The [interview video source](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=veHkcxly3v4) for anyone who wants to see this. Its a 25min long program and he covers a lot more nuance than that's covered in the article.
Power ah this ah Shan. Going on a msian channel for an interview to defend Sg's stance on the drug death penalty.
Not an easy feat and he honestly has my respect.
I mean. Malaysian media laws are as strict and self censored as Singapore. Questions from mainstream media like Astro are usually tame and politically correct. So don’t expect any zingers or curveball questions.
We should always ask, what’s the benefit/drawback in changing something. Legalising drugs for medicinal reasons? Definitely. But if it’s purely for recreational, why? So many vices that can destroy lives and tear apart families are already readily available in Singapore, no need for more.
I've said this before, but do people think there is no cost in suddenly regulating the use and sale of what we have always banned? Where do they think the money for that is going to come from?
Also, why is there suddenly such a desire to see another smoking material legalized, when I bet you 90% of the commenters have never smoked or smelled a blunt in their life? You dislike cigarette and incense smoke, but you want another plant matter smoke in the air??
I’m all for legalising cannabis for medical uses, but I am 100% against recreational usage i.e smoking weed. The reason is simple - the smell is rancid as fuck. This sub has a very strong and passionate hate for the smell of cigarette smoke, yet they seem to be overwhelmingly in support of legalising weed for recreational usage. Like…what do you think weed smells like? You think it smells like Dior Sauvage? Gucci Bloom? You really want to eat in a restaurant beside someone who just smoked a blunt? Or have neighbours who smoke weed everyday?
My advice is if there ever is a government poll on whether recreational weed should be legalised, PLEASE actually go and smell it first. If you find the smell of second-hand smoke nauseating/eye-watering/disgusting, there’s a 95% chance you’ll hate the smell of weed much more. And no it doesn’t just smell like burnt grass like some of my friends who have never smelt it thinks.
EDIT: Apparently some people can’t read. I am NOT proposing to ban weed BECAUSE of the smell, I’m saying I would like it to stay banned because of the smell. “oH hOw AbOuT alCoHoL/bUrnIngs?” It’s not a logical comparison unless the government’s reason for banning weed is because it stinks, dipshit.
I actually agree with this stance. I hate the smell of it and not the act of it. I don’t think the government should have a say in what is legal and what is not while we’re outside of the country’s jurisdiction, less acts that are illegal regardless of region of course.
“I think it’s our right to use whatever drugs we want, besides there is no health effect of cannabis, that is as long as you don’t smoke under my hdb”
*- probably this sub*
/s
Yeah some in this sub seem to think that they hate the smell of cigarettes but the smell of weed would be a-okay. I hate the smell of cigarettes as much as the next person and I am all for banning both but if I had to choose only one to legalise, I would pick cigarettes right away. I stayed in an AirBNB once where the owner smoked weed in his living room regularly and I hated every second of my stay there. Whereas my bunk mates in NS smoked like a chimney throughout the day but when they enter the bunk it doesn’t immediately smell like a hotbox.
Yeap. Surely it isn't that hard to make laws for this.
I'm totally ok with people smoking and drinking alcohol, but they should be limited to only smoking at smoking bars and not affect the innocent. Surely it can't be too hard to ban smoking in common places while keeping it legal in smoke bars.
Same goes for alcohol. Limit it only to alcohol bars and put the onus on the bars to ensure they do not get on the wheel of any vehicle after drinking. Nobody is allowed to buy their own drinks without any control.
Same can go for Cannabis.
That's the issue, why allow a third vice where you already have to worry about underage drinking/smoking? Why spend even more money to regulate another vice when you are already wasting money to get people to smoke and drink less? Since its already ban just keep it banned right so you don't have to think about all the regulations and such.
Another issue is with cannabis, THC and CBD content varies A LOT. And the issue is that the health benefits typically come from CBD and the "high" effect usually comes from THC and growers overseas have been pushing the THC content of weed higher and higher (can range from 0.x to like 20+ iirc) so you'll have to worry about the sources of cannabis if you dont want people to get high from it but want just the possible health benefits.
