That was really interesting Toronto - thanks

Originally posted by Toronto

The only drugs policy that will work relies on information and compassion for our fellow human beings.


Now that is spot-on.

Well said.

StarSparkle

there's no point in trying to make cannabis out to be perfect either.
It does aggravate certain psychiatric disorders or bring them out when they are latent and persistent heavy use can cause other problems.

Calling it a herb doesn't alter things either. It's a drug, just like any other compound which has an effect on the body. Man made or natural doesn't make any difference.

Originally posted by Cyclone
you are mistaken. People may be psychologically addicted to many things, but I was specifically talking about physical addiction, none of the examples you give are physically addictive, whereas things like nicotine, caffeine and heroin are highly physically addictive (all with different levels of withdrawal symptoms though).
and none of those you mentioned were cannabis OR alcohol (only alcohol is physically addictive)

Originally posted by mojoworking
I don't think it would be a good idea. Look what happened to Bob Marley!



what? stubbing his foot playing football and dying?

Originally posted by Cyclone
there's no point in trying to make cannabis out to be perfect either.
It does aggravate certain psychiatric disorders or bring them out when they are latent and persistent heavy use can cause other problems.

Calling it a herb doesn't alter things either. It's a drug, just like any other compound which has an effect on the body. Man made or natural doesn't make any difference.

nobodys denying any of those but at the same time, theres no point denying theres positives too............anti drugs people seem to want to hide the positives and just dwell on the negatives ............i prefer to give both sides for a balanced view......then its up to the INDIVIDUAL to decide (i really cant understand why people seem to not want this way of thinking to be around?)

Thank you Star Sparkle, MJLacey21 & Cyclone.

Cyclone - Don't misinterpret my point.

You said - "there's no point in trying to make cannabis out to be perfect either" -
I dont see where I made out that marijuana was perfect?
I simply gave my view and stated THE FACTS as I see them in response to the question:
"what is worse alcohol or cannabis?"

You said - "calling it a herb doesnt alter things either" -

Just so you know every type of herb that exists in the universe has an effect to some degree on the human brain or organs. Herb plants can all be medicinal or toxic. Dependent on their use & volume of consumption.

"Its just like any other compound which has an effect on the body. Man made or natural doesn't make any difference"

With all due respect - Compounds are created by combining two or more ingredients or parts.

Marijuana is a one ingredient herb plant.

Be bold enough to judge for yourself.

Originally posted by mojoworking
That's exactly what I mean. If we could go back in time and re-introduce tobacco and alcohol, don't you think we'd do things very differently?


THEY PROBABLY WOULD,

if they didnt put too much tax on cigs and booze people wouldnt need to import them!!!

Originally posted by Toronto
Thank you Star Sparkle, MJLacey21 & Cyclone.

Cyclone - Don't misinterpret my point.

You said - "there's no point in trying to make cannabis out to be perfect either" -
I dont see where I made out that marijuana was perfect?
I simply gave my view and stated THE FACTS as I see them in response to the question:
"what is worse alcohol or cannabis?"

You said - "calling it a herb doesnt alter things either" -

Just so you know every type of herb that exists in the universe has an effect to some degree on the human brain or organs. Herb plants can all be medicinal or toxic. Dependent on their use & volume of consumption.

"Its just like any other compound which has an effect on the body. Man made or natural doesn't make any difference"

With all due respect - Compounds are created by combining two or more ingredients or parts.

Marijuana is a one ingredient herb plant.

Be bold enough to judge for yourself.

the active chemicals in marijuana are complex. I'm sure if we could be bothered we could synthesise them. Would that alter anything? Not in my opinion. It's a chemical which happens to occur naturally, but designer drug or natural drug, it's all the same.

I'm all for the balanced view, I've pointed out where people trying to villify all drugs are misrepresenting things, I just thought that you're view seemed to be all sweetness and light with little or no mention of any potential harm.

Mel - I can't actually see what the original point about addiction was. I think i'd said that physically addictive substances (not cannabis, I think it might have been a general point) should be controlled by society because physical addiction can lead to extremes of behaviour in order to feed the addiction.
You countered with a point that people can become addicted to many things, such as shopping, but that's psychological, not physical.
Cannabis isn't physically addictive and so wouldn't fall under the "needs to be controlled" group, other drugs are, heroin particularly as it's highly addictive and has very bad withdrawal symptoms.
I don't think we're actually disagreeing about anything, unless you think all drugs should be freely available, rather than just the ones that don't cause harm to anyone other than the user (most of the time).

Hello there
I think any 'drug' is addictive to an addictive personality. Alcohol is a drug its just that the government decided it was ok to bang a load of tax on it and make some money. If the 'trend' years ago was to smoke cannabis, would alcohol be illegal and blow taxed to the hind teeth????

Originally posted by BigLady
Hello there
I think any 'drug' is addictive to an addictive personality. Alcohol is a drug its just that the government decided it was ok to bang a load of tax on it and make some money. If the 'trend' years ago was to smoke cannabis, would alcohol be illegal and blow taxed to the hind teeth????

opium use was widespread in the last century. Coca cola was so named because it contained cocaine as an ingredient.

Alcohol may have been more popular, probably because it was more readily available, but I presume it took quite some time to drive other drug use out of popular culture (in fact it probably never succeded - instead 'they' just managed to convince the middle classes that 'drugs' were bad, whilst many privately throughout every class continued to use them).

Originally posted by Cyclone
opium use was widespread in the last century. Coca cola was so named because it contained cocaine as an ingredient.

Alcohol may have been more popular, probably because it was more readily available, but I presume it took quite some time to drive other drug use out of popular culture (in fact it probably never succeded - instead 'they' just managed to convince the middle classes that 'drugs' were bad, whilst many privately throughout every class continued to use them).

Well, I never thought this would happen - a post of Cyclone's that I totally agree with!! :o :)

StarSparkle

Originally posted by mjlacey21
That was really interesting Toronto - thanks

The problem is, most of it was stolen word for word from several Bob Marley/pro-marijuana articles on various websites - particularly the lines: "The only drugs policy that will work relies on information and compassion for our fellow human beings" and "Nobody any longer believes that marijuana turns ordinary people into bloodthirsty lunatics".

Perhaps wisely for his/her "argument" I notice Toronto chose not to include the line "Let me assure you that I don't think smoking 10 fat joints a day is particularly good for you" from the same website.

Selective plagiarism, anyone?

Thank you Mojoworking.

Let me confirm for you that I have never stolen anything in my life.

I am clear about marijuana and the reasons for Bob Marley's demise.

You can be assured that the facts that I presented to Sheffield Forum Members were obtained from 1 website not various - "Bob Marley/pro-marijuana articles on various websites" -

I invite you all to read the article and be bold enough to judge for yourself - what is worse alcohol or cannibis?


http://www.joewein.de/kaya.htm

Originally posted by Toronto
Thank you Mojoworking.

Let me confirm for you that I have never stolen anything in my life.


Well, you certainly stole all the words in your original post, my friend. Strange that you made absolutely no attempt to credit the source of your fine words until now though (the same profound quotes are repeated on several sites about Bob Marley).

I wonder if you would have continued to pass this off as your own work and accept praise for it had you not been exposed as a plagiarist?

the point i made was the only physically addictive drugs you mentioned WERE NOT the ones being discussed in this thread ie:- cannabis and alcohol AND alcohol is the only one out of the 2 that is physically addictive ie:-shakes etc.

i never said all those other addictions (sex, shopping, gambling, food etc) were physically addictive, i was stating how even more acceptable / normal everyday things can be just as addictive / damaging ie:- can lead to robbery to fund the addiction, other crime / losing family, job , friends, liberty, home etc

some people seem to forget those when on an anti drugs spiel.

I think we're disagreeing about "can be just as addictive" then.
There is a clear difference between a physical and a mental dependency, I would generally describe the former as 'more' addictive than the latter group.

id class both sets of addictions as just as bad tbh .....the mind is a terrible thing to taste as the classic ministry album title states.

Originally posted by BigLady
Hello there
I think any 'drug' is addictive to an addictive personality.

You have it spot on there. Unfortunately, one problem is that many people try things at a time in their lives when they are still developing physically and emotionally, and the dependency comes on a lot faster because they simply aren't as developed at an earlier age.

Both can be detrimental in different ways. It depends on how much you abuse them.

Alcohol - liver damage, brain damage, cardiovascular damage, whole system damage. Makes you agressive and so - antisocial.

Weed - lung damage, cardiovascular damage, brain damage - short term memory. Makes you unlikely to be agressive but makes you 'dopey' and maybe therefore antisocial.

Differences no attributed deaths to actual cannabis - but there are the smoking effects.

Alcohol - many attributed deaths.

swings and roundabouts

Yes :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

everyone knows what drugs & alcohol does to you.


its up to you if you take it or not....

people knows alcohol is addictive
they know drugs are addictive

so if they want to drink and drink until they are a alcoholic its there choice, you dont have to hammer booze.

same with drugs, i have taken ecstacy very badly years ago, and i stopped because i saw others around me all off there heads reel bad, and i said i wasnt having any more.

and i havent!!!


" everyone has there own mind, and choices in life its just which ones you coose to take "

Originally posted by mojoworking
Well, you certainly stole all the words in your original post, my friend. Strange that you made absolutely no attempt to credit the source of your fine words until now though (the same profound quotes are repeated on several sites about Bob Marley).

I wonder if you would have continued to pass this off as your own work and accept praise for it had you not been exposed as a plagiarist?

still can't find any other fault with toronto's post eh?

keep up the good work :D

(this is not an academic journal btw)

I'm with Bill Hicks (http://www.netheredge.com/Wave2.mp3)

To be honest i dont mind either, but thats me?:heyhey: :heyhey: :heyhey:

Originally posted by Cyclone
There is a clear difference between a physical and a mental dependency, I would generally describe the former as 'more' addictive than the latter group.

