Originally Posted by Kizzy (Post 8059564)

The isn't about alcohol though :/
That is legal and people can get high strength alcohol very cheaply in stores.. that's why people don't all fork out for the equipment to brew hooch.
As I've said the issue will be with skunk that won't be included in the legalisation ( most likely) due to the difference in the THC and CBD levels.

I've ignored your straw man debate because it has no bearing on the discussion. To be honest with you Cherie is right you can be insulting in your replies to those you disagree with.. me for one, this thread is just one example. I'm not reaching, making a desperate argument or ignoring anything you say... I just have my own opinion and I just don't happen to agree with your view.

Originally Posted by Josy (Post 8059602)

Only people with little or no real experience of weed seem to be against legalising it.

Originally Posted by Dezzy (Post 8059612)

The reason why I keep bringing up alcohol is because it's a much dangerous substance than weed yet it's legal. The skunk argument is the true strawman argument here. You've not been able to offer up one reason why weed should be illegal aside from what essentially boils down to 'some people might abuse it and grow skunk' which is no reason to ban it at all when, if you legalise it you can tax and regulate it and make the official stuff more preferable to the homegrown stuff.

Originally Posted by bitontheslide (Post 8059673)

Although i've mentioned it several times already, it doesn't seem you have considered it. Whether alcohol or tobacco are currently legal or not is completely irrelevant. Tobacco won't be legal for much longer, I would say that within 1 or 2 generations it will be completely illegal. There is a general move to tighten up alcohol too, so measures are becoming more restrictive in general, not less so. So why, under those circumstances do you believe that cannabis should buck that trend.

Personally, I think it is primarily an age related issue around entitlement. In my youth I dabbled plenty with cannabis so I know with personal experience the effects that it has and I'm an ex-smoker too. I wouldn't under any circumstances suggest that cannabis be legalised, it will cause many, many more issues than it solves.

Originally Posted by bitontheslide (Post 8059673)

Although i've mentioned it several times already, it doesn't seem you have considered it. Whether alcohol or tobacco are currently legal or not is completely irrelevant. Tobacco won't be legal for much longer, I would say that within 1 or 2 generations it will be completely illegal. There is a general move to tighten up alcohol too, so measures are becoming more restrictive in general, not less so. So why, under those circumstances do you believe that cannabis should buck that trend.

Personally, I think it is primarily an age related issue around entitlement. In my youth I dabbled plenty with cannabis so I know with personal experience the effects that it has and I'm an ex-smoker too. I wouldn't under any circumstances suggest that cannabis be legalised, it will cause many, many more issues than it solves.

Originally Posted by Dezzy (Post 8059473)

I'd say baiting comments like yours that actually add nothing to the debate run the risk of ruining it more than anything anyone else has said so far.

Originally Posted by Livia (Post 8059676)

I think the true figures of how many people actually partake would be a surprise. I know lots and lots of people who use it recreationally, not feckless, paranoid unemployables, but high-functioning professionals. It is less damaging than tobacco and alcohol, that's a fact. By making it legal firstly, it can be regulated and taxed, secondly it takes it out of the hands of criminals. If things are, as you put it, "tightened up" with tobacco and alcohol to such an extent that people can't get hold of it , it'll just send it underground and into the hands of the criminal element where cannabis is at the moment. It's been the case throughout history.

Originally Posted by Josy (Post 8059602)

Only people with little or no real experience of weed seem to be against legalising it.

Originally Posted by the truth (Post 8060989)

yes put the junkies in charge of decisions and ignore the clean living people? insane liberalism :shrug::shrug:

Originally Posted by Josy (Post 8059602)

Only people with little or no real experience of weed seem to be against legalising it.

Originally Posted by Dezzy (Post 8059612)

The reason why I keep bringing up alcohol is because it's a much dangerous substance than weed yet it's legal. The skunk argument is the true strawman argument here. You've not been able to offer up one reason why weed should be illegal aside from what essentially boils down to 'some people might abuse it and grow skunk' which is no reason to ban it at all when, if you legalise it you can tax and regulate it and make the official stuff more preferable to the homegrown stuff.


Why can't this quote from your post also apply to weed if it was legalised? If it was legal to be sold then people wouldn't bother with the cheap homegrown stuff unless they knew what they were doing.

Your last paragraph as it's just another attempt to demean my argument by saying I've insulted you when I haven't because you can't win this debate by tackling the points I've made head on.

I've never insulted you, I said that the skunk argument as a whole was reaching and desperate. I never actually called you desperate or reaching, you just chose to interpret it that way so you could try to derail the thread by saying I was insulting you when you knew you couldn't win. Really, you and Cherie should apologise to me for trying take things off topic and insulting me because it's only you two that's guilty of the things you're branding me with.

