Cannabis row drugs adviser sacked

[benylor]

Therumancer:

Your most important arguement:

Spoiler: Look at the sections about how people will do dangerous/stupid things while high on pot

[link]http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8334774.stm[/link]

The chief drugs adviser to Britain has been sacked by Alan Johnson, the home secretary of Britain for critisising the governments move to reclassify cannabis as a class B drug.

This man states a scientifically backed fact, and he gets sacked for it. I can't describe how angry I am right now.

As Chris Huhne, the liberal democrat home affairs spokesman said:
What is the point of having independent scientific advice if as soon as you get some advice that you don't like, you sack the person who has given it to you?"
He also said:
"If the government did not want to take expert scientific advice, it might as well have "a committee of tabloid newspaper editors to advise on drugs policy"

And that's the crux of the issue, and what makes me angry. This has fuck all to do with the science, it's just fucking political bullshit.

On a slightly different note, I resent the fact that the government tells us what we can and can't put into our bodies. It's my body, I'll do whatever the fuck I like with it.

Well the problem is that when what you put into your body can affect other people it becomes an issue. Truthfully I will generally accept that "pot" is no worse than alcohol, but then again I also think that banning Alcohol was a good idea and we simply didn't stick to our guns long enough. As far as I'm concerned it comes down to the fact that it's better to have one substance like that out there than two making the problems even worse.

See, it's amusing to sit back and watch "Cheech and Chong" movies and all the stupid stuff they do while stoned. The thing is though, that in a movie they say get stoned, drive off the road, and then take hours to realize that they smashed into a telephone pole (gently) and aren't driving anymore. In reality when stuff like this happens people usually die.

One of the things I've noticed about the pro-drug lobby is that a lot of them feel they are fighting misinformation, so have no real issue with presenting misinformation of their own. Such as claiming that pot doesn't impair people anywhere near as much as it does (I've heard a lot of arguements about this before, but frankly to me anyone who claims they can drive while their stoned is a moron for even trying).

Simply put I feel that if pot is legalized, and even if "vice taxed" to the sky, we're still going to see a massive upswing in accidents caused by so many people running around in public stoned. At least making it illegal means that most drug users are at least FAIRLY careful about where they use.

Also while it's one of the hardest things to prove, *I* personally feel that there is truth to the idea of it being a gateway drug. Maybe it's not one for everyone, but it has been in enough cases where I think that if we legalize pot we will eventually see an upswing in the usage of other substances as well.... no, smoking a couple of joints is not going to mean someone is going to start shooting heroin into their eyeballs. BUT someone who is stoned constantly is probably going to eventually cease to get the same kind of buzz, and go
looking for other stuff to try and recapture the thrill. Heroin, Cocaine, abuse of prescription painkillers, etc... it doesn't matter.


One thing I think people tend to miss is that societies don't change quickly. I feel the Probition failed becayse a lot of the people who saw it start also saw it end. Your not going to see any changes or be able to evaluate until generations have gone by. When it comes to "The War On Drugs" it might as well have started yesterday. Most people saw the "campaign" officially begin at the current level, heck I myself remember Reagan being President as a kid. For it to work you really need to wind up in a situation where nobody alive will have known anyone who was alive during the Reagan Presidency. Meaning we're talking the great grand children of Generation Y are the only ones who can really make a fair desician.

Just my opinions, I don't expect a lot of agreement within the thread.

Now, the trouble with your conjecture is as follows: (For simplicities sake, I'm going to just talk about weed and other non-addictive drugs, specifically excluding those that can be more rationally regarded as evil: meth, heroin, crack, etc)

Spoiler: This is my first attempt at the rebuttal, but due to my sleep deprived state I go on for like 15 minutes longer than I need to

1. The people who will end up smoking pot who do not already, probably drink or have drunk alcohol already. Hell, most people in the western world do, so this is a very reasonable assumption to make. Those who have drunk and then stopped are clearly able to control themselves or are unwilling to intoxicate themselves again, and so can be eliminated from the trouble group. Those who do drink, will be eliminated as a problem in the next point.

2. The fatal flaw, then, is as follows. The people who are irresponsible enough to try to drive stoned, are the same that would try to drive drunk. In fact, you're more likely to try to drive drunk than stoned because of the way each drug affects your mentality. (This is conjecture and I cannot prove it. It seems to make sense logically, though, so I'll need hard evidence to refute it). From my experience of using both drugs, both are going to be equally dangerous. Now, the set of people D of drug-drivers (using both pot and alcohol as "drug") must follow the following rule for your conjecture to be correct:
Time while driving intoxicated (Ti) = time while driving drunk (Td) + time while driving stoned (Ts), Td independent of Ts.

Now, Td is clearly dependent of Ts because people aren't going to spend mroe time intoxicated just because there are more substances to intoxicate themselves on! The time a user will spend intoxicated at all will probably be relatively constant. I offer myself as an example of this, as this rule has held for me. It's not a hard rule but it's a reasonable one. So, the amount of roadtime of intoxicated drivers will stay relatively constant, it'll just be a different (and roughly equal in terms of danger) compound in their bloodstream that could cause them to do something disasterous.

Thus there is no added danger of drug driving deaths in making cannabis legal so long as drug driving is kept illegal,

So your argument falls when put under close scrutiny. Apologies for the rambling tone.

