Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael1954
You are repeating the same old argument over and over again but adding nothing new, apart from naming celebrities who have taken drugs. Tobacco and alcohol are legal; it does not follow that cannabis should also be legalised.
|
They are repeating the same argument over and over again also! Thank you very much!
Does cannabis make you mad?
http://clear-uk.org/does-cannabis-make-you-mad/
Conclusion: Cannabis And Mental Health, The Case For Reform
Concerns of a link between cannabis and mental illness areperhaps the strongest argument for cannabis law reform.
Prohibition claim 1: Cannabis strength has increased massively in recent years
It may have done, but we don’t know for sure because prohibition makes proper monitoring of the trade impossible. If it has increased, the change was brought about by the workings of prohibition. Certainly a market shift did occur and went unnoticed for nearly 10 years because of the lack of proper control. If the fears that high THC levels impact on mental health are true, prohibition has made things worse. Under prohibition, cannabis is not a controlled drug.
Prohibition claim 2: The increased strength has lead to more cases of serious mental illness
There has been no increase in the rates of mental illness. But if increased potency (not strength) has taken place, it might make existing illness worse and be bad for those at risk. The need for a better understanding of the issues of potency and strength is obvious and proper regulation of the trade would address this.
Prohibition claim 3: The age people use cannabis has dropped and now it’s common for children to be heavy users
This is true, but it’s hardly an issue to support the workings of prohibition. That children have become ensnared in the unregulated and uncontrolled cannabis trade is entirely caused by prohibition.
Prohibition claim 4: The younger users start, the bigger the risk of developing serious mental illness
We might as well assume this is true, whether true or not. Children deserve the protection of the law which only a regulated trade could provide, prohibition treats them as criminals and drives all use – including problematic use – underground.
Prohibition claim 5: Lax attitudes to cannabis use have increased the number of users, therefore increasing the rates of the illness
As rates of serious mental illness have not increased in line with the increase in cannabis use, there is no evidence to support this, but the “lax attitudes” have come about through the failure of prohibition. Proper legal control and regulation would mean an end to “lax attitudes” and the introduction of proper, workable laws.
Prohibition claim 6: Prohibition is the best way to protect people from the dangers of cannabis use.
Prohibition means we don’t know what is sold as cannabis, how strong it is or how potent it is. We don’t know if it’s contaminated either after harvest or in the growing process through overuse of pesticides for example. We don’t know who sells it, where from or in what amounts. The only qualification to be a dealer is unaccountability. Cannabis users have no recourse to the law when things go wrong and sometimes violence is used. When this happens it will be those least able to defend themselves – such as ill people – who suffer most.
Prohibition is a con, it is not drug control. The only way to achieve drug control is to control the commercial supply industry, which means proper legalisation, licensing of dealers and premises, age restrictions and strength/potency information.
Treating those you claim to want to help as criminals is, well, simply mad.