An intuitionist's response to the question "Should cannabis be legalised?"
An intuitionist’s response to the question “Should cannabis be legalised?”
The case for the legalisation of the drug cannabis has been raised by a newspaper article arguing for and against downgrading cannabis from class B to class C. Alice Thompson puts forward a convincing argument for the drug to stay in class B, since she argues that the risks of schizophrenia and other mental illnesses is too high. “Sue Arnold, the journalist who spearheaded the campaign to legalise cannabis in the 1990’s changed her mind when her son, a cannabis smoker, became psychotic.” Comparing the actions of other countries in their attempt to reduce cannabis use, Thompson argues “Holland believes it lost a generation when they relaxed their cannabis laws 26 years ago.” Sweden toughened its lie towards cannabis, and drug deaths have dropped for the first time since 1990.”
On the other side of the argument, Stephen Robinson argues “Drug laws are intolerant, illiberal, and impossible to police. We have a crisis.” His view of the government’s narrow-mindedness is met in his part of the article. Robinson does not take into account the biological problems as far as Thompson does, and his weaknesses also fall in the way his article is written – in the first person. Thompson has argued in seemingly a much less biased way, from a logical informed point of view. Robinson however takes the standpoint of arguing from personal experience. “Smoking pot was on of the ways in which teenagers of MY generation repaid their parents. …School fees.” The positive uses of cannabis have been described as mood lift, relaxation, stress reduction, creative, philosophical or deep thinking, increased awareness of senses; (eating, drinking, smell), change in experience of muscle fatigue, pleasant body feel, increase in body/mind connection. Also, pain relief (headaches, cramps), reduced nausea, and increased appetite (used medically for this).