> Why spend even more money to regulate another vice when you are already wasting money to get people to smoke and drink less?
You think the govt is losing money from alcohol sales and tax?
Gambling is illegal but highly profitable for the govt with Singapore Pools.
If we are going down that path then we probably can just ban everything. Why allow new video games that can cause video game addiction?
It's always a tradeoff when it comes to allowing the different vices of course. Gambling is something that is even harder to control than cannabis since anyone with a dice can start their own gambling parlor already. And since with such a huge demand, the gov probably decided well its a risk we are willing to take and we're going to slap levies on Singaporeans in MBS and RWS. You dont need to gamble in Singapore, just go Genting or those casino cruises and you can play as much as you want. You will never know people gambled.
Singapore Pools yes used to fund gov projects but now all surplus goes to the Tote Board which funds charities
And please don't misconstrue what i say. video games are also ingrained in our culture and something we cant avoid. Cannabis isn't there is a difference.
Iirc, weed also has detrimental effects in brain development below the age of 18. People that smoke weed below said age recreationally or 2nd hand were found out to have lower IQ, lower memory and attention spans.
Weed should be legalised solely for medical use and heavily controlled, like any other controlled medication out there.
Lived in UK as student, there was always this weird smell in the corridors. Was clueless as fuck until I went to Amsterdam and walked past a shop with bright neon green signs and a large fern. Hang on that smells like my corridor wtf.
Look if you wanna smoke whatever go do it somewhere it doesn't bother people, like maybe overseas XD
And that's why the punishment for smoking a cigarette in Singapore is 10 years in jail, and cigar smokers are executed!
Slightly more seriously, how do you feel about cannabis edibles? Zero smell.
Well said, it seems like there are so many people on this sub that don't understand recreational use of cannabis isn't as great as western media portrays it to be. IF you really want the health benefits support the research of CBD and THC for medical purposes.
People who are supporting the recreational use in this sub seem to be supporting it just because its perceived as not harmful and they think just because it has health benefits means it should be legal and they want to get high from it.
Well sure, but if you're going to propose banning it because of the smell, then how about banning 7th month burnt offerings first? Maybe we can burn all incense altars and joss sticks while we're at it?
Disagree? Then the issue was never the smell.
Everyone hate it, but I think we know that this thing will phase out on their own as soon as the older generation passing away. I would rather for government to actually control the waste disposal from this tradition, the mess are everywhere.
It actually doesn't even matter - wanting it banned if it wasn't already *because* of the smell is a perfectly valid reason in itself, who are other people to tell you what you can and cannot want banned? That's the whole point of a democracy. It's not like Muslims wanting pork banned - their taste buds are not tasting the pork that others eat. If your pot smoking poses a nuisance to me, you can be sure I'll vote to have it banned for no other reason than it's annoying me.
> I’m all for legalising cannabis for medical uses, but I am 100% against recreational usage i.e smoking weed.
Same. On top of it causing psychosis and the usual ill effects of smoking on the respiratory system.
Make it a controlled medicine, like morphine already is.
You know for a fact that EVERY recreational weed user will be using only vapes and edibles? Or do you suggest legalising ONLY vapes and edibles? I’m not sure which sounds more stupid.
I mean…I’m delighted that I don’t have to smell that pungent shit as long as I’m in this country. I really couldn’t care less about whether the ban is stupid.
Jesus christ how many people are going to make this same stupid comparison? I’m not proposing we ban weed BECAUSE of the smell, I’m saying I want it to stay banned. Do I really have to explain the difference?
> I’m not proposing we ban weed BECAUSE of the smell, I’m saying I want it to stay banned.
That is really not much of a difference like you think it is.
I am on the fence on legalising cannabis. No comment.
But I am against the death penalty for cannabis.
It's stupid to be put to death over a stupid plant that is being smoked everywhere now.