TLDR: It's absurd to claim that the number of INTOXICATED drivers will increase, as generally you don't add time spent smoking when introduced to weed to your normal time spent drinking anyway. You'll still spend roughly the same amount of time intoxicated, and it's intoxication of any sort which is the danger. The only real danger of anything related to this is that there'll be people who dislike alcohol but enjoy weed. This'll be neatly (and probably overwhelmingly) countered by the number of people who use weed as their recreational drug instead of alcohol and thus become less violent and put less people into hospital via deliberate means.

 

[Altorin]

Take away the pot, only criminals have the pot.

Take away the guns, only criminals have guns.

Take away the alcohol, only criminals have alcohol.

Having any of those things shouldn't be illegal, because they're more dangerous when they're illegal - people will use them anyway, because when you're sitting there, looking at it, there's no moral reason NOT to use them. The laws controlling them are silly at best. They turn something that is not wrong into something that's criminal.

 

[Therumancer]

]

I've numbered the points to help us both work out what we're replying to. Just to make it easier for both of us.

1. I believe that people should govern what they do with themselves, so I don't see what gives a government the right to decide what we want

2. I don't see how that applies to the discussion.

3."One of the things I've noticed about the pro-drug lobby is that a lot of them feel they are fighting misinformation, so have no real issue with presenting misinformation of their own. Such as claiming that pot doesn't impair people anywhere near as much as it does"
I've never heard that one before, but whatever. Of course it impairs peoples judgement and ability to do things.

5. I don't agree with the gateway drug argument. People who take drugs do so of their own accord. If they want to do them, then let them. People would only go from a less dangerous drug(like Marjuana) to a more dangerous drug if they were doing it to seek dependence, and if that's the case laws aren't going to stop themselves from fucking themselves up.

6. See, I think the main difference in our opinions is what constitutes a perfect society. Whereas I think a very free society is ideal - a society where your own personal responsibility governs how you conduct yourself. I think you prefer safety to freedom. They're both valid opinions though, so it doesn't really matter.

As a general point though, it seems like your argument hinges on the fact that people on drugs in cars are dangerous. Obviously laws for criminalisation of drug driving would still be in place, and that's a matter of those laws.

I snipped most of my quoting for the sake of size, and also because I'm not going to argue this one too heavily. Not because I can't, but because it's an endless arguement that can't really be "won" either way. I've stated my opinion for the hypothetical "neutral observer".

On things like "Is pot a gateway drug" it will come down to a lot of "Is So!" , "Is Not!" slappy face for example.

As far as your idea about a totally free society where people are simply governed by their own responsibility, I have to disagree. While I am a massive proponent of things like free speech, I also believe in the need for law and behaviors to be regulated. The reason being is that oneself is not the only one who has to pay the price for their actions. This is why laws exist to begin with, and why behaviors are regulated.

If by doing drugs the ONLY thing at risk was yourself, then I'd say "go for it" but I do not feel that this is the case, so I very much agree in the entire idea of "controlled substances". Pot, Narcotics, Heroin, Acid, Absinthe, they all have their proponents, many of whom can be very persuasive, but *I* feel they are all controlled for a reason and should remain that way. Truthfully, I can PERSONALLY find more reason for legalizing poppies and the various derivitive drugs, than pot, and I still think it's a bad idea.

 

[Pegghead]

To be frank I don't give two shits. Even if I lived in Britain, I don't really have much intention of ever using marijana. Even it was made legal, it's still expensive, addictive and has bad repercussions on your health.

 

[cuddly_tomato]

One of the things I've noticed about the pro-drug lobby is that a lot of them feel they are fighting misinformation, so have no real issue with presenting misinformation of their own. Such as claiming that pot doesn't impair people anywhere near as much as it does (I've heard a lot of arguements about this before, but frankly to me anyone who claims they can drive while their stoned is a moron for even trying).

There is another killer out there, caused by impaired judgement. One that causes vastly more deaths than all alcohol and cannabis related road accidents combined. It is lack of sleep. Shall we break down peoples doors and force them into bed by 9?

Also while it's one of the hardest things to prove, *I* personally feel that there is truth to the idea of it being a gateway drug.

It absolutely is. Do you know why? Because they hear all these horror stories about cannabis. All of these advertisments warning about how that stuff will destroy your life and mess you up. So they try it, and find out that - hey! It doesn't. Whether it's a few drinks in the pub or a spliff at your mates house, it's more or less the same level of danger and dependancy.

So they look at that, and hear all the horror stories about acid and speed, from the exact same people who lied to them about cannabis. And so them move onto that. If you legalized cannabis, you would instantly stop it from being a gateway drug. It would become like alcohol or tabacco - a completely seperate entity to illegal drugs. Having a relatively safe substance lumped together in the same group of intoxicants as ecstacy and amphetamine makes a mockery of the entire drug strategy.

 

[iain62a]

I don't really have much intention of ever using marijana. Even it was made legal, it's still expensive, addictive and has bad repercussions on your health.

It's not addictive though - or at least it's nowhere near as addictive as tobacco and alcohol anyway. It also does significantly less harm than both of them.

I don't know about the price, I've never bought it.

To make things clear to everyone, I don't actually take any drugs. I just resent the fact that the government decides what I can and can't do with my body.