The 2018 Federal Wide Legalization for the Recreational Use of Cannabis - Canada

[Duuring]

Besides on how incredibily wrong that is, it's also very much off-topic.

[Toffee]

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?

[MrTiki]

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.

Prohibition also wasn't that strict, it remained perfectly legal to drink alcohol during that period.

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.
Alcohol can and does kill, whether through liver cirrhosis, cancer, RTAs or Wernicke's Encephalopathy. The total cost to the UK caused by alcohol is some 21 billion, of which 3.5 billion directly out of the NHS budget.

Anyway, I find the drug classification system retarded in the UK.
Cannabis is a class B, along with Ketamine. But then good old GHB is a class C. What the fuck.

[StevenChilton]

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.

[Phoen!x]

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.

If you recognize that a much more harmful drug is legal and doesnt really negatively affect a big part of society, then you've made my point.

[Toffee]

And if you think that's what he was saying, Phoenix, then you've misunderstood his.

[Phoen!x]

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

[Toffee]

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.

[Phoen!x]

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.

I see where the misunderstanding is coming from.

The part saying that our society can deal with ous consumig alcohol (which isnr the same as not having a negative effect at all) is my opinion. What I've taken from him is the part that we shouldnt restrict it. It's more me noticing that there is common ground than attacking his position

[StevenChilton]

Just because we have two terrible but legal poisons in society, alcohol and tobacco, does not mean we should introduce a third.

[Phoen!x]

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.

[Toffee]

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?

[Phoen!x]

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?

A huge majority does

[Toffee]

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?

A huge majority does

Not really. You can't claim that smoking or alcohol is dealt with well considering the thousands of deaths every ear

[Phoen!x]

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?

A huge majority does

Not really. You can't claim that smoking or alcohol is dealt with well considering the thousands of deaths every ear

Not saying it couldn't be better, it obviously could. Also it is debatable what 'dealing with it well' means but what we can objectively say is that of all deaths in Germany in 2014  80% had nothing to do with tobacco or alcohol, the most dangerous drugs that we have. In terms of deaths, cannabis would most likely not be comparable at all. Obviously there is a lot of health damage that does not result in death, just meant to be a hint. Obviously 20% is much too much but I wouldnt say that society as a whole does not deal with it in a good way. Excessive drug consumption also has a lot to do with pre-existing problems. Also cannabis being, from what I know, not comparable in terms of damage is something that should be addressed when comparing it to alcohol or tobacco.

Spoiler

http://www.dhs.de/fileadmin/user_upload/pdf/Presse/2015/2015-05-11-PM1_Jahrbuch_Drogensituation.pdf
https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/156902/umfrage/sterbefaelle-in-deutschland/

[close]