This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
http://news.yahoo.com/national-review-marijuana-161920924.html
And it isn't California!
And it isn't California!
In reply to aln:
I don't partake myself (well maybe once every few years) but I think it's a good move.
I have seen quite a few acquaintances go on to harder stuff when their dealer gives them a few free samples to try.
I don't partake myself (well maybe once every few years) but I think it's a good move.
I have seen quite a few acquaintances go on to harder stuff when their dealer gives them a few free samples to try.
In reply to aln:
Yes, its great news. Finally people turning around and, metaphorically, pointing out that the emperor wears no clothes.
Seems the UNODC is still as entrenched in its ant- position however.
Yes, its great news. Finally people turning around and, metaphorically, pointing out that the emperor wears no clothes.
Seems the UNODC is still as entrenched in its ant- position however.
Post edited at 00:52
In reply to aln:
I don't understand, I thought all drugs were bad (apart from alcohol obviously).
Hopefully our Tory government wont sign up to this communist madness, we've been winning the war on drugs for the last 50 years and we'll go on winning it for another 50 years! What we need is more money injected into the fight and harsher sentences to protect our children and keep this evil on the streets. Don't these morons know how many people die from cannabis overdose every year? Madness.
Osbourne needs to grow some balls, instead of reducing the size of the welfare state to the levels of 1948 he needs to abolish it completely and use the money to crack down on these drug addled harpies before this country is overrun by filthy communists intent on forcing our children on to the streets to feed their satanic cravings. And bring back the death penalty as well.
Cannabis kills, FACT. Think of the children. Now where's the brandy, these cornflakes are dry dammit.
I don't understand, I thought all drugs were bad (apart from alcohol obviously).
Hopefully our Tory government wont sign up to this communist madness, we've been winning the war on drugs for the last 50 years and we'll go on winning it for another 50 years! What we need is more money injected into the fight and harsher sentences to protect our children and keep this evil on the streets. Don't these morons know how many people die from cannabis overdose every year? Madness.
Osbourne needs to grow some balls, instead of reducing the size of the welfare state to the levels of 1948 he needs to abolish it completely and use the money to crack down on these drug addled harpies before this country is overrun by filthy communists intent on forcing our children on to the streets to feed their satanic cravings. And bring back the death penalty as well.
Cannabis kills, FACT. Think of the children. Now where's the brandy, these cornflakes are dry dammit.
In reply to Sharp:
Cannabis users are more likely to suffer from mental illness(s).
Mark. (Ex heavy cannabis user/ former mental health patient).
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(07)61162-3/a...
Cannabis users are more likely to suffer from mental illness(s).
Mark. (Ex heavy cannabis user/ former mental health patient).
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(07)61162-3/a...
Post edited at 08:31
In reply to aln:
Ps I have quite strong negative views on ANY drug use (including booze) after spending my teens and early twenties deep inside the drug culture. I have a friend whom crashed his car and was left totally blind (for life) whilst driving high on gange, I had several friends whom were cannabis users whom suffered severe mental health problems(inc myself), one of my friends went from cannabis onto smack and died of a overdose (brain heamarrage SP?) at least 5 others went from smoking gange onto heroin including my best mate, one killed himself, one had his kids taken into care, one had his arm macheted by a coke head and the rest- well I don't know because I moved 40 miles away to start a new life and never went back.
Mark.
Ps I have quite strong negative views on ANY drug use (including booze) after spending my teens and early twenties deep inside the drug culture. I have a friend whom crashed his car and was left totally blind (for life) whilst driving high on gange, I had several friends whom were cannabis users whom suffered severe mental health problems(inc myself), one of my friends went from cannabis onto smack and died of a overdose (brain heamarrage SP?) at least 5 others went from smoking gange onto heroin including my best mate, one killed himself, one had his kids taken into care, one had his arm macheted by a coke head and the rest- well I don't know because I moved 40 miles away to start a new life and never went back.
Mark.
Post edited at 08:59
In reply to browndog33:
What that study actually says is:
"The evidence is consistent with the view that cannabis increases risk of psychotic outcomes independently of confounding and transient intoxication effects, although evidence for affective outcomes is less strong."
Quite different to your statement.
Anyway I do welcome encourage genuine research and truthful education about all drugs. But possible health issues aside - smoking a car tyre would be far more dangerous to you - but it isn't illegal. People should be truthfully educated and then left to make their own mind up about what they choose to do with their own body.