How can you possibly say this? Unless you have suffered from both a physical addiction and had a mental dependency, and are personally able to compare them, how can you know?

If someone has an addictive personality, they can potentially become dependent on just about anything - shopping, gambling, whatever. A mental dependency is no less 'real' than a physical one, just because it lacks the external symptoms of a physical dependency that are very obvious to other people.

I'm embarrassed to say I'd not heard of the Ministry album Melthebell refers to, but the quote: "The mind is a terrible thing to taste" is terrifyingly true.

StarSparkle

I know a lot more people addicted to Cannabis than alcohol whether this addiction is physical, mental or anything else it is still n addiction.

Originally posted by StarSparkle
How can you possibly say this? Unless you have suffered from both a physical addiction and had a mental dependency, and are personally able to compare them, how can you know?

If someone has an addictive personality, they can potentially become dependent on just about anything - shopping, gambling, whatever. A mental dependency is no less 'real' than a physical one, just because it lacks the external symptoms of a physical dependency that are very obvious to other people.

I'm embarrassed to say I'd not heard of the Ministry album Melthebell refers to, but the quote: "The mind is a terrible thing to taste" is terrifyingly true.

StarSparkle

I'd guess that the people who perform studies of these sorts of things haven't necessarily experienced both either, it doesn't make the study any less valid.
Neither was I suggesting that a mental dependancy was any less real, just that it's not physical. There will be no withdrawal symptoms from going cold turkey on shoe shopping, nor can you overdose on it. The addiction is quite different.

Originally posted by robbie
I know a lot more people addicted to Cannabis than alcohol whether this addiction is physical, mental or anything else it is still n addiction.

cannabis is better than alcohol anyway so there probably better on it anyway

I'd say alcohol is more damaging than cannabis. I don't use it though as I don't smoke.

Cigarettes and alcohol obviously do more damage than cannabis, I don't get why this debate keeps on popping up.

Originally posted by Agent Gypo
I'd say alcohol is more damaging than cannabis. I don't use it though as I don't smoke.

Cigarettes and alcohol obviously do more damage than cannabis, I don't get why this debate keeps on popping up.



ur right alcohol is far worse, why dont the government see this, they could legalize it and then people wouldnt have to smuggle as much, and they could sell it like they do cigerettes, and then they have controll of how much they put into each one.

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
still can't find any other fault with toronto's post eh?

keep up the good work :D

(this is not an academic journal btw)

I'm with Bill Hicks (http://www.netheredge.com/Wave2.mp3)

Interesting response Phan, especially considering you have a copyright warning as part of your signature.

I wonder if you would have responded in quite the same paternal way had Toronto's original post been anti-drugs? I suspect not.

How about I cut and paste a few pages of Shakespeare (uncredited, naturally), then you can faun and genuflect as you rush to agree with "my" sentiments? ;)

Originally posted by Cyclone
Neither was I suggesting that a mental dependancy was any less real, just that it's not physical. There will be no withdrawal symptoms from going cold turkey on shoe shopping, nor can you overdose on it. The addiction is quite different.

I find your posting very offensive. You are trivialising a very important subject by your reference to 'shoe shopping'. Sensitivity is clearly not a strong point with you.

You do seem to be suggesting that a mental dependency is somehow less valid or painful than a physical dependency, because mental withdrawal symptoms cannot be seen by others. It is as if you are saying that symptoms that cannot be proved to an outside agency are less 'real' than symptoms that just exist in a person's head.

Does emotional distress not count in your world?

As Robbie says earlier in the thread, an addiction is an addiction - whether it's physical or mental or both is irrelevant to the person suffering from it. The fallout from addiction is not something that can be measured and compared.

StarSparkle

Originally posted by StarSparkle
I find your posting very offensive. You are trivialising a very important subject by your reference to 'shoe shopping'. Sensitivity is clearly not a strong point with you.

You do seem to be suggesting that a mental dependency is somehow less valid or painful than a physical dependency, because mental withdrawal symptoms cannot be seen by others. It is as if you are saying that symptoms that cannot be proved to an outside agency are less 'real' than symptoms that just exist in a person's head.

Does emotional distress not count in your world?

As Robbie says earlier in the thread, an addiction is an addiction - whether it's physical or mental or both is irrelevant to the person suffering from it. The fallout from addiction is not something that can be measured and compared.

StarSparkle

you insist on reading something into my comments that i've specifically said isn't true. How can I disagree when you clearly know what I mean better than I do myself.

Originally posted by mojoworking
Interesting response Phan, especially considering you have a copyright warning as part of your signature.

I wonder if you would have responded in quite the same paternal way had Toronto's original post been anti-drugs? I suspect not.

How about I cut and paste a few pages of Shakespeare (uncredited, naturally), then you can faun and genuflect as you rush to agree with "my" sentiments? ;)

I look forward to the sonnet celebrating the holy weed. But you are right of course - I'm far from non-partisan - and passing off is bad wherever it's seen.

Originally posted by StarSparkle

As Robbie says earlier in the thread, an addiction is an addiction - whether it's physical or mental or both is irrelevant to the person suffering from it. The fallout from addiction is not something that can be measured and compared.

StarSparkle

This is a good point.......but......

The physical addiction caused by things like alcohol, caffine, nicotine will make someone addicted to it through prolonged use, whether they have an addictive personality or not.

If someone becomes addiced to cannabis, then how can we blame the herb? It has no addictive properties? The person still suffers the effects of an addiction, but someone could form that addiction to food, 'shoe shopping' or whatever.

We dont ban shoe shopping, or eating - we treat the person. Just because they formed the addiction to a currently illegal substance does not mean that substance is the root of all evil. It just means that its stupidly illegal, just like Penistone rd is stupidly a 30mph zone. (reel me in from this tangent!)

Anyway - the point is, in my opinion we should not be using the fact that some people have a reaction to cannabis (whether that be paranoia, or any other mental health issue), simply these people should not use (or abuse) it.

Some people have nut allergys, diabetics must watch what they eat/drink to watch their glucose levels, some have food allergies. Should we ban nuts, fizzy drinks & certain foods because a section of society may be harmed by them?
No - we put 'May contain traces of nut' on the box. We carry insulin around, and dont eat shrimp.

People aren't stupid - if they take something that harms them they should stop doing it. If they cant because they have formed an addiction they should be treated, but the weed is not the cause of the addiction, merely the focus.

A long held link appears not to be the case according to one study:



NORML (http://tinyurl.com/8xzpp)
Marijuana smoking -"even heavy longterm use"- does not cause cancer of the lung, upper airwaves, or esophagus, Donald Tashkin reported at this year's meeting of the International Cannabinoid Research Society. Coming from Tashkin, this conclusion had extra significance for the assembled drug-company and university-based scientists ( most of whom get funding from the U.S. National Institute on Drug Abuse ).

Thank god for that :D

That is interesting Phanerothyme but unfortunately everyone I know who tokes uses tobacco in their joints thus utterly negating such good news!

Perhaps cooking is the only safe option we have?

But there has been numerous other study's that are contradictory.

Also they are now starting to link it too serious mouth and tongue cancers!

Also seeing people typically smoke Marijuana combined with tobacco, there is little difference to smoking normal fags!

smoking dope is very harmful. really is . from an ex dope smoker and more

Originally posted by Miss
Why is it that when anyone ever criticises smoking weed, the comeback is always alcohol related??? The two are not the same! Smoking weed is against the law, and it normally happens in dark front rooms with the curtains closed...

I know alot of people who smoke on a regular basis, but it does not interest me in the slightest... I am quite happy with my glass of wine, thanks...

Some of the people I know can barely get up in the morning without having a joint first, or they get cranky when they have run out. Now, I know that I (nor anyone else I know) do not feel the same about alcohol...

And, if nothing else, the thought of putting my mouth around something that has been passed around several people is quite revolting.

You've never heard of alcoholics then?

I used to smoke it a lot a good 6 or 7 years ago. How I miss the experience....the paranoia, convinced that everyone was whispering about me....the thirts, the hunger, the inability to stand up and actually do anything about it....the 'time delay' effect that mean that everything seemed to go on for ages (never listen to Iron Butterfly's In A Gadda Da Vida whilst stoned...it messes with you man).

Actually, thinking about it, I can't work out for the life of me what was so good about it! Hmm...I'll put it down to the folly of youth.

Im a smoker of 20yrs now and its done me no harm.

http://www.lca-uk.org/

http://www.ccnewz.com/

All you smokers please support the above..

A bit of weed is no problem. Too much skunk makes life hard work, when i used to smoke it allot I never got anything done. come to think of it I still havent got anything done, well er, that is I cant remember whether I did.

I think its effected my memory, maybe.

Originally posted by Drut
Im a smoker of 20yrs now and its done me no harm.

http://www.lca-uk.org/

http://www.ccnewz.com/

All you smokers please support the above..

Is that other than the consequences of smoking tobacco (ie. sallow yellowish skin, premature aging, hoarse voice, tar deposits in your lungs)?

You don't of course have to have any tobacco in there... (although I know if I got into the habit of smoking pure skunk I'd never get off the floor! :)) I realise he did specifically mention smoking, but remember there are other ways like bongs or plain old eating.

Is that other than the consequences of smoking tobacco (ie. sallow yellowish skin, premature aging, hoarse voice

Not me mate i hav a nice tan,still get asked my age at 30+ hoarse voice nope i sound like my balls are traped in a vice as for the tar most probs yes and btw i dont use tobacco either i just smoke the weed.

I hate alcohol if anything should be made illegal it should be booze..

