Legalisation of Cannabis for recreational use?

[The Special One]

You're getting downvoted because you insist on arguing an irresponsible, factually incorrect and completely vacuous point of view with regards to fast food.

Just about the only thing you've got right in this thread is that it's easier to downvote you than it is to engage you in rational discussion.

That is because it's true. Anything in excess is bad, fast food carries unecessary stigma.

Most health experts agree that fast food in moderation does little to no harm if it's part of a blansced diet with regular excercise. These are the facts.

I think many times it's hard to dispute an unpopular opinion so people tend to downvote instead.

[Potatohater]

That is because it's true. Anything in excess is bad, fast food carries unecessary stigma.

Most health experts agree that fast food in moderation does little to no harm if it's part of a blansced diet with regular excercise. These are the facts.

I think many times it's hard to dispute an unpopular opinion so people tend to downvote instead.

It's not that it's hard to dispute your opinion beacuase obvioulsy we have the opinions we have for a reason, I think people down vote instead of rebutting because they are just tired of making rebuttals but still want to show their dislike of your points

[The Special One]

I think part of the problem is that you're arguing looking at Wikipedia as if it were a reputable source. It most certianly isn't.
I think you need to look at more reputbale sources to back up your points.
For example, i make a case for the benefits of Medical marijuana and i use this source from [b]The Harvard Medical School[/b]
Might be a good place to start justifying your arguements instead of baseless statements

Wikipedia has references and citations, very strange that people don't look at Wikipedia casually, this is not an academic essay where I need to provide peer reviewed publications.

I have never said medicinal cannabis has no place and I never doubted its benefits. The discussion is about legalising it for recreational use.

So I'm more concerned about opening the floodgates  and normalising drug use.

Medicinal cannabis like prescription drugs has its use in propel who need them.

I ask what purpose does it serve for perfectly healthy people? and I get downvoted.

Morphine obviously has a medical use but we can all agree that it has harmful side effects. We would never think about legalising it for recreational use and I'm not sure why cannabis is any different

[The Special One]

[Potatohater]

Bit hard to say they are tired of making rebuttals when the total number of rebuttals they have made is 0 lol

Ok maybe I can't speak for other people, but I'm sure I'm not the only one who has proposed conflicting opinions to yours but gotten to a point of just being too tired to reply, chucking it a down vote and moving on

[Mada438]

Ok maybe I can't speak for other people, but I'm sure I'm not the only one who has proposed conflicting opinions to yours but gotten to a point of just being too tired to reply, chucking it a down vote and moving on

I agree-I have raised conflicting opinions and gotten to this point

That is because it's true. Anything in excess is bad, fast food carries unecessary stigma.

Most health experts agree that fast food in moderation does little to no harm if it's part of a blansced diet with regular excercise. These are the facts.

I think many times it's hard to dispute an unpopular opinion so people tend to downvote instead.

This is a disscussion about legalizing cannabis, not about the health factors relating to fast food.

So I'm more concerned about opening the floodgates  and normalising drug use.

I think you opened the floodgates with a few of your posts

[Yertle the Turtle]

I think part of the problem is that you're arguing looking at Wikipedia as if it were a reputable source. It most certianly isn't.
I think you need to look at more reputbale sources to back up your points.

I don't know why people bag Wikipedia so much. It is actually a far more correct source than anyone thinks. Many of the topics are under constant watch from experts to stop incorrect editing. If there are sections that actually say "citation needed" or whatever, then steer clear of those sections. But Wikipedia is incredibly well referenced for a huge variety of topics, and if you don't trust it, then just follow up its sources! Seriously guys, the mistrust of Wikipedia is seriously over-hyped, imo! Incorrect info is taken down very quickly.

EDIT: Sorry, very off topic guys... 

[EEEEEEP]

So I'm more concerned about opening the floodgates  and normalising drug use

No one is doubting that Cannabis has bad effects, but in NO WAY does it normalise drug use!

There are literally hundreds of cases around the around that prove you wrong.

California in the USA, portugal and many other countries around the world have legalised cannabis. The result?
- Less crime
- Less overdosing

http://www.drugpolicy.org/legalization-status-report

According to the 2015 Youth Risk Behavior Survey, 21.7% of American high school students used marijuana in the past month and this rate has been consistent over the past decade.

In Washington, Colorado and Alaska, rates of marijuana use among high school students largely resemble national rates. These results are promising, suggesting that fears of widespread increases in use have not come to fruition.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/portugal-decriminalised-drugs-14-years-ago-and-now-hardly-anyone-dies-from-overdosing-10301780.html

The data do not show dramatic changes in use rates corresponding to either the expansion of medical marijuana or legalization.

https://mic.com/articles/110344/14-years-after-portugal-decriminalized-all-drugs-here-s-what-s-happening#.USGlTxyI6

Drug use has declined overall among the 15- to 24-year-old population, those most at risk of initiating drug use, according to Transform.

...
The evidence is conclusive, legalising cannabis or any sort of drugs does not result in a normalisation of drugs. In fact, it stays stable or goes down.