There are plenty of people who use cannabis moderately and sensibly who suffer no ill effects whatsoever.
> Cannabis users are more likely to suffer from mental illness(s).
What that study actually says is:
"The evidence is consistent with the view that cannabis increases risk of psychotic outcomes independently of confounding and transient intoxication effects, although evidence for affective outcomes is less strong."
Quite different to your statement.
Anyway I do welcome encourage genuine research and truthful education about all drugs. But possible health issues aside - smoking a car tyre would be far more dangerous to you - but it isn't illegal. People should be truthfully educated and then left to make their own mind up about what they choose to do with their own body.
There are plenty of people who use cannabis moderately and sensibly who suffer no ill effects whatsoever.
In reply to browndog33:
With all due respect (especially to your friends who are now damaged or dead) but it sounds to me like you were hanging around with arseholes who took drugs.
You say they started on 'gange' and moved onto Heroin. 100% of Heroin addicts drank milk as a child - is milk a gateway drug?
With all due respect (especially to your friends who are now damaged or dead) but it sounds to me like you were hanging around with arseholes who took drugs.
You say they started on 'gange' and moved onto Heroin. 100% of Heroin addicts drank milk as a child - is milk a gateway drug?
Post edited at 09:08
In reply to browndog33:
Hello Mark.
Seems like you went through a rough experience and you are probably more qualified to speak about this than most on this forum. That said, I do think your views are missing the point slightly and could be biased.
The argument for legalising the drugs (I am talking about in the US only) is that their policies are having little affect on the use and is just criminalising the casual user rather than the full on drug abusers (I believe there is a difference).
The 'war on drugs' is costing the US a fortune with little sign of it working. Legalising the drug could free up a lot of money (and make some) which will allow casual users to go about their business but also provide some help and care for the abusers.
Just my opinions.
Hello Mark.
Seems like you went through a rough experience and you are probably more qualified to speak about this than most on this forum. That said, I do think your views are missing the point slightly and could be biased.
The argument for legalising the drugs (I am talking about in the US only) is that their policies are having little affect on the use and is just criminalising the casual user rather than the full on drug abusers (I believe there is a difference).
The 'war on drugs' is costing the US a fortune with little sign of it working. Legalising the drug could free up a lot of money (and make some) which will allow casual users to go about their business but also provide some help and care for the abusers.
Just my opinions.
In reply to browndog33:
Yep. And alcohol users are more likely to suffer from alcoholism and smokers lung cancer. People will use these substances whether they are outlawed or not. The question for society, is are we happy to tolerate a black market supplying drugs or do we want to control it by selling licenses?
The only fact we can be certain of is that people will always take drugs and there will always be people who become addicted, ill or dead as a result.
> Cannabis users are more likely to suffer from mental illness(s).
Yep. And alcohol users are more likely to suffer from alcoholism and smokers lung cancer. People will use these substances whether they are outlawed or not. The question for society, is are we happy to tolerate a black market supplying drugs or do we want to control it by selling licenses?
The only fact we can be certain of is that people will always take drugs and there will always be people who become addicted, ill or dead as a result.
In reply to NorthernGrit:
Quite simply, there is more and more scientific evidence that smoking gange increases your risk of suffering (possibly severe) mental health problems.
Mark.
PS (I'm staying out of this post from now on because I don't want to get into arguments/ debates!)
Quite simply, there is more and more scientific evidence that smoking gange increases your risk of suffering (possibly severe) mental health problems.
Mark.
PS (I'm staying out of this post from now on because I don't want to get into arguments/ debates!)
In reply to browndog33:
Er,
"New research from Harvard Medical School, in a comparison between families with a history of schizophrenia and those without, finds little support for marijuana use as a cause of schizophrenia.
“The results of the current study suggest that having an increased familial morbid risk for schizophrenia may be the underlying basis for schizophrenia in cannabis users and not cannabis use by itself,” note the researchers.
http://psychcentral.com/news/2013/12/10/harvard-marijuana-doesnt-cause-schi...
Er,
"New research from Harvard Medical School, in a comparison between families with a history of schizophrenia and those without, finds little support for marijuana use as a cause of schizophrenia.
“The results of the current study suggest that having an increased familial morbid risk for schizophrenia may be the underlying basis for schizophrenia in cannabis users and not cannabis use by itself,” note the researchers.
http://psychcentral.com/news/2013/12/10/harvard-marijuana-doesnt-cause-schi...
