Government response to cannabis legalisation petition - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Zotobom;48544831]Keyword: in healthy users. Cannabis can trigger mental illneses that the user might not have noticed or whatever.[/QUOTE] To be fair if someone with a weak liver consumes even a small amount of alcohol it may kill them

I like it when the average user thinks they know more than the government.

[QUOTE=Jame's;48551921]I like it when the average user thinks they know more than the government.[/QUOTE] I like when the opinions of an entire country are ignored by the tiny number of people running the government.

[QUOTE=Shalaska;48551942]I like when the opinions of an entire country are ignored by the tiny number of people running the government.[/QUOTE] Are you sure?

[QUOTE=Jame's;48551921]I like it when the average user thinks they know more than the government.[/QUOTE] I like it when a huge mountain of evidence saying that cannabis is less harmful than tobacco and alcohol is ignored by the government.

[QUOTE=Rossy167;48549584]So this seems worthwhile in light of this bullshit: [url]https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/104933[/url] (I'm from the UK, I'm just in America right now)[/QUOTE] No petitions have been ignored though. No petitions have even been considered yet because Parliament hasn't been in session since before the petition site launched. And the help page says: [quote]Petitions which reach 100,000 signatures are almost always debated. But we may decide not to put a petition forward for debate if the issue has already been debated recently or there’s a debate scheduled for the near future. If that’s the case, we’ll tell you how you can find out more about parliamentary debates on the issue raised by your petition. MPs might consider your petition for a debate before it reaches 100,000 signatures.[/quote] Seems premature to start demanding change before they've even done anything

[QUOTE=smurfy;48552307]No petitions have been ignored though. No petitions have even been considered yet because Parliament hasn't been in session since before the petition site launched. And the help page says: Seems premature to start demanding change before they've even done anything[/QUOTE] Ah, I was under the impression that the email saying 'lol no' meant that was the end of it. Seemed pretty final to me.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;48544654]Your logic doesn't hold up under your own examples. [/QUOTE] Hey BDA, please take no offense but you didn't got my point ( I'm not saying that it's your fault, I try to make efforts to be as clear as possible ). This is an interesting debate, now that ratings are removed we can have discussions instead of a box shower, so thanks BDA for taking your time to answer my post. Please let me make my views clearer: [QUOTE=Big Dumb American;48544654] Drunk driving is one of the leading causes of car accidents, fatal and otherwise, [I]far[/I] outpacing marijuana-related accidents, even your dubious figures. [/QUOTE] First of all, my [URL="http://www.preventionroutiere.asso.fr/Nos-publications/Statistiques-d-accidents/Principaux-facteurs-d-accidents"]"dubious" source[/URL] is one of the major actors of accident prevention, related to the education ministry and using public health numbers. But it's not important. [QUOTE=Big Dumb American;48544654] If your logic is that marijuana should be illegal due to its intoxicating effects making it unsafe to drive while high, then you would have to apply that argument to alcohol as well, which is far more potent. If you [I]did[/I] make that argument, that any substance which physiologically impairs your ability to drive should be illegal, I'd refer you to cold and flu serum, painkillers, sleep aids, antidepressants, anti-anxiety medications, and the hundreds of other prescription and off-the-shelf medications that do the same. [/QUOTE] Well, this is my whole point. Both tabacco and alcohol are major public health problems, causing, [I]in their respective and relative proportions[/I] , "collateral" death as well as filling ambulances and hospitals because of their short and long term effects ( like ethylic comas, and, in a questionable way, lung cancers and whatnot ). Like you said, Marijuana, while illegal, is [I]already[/I] a problem. Now if you make it legal, what will happen ? It will obviously not stop actual users from consuming, but might as well remove one of the last barriers preventing it to be as common as alcohol and tabacco. Medication already have - at least here in france - [URL="http://www.e-sante.fr/medicament-conduite-trois-nouveaux-symboles/actualite/316"]a severe regulation regarding driving ability and prescriptions of psychotropic substances [/URL] . [QUOTE]If you argue that only recreational drugs, like alcohol or marijuana (obviously ignoring those who are using marijuana for medical benefits) should be illegal, then I would refer you to the US Prohibition of alcohol as an example of how flawed that logic is. The trade continues regardless of the legality, and worse, the trade is primarily managed by criminal organizations who propagate violence, and are typically involved in the smuggling of many other illicit substances that are considerably more harmful. After all, weed is illegal in France, yet, by your own (questionable) example of 20% of all accidents having involved marijuana [...] All it does it allow dangerous groups to continue profiting.[/QUOTE] Yep you got a point regarding the whole criminality problem. But do solving this issue worth the price of making it widely available, helping another major health problem to grow ? [QUOTE]it is obvious that the illegality of the substance is not actually reducing its availability. People want weed, and it being illegal does not prevent them from getting it. [/QUOTE] Well not completely. You want alcohol or tabacco ? Go to any shop, you're free to go. You want weed ? Find a dealer, arrange a meeting, buy your shit, and take care not to get caugh by the cops. To get weed, you [I]have to[/I] get your hands dirty in some way, unlike alcohol and tabacco. [QUOTE]Lastly, you claim that cigarettes and alcohol can't be made illegal because they are cash cows. Is marijuana not? Do you have any idea how much money is in the marijuana trade? All it takes is a quick look at how the sale and usage of marijuana in Colorado and Washington have bolstered their economies and reduced drug-related crime to see hard evidence that legalization is a net gain for society as a whole.[/QUOTE] What I meant to say is that government won't make alcohol and tabaco illegal because they're generating a lot of money despite being major health issues. You want to encourage another way to damage health because it will generate more money ? Thanks.