I don't know why people bag Wikipedia so much. It is actually a far more correct source than anyone thinks. Many of the topics are under constant watch from experts to stop incorrect editing. If there are sections that actually say "citation needed" or whatever, then steer clear of those sections. But Wikipedia is incredibly well referenced for a huge variety of topics, and if you don't trust it, then just follow up its sources! Seriously guys, the mistrust of Wikipedia is seriously over-hyped, imo! Incorrect info is taken down very quickly.

EDIT: Sorry, very off topic guys... 

Sources okay, but the thing is .. anyone can edit wikipedia.

YOu can edit it, I can edit wikipedia. Even if the source is good, the analysis is bad.

[sudodds]

Much easier to downvote someone than to struggle to attempt to justify allowing kids and teens to legally purchase a potentially very harmful drug.

Bit hard to say they are tired of making rebuttals when the total number of rebuttals they have made is 0 lol

Except we have? You just don't agree with us, which is fine. My justification for legalising cannabis (for people over the age of 18? I'm unsure as to where you got the impression we were suggesting minors should be exposed to any mind affecting substance), which I have already outlined, is this;

- It is provably less harmful than many other legal substances
- Those who consume cannabis are typically less of a risk to others than those who consume other legal substances
- Criminalisation will not stop people purchasing cannabis and using it recreationally, but it WILL reduce the number of people who will seek help if they do become dependant on the substance as they may be worried about potential criminal charges.
- Criminalisation means that the cannabis currently being sold is not regulated, taxed, policed or quality controlled, meaning that it may be laced with other substances the consumer may be unaware of.
- If it was legalised, we can better control how much an individual has access to.
- If it was legalised, that would be a MASSIVE blow to drug dealers, who would lose most of their market.

If you disagree with the above points, that's cool! But please don't ruin what has been for the most part a pleasant, tolerant and insightful debate by delegitimising all of the people who just happen to disagree with you.

Cannabis smoked puts you at a risk of lung cancer as anything else smoked to the lungs does.

(processed meat is a grade 1 carcinogen. you know. the type of meat you find in. fast food.)

[The Special One]

[Potatohater]

You mean the 100% Australian beef found in McDonald's burgers?

I'm not sure why that's thought of as processed meat.

Ok, I'm really trying not to derail the thread but I really wanna clarify this:
After having worked for a McDonald's for a year I can tell you 1st hand that meat is definatley processed. It is entirely possible for something to be 100% Aussie, as they claim, and processed at the same time.

Ultimatley though, maybe this point is worth dropping also as you have stated earlier that food and drugs are different ball parks

[sudodds]

I don't see how I'm ruining a thread by offering an alternative point of view to the norm. I will ply devils advocate and offer an unpopular opinion. I'm not scared of any backlash, people have the right to know both sides before making a decision for themselves.

Stating a differing view is encouraged. Listening to others views is also encouraged. Challenging each others views is encouraged. You are not ruining a thread by stating a differing opinion. If anything, granted it is well thought out, you most likely are enhancing it!

What is not encouraged is completely ignoring others opposing views, and then make a post claiming that you are clearly superior, with a bullet proof argument, that no one has been able to challenge when multiple posts in this thread provided valid arguments and information in contrast to your post already. Whether you agree with them or not - don't act as if they don't exist. That's really poor debating. THAT is ruining a thread - this is a discussion, not a lecture.

I'm not responding to the rest of your post. I disagree with you. But I am tired, and I will just be repeating the same points again and again. I support legalisation. You don't. If it ever came to a referendum we both know where the other stands. Sweet!

Just a warning that this thread is taking a bit of a turn - if it continues down this path, unfortunately we will have to lock the thread. Feel free to continue this debate, discuss and be open to new ideas, reveal your thoughts, no matter how controversial - just do so respectfully

[Glasses]

Why would drug dealers lose money? When people tire of cannabis they still start to ask for higher tier drugs like meth and heroine.

With all due respect, this is a ridiculously ignorant statement. There are plenty of people who consume cannabis, but who wouldn't touch drugs like heroin with a 10ft pole. Contrary to what you may think, cannabis isn't a 'gateway drug.'
Additionally, (and as I expressed my concern with earlier) you're grouping all drugs, and all people who have tried/use drugs together. And the result is an uninformed understanding of drugs and drug use.

Many government health experts have spoken about the negative health effects in detail, their stance on the issue is quite clear, and I don't see it being legalised anytime soon.

I could go on about the (actual) effects of cannabis, according to peer-reviewed, legitimate studies vs. the effects of cannabis according to governments; but I feel like it's pointless at this stage.
That being said, I will reiterate the fact that government 'health experts' are, for obvious reasons, likely to say that cannabis has many negative and severe health effects - as this point of view supports government policy. Instead of placing such an emphasis on what government employees have to say, I'd recommend focusing on what unbiased experts with no ulterior motives have to say on the topic.

[Shanny70]

With California recently legalising cannabis for recreational use, the media have raised the question of whether Australia should also consider legalising cannabis.

What do you think?

I’m somewhat in the middle. I personally think drug use is problematic and criminalizing it makes users less likely to ask for help, but making it completely legal can create more problems in society. I think drugs should be looked at as a social/health problem and not a criminal one. I believe it should not be decriminalized for recreational use because I feel it will make more people smoke it, and this will happen because the recreational use of marijuana is considered "cool" by many people. I'm also a little bit on the fence...