In reply to browndog33:
...and there is increasing evidence cannabinoids are effective in suppressing tumour growth.
It's not black and white. And all health arguments aside there are many many reasons why the criminalisation of cannabis is absurd.
...and there is increasing evidence cannabinoids are effective in suppressing tumour growth.
It's not black and white. And all health arguments aside there are many many reasons why the criminalisation of cannabis is absurd.
In reply to NorthernGrit:
Let me help you.
You posted consecutive posts, each with a ridiculous straw man in them (smoking rubber tyres, drinking milk) just for you to knock down as some kind of support for your argument. Neither of them had any relevance whatsoever to the argument. Neither of them had any viable context to the argument. Neither of them made any sense whatsoever.
Very silly.
Let me help you.
You posted consecutive posts, each with a ridiculous straw man in them (smoking rubber tyres, drinking milk) just for you to knock down as some kind of support for your argument. Neither of them had any relevance whatsoever to the argument. Neither of them had any viable context to the argument. Neither of them made any sense whatsoever.
Very silly.
In reply to Rampikino:
They are perfectly relevant points pertaining to criminalisation based on protecting individual health and misunderstandings of the link between actions and causation.
They are perfectly relevant points pertaining to criminalisation based on protecting individual health and misunderstandings of the link between actions and causation.
In reply to Rampikino:
Sorry but I disagree. I think drugs research is a handy tool for politicians to use as a way of provarocating over drugs policy for a bit longer.
"The research isn't clear so we will do nothing until conclusive evidence one way or another is produced." they say. Of course there will never be conclusive evidence. Meanwhile, the black market in drugs continues to flourish and the "war on drugs" continues to cost the tax payer millions whilst having little beneficial effect.
Policy on the criminalisation of drug law is a political charade and has nothing to do with facts, health or anything else based on the real world. It is about the perceived effect of drugs and those who operate in that underworld in the minds of those in power, the press and their middle class, middle England supporters.
> You posted consecutive posts, each with a ridiculous straw man in them (smoking rubber tyres, drinking milk) just for you to knock down as some kind of support for your argument. Neither of them had any relevance whatsoever to the argument. Neither of them had any viable context to the argument. Neither of them made any sense whatsoever.
Sorry but I disagree. I think drugs research is a handy tool for politicians to use as a way of provarocating over drugs policy for a bit longer.
"The research isn't clear so we will do nothing until conclusive evidence one way or another is produced." they say. Of course there will never be conclusive evidence. Meanwhile, the black market in drugs continues to flourish and the "war on drugs" continues to cost the tax payer millions whilst having little beneficial effect.
Policy on the criminalisation of drug law is a political charade and has nothing to do with facts, health or anything else based on the real world. It is about the perceived effect of drugs and those who operate in that underworld in the minds of those in power, the press and their middle class, middle England supporters.
In reply to NorthernGrit:
If you really think a milk man is likely to offer you something harder on the side you are an idiot.
THere is an obvious gateway effect - a weed dealer is much more likely to perhaps be dealing a little coke too - this puts temptation in the way.
That is not to say that everyone will take up the offer, but some will. It is also not to say that you need to be smoking weed before you start on the coke etc.
If you really think a milk man is likely to offer you something harder on the side you are an idiot.
THere is an obvious gateway effect - a weed dealer is much more likely to perhaps be dealing a little coke too - this puts temptation in the way.
That is not to say that everyone will take up the offer, but some will. It is also not to say that you need to be smoking weed before you start on the coke etc.
In reply to balmybaldwin:
By which argument it'd be better if everyone bought their weed from the milkman than the local dealer, then?
By which argument it'd be better if everyone bought their weed from the milkman than the local dealer, then?
In reply to balmybaldwin:
Thank you for entirely missing the point while simultaneously reinforcing it.
Thank you for entirely missing the point while simultaneously reinforcing it.
In reply to aln:
As always on this topic, Transform have a great resource:
http://www.tdpf.org.uk/resources/publications/how-regulate-cannabis-practic...
They were involved in drafting Uruguay's recent legislation on this issue.
Lots of interesting, well-researched reading here: http://www.tdpf.org.uk/resources
As always on this topic, Transform have a great resource:
http://www.tdpf.org.uk/resources/publications/how-regulate-cannabis-practic...
They were involved in drafting Uruguay's recent legislation on this issue.
Lots of interesting, well-researched reading here: http://www.tdpf.org.uk/resources
In reply to jfmchivall:
Sensible stuff.
