sure they passed legislation about proffessional weed growing. Please, Vincenzo and I know the politics of our own country.
Already in Febuary of this year parliament passed a law that would enable legal production and selling to coffeeshops. A simple google search would've helped you. You're a bit too aggressive without backing up statements.
Well I double-checked the government's own website before I posted that, which confirmed what I thought to be the case which is that cannabis is not legal, merely decriminalised for personal use:
https://www.government.nl/topics/drugs/toleration-policy-regarding-soft-drugs-and-coffee-shops
So either the Dutch government is wrong, or you do not in fact know the politics of your own country.
it still, however, needs to be passed by the constitutional court and the Senate, both of which are practically a formality.
It's not commercially advertised
you can't buy it over the counter
possession is still strictly controlled
and coffee shops have to buy their stock from criminals
Neither is tabacco.TABACCO, OH PUTAINE OH JE SUIS ETOILE
Assuming every word of that is true, which I doubt, that still doesn't explain why 1. It's illegal in other countries and 2. has proven to be detrimental to your health @Georgei think he was referring to my post xd
Tiki, I hope you're not referring to Steven in any way in your first sentence.
How to spot a pot head ^
Which shows how stupid it is to allow cannabis to be advertised freely, as has been done in the US and as planned to do in Canada.QuoteIt's not commercially advertisedNeither is tabacco.
That you can't buy it over the counter in a shop like you can tobacco or alcohol.Quoteyou can't buy it over the counterWhat do you mean by this?
Herbal cannabis was the most seized drug in the Netherlands in 2015, with cocaine in second place. Cannabis resin was the third most seized. Clearly it is strictly controlled.Quotepossession is still strictly controlledIt really isn't.
so I'm not sure what you are talking about.
You buy and sell it over the counter. How do you think coffeeshops work?
Raad van State doesn't even consist of judges. It's a pretty useless institution anyway.
As a general rule most don't openly advertise the fact they sell cannabis
you have to ask specifically for the menu
If it was properly legalised and controlled it would actually be harder to get cannabis...
And Steven yeah you clearly have no idea what you're on about.
I've literally never seen a Rastafarian flag.
So the Government of Canada is set to legalize cannabis by July 1st next year. The legalization is meant to eliminate the black market, create 15 000 new jobs, boost the economy, decrease crime and allow for the production of hemp as an alternative to cotton, paper and so on.
The Task Force comprised of lawyers, police officers, politicians, leading doctors and scientists decided unanimously that the legalization of cannabis would be a good thing, the major concerns being for the youth in the development of the brain.
What is your opinion on the push by Trudeau's party that has overwhelming support?
So the Government of Canada is set to legalize cannabis by July 1st next year. The legalization is meant to eliminate the black market, create 15 000 new jobs, boost the economy, decrease crime and allow for the production of hemp as an alternative to cotton, paper and so on.
The Task Force comprised of lawyers, police officers, politicians, leading doctors and scientists decided unanimously that the legalization of cannabis would be a good thing, the major concerns being for the youth in the development of the brain.
What is your opinion on the push by Trudeau's party that has overwhelming support?
Just no. I've tried it myself several times, nothing special imo. Seen what it does to ppl, just becomes sacks of useless shit sitting around like a bag of potatoes but less intelligent even though they think themselves on top of things.
im actually curious can you post your sources that say the top achieves use cannabisSo the Government of Canada is set to legalize cannabis by July 1st next year. The legalization is meant to eliminate the black market, create 15 000 new jobs, boost the economy, decrease crime and allow for the production of hemp as an alternative to cotton, paper and so on.
The Task Force comprised of lawyers, police officers, politicians, leading doctors and scientists decided unanimously that the legalization of cannabis would be a good thing, the major concerns being for the youth in the development of the brain.
What is your opinion on the push by Trudeau's party that has overwhelming support?
Just no. I've tried it myself several times, nothing special imo. Seen what it does to ppl, just becomes sacks of useless shit sitting around like a bag of potatoes but less intelligent even though they think themselves on top of things.