I think Tweed is great in moderation, I got caught up in the skunk trap for a couple of years and basically smoked every night with mates without fail, god knows how i managed to keep my job at the time. I tried my first bit of draw at school when i was 13 I remember going to my friends house for a smoke on a bong and got high as a kite I thought it was great - i didn't smoke it much though at a young age i got put off by the police raid on his house in the morning. Anyway I reckon the vast majority of people think the drug is relatively harmless because it's not a 'hard' drug and also it's 'not addictive' I think people are misinformed - the drug isn't technically addictive but the feeling you get from it and the tobacco you smoke with it IS addictive, I found that when I smoked it a lot cigarettes tasted horrible and boring so were pointless especially cos you weren't getting high so i smoked more weed! It's weird but in a way you DO get addicted. I rember times of desperation when we had no weed phoning every dealer i ever knew even if it was a friend of a friend it was worth a try, my god the depression when we couldn't get any, no-one knew what to do with themmselves - like weed was our life! I suppose it basically was. I reckon the drug can affect some worse than others, but things like paranoia, laziness, low self-asteem, fogetfullness, being a bit crap in social situations - and just being generally boring because of the dead brain are things that affect everyone who smokes it wether they want to believe it or not. OK maybe not if you a have a joint or two now and agin but just smoking it all the time is baaaaad for your head. It's better to have it now and again,you appreciate it more, you get high off one joint, you have a better brain and your eyes look better. Anyway I just think people need to know the down sides of the drug, instead of it having this 'relatively harmless' association.

I find anyone legislating what I can do with my body and my life to be completely ridiculous. I have no clue how my choice to do what I want in the privacy of my own home (or a friend's home or a suitable place) is anyone else's business, especially the goverment.

I completely support organizations like the ACLU and any other organization who's goal it is to push personal freedoms. Here are a list of thing I feel and believe should be perfectly legal and unrestricted.

Drug Use
Suicide
Assisted Suicide
Helmetless Motorcycle Riding
Gay, Straight, Upsidedown or any sex that doesn't involve unwilling or underage participants
Gay, Straight, Multi or whatever type of marriage you want to have that doesn't involve unwilling or underaged participants

This does NOT mean I support driving under the influence, riding a motorcycle with your helmetless kid or anything else that DIRECTLY endangers someone else (that means claiming 'you are hurting me cause I'd miss you if you die' does not count as harm!).

Before you start fighting me think of all the other personally risky behavior that's perfectly legal:

Unprotected sex
Base Jumping
Sky Diving
Auto racing
Rock climbing
Church

It's my body, it's my life and I do (and should be legally allowed to) what I want. If I want to light up a joint and I enjoy it then I think it's perfectly fine. If it makes me lazy and not want to cut the grass in the garden until tomorrow, that's great with me, more time for lovin with the Missus.

Oh and just as a side note, Marijuana was made illegal in the US during the great depression as a tool to deport mexican laborers from Texas. Also marijauna is not physically addictive, does not cause brain damage and has all sorts of positive medicinal uses that are directly proven by hard science.

Such is my opinion... it's worth no more or less...

Peace,

Locker

Originally posted by Cyclone
I hope not. No one has the right to tell me what to do with my body, unless it's going to impact on them.
Amen to that, Cyclone, amen to that.

Originally posted by Esa666
A bit of weed is no problem. Too much skunk makes life hard work, when i used to smoke it allot I never got anything done. come to think of it I still havent got anything done, well er, that is I cant remember whether I did.

I think its effected my memory, maybe.

It's certainly affected your spelling! ;)

I dont smoke tobacco but accasionally smoke a little weed. I agre more with smoking a bit of weed than smoking tobacco.

I thought Phanerothyme would be on this topic somewhere. Hes on every topic about drugs! :D

Originally posted by MarkB
I thought Phanerothyme would be on this topic somewhere. Hes on every topic about drugs! :D I start half of them too.

This has been a good thread, and cannabis has been covered from almost every aspect, from legal and anthropological perspectives, to chemistry, human rights, mental health and production.

mojoworking is still posting lame spelling flames. :P

I think the upshot of everything I have read so far is:

60% of forum mebers who expressed an opinion think that cannabis is either 'great' or 'alright'. 70% of forum members explicitly do not use cannabis. Of those who do not ingest cannabis, 57% think it is 'alright' and 43% think it is 'evil'.

That cannabis is an aggravating factor in mental illness.

That cannabis has many medicinal uses.

Marijuana is not a drug. It is a herb.
A natural herb plant created by God. It grows in the ground, as do all other fine herbs. SKUNK IS NOT REAL MARIJUANA.

That so called skunk is cannabis. Whether it's grown indoors, under discharge lamps, in your back bedroom, or under the blue sky on a plantation in the Rif mountains, it's a strain of C.Sativa, Indica or Ruderalis.
REAL WEED is sensi - which grows in the ground out in the garden or in the nice rice soils in Jamaica. You cant even compare the high you get from sensi to the one you get from skunk - sooooooooooo very different.
Real weed is sensi and that is deffo the best quality weed to have.

Sensi is just sinsemilla - spanish, I believe, meaning: without seeds. It's not a different plant - just has much larger buds and many more bracts, because pollination and therefore seed production is supressed (usually by growing it indoors). Energy and biomass used for seeds is diverted into more flowers

If it has seeds in, it is not sinsemilla.

Pure hydro weed, grown using liquid nutrient, soil free techniques, tends to suffer from not having an active rhizosphere. Many, many guerrilla growers use wholly organic methods, and the need for pesticides etc is vastly reduced by indoor growing. Those who grow indoors in peat free compost or other soil will often get a more rounded and mellow tasting product.


Compounds are created by combining two or more ingredients or parts.
A compound is a chemical combination of two or more chemical elements. What you are referring to is a mixture

Marijuana is a one ingredient herb plant.

There are at least three well documented active ingredients in cannabis, and it is the varying proportions of these compounds that give a strain of cannabis it's unique mental characteristics and taste.


We have learned that the brain has its own cannabinoids and recently discovered is a whole endocannabinoid signalling system within the body. Anandamide (named after the hindu goddess of Bliss) is the foremost endocannabinoid.

We know that a large portion of the effects of cannabis are learned behaviour. New users need to learn to get stoned, rather than just dizzy and disoriented.

We know that the psychedelic effects of cannabis have been utilised for at least as long as alcohol, possibly longer.

We know that the most dangerous way to ingest cannabis is rolled into a spliff with tobacco. We also know that several toxicity tests have used leaf material high in lignins and chlorophyll, and not the unpollinated female flowers, or the resin refined from them, which is what smokers tend to smoke.

We have also learned that eating cannabis can be a wild experience because Δ9 thc is converted into tetrahydrocannivarin by the liver. THCV is a great deal more powerful than the naturally occurring THC.

Originally posted by Phanerothyme


The safest way to ingest cannabis with adequate control over your personal dose, is to use a vapouriser, that just boils off the active ingredients (at about 270 degC), and does not burn any part of the material - resulting in a 100% reduction of unwanted tars and soot particles.



Cool, where can I get one :rolleyes:

I think that he was being ironic.

Anyway, can we bring this back to debating the rights and wrongs of canabis? Otherwise it will be pulled.

Originally posted by Locker
I find anyone legislating what I can do with my body and my life to be completely ridiculous. I have no clue how my choice to do what I want in the privacy of my own home (or a friend's home or a suitable place) is anyone else's business, especially the goverment.

I completely support organizations like the ACLU and any other organization who's goal it is to push personal freedoms. Here are a list of thing I feel and believe should be perfectly legal and unrestricted.

Drug Use
Suicide
Assisted Suicide
Helmetless Motorcycle Riding
Gay, Straight, Upsidedown or any sex that doesn't involve unwilling or underage participants
Gay, Straight, Multi or whatever type of marriage you want to have that doesn't involve unwilling or underaged participants

This does NOT mean I support driving under the influence, riding a motorcycle with your helmetless kid or anything else that DIRECTLY endangers someone else (that means claiming 'you are hurting me cause I'd miss you if you die' does not count as harm!).

Before you start fighting me think of all the other personally risky behavior that's perfectly legal:

Unprotected sex
Base Jumping
Sky Diving
Auto racing
Rock climbing
Church

It's my body, it's my life and I do (and should be legally allowed to) what I want. If I want to light up a joint and I enjoy it then I think it's perfectly fine. If it makes me lazy and not want to cut the grass in the garden until tomorrow, that's great with me, more time for lovin with the Missus.

Oh and just as a side note, Marijuana was made illegal in the US during the great depression as a tool to deport mexican laborers from Texas. Also marijauna is not physically addictive, does not cause brain damage and has all sorts of positive medicinal uses that are directly proven by hard science.

Such is my opinion... it's worth no more or less...

Peace,

Locker

I agree with nearly everything there.
On the issue of motorcycle helmets, there is a very real and relatively high risk of causing yourself serious avoidable impact. That impacts on many people way beyond the "I miss you" scenario.
There's the cost to the NHS, the trauma to the ambulance crew, the loss of value to society (ie dead people don't contribute to the economy) etc.... So in that case I'd say that personal freedom should be curtailed for the greater good.
If you want to ride with no helmet, do it off the public highway in private (just like smoking cannabis).

I thought he was being sarcastic myself, but chose to ignore it whatever it was.

But yes, back to debate.

Cannabis, in my opinion the good outweighs the bad. Just about every argument against is seriously flawed, as it could be applied to perfectly legal things like smoking or drinking (tobbacco & alcohol for the smart arses!) but these things remain legal, even if frowned upon.

I was being kinda serious.

Never heard of that method before.

No way am I going to get invloved in this type of debate, although I will say that I am pleased that our favourite weed has been decriminalised.