There has been an unintended experiment on the legalisation of drugs going on for the past 5 years in this country - the advent of 'legal highs' that are damn near identical to illegal drugs. Synthetic cannabis, different versions of speed, ecstasy tablets stronger and more reliable than those from the black market, and tabs of hallucinogens every bit as strong as acid have all been available legally to anyone who is interested. And what has happened to society? Nothing.
Looking at the synthetic cannabis, it didn't open up a new market of people who wouldn't smoke weed because it's illegal, but still wanted to get stoned. It opened up a market of people who were already into drugs and saw the legality and ease of purchase via the internet as an added bonus. And since the drug had all the downsides of weed and wasn't quite as appealing, I'm pretty sure that the numbers of people consuming it was/is (there are still some available that haven't been banned) much much smaller than the number of people smoking weed (it's a shame no data was collected on this, so I'm guessing really but it seems obvious what's happening). People who take drugs just don't give a shit whether it's legal or illegal. They care how good it is, whether their mates take it, and how easy it is to procure.
So if you legalise drugs - as has basically happened on the sly in the past 5 years - then nothing happens, because everyone who wants to take drugs is already doing so.
There was a bit of a difference with mephedrone, which I think quite a lot of kids who wouldn't normally take drugs did get into, but that had a rare combination of associated factors (being sold at a fiver a sackful including home delivery and being incredibly addictive, plus being novel and there being zero education about it).
Now that anyone with a brain in the ACMD has been sacked or has resigned, and only people prepared to tow the govt line are allowed to conduct "objective analysis", virtually all of these new substances have been banned. The 'legal highs' scene that emerged from 2008 or so was an impromptu experiment that could have ended in the regulation of recreational drugs. That would have allowed much, much safer products to have been sold to teenagers with good information, and their safety monitored to spot emerging health issues. But no one had the brains or the balls understand what was going on and to seize the opportunity to develop policy to serve and protect the public while disrupting the activities of criminals. Instead, we've just kept the status quo because everyone's happy with that: no control over what kids are taking, and huge sums being made in the black economy with all the associated crime and harm which that entails.
People in general are stupid, and there is nothing that the rest of us can do about it.
Sensible stuff.
There has been an unintended experiment on the legalisation of drugs going on for the past 5 years in this country - the advent of 'legal highs' that are damn near identical to illegal drugs. Synthetic cannabis, different versions of speed, ecstasy tablets stronger and more reliable than those from the black market, and tabs of hallucinogens every bit as strong as acid have all been available legally to anyone who is interested. And what has happened to society? Nothing.
Looking at the synthetic cannabis, it didn't open up a new market of people who wouldn't smoke weed because it's illegal, but still wanted to get stoned. It opened up a market of people who were already into drugs and saw the legality and ease of purchase via the internet as an added bonus. And since the drug had all the downsides of weed and wasn't quite as appealing, I'm pretty sure that the numbers of people consuming it was/is (there are still some available that haven't been banned) much much smaller than the number of people smoking weed (it's a shame no data was collected on this, so I'm guessing really but it seems obvious what's happening). People who take drugs just don't give a shit whether it's legal or illegal. They care how good it is, whether their mates take it, and how easy it is to procure.
So if you legalise drugs - as has basically happened on the sly in the past 5 years - then nothing happens, because everyone who wants to take drugs is already doing so.
There was a bit of a difference with mephedrone, which I think quite a lot of kids who wouldn't normally take drugs did get into, but that had a rare combination of associated factors (being sold at a fiver a sackful including home delivery and being incredibly addictive, plus being novel and there being zero education about it).
Now that anyone with a brain in the ACMD has been sacked or has resigned, and only people prepared to tow the govt line are allowed to conduct "objective analysis", virtually all of these new substances have been banned. The 'legal highs' scene that emerged from 2008 or so was an impromptu experiment that could have ended in the regulation of recreational drugs. That would have allowed much, much safer products to have been sold to teenagers with good information, and their safety monitored to spot emerging health issues. But no one had the brains or the balls understand what was going on and to seize the opportunity to develop policy to serve and protect the public while disrupting the activities of criminals. Instead, we've just kept the status quo because everyone's happy with that: no control over what kids are taking, and huge sums being made in the black economy with all the associated crime and harm which that entails.
People in general are stupid, and there is nothing that the rest of us can do about it.
Post edited at 18:02
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Elsewhere on the site
Loading Notifications...