In Australia, its quite the opposite in terms of intellect. The top achievers in Australian high schools regularly use cannabis. The same I'm sure goes for Canada, the USA and every other country in the world. There is absolutely zero evidence to support the statement that cannabis effects your intellect. In fact there is evidence supporting the contrary. Cannabis activates the nerves and cells in your brain that make you pay attention to detail. It slows reaction speed and CAN decrease focus (I say can because it has the opposite effect on some). Like all other drugs, it depends on the person using it as to what will happen. Like everything in this world it has its bad and good parts. The only time I've ever seen anyone have a negative impact while on cannabis is when the person had schizophrenia. A behavioural condition that affects less than 1% of the population. Is it worth it to punish the 99.5% for the .5%? Is it worth it to punish the millions of cancer and terminal illness patients for the .5%?
Like you have a common over the counter cough syrup for example, which contains a drug called dextromethorphan, discount ketamine. Another over the counter cough syrup contains codeine, one of the most addictive and damaging drugs you can get. Why aren't these illegal if the goal really is to preserve people's health?
If we're going with empirical evidence, my best friends grades declined after he started smoking weed habitually. Once he stopped (as it's normally not addictive) his grades, and general mental function, greatly improved.same thing happened to my friend? Weird
In residence, it was drug users who had diminished academic performance, and the ones who didn't were on average more successful.
This debate is a bit more complicated than just "weed helps your education"
I don't know of any sources. They're my personal friends. Met them at parties smoking dope. Some of the loosest people I know in terms of cannabis and yet they're top in the state and the country for their overall grades. In Australia we have what's called the ATAR, the Australian Tertiary Admissions Ranking. Not a mark, but a ranking system to find out how you compare against other students. Kind of like the LSAT for law schools in Europe and North America. You can find the ATAR results either online or on most newspapers. For example, the top in the state for English in the 2014 school year, my good friend Toby Wilcox, is one of the biggest pot heads I know. A good friend of mine as well, who is currently doing his high school diploma, is the captain of the debating team that has won the national championships 3 years in a row. Although he hasn't attained his marks yet, his trial marks put his ATAR score in the top .5% of the state. This guy has done every drug I know of apart from heroin and methamphetamine. He's done LSD, speed, mdma, ecstasy, cocaine, dom, shrooms, dmt, dxm, codeine, ketamine etc etc. And cannabis of course. He just turned 18 about a week ago and has been doing these drugs since he was 15 years old. He is living proof that drugs do not cause any form of serious harm to the intellect of young adults. He is living proof that drugs in fact cause the opposite. If any such research were to be done on the effects of cannabis in the young mind, one of the biggest problems that anti drug people would face would be people like my friend who have excelled in school through drug use.
Come on George can we please remember that correlation is not causation
I mean it's centred around statistics so it does applyCome on George can we please remember that correlation is not causation
Well, that is one of the foundations of the scientific method. I think the message here is more 'anecdotal evidence means very little'.
SpoilerI don't know of any sources. They're my personal friends. Met them at parties smoking dope. Some of the loosest people I know in terms of cannabis and yet they're top in the state and the country for their overall grades. In Australia we have what's called the ATAR, the Australian Tertiary Admissions Ranking. Not a mark, but a ranking system to find out how you compare against other students. Kind of like the LSAT for law schools in Europe and North America. You can find the ATAR results either online or on most newspapers. For example, the top in the state for English in the 2014 school year, my good friend Toby Wilcox, is one of the biggest pot heads I know. A good friend of mine as well, who is currently doing his high school diploma, is the captain of the debating team that has won the national championships 3 years in a row. Although he hasn't attained his marks yet, his trial marks put his ATAR score in the top .5% of the state. This guy has done every drug I know of apart from heroin and methamphetamine. He's done LSD, speed, mdma, ecstasy, cocaine, dom, shrooms, dmt, dxm, codeine, ketamine etc etc. And cannabis of course. He just turned 18 about a week ago and has been doing these drugs since he was 15 years old. He is living proof that drugs do not cause any form of serious harm to the intellect of young adults. He is living proof that drugs in fact cause the opposite. If any such research were to be done on the effects of cannabis in the young mind, one of the biggest problems that anti drug people would face would be people like my friend who have excelled in school through drug use.[close]
apparently gorilla munch cereal cures AIDS because I'm not lying. You can't take the word of the US Government on any form of drug use because of their previous studies on cannabis, most notably the Ronald Reagan cannabis research. No form of independent research can be conducted on it because the drug is illegal. Legalize it, and we will know the truth.Okay, so don't trust the government because they lie, and the way we'll find out whether something is dangerous or have a negative effect on society is to legalize it and then see if it works
apparently gorilla munch cereal cures AIDS because I'm not lying. You can't take the word of the US Government on any form of drug use because of their previous studies on cannabis, most notably the Ronald Reagan cannabis research. No form of independent research can be conducted on it because the drug is illegal. Legalize it, and we will know the truth.Considering our government is the gold standard for any drug research anywhere in the world... no, and it is legal here, and they have new studies.. from legal drug use research. It doesnt make you smarter
I only you guys arguying about whether it can or cannot cause damage. For me, the ratio and how much one needs to smoke in order to really risk likely brain damage is much more important. If cannabis turns out not to be more damaging than alcohol or tobacco, the discussion is over for me as drug policices should rely on damage and not tradition or whatever other excuse one could come up with...One of my core beliefs is believing in personal freedom and responsibility. However, that ends when someones life choices interfere with the personal property of someone else, and the side effects of most illegal drugs are always, in some way, damaging to individuals and society.