Until I can walk into a shop and buy some, I'm not going to be happy. Dont like having to go to some guy, who knows a guy who knew a guy and end up buying any old crap if anything at all.

Am fully prepared for a life of not being happy on that score unfotunately.

Now if anyone can reccomend someone........:heyhey:

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
mojoworking is still posting lame spelling flames. :P


Come on, it would have been a crime to let that one pass unnoticed ;)

MOD NOTE: Please avoid making this thread some sort of tutorial for cannabis use & keep to the thread title. It'd be a shame to have to remove the thread totally.

right.

Harm reduction advice is not a part of the debate.

But openly canvassing for suppliers is?

Until I can walk into a shop and buy some, I'm not going to be happy. Dont like having to go to some guy, who knows a guy who knew a guy and end up buying any old crap if anything at all.

Am fully prepared for a life of not being happy on that score unfotunately.

Now if anyone can reccomend someone........

c'mon...

Stop trying to get me in trouble!

The raised eyebrows were meant to signify a joke, as I'm sure most were aware (well, i've not been banned yet anyway)

Though I do notice all the vapouriser stuff has been removed, they are perfectly legal, even in this country and last time I looked talking about them was also perfectly legal.

Surely any kind of debate has to present all the facts? The fact is they were mentioned was as a counter to all the 'smoking weed is so harmful' arguments. Thanks for the over zealous censorship.

Admin:

Vapourisers are legal just like compost and greenhouses are. However the Mod team has to draw a line somewhere on a family friendly forum, and I'm sure that you will appreciate this.

We draw the line at promotion of illegal drugs taking and we ask that members report anything that the Mod Team miss - they can't read every single post that appears on SF, so we appreciate the members help and co-operation.

Cheers, Tony.

Not to get hung up on technicalities, but I was talking about the availability of a public vapouriser, for use by the public in Amsterdam - all of which is legal, so cant really be promoting illegal drug use if its legal.

Plus, whats the point in a debate where only one side of the argument can be presented? Surely any posts highlighting the positive benefits of cannabis would be promoting illegal drug use?

Whilst I can feel a ban coming on, or at least a slap on the wrists - I just dont think its clear what the ground rules are. We all remember the wheelchair scratching the car thread - lots of promoting illegal actions there.

Admin:

Floyd77, it's very clear if you read the previous post. We do not try to work through loopholes or through non-UK laws. There is a fine line and there is an obvious line. I believe that you know the difference without being difficult.

If you wish to discuss such things then please take advantage of the numerous websites that offer such an envorinment. SF does not.

It is very difficult to keep editorial consistency without a prescriptive set of rules.

But a prescriptive set of rules has to account for all eventualities, and would be even worse news for the forum.

So we sail in seas full of submerged hazards.

Vapouriser technology is quite new, and many people are unaware of it.

For anyone chronically and hopelessly addicted to cannabis, this technology offers unparalleled strides forward in healthy & safety.

Unfortunately they are often very expensive, putting them beyond the reach of most people, but the principle can be put into practice with much simpler, affordable and usable means.

I don't mean to turn this into a cannabis users tutorial, mostly because people don't need one, but to make the point that cannabis ingestion need not cause cancer, COPD or other respiratory diseases. It's an important point worth making, and not worth making on the boards that cater to cannabis culture, because there it is a well known fact.

I also think it is worth reiterating that the current classification of drugs using an index of harm (class A B and C) is a melange of legislation based on ignorance, greed and stupidity, and needs to change soon if people are to stop holding the law in complete contempt, in their millions.

Recent intimations about reclassifying 'skunk' are nothing short of hilarious. The blind leading the blind.

I can just see the arresting officer now....

P.C:"I am charging you with possesion of a class B drug, namely 'skunk'

Perp:"Well officer, its not skunk, it's Kali Mist. Which, I believe, is still a class C substance despite having a higher concentration of active ingredients..."

P.C" *sigh* I am now giving you a caution for possession of a class C drug, and I am confiscating your material for, er, analysis."

Originally posted by Tony
Admin:

Vapourisers are legal just like compost and greenhouses are. However the Mod team has to draw a line somewhere on a family friendly forum, and I'm sure that you will appreciate this.

We draw the line at promotion of illegal drugs taking and we ask that members report anything that the Mod Team miss - they can't read every single post that appears on SF, so we appreciate the members help and co-operation.

Cheers, Tony.

Surely any positive comment about cannabis can be interpretted as its promotion.
Likewise condoning any potentially illegal action, ie grafiti, car scratching, speeding etc... is 'promoting' illegal behaviour.
I think you're setting yourself a very difficult target if you intend to censor any positive comment about an illegal activity.

Originally posted by floyd77
Not to get hung up on technicalities, but I was talking about the availability of a public vapouriser, for use by the public in Amsterdam - all of which is legal, so cant really be promoting illegal drug use if its legal.

Plus, whats the point in a debate where only one side of the argument can be presented? Surely any posts highlighting the positive benefits of cannabis would be promoting illegal drug use?

Whilst I can feel a ban coming on, or at least a slap on the wrists - I just dont think its clear what the ground rules are. We all remember the wheelchair scratching the car thread - lots of promoting illegal actions there.

Cannabis isn't legal in the Netherlands - it's decriminalised :)

Over here it's just been reclassified.

Originally posted by Cyclone
Surely any positive comment about cannabis can be interpretted as it's promotion.
Likewise condoning any potentially illegal action, ie grafiti, car scratching, speeding etc... is 'promoting' illegal behaviour.
I think you're setting yourself a very difficult target if you intend to censor any positive comment about an illegal activity.
We can only moderate threads on an 'as seen' basis cyclone - we cannot forcast for every eventuality. Cannabis is illegal in the UK, and we don't like the promotion of drugs or drugs paraphernalia on here which is why we pull lots of threads on that topic - you probably just don't see any / many of them.

You must remember that SF is used by all sorts of people of all sorts of ages. It's not an adults only playground, so we do the best that we can on the whole. You can do what you see fit outside SF but at SF we don't / can't allow discussion of drug taking techniques or tips. There are other places more suited to this information. This thread is here for topical debate.

Anyway, this is way off topic, and TBH, not up for discussion.

There were discussing the si on the right stuff today about Tony Blairs proposed new plans to do a u turn on cannabis. It was down graded from a class B to a class C drug and Now Tony Blair wants to have a u trun on it Which would mean having tough penalties on it. Do you think there shoild be a u turn on it.

stoire here http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article332383.ece

it should be made legal never mind a u turn!!!

I think there are more dangerous drugs to concentrate on.

Originally posted by nick2
I think there are more dangerous drugs to concentrate on.

Like cigarettes and alcohol.

yeah, the government should try to tackle a real problem rather than going for all the easy targets.

I don't think there should be a u turn, I also don't think it should be leagalised.

If alcohol had just been discovered it would be a class A drug. because cannabis has been around for chime it cannot be taxed which makes it no good to the goverment.. which makes it illeagal.. they now plan to make it legal so that they can tax it.. this will not work because of the price smokers will have to pay! they will just go back to their dealer!

they also talk about mental health issues with the drug.
I'm sorry but when you smoke a joint you never want to cause any trouble! you just want some quality time with a pack of wagon wheels!

Then you get your **** heads running round town smashing anyone and/or anything in their path.. fueled on a **** load of legal drugs.. which in turn wastes police time. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy going out on the lash but i'm just trying to put my point in perspective

i'm not saying cannabis is harmless but
the laws should stay as they are... in my opinion

:suspect:

Mod note: Threads merged

No, because I have seen the affect it can have on some people, it can really screw some peoples heads up. Plus they lose all ambition. It can cause serious mental illness, and depression. Nasty drug, its more dangerous because people percieve it to be a 'safe' drug.

The government isnt likely to ban cigarettes and alcohol because it keeps certain elements of society exactly where they want them, and the huge amount of taxes they reap from them. 'Nuff said.

Fiddling with the legislation about cannabis is a 'smokescreen' for avoiding the wider issue of "the drug problem".

When the incumbent regime, whoever they may be, finally realise that current drug legislation is founded in outdated dogma, supposition and plain ignorance, they may finally institute a Royal Commission on the subject.

As the law stands, the most dangerous drugs, both illegal and legal, are either uncontrolled or class B or C, whilst the most safe (toxicologically) and least damaging (socially) are class A.

Cannabis should be legal to grow and consume. Cannabis should be legal to grow and sell. Growers must be licenced, licences will cost money, and will be subject to regular inspection and testing if the products is for sale. A code of conduct must be adhered to and the penalties for infractions (e.g providing to a minor) should be stiff.

Then the Government will know exactly how much cannabis is being produced, sold and consumed, and can judge for themselves whether there is a problem at all.

Phillip Morris, BAT etc will try and get in on the act and fail.

The current billion pound industry in hydroponics and multi billion pound gardening industry will experience 'growth'. Thousands of jobs will be created, a cannabis culture will slowly emerge in parallel to alchohol culture. direct comparisons may then be made in terms of the relative benefits and disadvantages of each drug.

Until that time - the status quo will have to do....pointless flip-flopping to please special interest groups or voters or backbenchers will just appear to be what it is - vacillation masquerading as action by an increasingly desperate Government, as it's support quietly slips into the water and sinks without trace.

Originally posted by kookymonster
No, because I have seen the affect it can have on some people, it can really screw some peoples heads up. Plus they lose all ambition. It can cause serious mental illness, and depression. Nasty drug, its more dangerous because people percieve it to be a 'safe' drug.

The government isnt likely to ban cigarettes and alcohol because it keeps certain elements of society exactly where they want them, and the huge amount of taxes they reap from them. 'Nuff said.