Originally Posted by AProducer'sWetDream (Post 8060999)

Not everyone who has ever touched cannabis is a junkie. :shrug: That's the same as me saying that everyone who has ever had a drink in their life is an alcoholic. I am pro legalisation by the way- alcohol is incredibly damaging to people's physical and mental health, and costs the NHS billions- cannabis use carries much less risk and they only reason I think alcohol and tobacco are still legal is the amount of money the government earn by taxing these substances.

Originally Posted by the truth (Post 8060989)

yes put the junkies in charge of decisions and ignore the clean living people? insane liberalism :shrug::shrug:

Originally Posted by Kizzy (Post 8061158)

That's very presumptuous of you Josy, and for me anyway wrong too.

Originally Posted by Josy (Post 8061211)

Not presumptuous at all, that's my experience of the whole cannabis debate.

Originally Posted by Kizzy (Post 8061166)

So comparisons to alcohol are relevant but when I compare skunk to legalised cannabis it's a straw man tactic?...

Discussing skunk which is a huge problem in my area in a thread relating to cannabis is not reaching and/or desperate in my view and is the reason I found your dismissal of my opinion so insulting.

I know alcohol is dangerous unfortunately you can't put that genie back in the bottle, however as drug driving is now an offence and skunk farms still prevalent how would legalising cannabis benefit the UK apart from making some filthy rich?

Originally Posted by the truth (Post 8061175)

yes you have your petty play on words whilst the country falls apart with record drug related crime....and of course only drug takers are allowed an opinion on drugs under the liberal loony left ? and of course because people are allowed to get drunk off their faces lets allow them to get drugged up to their eyeballs too , yes that will help? the usual insane moral relativism of the loony left. booze should have a far higher minimum price. id be more than happy to see it banned from all supermarkets....at least when people drink in pubs its managed by staff to a degree. but the argument if we have booze on the shelves we should have drugs too, is insane in the membrane. drugs destroy lives, increase crime, increase drug dealing , increasing irrational erratic violent behaviour and is a gateway to harder drugs which kill people and create enormous social problems too. you throw in liberal booze and liberal drugs laws and you have a concoction that will see the country go to hell in a handbasket.....and all you can worry about is what do we call junkies? get a grip

Originally Posted by Dezzy (Post 8061257)

Yes because, like you said when it we were talking about alcohol, if it was legalised and sold, the process of growing it would become standardised and regulated which would mean that, like you said when it came to the home brewed, people would be more likely to buy the legal variety due to simply being easier to get.

You can buy cheap knockoff fags that are hazardous to your health, you can buy knockoff beer that's just as dangerous too but these aren't huge widespread issues because the vast majority of people will go for the legal options. If they legalised weed then chances are your area's skunk problem would end becoming less of a problem since people would just end up buying the legit stuff.

If you legalise something, you can control it and you remove the power from the criminal element who would otherwise have control over how much skunk makes it into the public's hands. Weed is basically harmless, certainly more harmless than tobacco or alcohol so why shouldn't it be legalised? Legalising it will reduce the amount of skunk that's around.

Originally Posted by Kizzy (Post 8061287)

I disagree, I don't think if both were available and they were already regularly illegally using the high THC content skunk they would switch to the regulated brand no.
I think those who want it will still seek it out therefore the legalisation will have no baring on that issue, nor do I think those producing it will stop.

If it's harmless then why can you not smoke cannabis and drive?

Originally Posted by Kizzy (Post 8061239)

You have no idea what the experience of cannabis is for those who are against legalisation though, those who are for it who think that the issues are down to a 'bad batch' don't appear to be that clued up either tbh.

Originally Posted by Josy (Post 8061472)

Kizzy why do you keep mentioning skunk? do you have experience of this strain of cannabis or are you going by what you have read in the papers about it?

There are numerous strains that have high levels of THC, but then anything above roughly 12% is regarded as high and for each different strain you get they all affect users slightly different, you also get different effects again depending on which plant was used in the first place.

A lot of the anti legalisation prejudice today is based on the same claims some here are using about THC levels and the weed being more potent than that of a few decades ago, which is just complete garbage tbh.

Years ago the argument was 'Ohh cannabis is a gateway drug' hahah :joker:

Here in the UK most people that say they are smoking skunk aren't btw, they are just using it as a word to describe whatever type of generic weed they have.

Originally Posted by Dezzy (Post 8061327)

It was obvious that meant that is was harmless in the fact that you can't die from it. Obviously operating heavy machinery is an issue for a lot of substances, legal and otherwise....

Most people would make the switch to the regulated kind, using fringe examples as an argument against the majority is pointless. Skunk isn't as big of a problem as you make it out to be and it would be even less of an issue if weed was legalised.

Once again, there are no reasons why weed should continue to be banned.