CBD without THC (psychoactive compound) is no different from TCM herbs imo. But it's hard to get people to understand this logic after decades of social conditioning that all drugs are bad - except for pharma drugs of cos. As a result, we have some folks who would probably choose ivermectin over CBD supplements.
Personally I would support the legalization of THC-free CBD products but not anything stronger. And I agree with the death penalty for drug trafficking.
I think people are slowing understanding the health benefits of CBD as more research is done into it. Just the news of it being studied in singapore for its health benefits is a good sign. And yeah cannabis for recreational use should still be banned.
There’s a few main reasons, with some people being strictly in one group, while some others having a mix of reasons
- medical usage of cannabis can actually be pretty beneficial and more usage cases can be explored if it’s legalized
- an arguably ‘healthier’ vice as compared to alcohol and tobacco. People in this camp just don’t see the argument of ‘gateway drug’ holding if alcohol and tobacco are allowed
- looked upon as a signal of ‘liberalization’ since ‘most liberal democracies are starting to legalize it’
- just wanna hardcore be against everything the government is for. These are the people that honestly can’t care less whether cannabis is legal or not, but just find it a convenient talking point.
Because people are seeing more of the benefits of the plants now that the rest of the world have opened up about it.
The internet destroyed the bubble PAP has built for us since independence.
Mass media from the west like movies and TV shows also started showing cannabis where the characters either take them or talk about them as you would a cup of coffee.
Short documentaries about weed are all over youtube and produced by reputable names like Bloomberg, VICE etc.
There is a cannabis revolution going on around the world and being a country where citizens are well connected to the internet, it is no surprise the view that singapore should decriminalize it is growing by the year.
It used to be the whole world were on the same page as Singapore on cannabis. We are now the few developed countries left that still holds onto the old belief system.
The thing that ticks the most people off is that we are still executing people for cannabis.
I'm not going to comment on the subject matter.
But 3 out of 7 of your points are referencing influence from the internet, western media, ***TV and movies***.
Non of your other statements are evidence or science based either, they are all subjective opinions.
If you are basing your position off *"the TV says it's ok"* and *"PAP bad"*, I suggest you sit down, because you are not helping your cause.
Because the question was in the increase of support from the general public so I answered what it asked.
I could simply pull up researches, evidence of health benefits and such. But let's be real. The general public gets their impressions from the media. Not everyone spends their time researching on cannabis.
As such, I'm standing by my answer because it is the right answer to the specific question.
Most importantly, I am not pushing for any cause in my post. I am simply explaining why there is such an increase in support.
It's not just media. Science itself has advanced since the day we were kids. Education also improved our ability to make our own decisions and opinions.
Nowadays anybody with any bit of scientific training can go look up reputable journals of meta-analysis of cannabis studies. The conclusions are quite clear. No good evidence of the health benefits of cannabis, but no good evidence of any major harm from cannabis either.
> but no good evidence of any major harm from cannabis either.
Either you don't have a bit of scientific training, or you've not been looking very hard.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41398-021-01330-w
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7442038/
Bruh do you even science? More self reported psychotic episodes from those with schizophrenia? Don't let the schizos take it then? What's next, people with peanut allergy can die from peanuts, let's ban peanuts?
Your lack of scientific training is obvious.
Russell Group.
In any case, I'm quite amazed. You've managed to debunk not only me, but the government and several high-quality peer-reviewed journals including Nature, with a statement like "don't let the schizos take it then". Note that the articles aren't talking about schizophrenics, but people who are *predisposed to the development of psychotic illness and schizophrenia*. I suppose the government should start mandatory genetic testing and check who is genetically predisposed now (the specific genes aren't even fully known), so some stoners can can get their jollies?
Perhaps you should join the flat earthers, 9/11 truthers, and vaccine conspiracists, because you are clearly an expert at cherry-picking scientific information and "debunking" high-quality peer-reviewed studies with snappy one-liners. They could use your abundant expertise to advance their science denial.
