Suzeonline "It hasn't worked well with alcohol or tobacco has it?"

The question is compared to what?

Addicts who want to quit can get help without fear of repercusions. I'm unlikely to have my home burgled by someone trying to fund an illegal and expensive alcohol or tobaco habit. Even with increased government tax's those using the products are not automatically on the wrong side of the law so it's a bigger step to turn to crime to fund the habit than it is if if what you are doing is already illegal.

Some people are making a lot of money from the sale of the products but I suspect that it's generally in their best interests to operate within the law which reduces the flow on impacts at that level to some extent. I know that there are exceptions but generally I doubt that hotel licencee's or brewing company bosses are organising hit's on competitors or that tobacco growers kill someone who stumbles on their crop.

There are negative personal and social consequences to abuse of alcohol and cigarette's but my impression is that they are far less than we could expect if the substances were outlawed.

R0ber

Yes I see where you are coming from Severin and Robert, but I still remain opposed to decriminalization of drugs like marijuana.
What I do like about the two of you is that we can have a difference of opinion without resorting to put-downs or name calling- thankyou :)

Severin you are right in saying I have seen the worst of drug abuse- and have been severely abused by drug users in my line of work- so maybe I have a harsher experience with drug users (as indeed I have with alcohol abuse as well).

However, with many of the marijuana users I have met, the general high and sense of well-being they get constantly needs to be 'topped up' by using more and more of it to get the same 'high'.
Often, this search for euphoria leads to harder, more damaging drugs than dope.

If we legalise marijuana, how soon will it be before we legalise heroin, cocaine or ice?
I believe the threat of jail or big fines has deterred at least some potential young users.
It it deters even one person, it will have been worth it.

I have seen too many deaths and shattered families to ever condone the use of hard drugs.

Suzie, there's no evidence whatever that marijuana is a "gateway" drug as you seem to be claiming. In fact, despite your best efforts you've not managed to find anything to support your rather hysterical pronouncements about cannabis. Most people would think "hmmm, perhaps I need to reconsider my views", but you're made of sterner stuff, eh? None of that namby-pamby evidence-based stuff will change your mind when you "know" you're right...

BTW, I'm not "trying to pick a fight" about nursing, simply making an effort to provide an example that you might understand, since it's clear that your grasp of scientific principles is pretty weak. It seems to be working, since you've not brought up any more silly "studies" that don't actually go anywhere.

Anti:

>> your rather hysterical pronouncements <<

>> since it's clear that your grasp of scientific principles is pretty weak <<

>> more silly "studies" that don't actually go anywhere <<

Please learn the difference between adversarial debate and ad hominem attacks. You will never earn the credibility you crave with the way you continue to present your arguments or comments as personal insults. Suzeonline has a valid contribution to make. She is in the unfortunate position of seeing the very worst that drug abuse (legal and illegal) causes to users, their families and society in general.

Suzeonline

The argument R0bert and others have been making is that legalisation would result in less crime and more management of a problem that as long as there are human beings will not go away. We need to minimise the effect obtaining drugs from criminals, that may have been adulterated with noxious substances, is only continuing a cycle that has no end in sight until ALL 'recreational' drugs are under control of legal organisation like the medical system instead of the criminal one.

Suze, what do you think can happen when a teen goes to score a gram of pot, is told none is available and is given a free line of smack? This is often how the 'gateway' works. Heroin is far more addictive than pot, the drug dealer prefers a captive customer to one who can walk away without purchasing anything. Amphetamines are cut with anything from chalk to aspirin and at worse cleaning powders.

Cont'd

Most pot smokers give up the drug when older, such as myself, or have a controlled habit like Anti claims. Would society be a better place if I and the many others who have used in the past had police records as a result of smoking a few joints or even snorting a line or two? I would not have been able to work where I did, and I KNOW I was able to relate to and help a wide range of people before I resigned; due to my experience. I know how hard it is dealing with people who are drunk or drugged, I also know that in the 'soft' (quoting Anti) departments like Human Services, managerial support is rare. If medical staff were given the support to treat addicts simply as suffering from an illness rather than viewed as criminal, surely there would be less recidivism?

Severin:"Please learn the difference between adversarial debate and ad hominem attacks. "

erm... I suggest you might profitably do so before I do, old girl. Suzie's claims are hysterical because they're not based on logic but on an "appeal to emotion", (if you could see the terrible things I see, you'd feel the same way), rather than presenting evidence.

The second example is simply stating a fact: she complianed that i was "trying to attack nurses" and I pointed out my reason for the examples I used. Pointing out that someone has a poor grasp of something is not ad hominem per se. For example, I could point out that you have a poor grasp of the problems facing self-employed people, while I have a poor grasp of the problems faced by those who choose to live on Government handouts. See?

The thirf example you gave is in reference to the studies, not Suzie and I have already given my reasons for believeing them to be silly.

Now, perhaps you might try to argue logically in future instead of resorting to trying to "poison the well" or appealling to emotion or one of the many other failings of logic that infest your output?

You obviously know how to, unlike some of your skirt-hiders.