What a nonsense argument :loopy:

"it can really screw some peoples head up" really - well maybe those people shouldnt use it, or maybe we should ban everything and anything that might screw someones head up.
"It can cause serious mental illness" So can falling down a flight of stairs when drunk - do we ban stairs or drink?

Nasty drug? Of all the words to describe it, nasty wouldnt be many peoples first choice.

Im amazed at what some people write sometimes, you were given a brain I assume, try using it. :idea:

To quote a great comedian: people against drugs are people who've never done drugs or people who sucked at doing them.

Ok, it's a simplified argument but in the case of cannabis I have never heard a valid argument why it should be against a law that isn't either religious, an infringement on personal rights, or just weak. Find me and study on caannabis and I can find you one that can contradict it. I'm not saying it doesn't have bad aspects - it does. But then so do many things that we do on a daily basis.

If weed were decriminalised they could tax it and monitor it's use/strength and localise where people do it and totally cut out the funding of any criminal element involved. Then weed smokers wouldn't be offered other drugs that they would never come across in any other situation in their daily life.

By the way - alcohol is the gateway drug. Find one person who's first drug wasn't alcohol rather than marijuana. Not everyone who smokes weed goes onto stronger stuff, just in the same way that not all people who drink go onto stronger stuff. Some do, but that's no basis to brand weed as THE gateway drug.

quas

mary jane,weed, canabis etc, does not lead to harder drugs, my god weed is not a drug its a plant that has saved many lives and there are more plants we have not yet discovered.
in san francisco we have 24 shops that sell everything cannibis related and i do mean everything,tea, chocolate, cookies and so on, i love these shops weed has many applications and we need to look at them all.
the problem i think is simple alls ok in moderation..
there is no need to go over the top

smokers of the world unite,take a puff and inhale

peace

Originally posted by singledad1
mary jane,weed, canabis etc, does not lead to harder drugs, my god weed is not a drug its a plant that has saved many lives and there are more plants we have not yet discovered.
in san francisco we have 24 shops that sell everything cannibis related and i do mean everything,tea, chocolate, cookies and so on, i love these shops weed has many applications and we need to look at them all.
the problem i think is simple alls ok in moderation..
there is no need to go over the top

smokers of the world unite,take a puff and inhale

peace

:clap:

to paraphrase Bill Hicks.

isn't it odd how drugs that numb your senses and do not encourage thought are legal and all those that stumulate the mind and make you question are illegal.

Originally posted by robbie
to paraphrase Bill Hicks.

isn't it odd how drugs that numb your senses and do not encourage thought are legal and all those that stumulate the mind and make you question are illegal.

Nothing odd about that at all, Robbie ;) :D

StarSparkle

I don't know why but i just read the title and thought it said

"Should Cannibals be made legal?"

I need therapy!!!! :o

EDIT: I just thought of a joke though...

2 cannibals eating a clown and one says to the other...

"Does this taste funny to you?"

I've never tried it, I don't know if it should be made legal, people are going to take it anyway, legal or not. I don't understand why Cigarettes & Alcohol are legal though, they're drugs & can be bad for you.

even too much water can be bad for you, should we ban it?

Here are a list of the most dangerous things, which should be banned.

1. Selling fast cars to immature young men who can't drive but think they're Nicki Lauder (About 50%)
2.Selling any cars to immature young men.
3.Pollution.
4.Cigarettes
5.Crabs
6.Warmongering politicians and journalists.
.
.
.
3,165,288.Cannabis

Can I add another thing to be banned?

The user that posted the "Sheffield Skunk City" thread.

Made me laugh at least - thread has gone now, of course (once someone twigged it was drug related, rather than slagging Sheffield)

Originally posted by Pauly
I don't know why but i just read the title and thought it said
"Should Cannibals be made legal?"
[/size]

Good question!

Maybe cannibalism between consenting adults is OK?

I'm not sure that cannibalism is even illegal.

No, it's very illegal, but there was the case of the German cannibal a few years back who contacted someone who wished to be eaten via the internet. They did the deed, apparently consensually and the survivor got a light sentence on a manslaughter charge.

Like the question about drugs it's really a matter of personal freedom and how far you are willing to let consensuality and choice over your own destiny go.

Can I take take this Devils Advocate hat off now??

I'm just wondering what I am going to be charged with when My GF and I tuck into fried placenta and chips in a months time.

Or what law I would be breaking if I saved my finger after an industrial accidents, and instead of rushing to the microsurgeon, I rushed to the microwave?

Killing someone to eat them is wrong, but is there actually a law against eating human tissue?

I mean, I bite my nails, where do you draw the line?

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
I'm just wondering what I am going to be charged with when My GF and I tuck into fried placenta and chips in a months time.


Nothing, there was a notorious Hugh Fearnly-Wittingstal program a few years back where they did just that!

"The placenta was fried with shallots and garlic, flambéed, puréed and served to 20 relatives and friends as a pate on focaccia bread."

And a nice Chianti?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/101944.stm

No No No, trust me....

I live in Amsterdam and truly believes it causes depression, anxiety and worse in some cases!

Dont get me wrong i've been there, i was a very heavy smoker for a couple of years and i dont not think it has done my brain any good....for the people who think smoking helps their depression..just give it a few years and you'll realise that it actually makes you worse!!

My ex smoked that crap and he suffered paranoia, depression, split personality, i thought he was a schizo when i dumped him!!!!!
i've heard storiers about him since and he sounds worse than ever!!!!!!!
glad i'm out of that one!!!!!
*wipes forehead*

the majority of people i know smoke it,

my brother's been on it for about 5 years and i can honestly say it hasnt affected him one bit. he gets up go's to work every morning, never affected his work. he says he smokes it to help him 'chill' out and out of pure bordom, so personally i dont see what everyones problem is with weed.

wouldnt you rather a family member/friend smoke weed rather then be hooked on smack??

because i know i would. weed dosnt make you violent either, not like alcohol or some drugs eg. cocaine. it makes you go on a chill so you cant be bothered to do anything.

i could be wrong but i havnt heard of any deaths that relate to cannabis. only problem i have with it, is that its an expensive habit. and it is very very addictive.

in my opinion people should be focusing on more harsher drugs, then petty weed. and for all you who dont know cannabis is actually LEGAL if your over 18, smoking it on your own property and your not dealing it, thank you please!



:thumbsup:

Originally posted by OwlsChick
the majority of people i know smoke it,

my brother's been on it for about 5 years and i can honestly say it hasnt affected him one bit. he gets up go's to work every morning, never affected his work. he says he smokes it to help him 'chill' out and out of pure bordom, so personally i dont see what everyones problem is with weed.

wouldnt you rather a family member/friend smoke weed rather then be hooked on smack??

because i know i would. weed dosnt make you violent either, not like alcohol or some drugs eg. cocaine. it makes you go on a chill so you cant be bothered to do anything.

i could be wrong but i havnt heard of any deaths that relate to cannabis. only problem i have with it, is that its an expensive habit. and it is very very addictive.

in my opinion people should be focusing on more harsher drugs, then petty weed. and for all you who dont know cannabis is actually LEGAL if your over 18, smoking it on your own property and your not dealing it, thank you please!



:thumbsup:

Where i live Cannabis smoking IS legal and it cause that many problems that the government are trying to make it illegal, although that would never happen as 8 out of 10 tourists only come here for the weed so you could imagine what would happen to the tourist industry here!

i dont think that cannabis is that bad really it doesnt do anything apart from make you get the munchies or the giggles there isnt any harm in that now is there

I work with a few people who always 'have a smoke' every night and they are always disorientated and seem to be on another planet during the morning at work. They admit that it is the weed that makes them like this but they enjoy havin a 'doob' that much that they still do persist in gettin battered everynight.

Originally posted by lea_g
i dont think that cannabis is that bad really it doesnt do anything apart from make you get the munchies or the giggles there isnt any harm in that now is there Cannabis has well-known strong links to paranoid schizophrenia and psychotic phenomena, so the munchies and giggles is not all it does!

:(

Originally posted by Ann_x
Cannabis has well-known strong links to paranoid schizophrenia and psychotic phenomena, so the munchies and giggles is not all it does!

:(

The latest I heard was that there are links to schizophrenia, but they're not strong links. They are very weak links indeed. In fact, your more likely to end up in the loony bin by drinking alchohol according to the latest research.

A lot of people - myself included - notice detrimental effects after prolonged periods of smoking, So you stop smoking, end of story.

I feel like getting really anxious. I think I'll skin up - Hardly!

Originally posted by donkey
The latest I heard was that there are links to schizophrenia, but they're not strong links. They are very weak links indeed. In fact, your more likely to end up in the loony bin by drinking alchohol according to the latest research.

A lot of people - myself included - notice detrimental effects after prolonged periods of smoking, So you stop smoking, end of story.

I feel like getting really anxious. I think I'll skin up - Hardly!

The so called links, which are ostensibly prompting Home Secretary Clark to suggest 'upgrading' Cannabis back to class B, are so weak that the independent advisory panel - a group of internationally renowned pharmacologists and specialists - is threatening to resign.

This futile tinkering with the drug laws is being done to give the impression of action on a hot-button issue, without having to face up to the realities of UK drug use.

All the declassification of Cannabis has done, so far, is free up Police time and save money.

The hydroponics industry is exploding with both Industry old guards like Philips showing strong performance in the HID lamp sector. Other HID lamp & accessories stockists have gone from hobby supply shops to large businesses employing hundreds. And there is a growing proliferation of Hydroponic supply shops whose sole market is the cannabis cultivator. A 'growth' market, if you will.

There's a healthy and perfectly legitimate market in seeds too, and the more esoteric the strain the higher the price. 10 seeds can cost as much as $200. A fully grown plant can produce literally thousands of seeds.

