Posted by rojo, Tuesday, 13 February 2007 2:12:14 PM
"I have seen the results of too much dope. It is very sad."

I have seen the effects of too much alcohol too - my father was an alcoholic. That doesnt mean that it is reasonable to take people who 'enjoy a glass or two of wine' and throw them in jail and give them a criminal record or do you believe it is reasonable?

"How do we know who is vulnerable to addiction and/or pre-disposed to mental disorder?"

As for the addiction - that does seem to be more in people's make-up if they do not properly address the issues they have they will simply move from one addiction to another anyway and cannabis is not addictive - it doesnt work the dopamine cycle or any of the 'addiction pathways' in the brain. It simply fills the anandamine receptors for a while.

As for mental disorders, it could be treated the same as with allergies - you could try a small amount in a controlled situation, ie with counter medications available (anti-psychotics in the case of schizophrenia). Although I would stress again that I know of no reliably tested case where onset of psychosis did not follow not only long and heavy abuse of cannabis and other drugs but also a history of abuse.

And as for Roy - it is only by breaking laws that they get changed. It was black people refusing to be segregated that brought an end to apartheid, it was women entering Public Bars that forced the changes that allowed them to be there - as long as everyone complies with a law there is no pressure on the government to change it.

'This kind of wilful rebellion should be punished.'

I shudder at the thought of the world this guy envisions.

Imagine there's no rebellion....it isn't hard to do...
A-perfect-pure-authoratitive-state-where-no-one-thinks-for-themselves....and no dreamers too..

Well said, Rob 513... and Spendocrate.

I think I would strongly rebel against a world without rebellion ;)

Since health has been brought up so many times in this discussion, health is not a good enough reason for refusing to decriminalising soft drugs.

Apart from smoking and alcohol abuse, we, including our children, are overwhelmed by ads that promote unhealthy lifestyles.

There are the transfats of our fast-food outlets, the snacks and deserts high in sugar, all being pushed on us by corporations and food giants who aim to supersize every kid into a burger junkie, even bribing them with toys and games.

We neither shouldn't fool ourselves that tobacco only does damage to smokers.

Both, consumers of diets that are high in fat and sugar, and smokers clog up the public hospital system, filling the waiting lists, which would indirectly affect the health of other patients.

Whether it's our diet, smoking habits or drug intake, or even extreme sports, they all carry risks not only for ourselves but also for other people. There are long lists of things we regularly do which risk lives.

My point is not to criticise people's life styles, but to say that there is no good reason to single out soft drugs as the only baddie out of all the possible baddies.
In fact, I believe that drugs like cannabis are one of the most innocent pleasures in life.

We all need to be able to take responsibility for whatever lifestyle we choose.
Otherwise people will...rebel!

'...clog up the public hospital system, filling the waiting lists, which would indirectly affect the health of other patients'

While I'm 100% with you in your overall sentiment, Celivia, I've always taken issue with this point about smokers supposedly clogging up hospitals. If I smoke I may end up in hospital at 60, spend 2 years there then die. If I don't smoke, I may end up in hospital at 75, spend 2 years there then die. Net gain to the public health system: zero. I may even survive longer in hospital without smoking.

So whether people go earlier or later, it would still be the same amount of people, yeah? Same cost to public health?

Nevermind. Back to the topic...

Spendocrate: "So whether people go earlier or later, it would still be the same amount of people, yeah? Same cost to public health?"

You are probably correct. I can now use "ageing" to add to my list of risks :)

Sorry for being off-topic, but I once read an article about some interesting research about this; wish I could find that link.

I am not sure how reliable or valid this research was, but
the article pointed out that it's a fallacy that smokers harm the economy by digging into Health Care funds more than others do.

It was stated that in their old age, (say 80+) people catch up on spending available funds with the smokers who pass away at an earlier age.
I'm neither an economist nor an accountant so I can only tell you what I've read but can't personally back up that claim, but it sounded plausible to me.

Elderly people receive aged pensions, make use of age care facilities and services, and often will suffer from age-related illnesses.

But back on topic- to use health reasons for being against decriminalising soft drugs doesn't make sense.

Smoking, drinking too much alcohol, extreme sport, too little exercise, eating diets rich in fat and sugar, having unprotected sex, and perhaps even ageing are a few examples from a myriad of things people do or don't do, and which involve risks for themselves and/or others.

Agreed. I actually believe that health problems are no reason to criminalise *any* substance, but thats another topic again I think..