‘This House Would Legalise Cannabis’, University Of Exeter, 29th November 2012

Well done Peter (Reynolds not Hitchens) and Steven Davies for this sensible and level
headed debate on your side of the debate. As for Hitchens, his verbal nonsense was up to his usual standard where he tells lies of biblical proportions. Hitchens is using as his main argument a case that I have great sympathy for the person he says has been effected by
cannabis use(in his opinion it was only cannabis that is to blame). His argument is deeply flawed and in your part of the debate you countered his argument by stating that children should be kept away from cannabis due to a child’s brain has not developed fully but his
tragic case states that this person started smoking at the age of eleven. Cannabis should never be used by children and this may have been partially responsible at this very young age along with other factors like alcohol and stress. Professer Nutt has previously stated
that there has not been an increase in psychological disorders even though strong cannabis has been widely used since the early 90′s.

Hitchens sidekick also made some preposterous lies and implications about his analogy of
illegal cigarette smuggling to suggest that criminals would not be effected by the legalisation of cannabis is preposterous. Criminals smuggle cigarettes for a very simple reason, they are making money due to the high level of taxation that is placed on cigarettes and the criminals are either importing cigarettes that have no tax or a much lower tax rate than the UK’s. Cannabis can be produced at a cheap price by a licensed grower, it can be grown by each individual user or it can be grown by users in a cannabis social club similar to Spain,s social cannabis clubs. If there are no profits to be made the
criminals would not sell cannabis any more because they would not have any demand any more.

Saying over a million youths are unemployed because of cannabis use is idiotic, it’s due to the fact that their are no jobs and if cannabis was legalised people could be employed in this industry, thus creating jobs. More lies are now been spouted by saying cannabis is the gateway drug when studies (facts) have stated the opposite. I know that Hitchens and his co-debater are trying to debate here but they resorting to underhand tactics and lies and they would only have any credence if they used facts instead of using imbecilic lies.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2000/nov/06/drugsandalcohol.drugs

http://www.examiner.com/article/study-alcohol-is-more-of-a-gateway-drug-than-marijuana

I was quite disappointed with the debate. Peter opened the debate
with isolating the prohibition stance of cannabis being dangerous.
Rather than 5 mins of factual breakdowns of myths and the debunking with
the opposing facts there was that beeline to the net gain and
confirmation of cannabis as dangerous, both to children and
comparatively with harmless aspects of life. The pompous opposition only
needed to highlight ‘greed’ and danger for the following 1hr to win a
flawed argument.

The argument of high children isn’t sensible.
If a man can incredulously pose that anyone advocates the profiting of
poisoning kids and wins the debate (while brazenly slandering the voting
audience) then serious issues need be addressed.

I recognise
the tactic of conceding respective dangers but it immediately warps the
context of the issue. ‘Protecting kids’? As you said Peter, it’s
prohibition itself which puts children at risk in the first place.

Prohibition of hemp is effectively criminalisation of people. Had the
twerp lambasted the audience as stupid criminals who should pay the
penalty for breaking the law, I’m sure he wouldn’t have won the debate.

The debate was basically Hitchens hour of bs.

The potential of the good that could’ve been conveyed and educated was totally sidelined and that was saddening.

In a world of greed, promoting cash only works on the obscenely wealthy.

To
put it into perspective, the moment the man bleats about a poison, he’s
scuppered because cannabis is non-lethal. Has been for time immemorial
and remains so even at the ‘disturbingly potent THC levels’ in
circulation.

If defending the medicinal value of the mild
sedative opiate, then only acknowledging 3 health benefits while
contrarily agreeing it’s a dangerous poison peddled to children wont win
any brownie points. Gave the cancer cell killing power quite a wide
birth.

But the mother of all disappointments through this debate
was the evasion of the mental health benefit Snuffleupagus in the room.
Woe, just woe. The entire opposition argument could’ve been flattened
by merely pointing out the anti-psychotic effect of cannabis, how
prohibition has promoted a distorted plant and how without prohibition
the anti-psychotic medicine can be reached by those in need and
no-longer hold the misrepresenting stigma.

But I realise there
was a truth in the opposition argument that made the proposition fall
deafeningly quiet. So did the audience. Rather than repealing the unjust
law ..’where it can’t be safely regulated and taxed’ (unsuitable for
capitalism) .. legalisation is the only answer as decriminalisation
doesn’t mean it isn’t an arrestable offence.

Seeing as
Legalisation is the debate, sadly you didn’t win. I’m very very sorry
for that. I was gutted. I may not agree with legalisation but
prohibition makes one a criminal for use of a non-lethal near panacea
with hardly any negative side effect, non of which being permanent.

My respect and support to you Peter Reynolds and the CLEAR party.

Hey Hugh, you blew it, how could you refer to cannabis as a “sedative opiate”? For better or worse, gllad it was Peter not you at the debate.

Shame that the fact that cannaboids are produced in breast milk was never mentioned amoung the lengthy benefits …..