And even if it is more damaging, there are good arguments for legalizing all drugs. From what I've seen so far cannabis is not comparable to tobacco or alcohol in terms of damage caused.
Then it also should be illegal to drive a car, because that's an unnecessarily dangerous and polluting way of transport. Everybody should ride busses, take trains or cycle, otherwise they're both endangering my life and ruining societal health.Then, by your logic, everybody should have to pass a test and get a license to use drugs.
No, because having a driver license does nothing to stop pollution and nearly all accidents are by licensed drivers anyway.And that's why there are pollution caps/limits for cars and repercussions/punishments for accidents. Besides, the important distinction is that driving is a privilege that you seek permission and pay for.
I only you guys arguying about whether it can or cannot cause damage. For me, the ratio and how much one needs to smoke in order to really risk likely brain damage is much more important. If cannabis turns out not to be more damaging than alcohol or tobacco, the discussion is over for me as drug policices should rely on damage and not tradition or whatever other excuse one could come up with...One of my core beliefs is believing in personal freedom and responsibility. However, that ends when someones life choices interfere with the personal property of someone else, and the side effects of most illegal drugs are always, in some way, damaging to individuals and society.
And even if it is more damaging, there are good arguments for legalizing all drugs. From what I've seen so far cannabis is not comparable to tobacco or alcohol in terms of damage caused.
I fail to see any meritable reasons for the legalization of all drugs.
I agree with you that healthcare should focus on solving addiction and helping addicts rather than straight incarceration, too, but it's nonsensical to think that legalizing heroin will decrease heroin addiction or usage.
apparently gorilla munch cereal cures AIDS because I'm not lying. You can't take the word of the US Government on any form of drug use because of their previous studies on cannabis, most notably the Ronald Reagan cannabis research. No form of independent research can be conducted on it because the drug is illegal. Legalize it, and we will know the truth.Considering our government is the gold standard for any drug research anywhere in the world... no, and it is legal here, and they have new studies.. from legal drug use research. It doesnt make you smarter
"Many economists predict that the legalization of cocaine and heroin would reduce street prices by up to 60 percent, depending on if and how much they were taxed. According to an important study, price declines of that size would increase the number of occasional users of heroin by 54 percent and the number of occasional users of cocaine by 33 percent. The total quantity of heroin demanded would rise by an estimated 100 percent, and the quantity of cocaine demanded would rise by 50 percent." -my econ bookI mean existing dealers are still going to want the same fat profit margins and just get less risk as an added bonus. Either way, there's no limit to what tax you put on it. Considering that it's a massively unhealthy habit, I don't see why they wouldn't slap a massive tax on it, which also helps to pay for the damage that it already causes.
I've said all I need to. Clearly we (mostly) agree that drug use is a bad thing and the best policy is the one that reduces consumption, we just disagree about how to go about doing it. All I would say is that the evidence is on my side-those countries which have tough drugs laws *and* enforce them have significantly lower usage rates than those which have gone down the legalisation/decriminalisation path.
No one is doubting that drug use is higher among countries that have legalized it. That's such an obvious fact. People are doubting whether or not having users of the drug is a bad thing. And doctors, lawyers, law enforcement professionals, scientists and historians pretty much unanimously agree that cannabis is a good thing, the positives of legalization of it would severely outweigh the negatives. That's fact.