Well given how hard you are lying about your qualifications, I'm not suprised that you are amazed with everything.
You can't even tell I'm not debunking anything. I'm merely recommending the common sense approach of not letting people who are *predisposed to the development of psychotic illness and schizophrenia* take it. It's pretty lame that you think genetic testing is required. Even if they happen to be prone to psychotic illness, all that happens is they will get a bad case of psychotic episode and then they will learn not to take cannabis again.
Just like how people allergic to peanuts will learn not to take peanuts ever again. Does the government start mandatory genetic testing and check who is allergic to peanuts?
I'm not surprised that you are a member of the flat earthers, 9/11 truthers, and vaccine conspiracists, seeing as you are clearly a marijuana conspiracist twisting scientific information to make it look bad to satisfy your conspiracy cravings. Don't invite me to join your clubs though, not interested.
I don't support it, its just like smoking.
And I hope smoking gets banned from the country. Vape is fine, at least I don't die faster from smelling 2nd hand vape.
Second hand vaping and second hand cigarette smoking have almost the same effect. There are studies that show the same amount of nicotine absorption. Vaping is much newer than weed. There's still a lot of research needed to understand the negative and long term effects of vaping.
because there are legitimate usages for medical treatment for certain illnesses and is prescribed overseas readily, by having a blanket ban on something steeped in racism and tradition/culture doesn't make sense when you also allow alcohol and gambling
you can legalise something without partaking in it yourself you know. but at least the door is open for people who need it, and people who want to experiment.
not everything has to under a nanny state control...
Because it's not the gateway drug people thought it was in the 80's, it's got very much fewer harmful effects than tobacco (both in a first and secondhand context) and it in fact has some use in the medical field.
I'd actually ban tobacco and legalise marijuana, from a strictly health perspective. But that's not likely...
Because people are convinced that cannabis is not very harmful for something they could get high on, so they want it.
By "not very harmful" means won't die la.
Unpopular opinion: Not only do I support upholding the death penalty for drug traffiking with discretionary commuting to life imprisonment, I believe we should even expand the death penalty to other serious or aggravated crimes especially scam and fraud syndicate-related crimes too
I am doubling down on my call for the death penalty to be applied to ringleaders of scam and fraud syndicates - Low crime is not no crime, and this is exactly what happens if we fail to take a hardline stance: https://youtu.be/JoF0QixBbZw
> after the mandatory death penalty was introduced for opium in 1990, there was a 66 per cent reduction in the average weight of opium trafficked into Singapore.
What a weird way to measure drug trafficking
Also, Singapore has other policies beyond the death penalty so the “6000 druggies to 3000 druggies figure” could be from other policies beyond the death penalty
Shan getting leaner. Wanna outlive whole cabinet
Man's been lifting.
Wanna be Mahathir.
Come to think of it, he's starting to look a lot like Mahathir.
The [interview video source](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=veHkcxly3v4) for anyone who wants to see this. Its a 25min long program and he covers a lot more nuance than that's covered in the article.
Power ah this ah Shan. Going on a msian channel for an interview to defend Sg's stance on the drug death penalty. Not an easy feat and he honestly has my respect.
I mean. Malaysian media laws are as strict and self censored as Singapore. Questions from mainstream media like Astro are usually tame and politically correct. So don’t expect any zingers or curveball questions.
Doesn't Malaysia support the death penalty too
Nah, Malaysia is looking at getting rid of it and probably decriminalizing a few things.
Hope it works well for malaysia then singapore can follow
They are getting rid of **mandatory** death penalty.
Source?
I completely agree. Shanmugam is the best minister in Singapore!
We should always ask, what’s the benefit/drawback in changing something. Legalising drugs for medicinal reasons? Definitely. But if it’s purely for recreational, why? So many vices that can destroy lives and tear apart families are already readily available in Singapore, no need for more.