Originally posted by sarahlorna
Where i live Cannabis smoking IS legal and it cause that many problems that the government are trying to make it illegal, although that would never happen as 8 out of 10 tourists only come here for the weed so you could imagine what would happen to the tourist industry here!

I think the possession and cultivation of cannabis is illegal but officially tolerated in some places. There are plenty of places in the netherlands where lighting up will get you busted really quickly.

There's clear evidence that other Cannabinoids have an antipsychotic effect, and studies have been unable to clearly rule out self medication by latent schizophrenics. Whilst it may provide temporary relief from symptoms, it's unlikely to do much to help the condition.

As a herb it is not risk free, but can be positively beneficial and enjoyable for many. Even in medical use, it has an excellent safety record, but when it has been standardized into a medical preparation, look what happened in Sheffield (http://business.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=2419432005) - they fail to take into account the 'bouquet effect'.

ok, i do have the occassional spliff, even though i know the effects and i know what it can potentially do to people. a couple of my parents family friends, and some of my uncles, have all been regular weed smokers for over 10 years now. ALL OF THEM are paranoid (eg constantly thinking people are talking about them, taking the p*** out of them etc), go through the most amazing mood changes, cannot relax or enjoy themselves without a spliff, are edgy if there isn't any on 'supply' etc etc. these are the facts, and as much as people like to protest that its harmless, it really isn't. most people i know who think its harmless (apart from the obvious, eg smoking related cancers) have not been smoking it for more than 6 years, by which time the truly LONG TERM effects have not fully kicked in. i know this from first hand experience, of not just one or two, but a good number of people. long term is not 1, 2 or even 3 years, in my experience it is at least 9.

Phan,

In sundays Observer there was an interview with Brian Paddick - the senior police officer in Lambeth who introduced a policy of of giving a verbal warning for those found in possesion of a small amount of cannabis.

He says that "the idea of diverting police resources away from cannabis to more serious offences has now become further confused because cannabis warnings count the same as a conviction for rape or murder under figures for the number of offences brought to justice."

"Effectively it means that a cannabis warning on the street is one of the quickest and easiest ways of achieving targets that police forces are under increasing pressure to meet."

[source: Observer 15.01.06]

To me it seems like a good idea (freeing up police resources) badly implemented by the Home Office.

I think that Charles Clarke's plans to reclassify cannabis are typical ill-thought out reactionary politics.

[i]
I think the possession and cultivation of cannabis is illegal but officially tolerated in some places. There are plenty of places in the netherlands where lighting up will get you busted really quickly.


LOL......The cultivation is illegal and by no means tolerated,....at least once every few weeks i see the guys "SEON" (the contracted "cleaning" company) raiding houses, with huge red skips, emptying the contents of the houses, all the instruments used including the plants, in some cases thousands.

I know people this has happened to and they have been to jail, in some cases only for a few months,..but the're pretty strict! They usually also have anying of any value in their house removed as it is assumed they have used the money they had made with their plants to buy such things.....such things are usually auctioned off

And then there's the chance that they have to live without electicity for a while...

This doesnt sound like it is "tolerated" to me!

As i said i live in Amsterdam and in the past there are very few places you would get busted for lighting up, trust me!
However the this has changed as of this year where you will get busted for smoking in the street!

This reclassification of weed is bull**** imo, what do they expect smokers up and down the country to be doing:

"I don't smoke cannabis, the government says it's Grade B, which means Bad for You"

"Oh, I see the government have downgraded the classification of cannabis! That must make smoking weed ok! Roll me a fatty, dear"

"Oh! They're talking about upgrading it again! We'd best cut down until they decide!"

"Oh gosh, they've upgraded it again! Flush that weed down the toilet dear!"

I'd legalise cannabis.It causes extremely minor problems in comparison to alcohol and its not addictive.I reckon crime would be cut by huge amounts-if alcohol was banned.It wouldnt be fair to discriminate against the average person who just wants to go out and have a few pints then go home but its the idiots who get violent when drunk and either start bother while theyre out or give the partner a good beating when they get home.Any ideas on how it could be implemented?Maybe a 1 strike then your out rule??

UPDATE:

Charles Clarke is now expected to rule out reclassifying Cannabis (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4625404.stm)

LOL......The cultivation is illegal and by no means tolerated,....at least once every few weeks i see the guys "SEON" (the contracted "cleaning" company) raiding houses, with huge red skips, emptying the contents of the houses, all the instruments used including the plants, in some cases thousands.

As I understand it, the cannabis museum grow room is tolerated, as are people growing 5 plants or less in windowboxes and the like. Although the number of coffeeshops is diminishing, they still grow and breed their own in amsterdam, with official knowledge.

Amsterdam is not ignorant of the economic benefits, as well as defecits, that come from Cannabis.

...when alcohol isn't?

I don't smoke cannabis and I don't drink alcohol either. So this isn't a 'legalise cannabis' plea. I'm just interested to know the answer.

Does the use or misuse of cannabis pose a bigger threat to public health than alcohol?

Wouldn't the government be able to make money from taxing it (as well as being able to control its use) if it were legalised?

Because alcohol use was so well established by the time the government started looking at banning anything that it would have been impossible to enforce a ban.

Plus they realised that by taxing it instead they were onto a good think.

The question ought to be why some substances are treat differently to others. The government has no consistent policy, nicotine, caffeine, alcohol, cannabinoids, etc, etc... They are all drugs, there should be a consistent way of controlling them, be that a rating and then appropriate controls or whatever.

...when alcohol isn't?

Does the use or misuse of cannabis pose a bigger threat to public health than alcohol? ?

It'd take something like smoking 3.5lb of grass in an hour to overdose on cannabis (physically impossible). Compare that to the irrepairable damage a bottle of hard liquor can do . .

. . needless to say, I rarely drink!

If Sir Walter Raleigh had fetched back cannabis form the new world all those years ago instead of tobacco.

We would all be smoking cannabis now and tobacco would be a drug and banned

I rest my case

Am i right in thinking that cannabis can cause physical problems as well though? plus the mental problems it can cause.

If Sir Walter Raleigh had fetched back cannabis form the new world all those years ago instead of tobacco.

We would all be smoking cannabis now and tobacco would be a drug and banned

I rest my caseLucky you're not a lawyer then - you'd not have much work.

Cannabis causes all sorts of problems for the user.

Only deluded cannabis users fail to see this.

Am i right in thinking that cannabis can cause physical problems as well though? plus the mental problems it can cause.
In droves - but the druggie-loving posters will argue beyond any logic that it's just great for you and hasn't done them any harm at all. Prats.

Am i right in thinking that cannabis can cause physical problems as well though? plus the mental problems it can cause.

well I have gammy leg and my wife says I am daft does that help

...when alcohol isn't?

I don't smoke cannabis and I don't drink alcohol either. So this isn't a 'legalise cannabis' plea. I'm just interested to know the answer.

Does the use or misuse of cannabis pose a bigger threat to public health than alcohol?

Wouldn't the government be able to make money from taxing it (as well as being able to control its use) if it were legalised?

yes the government could tax it if it was legal... alcohal kills more people per year than skunk, but that's ok??

well I have gammy leg and my wife says I am daft does that help
Well erm i'm not sure :hihi:

Lucky you're not a lawyer then - you'd not have much work.

Cannabis causes all sorts of problems for the user.

Only deluded cannabis users fail to see this.

the post was JOKE stop being so serious with everything

Am i right in thinking that cannabis can cause physical problems as well though? plus the mental problems it can cause.

Yeah, if you read the Daily Mail too much.

Just because peeps with mental issues use it to forget / suppresss the fact they've got mental issues, that automatically means they have to be connected.

Am i right in thinking that cannabis can cause physical problems as well though? plus the mental problems it can cause.


yes, it does - not only does ruin your memory, motivation, and ability to not wind up the people you work with by being incredibly slack, it increases your chances of mental illness (including schizophrenia), and it causes (amoungst other things) sexual dysfunction - i have an ex boyfriend who smoked and smoked and smoked the stuff. he was a fantastic guy, although we were clearly not supposed to be together, but his major problem was that while he could get an erection, he couldn't ...ur...carry it through - orgasm and ejection were nigh on impossible for him. i think he only achieved either once while i was was him, and he'd never managed either before he met me, not even by himself, he'd been smoking the stuff for that long (or he'd forgotten about it, thanks to years of smoking affecting his memory). yeah, he was quite chilled about it thanks to the drugs, but personally i think it's not worth it.

Yeah, if you read the Daily Mail too much.

Just because peeps with mental issues use it to forget / suppresss the fact they've got mental issues, that automatically means they have to be connected.

no, munky, cannabis use does have physical and mental effects on chronic users (don't know how much evidence there is out there for occasional users).

edit to add an abstract from human psychopharmacology earlier this year about the effect on embryos of women who smoke dope. i'll add an adult one when i can be bothered:
Sundram S.
Molecular Psychopharmacology, Mental Health Research Institute of Victoria, Australia. ssundram@mhri.edu.au
The developing brain is susceptible to the effects of exogenous cannabinoids both during the perinatal period through maternal cannabis use and in young adolescent users. Emerging data from human and animal perinatal exposure studies demonstrate a subtle rather than gross effect of cannabis upon later functioning including; specific cognitive deficits especially in visuospatial function; impulsivity, inattention and hyperactivity; depressive symptoms; and substance use disorders. From animal studies motor control systems, neuroendocrine function and nociception may additionally be affected. Fetal studies indicate that these outcomes may be through cannabinoid mediated influences on the ontogeny of, especially dopamine and opioid, neurotransmitter systems. The effect of cannabinoids in the adolescent suggest long-term deleterious outcomes in cognition, depressive symptoms, schizophrenia and substance use disorders. Much of these data support a neurodevelopmental effect, however, predisposing genetic and/or environmental factors cannot be excluded from human studies. Gender specific differences have been observed in both human and animal studies implying sex hormone and related factors may interact with cannabinoids in neurodevelopment

oh, here we go - Substance abuse in patients with schizophrenia.