No one is doubting that drug use is higher among countries that have legalized it. That's such an obvious fact. People are doubting whether or not having users of the drug is a bad thing. And doctors, lawyers, law enforcement professionals, scientists and historians pretty much unanimously agree that cannabis is a good thing, the positives of legalization of it would severely outweigh the negatives. That's fact.
Sounds like you've been smoking something yourself.
People are doubting whether or not having users of the drug is a bad thing. And doctors, lawyers, law enforcement professionals, scientists and historians pretty much unanimously agree that cannabis is a good thing, the positives of legalization of it would severely outweigh the negatives. That's fact.
Don't get too excited, it decides when it wants to work.:(
People are doubting whether or not having users of the drug is a bad thing. And doctors, lawyers, law enforcement professionals, scientists and historians pretty much unanimously agree that cannabis is a good thing, the positives of legalization of it would severely outweigh the negatives. That's fact.
Whoa, let's slow down for a moment. Scientists notoriously rarely unanimously agree on pretty much anything, nevermind a topic as controversial and often morally driven such as drug use. Hell, they can't even find common ground when debating climate change (https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/#6d8b8704c7c2), which is of course a far more researched and objective topic of study.
I mean, it's pretty ludicrous to state that medical professionals and scientists would unanimously agree that the legalization of marijuana would be more or less a good thing given studies like this (http://www.biologicalpsychiatryjournal.com/article/S0006-3223(13)00502-7/abstract) are knocking about.
The old testemant isn't the Jewish version of the bible btw. The old testemant is in the Christian bible too
Well if you consider that to be 'the Jewish part' then you should consider the new testemant to be so as well since it's main focus, Jesus, was a Jew.The old testemant isn't the Jewish version of the bible btw. The old testemant is in the Christian bible too
Yes but it's the Jewish part.
Besides on how incredibily wrong that is, it's also very much off-topic.I know it's off topic but which part is wrong?
You can't compare alcohol to cannabis. The former has been deeply ingrained in society for most of human history, whereas cannabis is comparatively new and not as widespread. When something becomes that embedded banning it doesn't work. The point about rushing to make cannabis legal is that once you do so it's very difficult to turn the clock back.Hang on you're justifying alcohol being legal because it's "deeply ingrained in society"? So was beating your wife/children, slavery and paedophilia. In the civilised world none of those are legal, and I for one am thankful of it. Cannabis already has a significant place in society, whatever happens regarding the law.
Prohibition also wasn't that strict, it remained perfectly legal to drink alcohol during that period.
You've misunderstood the argument. When something is that deeply embedded it's impossible to make it illegal, at least in the short term. You can gradually ratchet up the pressure as they're doing with tobacco but outright bans don't work. Wife beating/slavery and paedophilia may be illegal but there's still a lot of it in the "civilised" world (wife beating and paedophilia are kinda obvious, and there's estimated to be over a million slaves currently in Europe).
Cannabis does not have a significant place in UK society given we have a usage rate of only around 6%. Canada's is higher at around 13% but I don't know how much of that is down to native/First Nation Canadians where usage on the reservations is rife.
And if you think that's what he was saying, Phoenix, then you've misunderstood his.
He wasn't saying that alcohol doesn't have a negative effect on society, just that's it's too deeply embedded within our culture to outright make it illegal just like that.And if you think that's what he was saying, Phoenix, then you've misunderstood his.
Its a logical consequence of what he said. If you can refute it, go for it
He wasn't saying that alcohol doesn't have a negative effect on society, just that's it's too deeply embedded within our culture to outright make it illegal just like that.And if you think that's what he was saying, Phoenix, then you've misunderstood his.
Its a logical consequence of what he said. If you can refute it, go for it
Just because we have two terrible but legal poisons in society, alcohol and tobacco, does not mean we should introduce a third.
But we don't deal well with them do we?Just because we have two terrible but legal poisons in society, alcohol and tobacco, does not mean we should introduce a third.
If we can deal pretty well with those two then a much less harmful one will not be very problematic.
But we don't deal well with them do we?Just because we have two terrible but legal poisons in society, alcohol and tobacco, does not mean we should introduce a third.
If we can deal pretty well with those two then a much less harmful one will not be very problematic.
Not really. You can't claim that smoking or alcohol is dealt with well considering the thousands of deaths every earBut we don't deal well with them do we?Just because we have two terrible but legal poisons in society, alcohol and tobacco, does not mean we should introduce a third.