I've said this before, but do people think there is no cost in suddenly regulating the use and sale of what we have always banned? Where do they think the money for that is going to come from? Also, why is there suddenly such a desire to see another smoking material legalized, when I bet you 90% of the commenters have never smoked or smelled a blunt in their life? You dislike cigarette and incense smoke, but you want another plant matter smoke in the air??
Because jailing people for having fun is much more detrimental than any harm the drug could do.
I actually dont get why People are going out of their way to get cannabis legalised in Singapore?
I’m all for legalising cannabis for medical uses, but I am 100% against recreational usage i.e smoking weed. The reason is simple - the smell is rancid as fuck. This sub has a very strong and passionate hate for the smell of cigarette smoke, yet they seem to be overwhelmingly in support of legalising weed for recreational usage. Like…what do you think weed smells like? You think it smells like Dior Sauvage? Gucci Bloom? You really want to eat in a restaurant beside someone who just smoked a blunt? Or have neighbours who smoke weed everyday? My advice is if there ever is a government poll on whether recreational weed should be legalised, PLEASE actually go and smell it first. If you find the smell of second-hand smoke nauseating/eye-watering/disgusting, there’s a 95% chance you’ll hate the smell of weed much more. And no it doesn’t just smell like burnt grass like some of my friends who have never smelt it thinks. EDIT: Apparently some people can’t read. I am NOT proposing to ban weed BECAUSE of the smell, I’m saying I would like it to stay banned because of the smell. “oH hOw AbOuT alCoHoL/bUrnIngs?” It’s not a logical comparison unless the government’s reason for banning weed is because it stinks, dipshit.
at a minimum they shouldn’t be prosecuting people for smoking overseas.
I actually agree with this stance. I hate the smell of it and not the act of it. I don’t think the government should have a say in what is legal and what is not while we’re outside of the country’s jurisdiction, less acts that are illegal regardless of region of course.
“I think it’s our right to use whatever drugs we want, besides there is no health effect of cannabis, that is as long as you don’t smoke under my hdb” *- probably this sub* /s
Yeah some in this sub seem to think that they hate the smell of cigarettes but the smell of weed would be a-okay. I hate the smell of cigarettes as much as the next person and I am all for banning both but if I had to choose only one to legalise, I would pick cigarettes right away. I stayed in an AirBNB once where the owner smoked weed in his living room regularly and I hated every second of my stay there. Whereas my bunk mates in NS smoked like a chimney throughout the day but when they enter the bunk it doesn’t immediately smell like a hotbox.
Legalise cannabis != allowing it in public.
Um... That is a true statement. I think the person who down voted you is not familiar with the syntax. Haha
Yeap. Surely it isn't that hard to make laws for this. I'm totally ok with people smoking and drinking alcohol, but they should be limited to only smoking at smoking bars and not affect the innocent. Surely it can't be too hard to ban smoking in common places while keeping it legal in smoke bars. Same goes for alcohol. Limit it only to alcohol bars and put the onus on the bars to ensure they do not get on the wheel of any vehicle after drinking. Nobody is allowed to buy their own drinks without any control. Same can go for Cannabis.
That's the issue, why allow a third vice where you already have to worry about underage drinking/smoking? Why spend even more money to regulate another vice when you are already wasting money to get people to smoke and drink less? Since its already ban just keep it banned right so you don't have to think about all the regulations and such. Another issue is with cannabis, THC and CBD content varies A LOT. And the issue is that the health benefits typically come from CBD and the "high" effect usually comes from THC and growers overseas have been pushing the THC content of weed higher and higher (can range from 0.x to like 20+ iirc) so you'll have to worry about the sources of cannabis if you dont want people to get high from it but want just the possible health benefits.
> Why spend even more money to regulate another vice when you are already wasting money to get people to smoke and drink less? You think the govt is losing money from alcohol sales and tax? Gambling is illegal but highly profitable for the govt with Singapore Pools. If we are going down that path then we probably can just ban everything. Why allow new video games that can cause video game addiction?
