44 comments

• Comment Link Saturday, 08 June 2013 00:15 posted by rh anderson

  so many seem to believe marijuana is the DEVIL! the REAL devil, folks; is ALCOHOL!! -i don't remember EVER having my head in a toilet bowl from smoking the 'satanic' weed. -and to all those saying smoking causes cancer, let us not forget that the 'evil' weed can be EATEN as well! -great debate!! too bad so many in this country are so 'smart' they are STUPID!!
  
  i'm 61 years old can claim 40+ years of cannabis intoxication 'research' and have exhibited as well as experienced some of the STUPIDEST behavior 'on' alcohol!! -not so, being (stoned or) around "stoners", who have never annoyed me anywhere near as much as a 'blind', stupid, aggressive drunk! -lets' take some responsibility for ourselves folks, and understand our limitations!! (not to mention personal freedoms!!) -me don't deal wit no politics, me deal wit de truth!! -bob marley

• Comment Link Wednesday, 29 May 2013 19:58 posted by Rich

  I have to laugh at your voting.32% dont know?Why would anyone vote dont know?Its ridiculous.
  Look,I like a smoke myself and I dont think its good for peoples health and I dont think it should be legal.If anyone actually thinks that weed is not harmfull then they are dangerously deluded.
  The police in the uk are fair in that if you are descrete,they will leave you alone but most users want to shout about their habit from the rooftops about how great it is.Losers.I think it should be class A as its not the hash we used to have years ago.Its mindwarping genetically modified rubbish.
  The people who want to legalize it in the public eye really are martyrs aren't they?Im sure they will be management material if it does go legal as they will make a pot of cash.Which is what its all about really isnt it?Money.One arguement thats given is the Amsterdam example?Do me a favour.Ive been there and its a sleazy pit of despair and I hope the same thing doesn't happen in the UK.
  Legalizing drugs will only make criminals legal drug dealing entrepeneurs.If you dont want to be labelled a criminal,then dont smoke it.
  What really puts me off the whole scene is that if you follow the supply right to the source,then some shady government agency is behind it for their black projects.
  Now go home and have a smoke for me but dont try to legalize it in my name please!

• Comment Link Monday, 27 May 2013 23:09 posted by Dave Bailey

  Disappointing debate - neither side got to the practical core of the debate. I went in and still generally for the motion but I want the following question vetted: How would a legalization work in reality? Are all drugs to be legal with no limits? Including exotic synthetic in the future that are maliciously targeted to additive by design or by enemies.
  
  On another note, when will a subject be debated without a racial component being interjected which benefits from the contemporary shield of political correctness. While certainly it played a role in the past, the high rates of arrest for minorities (defined here as blacks and hispanics not other minorities groups such as jews or asians) are due to the related high crime areas and associations in which these arrests are taking place. Also, the highest percent of victims of the drug associated crimes are dis-proportionally black and hispanic. Therefore, if you are Against based on your assumption that drugs are directly related to crime, and you think the illegality reduces this association (an assumption I don t share), you are benefit the targeted minority by increasing arrests in the those areas for the sake of the relatively larger number of minority victims. But instead, white guilt and Political correctness stifles real conversation again.

• Comment Link Monday, 29 April 2013 04:27 posted by Dana

  1. The pro side stated people quit smoking cigarettes because of health reasons. However, we know that 30% of all cancer in the US is related to smoking cigarettes. As a health care professional in the oncology setting, I can't tell you how many times I have cared for people who have lung cancer related to smoking; yet while receiving treatment, they continue to smoke.
  2. Regarding the arguments for cannabis legalization. From a medical stand point, it does help decrease pain for some people and it can help decrease nausea symptoms. It has not been found to improve appetite. What is often not talked about is the very real risk of aspergillus fungal lung infection when smoked. When people have a low white blood cell count, it is almost always fatal. Cannabis can also cause people to be over agreeable and have difficulty maintaining conversations with loved ones that they will remember.
  My stance is to legalize it as a tightly controlled substance, like oxycodone, for use when prescribed by a provider. If we open a pandora's box of legalization, we might have a terrible time closing it. Like with cigarettes; I wish they had never been legal. One in five deaths are related to tobacco and our country spends billions on health issues directly related to smoking cigarettes: cancer, coronary artery disease, heart disease, COPD, etc. http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/health_effects/effects_cig_smoking/

• Comment Link Sunday, 21 April 2013 17:26 posted by Sue Hudson

  The two guys representing legalizing drugs were far more knowledgable and dealt with the situation in total reality. Those against were at their best stating personal theories. Being a retired educator of over 40 years, I see no positive outcomes by criminalizing all these young people. Why is it that many people seem to find what others do so much worse than their own personal addictions to what ever it might be? Let he who is without sin cast the first stone! Does that sound familiar to anyone?

• Comment Link Sunday, 21 April 2013 15:48 posted by Jim

  Wishing the panel would address the fact that the concept behind this debate is marred in the same way it would have been had it occurred during Prohibition as a debate on being for or against all alcohol.
  
  We eventually said SOME alcohol was unwise and it was outlawed. We need to do the same here....debate marijuana separately from other drugs.

• Comment Link Thursday, 11 April 2013 16:57 posted by Stephen

  Let Theodore Dalrymple talk! You can tell he's being shoved away.

• Comment Link Monday, 08 April 2013 10:46 posted by Timothy Clark Wilson

  NO!
  Proverbs 14:34 ​Righteousness exalts a nation,
  ​​But sin is a reproach to any people.

• Comment Link Thursday, 04 April 2013 20:09 posted by ml

  if we're going to have one legal drug we should have at least two to give people a choice. not everyone can or wants to drink alcohol. marijuana is much more benign. ask anyone with an alcoholic parent. in a nation of choices, give us a choice.
  it was the patent medicines and the pursuit of profits off addictive drugs in the 1800s with the inclusion of cocaine (remember the real coca cola?), opium, alcohol, and even radium, that gave us the FDA

• Comment Link Wednesday, 03 April 2013 09:41 posted by Frank Sattar

  My concern in public safety, bad enough the roads are full of drunk drivers. Should the public be concerned with drugged drivers too.