Cannabis legislation in the UK.

[Phanerothyme 12]

None of us like every rule and regulation imposed on our freedom, but we are given the right to voice our protest and influence decision making, which is what you are doing.

 

Peripherally, what I'm mainly doing is trying to drill down into your reasons for thinking that the state should have the right to intervene in people's lives in the event of potential detriment to others.

 

That sounds to me like you'd accept the state's intervention in almost any aspect of your life, on the basis they have a "right" to.

 

The only "rights" a government has, are those granted to it by its citizens.

[harvey19 541]

No they don't. Driving fast and crashing a car can cause harm to other road users.

 

If I smoke cannabis, and it is an act with no other victim than myself, then the state has no right to stop me.

 

You omitted to mention seat belts which are for the protection of the user.

You are using the same argument that made suicide no longer a crime.

[janie48 98]

Peripherally, what I'm mainly doing is trying to drill down into your reasons for thinking that the state should have the right to intervene in people's lives in the event of potential detriment to others.

 

That sounds to me like you'd accept the state's intervention in almost any aspect of your life, on the basis they have a "right" to.

 

The only "rights" a government has, are those granted to it by its citizens.

Okay you've made your point, if you could have done so in a less dictatorial manner it may have carried a little more weight.

[flamingjimmy 10]

The state have a right to do anything they choose if they decide something has the potential to be detrimental to other citizens.

 

Precisely, taking a potentially harmful substance cannot harm others.

 

A persons body is their own to do with what they will and neither you nor the state should have any right to stop them, provided they are of sound mind.

 

---------- Post added 19-06-2013 at 00:24 ----------

 

Okay you've made your point, if you could have done so in a less dictatorial manner it may have carried a little more weight.

 

Ironic that you've responded to a post about civil liberties by calling the argument 'dictatorial'.

 

It is you and the others who want to keep cannabis criminalised who are the ones who are trying to dictate how others should live.

[janie48 98]

 

A persons body is their own to do with what they will and neither you nor the state should have any right to stop them, provided they are of sound mind.

.

What if a person has self-abused their body to an extreme and requires medical treatment or a Hospital admission which a massive number of people do. Is it anybody's business then? or should we just adopt the attitude "who cares its their body let them suffer the consequences of their actions"

[*_ash_* 88]

What if a person has self-abused their body to an extreme and requires medical treatment or a Hospital admission which a massive number of people do. Is it anybody's business then? or should we just adopt the attitude "who cares its their body let them suffer the consequences of their actions"

 

You've read too much into that link you posted.

 

What if a person has self-abused their body to an extreme and requires medical treatment or a Hospital admission which a massive number of people do. Is it anybody's business then? or should we just adopt the attitude "who cares its their body let them suffer the consequences of their actions"

 

It's a poor argument at the very best janie48. You've introduced a new strawman to the 3 or 4 already in this thread (and to add this is also argumentum ad misericordiam).

Edited June 19, 2013 by *_ash_*
altered bold

[anywebsite 10]

What if a person has self-abused their body to an extreme and requires medical treatment or a Hospital admission which a massive number of people do. Is it anybody's business then? or should we just adopt the attitude "who cares its their body let them suffer the consequences of their actions"

 

What if a person has taken up sport, injures themselves & needs hospital treatment?

 

They didn't even pay any duty on their sports equipment to cover the cost!

 

What does it have to do with the legalisation of cannabis? Do you think there are many people who really want to take drugs but can't get them because they're illegal? Does keeping it illegal make the drug somehow safer?

 

Why not ban alcohol if that's your attitude?

Edited June 19, 2013 by anywebsite

[Chris_Sleeps 10]

You omitted to mention seat belts which are for the protection of the user.

That's very literal, but I'll join you. If you don't want to wear a seat belt, then don't.

What if a person has self-abused their body to an extreme and requires medical treatment

Similiar to George Best?

We should make it illegal to self-abuse?

Edited June 19, 2013 by Chris_Sleeps

[Cyclone 10]

Precisely, taking a potentially harmful substance cannot harm others.

 

A persons body is their own to do with what they will and neither you nor the state should have any right to stop them, provided they are of sound mind.

 

In this case it doesn't harm others, but in theory it could. That could be through the behaviour it causes, or more likely through the cost it imposes on society.

That's exactly why we legislate to require seat belts, the cost of the loss of life and the cost of hospitalisation.

However I don't think there is any evidence to suggest that keeping cannabis illegal reduces harm, it's more likely that prohibition actually increases harm.

[RootsBooster 24]

Why would the government make legal a drug that could potentially harm you.

You mean like alcohol or nicotine?

Yeah, that'd be crazy!

[janie48 98]

You've read too much into that link you posted.

 

 

 

It's a poor argument at the very best janie48. You've introduced a new strawman to the 3 or 4 already in this thread](and to add to this also argumentum ad misericordium.[/.

Don't you like to stir things up! you failed to see the point I was making because you read into it what you wanted to support your own stance. It would seem some of you can't accept any opposition on this thread even when its presented fairly,i've spoken on this topic before and never had this kind or reaction.

 

If you are seeing 3 or 4 strawmans as well as mine why don't you address those posts too?

As for my reading too much into that link I posted, if you think NHS choices isn't a credible website thats entirely your choice.

 

---------- Post added 19-06-2013 at 07:47 ----------

 

 

Why not ban alcohol if that's your attitude?

I don't have any desire to see alcohol banned, but I would like to see more control so our A&E departments aren't swamped with paralytic drunks at the weekends.

 

---------- Post added 19-06-2013 at 08:00 ----------

 

I may not be as familiar with illegal drugs as some of you are, but I worked on a medical ward for several years so I think I can speak with some authority on the effects of dangerous substances I've seen some of the tragic affects on people at close hand it isn't a pretty sight, and its one of the reasons why I want to see a society where mind changing drugs taken for pleasure are avoided.

[lipschitz 12]

Initially I was against this vote because I have seen car loads of young idiots smoking this stuff and then driving around with the senses and reactions dulled by the effects. What if these idiots plough into your family and they get off because it is classed as an accident? If there was a roadside test to determine if you are under the influence of any drug and it was made clear the results of driving while under the influence will be more severe than drink driving, then I now say yes to legalising it.

If it stops the dirty little dealers hanging round the streets, then yes. If it means that all the dope smoking idiots are paying tax on it, then yes. If it stops the smug suppliers driving round in expensive cars while dirty little chavs mug old ladies and burgle houses for the cash, then yes. Just like smokers, if you want to kill yourself, as long as you pay tax while doing it....carry on.

Oh, and have you heard about the new strain of cannabis grown especially for the 'ladies' out there? I believe it's called skank!