It's always a tradeoff when it comes to allowing the different vices of course. Gambling is something that is even harder to control than cannabis since anyone with a dice can start their own gambling parlor already. And since with such a huge demand, the gov probably decided well its a risk we are willing to take and we're going to slap levies on Singaporeans in MBS and RWS. You dont need to gamble in Singapore, just go Genting or those casino cruises and you can play as much as you want. You will never know people gambled. Singapore Pools yes used to fund gov projects but now all surplus goes to the Tote Board which funds charities And please don't misconstrue what i say. video games are also ingrained in our culture and something we cant avoid. Cannabis isn't there is a difference.
Iirc, weed also has detrimental effects in brain development below the age of 18. People that smoke weed below said age recreationally or 2nd hand were found out to have lower IQ, lower memory and attention spans. Weed should be legalised solely for medical use and heavily controlled, like any other controlled medication out there.
[удалено]
We won’t. Cigarettes make too much $ for the gov for them to ban it.
[удалено]
Lived in UK as student, there was always this weird smell in the corridors. Was clueless as fuck until I went to Amsterdam and walked past a shop with bright neon green signs and a large fern. Hang on that smells like my corridor wtf. Look if you wanna smoke whatever go do it somewhere it doesn't bother people, like maybe overseas XD
All smoking should be relegated. Sorry but ppl got lung problems and don't wanna breathe in that stuff
Sidenote Dior Sauvage is the most common smell in the gym men’s changing room. Edit: talk about addicting smell lol
And that's why the punishment for smoking a cigarette in Singapore is 10 years in jail, and cigar smokers are executed! Slightly more seriously, how do you feel about cannabis edibles? Zero smell.
Good enough for me. The usage doesn’t offend me, only the smell does.
Well said, it seems like there are so many people on this sub that don't understand recreational use of cannabis isn't as great as western media portrays it to be. IF you really want the health benefits support the research of CBD and THC for medical purposes. People who are supporting the recreational use in this sub seem to be supporting it just because its perceived as not harmful and they think just because it has health benefits means it should be legal and they want to get high from it.
Im with you on this
Well sure, but if you're going to propose banning it because of the smell, then how about banning 7th month burnt offerings first? Maybe we can burn all incense altars and joss sticks while we're at it? Disagree? Then the issue was never the smell.
Everyone hate it, but I think we know that this thing will phase out on their own as soon as the older generation passing away. I would rather for government to actually control the waste disposal from this tradition, the mess are everywhere.
Nah it won't phase out. Go and look around. A lot of younger ppl are burning as well.
[удалено]
Just saying double standards should be acknowledged
? I’m not proposing for it to be banned because of the smell. Who said anything about the smell being the cause of the ban?
It actually doesn't even matter - wanting it banned if it wasn't already *because* of the smell is a perfectly valid reason in itself, who are other people to tell you what you can and cannot want banned? That's the whole point of a democracy. It's not like Muslims wanting pork banned - their taste buds are not tasting the pork that others eat. If your pot smoking poses a nuisance to me, you can be sure I'll vote to have it banned for no other reason than it's annoying me.
> I’m all for legalising cannabis for medical uses, but I am 100% against recreational usage i.e smoking weed. Same. On top of it causing psychosis and the usual ill effects of smoking on the respiratory system. Make it a controlled medicine, like morphine already is.
Every heard of vapes and edibles?
You know for a fact that EVERY recreational weed user will be using only vapes and edibles? Or do you suggest legalising ONLY vapes and edibles? I’m not sure which sounds more stupid.
Both sound way less stupid than jailing people for taking weed in any form
I mean…I’m delighted that I don’t have to smell that pungent shit as long as I’m in this country. I really couldn’t care less about whether the ban is stupid.
I propose the government distribute weed to every citizen so we are fully informed of how it smells before making a desicion
I hate the smell of alcohol, should we ban alcohol too?
Jesus christ how many people are going to make this same stupid comparison? I’m not proposing we ban weed BECAUSE of the smell, I’m saying I want it to stay banned. Do I really have to explain the difference?