Weed can definitely be helpful to some people. For example, my grandmother, who has now passed away. She had throat cancer. As a result she had pretty much no appetite, and was in constant pain from it. By using a specific strain, she received an increased appetite and got rid of most of the pain. People saying it can't be helpful should really get their facts straight.

I just never really understood why a government would draw the line at marijuana. Maybe they are traumatized by really annoying hippies or something.

[QUOTE=Onii;48552541]Weed can definitely be helpful to some people. For example, my grandmother, who has now passed away. She had throat cancer. As a result she had pretty much no appetite, and was in constant pain from it. By using a specific strain, she received an increased appetite and got rid of most of the pain. People saying it can't be helpful should really get their facts straight.[/QUOTE] Couldn't she use weed under medical grounds though, or is that not a thing in your country? We're talking more about people using it because they enjoy it. People not being able to use it for pleasure is silly, people not being able to use it for medical purposes is downright insane.

[QUOTE=Rossy167;48552610]Couldn't she use weed under medical grounds though, or is that not a thing in your country? We're talking more about people using it because they enjoy it. People not being able to use it for pleasure is silly, people not being able to use it for medical purposes is downright insane.[/QUOTE] I don't think it can be prescribed by doctors in the UK.

[QUOTE=426_Hemi;48552466]Hey BDA, please take no offense but you didn't got my point ( I'm not saying that it's your fault, I try to make efforts to be as clear as possible ). This is an interesting debate, now that ratings are removed we can have discussions instead of a box shower, so thanks BDA for taking your time to answer my post. Please let me make my views clearer: First of all, my [URL="http://www.preventionroutiere.asso.fr/Nos-publications/Statistiques-d-accidents/Principaux-facteurs-d-accidents"]"dubious" source[/URL] is one of the major actors of accident prevention, related to the education ministry and using public health numbers. But it's not important. Well, this is my whole point. Both tabacco and alcohol are major public health problems, causing, [I]in their respective and relative proportions[/I] , "collateral" death as well as filling ambulances and hospitals because of their short and long term effects ( like ethylic comas, and, in a questionable way, lung cancers and whatnot ). Like you said, Marijuana, while illegal, is [I]already[/I] a problem. Now if you make it legal, what will happen ? It will obviously not stop actual users from consuming, but might as well remove one of the last barriers preventing it to be as common as alcohol and tabacco. Medication already have - at least here in france - [URL="http://www.e-sante.fr/medicament-conduite-trois-nouveaux-symboles/actualite/316"]a severe regulation regarding driving ability and prescriptions of psychotropic substances [/URL] . Yep you got a point regarding the whole criminality problem. But do solving this issue worth the price of making it widely available, helping another major health problem to grow ? Well not completely. You want alcohol or tabacco ? Go to any shop, you're free to go. You want weed ? Find a dealer, arrange a meeting, buy your shit, and take care not to get caugh by the cops. To get weed, you [I]have to[/I] get your hands dirty in some way, unlike alcohol and tabacco. What I meant to say is that government won't make alcohol and tabaco illegal because they're generating a lot of money despite being major health issues. You want to encourage another way to damage health because it will generate more money ? Thanks.[/QUOTE] The crux of your argument is that marijuana is a major health concern because 20% of drivers involved in accidents tested positive for it, according to your source. However, "testing positive" for cannabis doesn't mean anything at all. Drug tests are not like a blood alcohol test, they do not measure whether or not you are [I]currently intoxicated[/I]. You can test positive for marijuana for weeks after consuming it, even though the intoxicating effects wear off fairly rapidly. You are equating "testing positive for cannabis" as "being high," but that simply isn't the case. If that is truly the strongest point you can make in favor of your position, then I think that the entire premise of your argument is built on a very shaky foundation. Certain drugs (like alcohol and medications) can be legal to have and use while still being illegal to use while operating a vehicle. Why can this not be the case for marijuana as well? That's exactly how Colorado has treated it, and they have not faced a severe spike in drug-related traffic fatalities as you fear. As a side note, you argue how difficult it is to obtain marijuana. Shady dealers and scary back rooms! Yet, by your own source, 20% of the population of France is using it anyway. Clearly, it isn't [I]that[/I] hard to get. If you walk up to five people on the street, one will be able to get you some weed. Legalization rips that power out of the hands of violent organized crime and puts it into the hands of regular business-owners, making it safer to acquire and use and bolstering the economy. Alcohol and tobacco are huge cash cows, as you said, and marijuana could be every bit as profitable while also being objectively less harmful in both a social and medical sense.