If we can deal pretty well with those two then a much less harmful one will not be very problematic.
A huge majority does
Not really. You can't claim that smoking or alcohol is dealt with well considering the thousands of deaths every earBut we don't deal well with them do we?Just because we have two terrible but legal poisons in society, alcohol and tobacco, does not mean we should introduce a third.
If we can deal pretty well with those two then a much less harmful one will not be very problematic.
A huge majority does
I'm not arguing either for or against legalization but I just want to point out that comparing it to other substances isn't advisable. The health risks and the pros and cons should be evaluated independently rather than in comparison to other substances so we can get a clearer picture of it's potential risks. If it carries any sort of risk then we should seriously consider the implications of legalization.
It can be helpful to compare in certain situation but supporting the legalization of something simply because other, potentially more dangerous, things are legal is a weak argument.I'm not arguing either for or against legalization but I just want to point out that comparing it to other substances isn't advisable. The health risks and the pros and cons should be evaluated independently rather than in comparison to other substances so we can get a clearer picture of it's potential risks. If it carries any sort of risk then we should seriously consider the implications of legalization.
It can be very helpful to compare and I think that a government should stay logically consistent but generally I'm on your side there.
Cannabis wouldn't come on the chart of comparing deaths at all. Simply because no one has ever died as a result of cannabis use. Ever. No health department, no university laboratory and no coroner has ever recorded a death resulting from cannabis. I've seen cannabis get laced with other drugs or just other shit, someone who i used to go to school with was hated and someone paid her dealer to lace her weed with rat poison, and now she's a vegetable. That wouldn't have happened if the drug was legalized. All the health concerns affiliated with synthetic cannabis and cannabis laced with other stuff would not happen if the drug was legalized. That's the only way cannabis is harmful to most people.thats just so blatantly wrong
I think the comparison of other drugs to cannabis is used to show that the goal of the government is not to preserve health. As someone pointed out before, cannabis is a class B drug in the U.K., along with ketamine, but GHB is a class C. If the goal was actually health concerns and what it does to you, it should be the other way around if cannabis should be on there at all.
We could talk about alcohol deaths..Vince knows what's up. That's why I don't go outside.
Everything can be lethal, especially going outside for instance.
We could talk about alcohol deaths..Vince knows what's up. That's why I don't go outside.
Everything can be lethal, especially going outside for instance.
Not sure if this is what you're looking for but:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2548669/Devout-Christian-mother-three-31-woman-Britain-DIE-cannabis-poisoning-smoking-joint-bed.html
Cannabis causes terrorism.
It can LITERALLY be that easy guys
These are just the more high profile attacks and isn't an exhaustive list by any means. Doesn't apply in every case but in a lot of them you see familiar similarities-they're often losers with a history of petty crime and known to be drug takers, almost always cannabis. Is there a link between terrorist perpetrators and users of a drug we know can cause mental health delusions and aggressive/violent behaviour? Maybe.
In that regard, drugs aren't that different from alcohol. Some people use it to numb their senses and give them some temporary bliss from their usual shitty situation.
More than 60% of the Canadian adult population use cannabis.
These are just the more high profile attacks and isn't an exhaustive list by any means. Doesn't apply in every case but in a lot of them you see familiar similarities-they're often losers with a history of petty crime and known to be drug takers, almost always cannabis. Is there a link between terrorist perpetrators and users of a drug we know can cause mental health delusions and aggressive/violent behaviour? Maybe.
My comment wasn't intended as serious.
You're putting a pretty hefty causation to a phenomemon that is actually easily explained. Terrorists in Western countries are usually poorly embedded socially, that kind of person is far more likely to be using drugs. You're reversing everything here.
What I mean:
Pretty shit social situation --> Drugs (and when exposed to extremist views, in the right circumstances --> Terrorism
What it seems like you're doing:
Drugs --> pretty shit social situation --> terrorism
More than 60% of the Canadian adult population use cannabis.
Sounds legit.These are just the more high profile attacks and isn't an exhaustive list by any means. Doesn't apply in every case but in a lot of them you see familiar similarities-they're often losers with a history of petty crime and known to be drug takers, almost always cannabis. Is there a link between terrorist perpetrators and users of a drug we know can cause mental health delusions and aggressive/violent behaviour? Maybe.
My comment wasn't intended as serious.