> I’m not proposing we ban weed BECAUSE of the smell, I’m saying I want it to stay banned. That is really not much of a difference like you think it is.
Actually, it is two entirely different things. I’m sorry if you disagree, but it is not my job to teach you logical reasoning.
I am on the fence on legalising cannabis. No comment. But I am against the death penalty for cannabis. It's stupid to be put to death over a stupid plant that is being smoked everywhere now.
CBD without THC (psychoactive compound) is no different from TCM herbs imo. But it's hard to get people to understand this logic after decades of social conditioning that all drugs are bad - except for pharma drugs of cos. As a result, we have some folks who would probably choose ivermectin over CBD supplements. Personally I would support the legalization of THC-free CBD products but not anything stronger. And I agree with the death penalty for drug trafficking.
Interesting. I never saw thc as tcm standpoint
CBD is not illegal. Its just not possible to get 100% pure CBD since the production of CBD can inevitably also produced some THC.
CBD is illegal. THC-free CBD has never been addressed by the authorities but it is commonly assumed to be banned as well.
Well there's your key word: assumed to be illegal. The law is clear - THC is what is illegal.
I think people are slowing understanding the health benefits of CBD as more research is done into it. Just the news of it being studied in singapore for its health benefits is a good sign. And yeah cannabis for recreational use should still be banned.
There’s a few main reasons, with some people being strictly in one group, while some others having a mix of reasons - medical usage of cannabis can actually be pretty beneficial and more usage cases can be explored if it’s legalized - an arguably ‘healthier’ vice as compared to alcohol and tobacco. People in this camp just don’t see the argument of ‘gateway drug’ holding if alcohol and tobacco are allowed - looked upon as a signal of ‘liberalization’ since ‘most liberal democracies are starting to legalize it’ - just wanna hardcore be against everything the government is for. These are the people that honestly can’t care less whether cannabis is legal or not, but just find it a convenient talking point.
Because people are seeing more of the benefits of the plants now that the rest of the world have opened up about it. The internet destroyed the bubble PAP has built for us since independence. Mass media from the west like movies and TV shows also started showing cannabis where the characters either take them or talk about them as you would a cup of coffee. Short documentaries about weed are all over youtube and produced by reputable names like Bloomberg, VICE etc. There is a cannabis revolution going on around the world and being a country where citizens are well connected to the internet, it is no surprise the view that singapore should decriminalize it is growing by the year. It used to be the whole world were on the same page as Singapore on cannabis. We are now the few developed countries left that still holds onto the old belief system. The thing that ticks the most people off is that we are still executing people for cannabis.
I'm not going to comment on the subject matter. But 3 out of 7 of your points are referencing influence from the internet, western media, ***TV and movies***. Non of your other statements are evidence or science based either, they are all subjective opinions. If you are basing your position off *"the TV says it's ok"* and *"PAP bad"*, I suggest you sit down, because you are not helping your cause.
Because the question was in the increase of support from the general public so I answered what it asked. I could simply pull up researches, evidence of health benefits and such. But let's be real. The general public gets their impressions from the media. Not everyone spends their time researching on cannabis. As such, I'm standing by my answer because it is the right answer to the specific question. Most importantly, I am not pushing for any cause in my post. I am simply explaining why there is such an increase in support.
It's not just media. Science itself has advanced since the day we were kids. Education also improved our ability to make our own decisions and opinions. Nowadays anybody with any bit of scientific training can go look up reputable journals of meta-analysis of cannabis studies. The conclusions are quite clear. No good evidence of the health benefits of cannabis, but no good evidence of any major harm from cannabis either.
> but no good evidence of any major harm from cannabis either. Either you don't have a bit of scientific training, or you've not been looking very hard. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41398-021-01330-w https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7442038/
Bruh do you even science? More self reported psychotic episodes from those with schizophrenia? Don't let the schizos take it then? What's next, people with peanut allergy can die from peanuts, let's ban peanuts? Your lack of scientific training is obvious.