[QUOTE=426_Hemi;48544021]They can't because they're a cash cow, and the societies lobby is important. This is not the case with cannabis; [B]legalising it would be a huge step backward in terms of public health.[/B] There is, I think, nothing wrong with using it in your home at your own risk - but, like alcohol, you have retards that will take the road while high and risk causing accidents with people that asked nothing ( here in france about 20% of fatal accidents involved a driver positive to cannabis )[/QUOTE] You are kidding right? How the fuck would it be a "huge step backward in public health", you are just pulling that out your ass. If anything it would be a step FORWARD in public health, you do know there are many benefits that come with pot use? Not to mention that if it were to become legal, I believe some people may even use pot instead of alcohol and/or tobacco which is WAY better. [editline]27th August 2015[/editline] Couldn't have said it better myself BDA..If the far more destructive substances such as alcohol and tobacco should be allowed to be used, then marijuana should be too considering it is far FAR more "healthy" then alcohol/tobacco in every way. Even if you still wanted to use the argument that it'll "damage health" (which isn't even true, maybe only slightly especially compared to alcohol/tobacco), people can use a vaporizer or even edibles. Smoking it isn't the only way.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;48552831]The crux of your argument is that marijuana is a major health concern because 20% of drivers involved in accidents tested positive for it, according to your source. However, [B]"testing positive" for cannabis doesn't mean anything at all[/B]. Drug tests are not like a blood alcohol test, they do not measure whether or not you are [I]currently intoxicated[/I]. You can test positive for marijuana for weeks after consuming it, even though the intoxicating effects wear off fairly rapidly. You are equating "testing positive for cannabis" as "being high," but that simply isn't the case. If that is truly the strongest point you can make in favor of your position, then I think that the entire premise of your argument is built on a very shaky foundation. Certain drugs (like alcohol and medications) can be legal to have and use while still being illegal to use while operating a vehicle. Why can this not be the case for marijuana as well? That's exactly how Colorado has treated it, and they have not faced a severe spike in drug-related traffic fatalities as you fear. As a side note, you argue how difficult it is to obtain marijuana. Shady dealers and scary back rooms! Yet, by your own source, 20% of the population of France is using it anyway. Clearly, it isn't [I]that[/I] hard to get. If you walk up to five people on the street, one will be able to get you some weed. Legalization rips that power out of the hands of violent organized crime and puts it into the hands of regular business-owners, making it safer to acquire and use and bolstering the economy. Alcohol and tobacco are huge cash cows, as you said, and marijuana could be every bit as profitable while also being objectively less harmful in both a social and medical sense.[/QUOTE] Yeah that's true, sorry kinda forgot about that. Your last sentence, tho - let alone tabacco but when thinking about it you're damn right about the social harm when compared to alcohol. [QUOTE]You are kidding right? How the fuck would it be a "huge step backward in public health", you are just pulling that out your ass. If anything it would be a step FORWARD in public health, you do know there are many benefits that come with pot use? Not to mention that if it were to become legal, I believe some people may even use pot instead of alcohol and/or tobacco which is WAY better.[/QUOTE] How so ? Alcohol might be worse in some ways, but I don't think pot would solve tabagism/alcoholism problems. It also have it's own nefast effects on short/long term; while studies relating pot to schizophrenia and other mental diseases are still unclear, we do know how that it IS harmful ( ie damages lungs, increases probability to contract pneumothorax... ). Still not that big of a deal compared to the legal drugs tho Yeah I get that it's illogical to keep it illegal while alcohol and tabacco aren't. In a perfect world it would be better to remove alcohol etc rather than add other drugs to the shelf. But it can't happen. So yeah legalizing it seems to be the only logical thing we can do...