You're putting a pretty hefty causation to a phenomemon that is actually easily explained. Terrorists in Western countries are usually poorly embedded socially, that kind of person is far more likely to be using drugs. You're reversing everything here.
What I mean:
Pretty shit social situation --> Drugs (and when exposed to extremist views, in the right circumstances --> Terrorism
What it seems like you're doing:
Drugs --> pretty shit social situation --> terrorism
Maybe, maybe not. There's evidence on both sides, see here for instance: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-4539550/Is-marijuana-factor-jihadi-murders.html
"Evidence" -> Daily Mail ???
Edit: also reading the actual argument it does nothing to show both sides of the argument, does nothing to show sources etc
As usual, you're talking absolute bollocks
"Evidence" -> Daily Mail ???
Edit: also reading the actual argument it does nothing to show both sides of the argument, does nothing to show sources etc
As usual, you're talking absolute bollocks
That's a bit rich coming from you considering you occasionally link to The Canary (a kind of clickbait Pravda). I mean f*ck me this is front page news according to them: https://www.thecanary.co/uk/2017/09/18/independent-says-ids-thinks-bosses-killing-workers-not-far-wrong-images/
Anyway, are you seriously saying there's nothing to this? Really? https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/lee-rigby-murderer-adebowale-is-borderline-schizophrenic-recommended-for-broadmoor-9015617.html
Steven again they're distinct things:
Schizophrenia can cause people to harm themselves or others.
Heavy cannabis use increases the likelihood of an individual developing schizophrenia or having psychotic episodes.
Terrorists use drugs, including cannabis, for short term highs (in terms of mood) and/or to prevent them thinking about what they're doing.
Saying that they're equivalent is blatantly false. You can replace the word cannabis with alcohol and you'd just have to change schizophrenia to depression, personality disorders or just generally aggression.
Correlation is what is used to identify trends in such large data sets-how do you think we first discovered the link between lung cancer and smoking? It's perfectly valid and is part of the scientific method.
As far as I know there have been no studies that suggest cannabis is linked to terrorism. The reverse is also true however, there have been no studies to disprove it either. I dunno if there's anyone out there with an interest in the subject and access to a pot (::)) of grant money but that may be something to investigate.
When the correlation is that striking it deserves attention.
I mean technically speaking, if we're talking about actual psychosis induced violence, then they're not actually terrorists, as they're just mentally ill. That being said, we seem to reserve that term for caucasians for some reason.
I didn't claim it was true, I merely stated it was suspiciously highly correlated and should be further investigated. I personally thinks it's more likely than not that cannabis is playing a role but apparently there's no grant money available for someone to look into it. How odd given a) the correlation, and b) the newsworthiness of terrorism and cannabis legalisation.
I didn't claim it was true, I merely stated it was suspiciously highly correlated and should be further investigated. I personally thinks it's more likely than not that cannabis is playing a role but apparently there's no grant money available for someone to look into it. How odd given a) the correlation, and b) the newsworthiness of terrorism and cannabis legalisation.I think you really fit to this:
I didn't claim it was true, I merely stated it was suspiciously highly correlated and should be further investigated. I personally thinks it's more likely than not that cannabis is playing a role but apparently there's no grant money available for someone to look into it. How odd given a) the correlation, and b) the newsworthiness of terrorism and cannabis legalisation.I think you really fit to this:
https://www.sciencealert.com/researchers-have-figured-out-what-makes-people-reject-science-and-it-s-not-ignorance
take whatever "facts" you can find online to support the conservative ideas you have in your head. no offence intended.
I don't fit to it at all given there's no scientific consensus whatsoever on cannabis and terrorism.
Anyway we shouldn't put science on a pedestal and say whatever the consensus is must be the truth and you can't question it. Science often gets it wrong-the whole point is you constantly question everything.
halidomide used to be considered safe, homosexuality was classed as a disease up until the mid 1970s
the majority of doctors used to smoke...
even Bill Nye is having to edit his old shows to remove references to there being only two genders rather than the 69 that exist today. It's pretty much a given that most published scientific research findings are false.
I think you really fit to this:
https://www.sciencealert.com/researchers-have-figured-out-what-makes-people-reject-science-and-it-s-not-ignorance
take whatever "facts" you can find online to support the conservative ideas you have in your head. no offence intended.
That DM article was guest written by a doctor, but okay.