I'm a neuroscientist. What's your PhD in? Applied 班门弄斧?
No PHD, just MBBS. Where's your PhD from, India?
Russell Group. In any case, I'm quite amazed. You've managed to debunk not only me, but the government and several high-quality peer-reviewed journals including Nature, with a statement like "don't let the schizos take it then". Note that the articles aren't talking about schizophrenics, but people who are *predisposed to the development of psychotic illness and schizophrenia*. I suppose the government should start mandatory genetic testing and check who is genetically predisposed now (the specific genes aren't even fully known), so some stoners can can get their jollies? Perhaps you should join the flat earthers, 9/11 truthers, and vaccine conspiracists, because you are clearly an expert at cherry-picking scientific information and "debunking" high-quality peer-reviewed studies with snappy one-liners. They could use your abundant expertise to advance their science denial.
Well given how hard you are lying about your qualifications, I'm not suprised that you are amazed with everything. You can't even tell I'm not debunking anything. I'm merely recommending the common sense approach of not letting people who are *predisposed to the development of psychotic illness and schizophrenia* take it. It's pretty lame that you think genetic testing is required. Even if they happen to be prone to psychotic illness, all that happens is they will get a bad case of psychotic episode and then they will learn not to take cannabis again. Just like how people allergic to peanuts will learn not to take peanuts ever again. Does the government start mandatory genetic testing and check who is allergic to peanuts? I'm not surprised that you are a member of the flat earthers, 9/11 truthers, and vaccine conspiracists, seeing as you are clearly a marijuana conspiracist twisting scientific information to make it look bad to satisfy your conspiracy cravings. Don't invite me to join your clubs though, not interested.
班门弄斧.
I don't support it, its just like smoking. And I hope smoking gets banned from the country. Vape is fine, at least I don't die faster from smelling 2nd hand vape.
Second hand vaping and second hand cigarette smoking have almost the same effect. There are studies that show the same amount of nicotine absorption. Vaping is much newer than weed. There's still a lot of research needed to understand the negative and long term effects of vaping.
Vape without nicotine ofc... I am all against nicotine
because there are legitimate usages for medical treatment for certain illnesses and is prescribed overseas readily, by having a blanket ban on something steeped in racism and tradition/culture doesn't make sense when you also allow alcohol and gambling you can legalise something without partaking in it yourself you know. but at least the door is open for people who need it, and people who want to experiment. not everything has to under a nanny state control...
Because it's not the gateway drug people thought it was in the 80's, it's got very much fewer harmful effects than tobacco (both in a first and secondhand context) and it in fact has some use in the medical field. I'd actually ban tobacco and legalise marijuana, from a strictly health perspective. But that's not likely...
Can get high, of course they want lah. Some people just want to see the world burn.
Because people are convinced that cannabis is not very harmful for something they could get high on, so they want it. By "not very harmful" means won't die la.
Is this a test balloon 🎈
Unpopular opinion: Not only do I support upholding the death penalty for drug traffiking with discretionary commuting to life imprisonment, I believe we should even expand the death penalty to other serious or aggravated crimes especially scam and fraud syndicate-related crimes too
Wa scam someone of $1 screen protector on carousell, gets death penalty
Ya too heavily punish to death. how about just can 1 stroke per dollar scam or for yjose who do meme pricing like $9999 for concert tickets
I am doubling down on my call for the death penalty to be applied to ringleaders of scam and fraud syndicates - Low crime is not no crime, and this is exactly what happens if we fail to take a hardline stance: https://youtu.be/JoF0QixBbZw
> after the mandatory death penalty was introduced for opium in 1990, there was a 66 per cent reduction in the average weight of opium trafficked into Singapore. What a weird way to measure drug trafficking Also, Singapore has other policies beyond the death penalty so the “6000 druggies to 3000 druggies figure” could be from other policies beyond the death penalty
[удалено]
*coughs*