[QUOTE=Jame's;48551921]I like it when the average user thinks they know more than the government.[/QUOTE] Ahaha good job man, that's literally what they want you to think "The government is infallible and can't be wrong, they know better than us and they have our best interests at heart" is one of the biggest lies ever. Don't be a fool, questioning your own government is something every citizen of the world should do, especially when said government is blatantly fucking wrong like in situations like these.

[QUOTE=426_Hemi;48553411]Yeah that's true, sorry kinda forgot about that. Your last sentence, tho - let alone tabacco but when thinking about it you're damn right about the social harm when compared to alcohol.[/QUOTE] This is fallicious thinking in my opinion. The "harm" of these substances is pretty clear, their is certain groups in society that abuse them and they burden our medical system and our other systems. That's bad. But it's also not something you can prevent via legislation, or control. You cannot stop someone from drinking or smoking or getting high by saying "No it's not allowed". You can't even stop them through rigorous(And I mean a trillion dollars worth of rigor) methods of punishment. You CAN educate them, and then you'll still have people doing it because 1) they didn't listen 2) They did listen and they simply made different decisions than you. [QUOTE]How so ? Alcohol might be worse in some ways, but I don't think pot would solve tabagism/alcoholism problems. It also have it's own nefast effects on short/long term; while studies relating pot to schizophrenia and other mental diseases are still unclear, we do know how that it IS harmful ( ie damages lungs, increases probability to contract pneumothorax... ). Still not that big of a deal compared to the legal drugs tho[/QUOTE] Tobacco probably should be banned and I say that as a smoker, but there is a huge issue with the actual pragmatism of a ban on such a substance. It's been shown by prohibition in the 20's and 30's, and the "War on Drugs" since the 70's that there is NO method of cracking down on drug production effectively enough through police methods. Society it would seem, always wants something to imbibe, smoke, or have fun with after their done being productive members of society or whatever else. Why do you think beer is the oldest agricultural invention in the human world? Why do you think we've smoked weed and tobacco for 10,000 years? Because for some reason unbeknownst to me, we like to get high and relax. [QUOTE]Yeah I get that it's illogical to keep it illegal while alcohol and tabacco aren't. In a perfect world it would be better to remove alcohol etc rather than add other drugs to the shelf. But it can't happen. So yeah legalizing it seems to be the only logical thing we can do...[/QUOTE] It can't happen because it will be resisted by too many people. Legalization of marijuana(Not hard drugs) is a great step forward because as far as alcohol or tobacco goes, no matter how you cut the pie, weed is the least damaging of the three. It doesn't mean it's safe or "good" but it certainly means it's not a devastating ill of society. Maybe I have a different perspective from a lot of people here who abhor drug use, alcohol or tobacco or any sort of "impure" form of living because I grew up around that and engaged in it and overcame my own battles and still have the ability to be a responsible "drug" user. Drinking is a form of getting high, so I consider that a drug as much as anything. I work hard and I just like to relax in my own way when I get home. I see no reason why the government or anyone else should be getting in my business.

Hmmm. Why don't they do another petition? Keep petitioning until the amount of signatures reaches critical mass, then government will get the idea.

Why don't we just start another petition? And again, and again and again and again? [editline]28th August 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=DiBBs27;48553715]Hmmm. Why don't they do another petition? Keep petitioning until the amount of signatures reaches critical mass, then government will get the idea.[/QUOTE] Ninja'd. But on another level, that is definition of insanity.

I am not surprised whatsoever. I was pretty much expecting it. The Big Men always want us to suffer :suicide:

[QUOTE=DiBBs27;48553715]Hmmm. Why don't they do another petition? Keep petitioning until the amount of signatures reaches critical mass, then government will get the idea.[/QUOTE] They just instantly reject repeat petitions. Our government's word is final, his majesty, the glorious King Cameron knows best.