The point is that there is no consensus, and even if there was it's perfectly valid to question it. A significant number, if not a majority, of terror attacks are carried out by people who are psychotic and with a history of drug use. I first became suspicious after reading an account given by the perpetrator's brother:
https://www.channel4.com/news/leytonstone-attack-accused-had-mental-health-problems
Does this not make you suspicious as to whether there is a link? Does it not make logical sense given everything we already know/are beginning to find out about cannabis and mental health?
If weed makes you an terrorist, why did nobody blow up the netherlands yet? we have 500.000 muslims, cheap legal weed and 0 terrorattacks. oh snap.
If weed makes you an terrorist, why did nobody blow up the netherlands yet? we have 500.000 muslims, cheap legal weed and 0 terrorattacks. oh snap.
Largely because you got lucky. Hollandish police are constantly arresting people for planning terror attacks, most recently last month. Holland also has one of the highest numbers of ISIS volunteers per capita in Europe.
And once again weed is not legal in Holland, merely decriminalised in certain circumstances.
If weed makes you an terrorist, why did nobody blow up the netherlands yet? we have 500.000 muslims, cheap legal weed and 0 terrorattacks. oh snap.
Largely because you got lucky. Hollandish police are constantly arresting people for planning terror attacks, most recently last month. Holland also has one of the highest numbers of ISIS volunteers per capita in Europe.
And once again weed is not legal in Holland, merely decriminalised in certain circumstances.
Hollandish
No no. If someone talks shit about my country, he should at least get its name right.
It's not patriotism, it's regionalism.Damn seperatist
If weed makes you an terrorist, why did nobody blow up the netherlands yet? we have 500.000 muslims, cheap legal weed and 0 terrorattacks. oh snap.
Largely because you got lucky. Hollandish police are constantly arresting people for planning terror attacks, most recently last month. Holland also has one of the highest numbers of ISIS volunteers per capita in Europe.
And once again weed is not legal in Holland, merely decriminalised in certain circumstances.
Noord Brabant representTalking about the military, more like overrepresented.
No he plans to stop terrorism by legalising cannabistrue
Scandinavia has the highest terrorism rates in Europe I think. Isis, al Qaeda, Hamas, and mafias around the world would be seriously weakened if cannabis was legalized. A top Italian terrorist prosecutor said that the legalization of the drug would cause the mafia and terrorist organizations to take a huge blow. I do not see how this can possibly be a bad thing.
What the balls, you can't compare legalization of weed to terrorism in any way, that's apples and oranges lmao
It is the big apple to be fairWhat the balls, you can't compare legalization of weed to terrorism in any way, that's apples and oranges lmao
It's not even apples and oranges. It's more like comparing apples to the Empire Fucking State Building
It is the big apple to be fairWhat the balls, you can't compare legalization of weed to terrorism in any way, that's apples and oranges lmao
It's not even apples and oranges. It's more like comparing apples to the Empire Fucking State Building
RektIt is the big apple to be fairWhat the balls, you can't compare legalization of weed to terrorism in any way, that's apples and oranges lmao
It's not even apples and oranges. It's more like comparing apples to the Empire Fucking State Building
oi cheeky
My sources about what? About how terrorists posing as refugees can't recruit people through the black market if the black market is eliminated? I mean what is there to be in doubt for? What's not believable? That's not rocket science, it's pretty straight forward and obvious.legalizing cannabis does not get rid of the black market. As long as an item is taxed there is a black market
But this is a book written by one of Italy's top prosecutors saying that legalizing weed would hurt terrorist groups and many organized crime groups as well
https://www.amazon.it/contrario-terrorismo-islamico-possono-sconfitti/dp/8804643404
But you can heavily reduce it. Searching superlatives when discussing laws is not very handy is it?My sources about what? About how terrorists posing as refugees can't recruit people through the black market if the black market is eliminated? I mean what is there to be in doubt for? What's not believable? That's not rocket science, it's pretty straight forward and obvious.legalizing cannabis does not get rid of the black market. As long as an item is taxed there is a black market
But this is a book written by one of Italy's top prosecutors saying that legalizing weed would hurt terrorist groups and many organized crime groups as well
https://www.amazon.it/contrario-terrorismo-islamico-possono-sconfitti/dp/8804643404
http://money.cnn.com/2017/10/12/smallbusiness/california-cannabis-fires/index.html
Could it be divine intervention?