Winklbaur B,
Ebner N,
Sachs G,
Thau K,
Fischer G.
Department of Psychiatry, Medical University of Vienna, Wahringer Gurtel 18-20, 1090 Vienna, Austria.
The comorbidity of schizophrenia and substance abuse has attracted increasing attention in the past years, with multiple potential links, including genetic vulnerability, neurobiological aspects, side effects of medications, and psychosocial factors being under discussion. The link between the use of substances and the development of psychoses is demonstrated by the high prevalence of substance abuse in schizophrenia. Apart from alcohol misuse, substances commonly abused in this patient group include nicotine, cocaine, and cannabis. In particular, heavy cannabis abuse has been reported to be a stressor eliciting relapse in schizophrenic patients. In general, substance use in psychosis is associated with poorer outcomes, including increased psychotic symptoms and poorer treatment compliance.


looks like substance abuse can precipitate mental disorders which you may otherwise have been susceptible to but may not ever have exhibited unless you developed a naughty addiction.

In droves - but the druggie-loving posters will argue beyond any logic that it's just great for you and hasn't done them any harm at all. Prats.

Dude, your more arguementative than any "smoker" i've ever met and to be honest, regular smokers couldn't be bothered in argueing the toss with you, as your so wrapped in your own cotton wool its easy for all to see.

And in reply to babychickens, I didn't ram my point down your neck, so kindly reciprocate.
I'm allways up for open debate, but when the "I HAVE AN OPINION / SOME POSSIBLE FACT AND REFUSE TO LISTEN TO OTHERS" brigade join in, it can hardly be called open debate. .

Yeah, if you read the Daily Mail too much.

Just because peeps with mental issues use it to forget / suppresss the fact they've got mental issues, that automatically means they have to be connected.
I don't read the Daily mail.... i think perhaps you may be over simplifying the situation there in regards to the mental health aspects, it is well documented, i find it hard to believe that all the studies are wrong, not that i'm any expert.....bows out gracefully.

I don't read the Daily mail.... i think perhaps you may be over simplifying the situation there in regards to the mental health aspects, it is well documented, i find it hard to believe that all the studies are wrong, not that i'm any expert.....bows out gracefully.

. . and on that same token, have you any idea how many studies and reports were done in america to prove that global warming doesn't exist.

The official stance of the american government on global warming was "it doesn't exist" and when to extreme lenghts to back this up, which as we all know was utter tosh made in order to avert mass panic from the non-thinking sector of the american pubic.

yes, it does - not only does ruin your memory, motivation, and ability to not wind up the people you work with by being incredibly slack, it increases your chances of mental illness (including schizophrenia), and it causes (amoungst other things) sexual dysfunction - i have an ex boyfriend who smoked and smoked and smoked the stuff. he was a fantastic guy, although we were clearly not supposed to be together, but his major problem was that while he could get an erection, he couldn't ...ur...carry it through - orgasm and ejection were nigh on impossible for him. i think he only achieved either once while i was was him, and he'd never managed either before he met me, not even by himself, he'd been smoking the stuff for that long (or he'd forgotten about it, thanks to years of smoking affecting his memory). yeah, he was quite chilled about it thanks to the drugs, but personally i think it's not worth it.
Thank you babychickens, one thing i will say is you must have been seeing my ex :suspect: i can vouch for what you said about that and he was a heavy cannabis user i didn't realise that was a side effect ... say no more :rolleyes:

Dude, your more arguementative than any "smoker" i've ever met and to be honest, regular smokers couldn't be bothered in argueing the toss with you, as your so wrapped in your own cotton wool its easy for all to see.

And in reply to babychickens, I didn't ram my point down your neck, so kindly reciprocate.
I'm allways up for open debate, but when the "I HAVE AN OPINION / SOME POSSIBLE FACT AND REFUSE TO LISTEN TO OTHERS" brigade join in, it can hardly be called open debate. .

so you think the scientists are wrong and you know better?

personally in the face of peer-reviewed and accepted scientific evidence i don't think that there's much argument to be had, but by all means proove me wrong - would you care to pick the research apart and tell us why it's wrong?

i don't think i've rammed anything down your neck, anyway, i'm just adding to the debate that you seem so keen to have.

In droves - but the druggie-loving posters will argue beyond any logic that it's just great for you and hasn't done them any harm at all. Prats.

I love you barty.

You've got your fingers so far in your ears that your actually tickling your brain.

I don't think any self respecting smoker would try to "argue beyond any logic that it's just great for you " as they generally appriciate that this is their thing and it aint for everyone.

Where as you've actually gone to the other side of the scale and tried desparatly hard to prove that you are right and all "druggies" can't possibly have a point or be anywhere near correct.

You rock!

. . and on that same token, have you any idea how many studies and reports were done in america to prove that global warming doesn't exist.

The official stance of the american government on global warming was "it doesn't exist" and when to extreme lenghts to back this up, which as we all know was utter tosh made in order to avert mass panic from the non-thinking sector of the american pubic.


i take it you're using the global warming argument as an exampe of why research is wrong? american government scientists are under pressure to support their stoopid governments' liking for oil. independend scientists however are under no such pressure to prove that substance abuse and mental problems are linked. i'm sure most such scientists wouldn't argue taht cannabis can have some very positive effects also, particularly as a pain suppressant for those who need it. however, just because the american government may have in the past denied certain aspects of global warming (which, incidentally, is not universally accepted as a whole by the scientific community, although some aspects of it are) it doesn't mean that cannabis use doesn't have any implications on mental health.

Because alcohol use was so well established by the time the government started looking at banning anything that it would have been impossible to enforce a ban.

Plus they realised that by taxing it instead they were onto a good think.

The question ought to be why some substances are treat differently to others. The government has no consistent policy, nicotine, caffeine, alcohol, cannabinoids, etc, etc... They are all drugs, there should be a consistent way of controlling them, be that a rating and then appropriate controls or whatever.


i think that's actually the only answer relevant to the OP. well done, cyclone, for not getting entirely off the point unlike me and one or two others.:)

so you think the scientists are wrong and you know better?

personally in the face of peer-reviewed and accepted scientific evidence i don't think that there's much argument to be had, but by all means proove me wrong - would you care to pick the research apart and tell us why it's wrong?

i don't think i've rammed anything down your neck, anyway, i'm just adding to the debate that you seem so keen to have.

I aint saying scientific studies are right or wrong chicks, what I am saying is scientific studies are just that, studies of stuff from a scientific point of view.

Although they can provide more awareness of a particular drug, culture or whatever has been studied and provide more understanding about certain aspects of whatever, they cannot prove without a shadow of a doubt anything at all.

E.g Smoking causes cancer. Scientific studies have proved this. .
Or did the scientific studies actually discover that smoking significantly increases your chances of getting cancer as non smokers can still get cancer.

For every study done, another comes along contracting it

i think that's actually the only answer relevant to the OP. well done, cyclone, for not getting entirely off the point unlike me and one or two others.:)

. . and that's a fair point too.

The reason it aint legal is cos there's no money in it for the government.

Mr X gets spannered with his mates, wrecks the pub, roit van turns up with ambulances for the bystanders caught in the crossfire. Adding that up, you've got furniture sales, glaiser, public service workers all work put thier way indirectly through alcohol.

What would they get from legalising cannabis, less people would go out and kit-kat sales would increase slightly.

Conspiracy theories would say it was banned by a combination of Du-Pont and William Randolph Hearst when a process was developed to pick and decorticate hemp which would make hemp based paper cheap and plentifull and make the sulphuric acid wood pulping process owned by Du-Pont (wich significant holdings by Hearst). With hemp being an anually re-newable resource (unlike the many years that it takes to grow a tree to a suitable size for felling and pulping) and the cost of hemp paper production being about half that of wood pulping a slide in Du-Pont's and Hearst's worth wouldn't be hard to anticipate. To avert this Hearst used his papers, magazines, tabloids and news reels to spread sensationalist stories about how evil Canabis was. Firstly how is would turn people into psychotic killers and then when this was rebuffed how it would make American boys too apathetic to 'fight in our wars'. Whether this is true or not I've no idea, but I love a good conspiracy theory!

Am i right in thinking that cannabis can cause physical problems as well though? plus the mental problems it can cause.

yes it can over time and high useage. but so can everything else if taken in moderation its safe just like drink, doctors drugs etc

i think that's actually the only answer relevant to the OP. well done, cyclone, for not getting entirely off the point unlike me and one or two others.:)

It's also not strictly true. In the 19th century, and - I believe - part way into the 20th, cannabis (and cocaine, and various other substances) were legal.



And the main thrust of the argument still isn't answered. What logical reason is there to outlaw cannabis - a mild drug which will occasionally cause mental health problems - and legalise nicotine, a highly addictive drug which comes packaged with a buttload of known carcinogens? Or worse, alcohol, an even more addictive drug which is highly likely to turn people aggressive and dangerous?

yes, it does - not only does ruin your memory, motivation, and ability to not wind up the people you work with by being incredibly slack, it increases your chances of mental illness (including schizophrenia), and it causes (amoungst other things) sexual dysfunction - i have an ex boyfriend who smoked and smoked and smoked the stuff. he was a fantastic guy, although we were clearly not supposed to be together, but his major problem was that while he could get an erection, he couldn't ...ur...carry it through - orgasm and ejection were nigh on impossible for him. i think he only achieved either once while i was was him, and he'd never managed either before he met me, not even by himself, he'd been smoking the stuff for that long (or he'd forgotten about it, thanks to years of smoking affecting his memory). yeah, he was quite chilled about it thanks to the drugs, but personally i think it's not worth it.

i think he must have been smoking it in bed wth you, or just put a joint out.. but so can beer, it effects more so i'd say

. . and that's a fair point too.

