Let's look at this logically.

 

Trying one illegal drug probably does make it easier to try another. If you're willing to try one illegal drug, you're probably fairly open minded, and I'd hope you'd done your research into it before hand and be sensible, weigh up the risks and decide whether you wanted to do it or not. (This isn't saying you're not open minded if you don't try an illegal substance - if you've investigated the facts and weighed up the risks of drugs in general/specific drugs, then you are - you've made a decision for yourself). Because you have this methological, sensible and open minded approach, trying one substance would, I guess, make it easier to try another.

 

Therefore, if "Drug X" was legalised, it would no longer be illegal. Given a few years, it would be accepted in society/culture, and therefore as it was legal surely it wouldn't encourage people to move onto other illegal drugs?

a ta

What I would like to see with a wide range of illegal substances is:

 

- Honesty from governments and media about what is known about substances, and this information given, and even taught, in a neutral and honest light. Not "It's bad, bad, bad! Say NO!" because this just doesn't work, and gives false information. I don't think a judgemental approach (positive or negative) is required - just the brutally honest facts on both sides of the equation.

 

- Proper research into substances by medical and scientific authorities.

 

- Some substances legalised, controlled and taxed. This would allow funds to be generated for the research, and for empowering the public with the knowledge and facts about substances. It would also remove the crime factor that so often gets touted around substance dealing.

 

Just my thoughts...

Capn_Jack said:

And then face the health problems that will come with smoking weed (cancer, etc), it will end up costing the government and NHS in the long run. If the government is so keen in stopping people smoking, I doubt that legalising weed would happen.

 

If the government was that determined in stopping people smokking then why not just outright ban it or start to increase the age limits at which you can buy tabacco products?

Also, long term, the government would make a profit out of it, same as they do for tabacco, people go on abot how much smokers are a drain on the health service, but smokers put more money into the government through tax on their cigarettes then they take out of the system through increased health care costs.

 

As for the main point in this topic, my views have already been expressed by others, that taking one illegal drug, whether it be cannabis or another durg makes it easier for you to consider taking others and that once you'e bought and tried one drug then you'll have a source generally for getting other drugs.

the most common of which is cannabis, so theoretically, remove that from the chain by making it legal and you're cutting off a lot of people from going on to take other drugs.

A lot of the reaons for banning cannabis and hemp plants, etc. was for political reasons rather than anything else.

Shenlong said:

Capn_Jack said:

And then face the health problems that will come with smoking weed (cancer, etc), it will end up costing the government and NHS in the long run. If the government is so keen in stopping people smoking, I doubt that legalising weed would happen.

 

If the government was that determined in stopping people smokking then why not just outright ban it or start to increase the age limits at which you can buy tabacco products?

Also, long term, the government would make a profit out of it, same as they do for tabacco, people go on abot how much smokers are a drain on the health service, but smokers put more money into the government through tax on their cigarettes then they take out of the system through increased health care costs.

 

As for the main point in this topic, my views have already been expressed by others, that taking one illegal drug, whether it be cannabis or another durg makes it easier for you to consider taking others and that once you'e bought and tried one drug then you'll have a source generally for getting other drugs.

the most common of which is cannabis, so theoretically, remove that from the chain by making it legal and you're cutting off a lot of people from going on to take other drugs.

A lot of the reaons for banning cannabis and hemp plants, etc. was for political reasons rather than anything else.

 

It's easier to make it difficult for people to continue smoking whilst still making money from it, to slowly ween people off smoking. An outright ban would most likely result in public outcry, leading to low support of that government.

Thing is though, recent figures show that any smoking figures ahve started to reverse, and the upstake of new smokers has started to increase again. which i think is probably just a backlash agaist the government trying to control and tell us what to do with every as[ect of our lives.

 

every year it seems something else is added onto a list of things which are bad for you, or things that were abd for you are now good for you and vice versa.

Capn_Jack said:

Both give off free radicals when being burnt. This will damage cells in the lungs, leading to cancer.

 

can you substantiate that? interesting...

 

alasdair

Phil_raa said:

i cannot accept the governments theory that 'cannabis is illegal because it can lead to harder drugs'.

 

in general, harder drugs are not necessarily smoked. they are snorted, injected or swalloed.

 

cigarettes are legal. i can;t think of two drugs that are more identical in form than cigarette smoking, and marijuana (sp) smoking.

 

surely the government, like so many agendas, is just trying to cover the fact that cigs are accepted in society (and making them money), and weed is bad bad bad.

i think it does! i started smokin da herb at 14 then by 16 speed then 18 tablets followed by coke ket and prety much most other things now im a full blown ***** head!

Edited September 15, 200321 yr by fintbeast