The reason it aint legal is cos there's no money in it for the government.

Mr X gets spannered with his mates, wrecks the pub, roit van turns up with ambulances for the bystanders caught in the crossfire. Adding that up, you've got furniture sales, glaiser, public service workers all work put thier way indirectly through alcohol.

What would they get from legalising cannabis, less people would go out and kit-kat sales would increase slightly.

in the olden days everybody use to grow canabiss even the queen, please check as you will find this correct, when i say EVERYBODY i mean around 70% of the population.. not usre why they made it illegal, but i'm sure somebody on here will point that out

Conspiracy theories would say it was banned by a combination of Du-Pont and William Randolph Hearst when a process was developed to pick and decorticate hemp which would make hemp based paper cheap and plentifull and make the sulphuric acid wood pulping process owned by Du-Pont (wich significant holdings by Hearst). With hemp being an anually re-newable resource (unlike the many years that it takes to grow a tree to a suitable size for felling and pulping) and the cost of hemp paper production being about half that of wood pulping a slide in Du-Pont's and Hearst's worth wouldn't be hard to anticipate. To avert this Hearst used his papers, magazines, tabloids and news reels to spread sensationalist stories about how evil Canabis was. Firstly how is would turn people into psychotic killers and then when this was rebuffed how it would make American boys too apathetic to 'fight in our wars'. Whether this is true or not I've no idea, but I love a good conspiracy theory!

Dunno if that's true, but an quite interesting fact about the famous Laughing Cavelier painting is he's on hemp, as the painting is painted on hemp paper.

It's also not strictly true. In the 19th century, and - I believe - part way into the 20th, cannabis (and cocaine, and various other substances) were legal.



And the main thrust of the argument still isn't answered. What logical reason is there to outlaw cannabis - a mild drug which will occasionally cause mental health problems - and legalise nicotine, a highly addictive drug which comes packaged with a buttload of known carcinogens? Or worse, alcohol, an even more addictive drug which is highly likely to turn people aggressive and dangerous?

Yes they were, I said nothing to contradict that, so why does it make me wrong?

At the moment there are several psycoactive products that are legal, they will be banned when the legislature catches up, but by then some more will have been synthesised or extracted.

alcohol wasn't banned when opiates were because it's use was far more widespread and had been going on for much longer, and it probably made an awful lot of tax money at the time, far more than from opium dens.

Doesn't the majority of the evidence for canabis use indicate that it may bring out schizophrenia in people already predisposed to it, rather than being the route cause itself?

At the end of the day I'd like to see most drugs (not quite all) legalised, controlled, taxed and sold in appropriate forms and amounts with the appropriate controls being enforced.

In droves - but the druggie-loving posters will argue beyond any logic that it's just great for you and hasn't done them any harm at all. Prats.

I don't think anyone thinks its good for you. I personally doubt the necessity for making it illegal however. It costs vast sums to police anti drugs laws and I'm not sure this actually does anything much to reduce the amount drugs are used. Inform people of the dangers and give them the freedom of choice as they do with nicotine.

I still agree with a smoking ban in pubs however, that is when freedom of one persons choice effects the health of others.

Conspiracy theories would say it was banned by a combination of Du-Pont and William Randolph Hearst when a process was developed to pick and decorticate hemp which would make hemp based paper cheap and plentifull and make the sulphuric acid wood pulping process owned by Du-Pont (wich significant holdings by Hearst). With hemp being an anually re-newable resource (unlike the many years that it takes to grow a tree to a suitable size for felling and pulping) and the cost of hemp paper production being about half that of wood pulping a slide in Du-Pont's and Hearst's worth wouldn't be hard to anticipate. To avert this Hearst used his papers, magazines, tabloids and news reels to spread sensationalist stories about how evil Canabis was. Firstly how is would turn people into psychotic killers and then when this was rebuffed how it would make American boys too apathetic to 'fight in our wars'. Whether this is true or not I've no idea, but I love a good conspiracy theory!

I'm of the opinion that is partly true. I think it was a political opportunity that proved just to tasty to resist, actually outlawing a competetive industry that could have put some big names under the gun.

Then there was Anslinger, who pumped up the marijuana/immigrant scare in order to elevate himself in the Government bureaucracy.

Agencies at the time were careful so as not to associate the well known plant hemp, with a million uses, with the drug, 'marijuana'.

The first US statute on cannabis was actually a compulsion to grow it - and you could even pay your taxes with it.

The first law against it in the US was in Utah, because a bunch of teetotal mormons had return from mexico with a penchant for it

as for the uk, I found this:

Cannabis first became illegal in the UK, and most of the rest of the world, on 28th September 1928 when the 1925 Dangerous Drugs Act came into force. There were no British domestic reasons, no lobbying for or against prohibition, and no Parliamentary debates. The Act controlling 'Indian Hemp and all resins and preparations based thereon' had been passed after Britain signed the 1925 Geneva International Convention on Narcotics Control, organised by the League of Nations. Asked what it was all about on a slow day in Parliament, a junior Home Office Minister explained that the Convention could not be ratified without an 'important but small' law being passed. 'What it does is include coca leaves under a former Act. They are the real basis of cocaine - we place them in the same category as raw opium.' Cannabis itself was ever mentioned aloud.

This apathy was nothing new. When the 1920 Act controlling opium and cocaine was passed, there were problems finding enough MPs to vote on the committee stages. In 1893 a huge report by the Indian Hemp Drugs Commission had concluded that 'the moderate use of hemp drugs is practically attended by no evil results at all'. It recommended, for India, 'restraining use and improving the revenue by the imposition of suitable taxation' at 'as high a rate of duty as can be levied without inducing illicit practices' on the grounds that 'the best way to restrict the consumption of drugs is to tax them.' Taxes on cannabis were already normal in India - Bengal state government made about £100,000 per year through the 1860's [£5-10 million in today's money]. This report from the Empire was never publicly discussed in the UK, and the authorities were content to have no laws at all controlling cannabis for another thirty years.


I don't think anyone thinks its good for you. I personally doubt the necessity for making it illegal however. It costs vast sums to police anti drugs laws and I'm not sure this actually does anything much to reduce the amount drugs are used.

Almost consistently, the proportion of the population (in the US)using drugs other than the big three remains at about 1.3%. The USA is most cited because the most information exists about their drugs situation, given they spend over $40 billion every year on it - but have no effect on the number of users, inspite of imprisoning over a million offenders every year)

Here are a bunch of US Law enforcement officers who, like Cyclone and myself, believe that no drug should be illegal - http://www.leap.cc/Multimedia/LEAPpromo.php


In addition, whilst it does have some deleterious effects, especially in the predisposed, it can also be good for you. The Scripps Medical Research institute have published research that shows cannabinoids can be used to treat, and possibly halt the onset of Alzheimers disease.
"Our results provide a mechanism whereby the THC molecule can directly impact Alzheimer's disease pathology," researchers concluded. "THC and its analogues may provide an improved therapeutic [option] for Alzheimer's disease [by]... simultaneously treating both the symptoms and the progression of [the] disease."


And given that there are several Cannabis derived drugs on the market at the moment means that it must have therapeutic uses; it is being used in therapy.

Although of course there was the tragic case of a woman who died in Sheffield from a pharmaceutical preparation of the drug (the drug was implicated in her death).

I love you barty.
You've got your fingers so far in your ears that your actually tickling your brain.
I don't think any self respecting smoker would try to "argue beyond any logic that it's just great for you " as they generally appriciate that this is their thing and it aint for everyone.
Where as you've actually gone to the other side of the scale and tried desparatly hard to prove that you are right and all "druggies" can't possibly have a point or be anywhere near correct.
You rock!Why thank you - it would seem that we agree then.
My view - all drug users must be cretins by virtue of the fact that they take illegal, damaging substances, and they should be banged up.
All dealers should be hanged - any amount, any category.
Straightforward enough view, I think.

My view - all drug users must be cretins by virtue of the fact that they take illegal, damaging substances, and they should be banged up.
All dealers should be hanged - any amount, any category.
Straightforward enough view, I think.
Assuming that you drink tea or coffee, or enjoy a pint down the pub, or smoke (probably not the latter); all of which activities involve the ingestion of drugs, would your opinion remain the same if any of them were suddenly declared illegal, or would you 'see the error of your ways' and give up the offending substance because 'nanny knows best'? Not an attempt to wind you up, I'm genuinely interested in your answer.

Also, if you are a member of the Taleban, it provides convenient, and unexpectedly resilient cover.
Fireproof Forest (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/10/13/fireproof_forests/)

So now cannabis gives succour to terrorists :rolleyes:

Assuming that you drink tea or coffee, or enjoy a pint down the pub, or smoke (probably not the latter); all of which activities involve the ingestion of drugs, would your opinion remain the same if any of them were suddenly declared illegal, or would you 'see the error of your ways' and give up the offending substance because 'nanny knows best'? Not an attempt to wind you up, I'm genuinely interested in your answer.
Good question, and not taken as a wind up. If my favorite pint became illegal I'd be saddened, but have to understand and accept it.
Bizarrely enough, the state often does know better than we the masses.

Good question, and not taken as a wind up. If my favorite pint became illegal I'd be saddened, but have to understand and accept it.
Bizarrely enough, the state often does know better than we the masses.
Fair enough, your position is consistent. I have to disagree with you about the state knowing better than the people though, I am very distrustful of the machine of state.