Judge - I am the law and I'll do as I please.

[Phanerothyme 12]

I like it "winds the squares up" square as I recall was used to define anyone not up to date favoured use was back in the sixties and the word in that context is very rarely used these days,usually by aged hippys..well done cat glad to see youre still groovin and hip

 

It's just that all the prohibitionists seemed to vacate the thread after the self-confessed illegal drug users posted a raft of well reasoned rebuttals and points of their own.

 

So, I had to think of a clever way to get at least one of them posting again, partly so we can laugh at their senseless and circular reasoning, but also because it affords the opportunity for us to gently bring them up to speed on a subject they know very little about, namely the Misuse of Drugs Act.

 

All I have to do now is to cleverly work out how to get them to reply to the points made in the last dozen anti-prohibitionist points. Which is more difficult as they are a naturally reluctant breed, and tend to simply bark a lot.

 

Do you have any advice, as you clearly know language and how to use it?

[janie48 98]

I like it "winds the squares up" square as I recall was used to define anyone not up to date favoured use was back in the sixties and the word in that context is very rarely used these days,usually by aged hippys..well done cat glad to see youre still groovin and hip

I was groovy and hip back then.

Now I'm cool man, but square.

[Glamrocker 10]

It's just that all the prohibitionists seemed to vacate the thread after the self-confessed illegal drug users posted a raft of well reasoned rebuttals and points of their own.

 

So, I had to think of a clever way to get at least one of them posting again, partly so we can laugh at their senseless and circular reasoning, but also because it affords the opportunity for us to gently bring them up to speed on a subject they know very little about, namely the Misuse of Drugs Act.

 

All I have to do now is to cleverly work out how to get them to reply to the points made in the last dozen anti-prohibitionist points. Which is more difficult as they are a naturally reluctant breed, and tend to simply bark a lot.

 

Do you have any advice, as you clearly know language and how to use it?

But Im not a prohibitionist,I may speak out against drugs and air my views on the legality of such but I subscribe to the idea of whatever you do in your own home is your business,at this time cannabis is illegal and with good reason ,all the findings that led to the decriminalization of cannabis a few years ago was based on findings that reached back into the 60's and 70's they failed to take into account that the drug today is vastly more potent and I believe findings in the States have confirmed this hence the reversal of the de-classification,personally I dont care if you fry your brains but what I do care about is the condoning of drug taking being aired on what is supposed to be a family forum,what messages is it sending out ?

As for the poster who keeps banging on that it will soon be made legal I think he should cut down on his intake, not a prayer!

[Phanerothyme 12]

But Im not a prohibitionist,I may speak out against drugs and air my views on the legality of such but I subscribe to the idea of whatever you do in your own home is your business,

On that point we agree completely.

at this time cannabis is illegal and with good reason ,all the findings that led to the decriminalization of cannabis a few years ago

OK, there was only one short term official decriminalisation experiment in Lambeth, by the Daily Mail's favourite policeman Brian Paddick.

 

It was a qualified success.

Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir John Stevens wants to expand the program to all of London. Stevens has called the no-arrest scheme "sensible and progressive,"

.

 

It was the ongoing success of this scheme (there were drawbacks too)that led the then home secretary to have a rare moment of sanity and he reclassified cannabis as a Class C drug

. was based on findings that reached back into the 60's and 70's they failed to take into account that the drug today is vastly more potent

That's actually a big fat lie. THC & CBD are as potent as ever, like alcohol is. Alcohol has a reasonably predictable potency, and THC/CBD are no different.

 

And like alcohol, cannabis comes in different strengths. If you drink pints of whiskey, you'll get in trouble. Same goes for weed.

 

Also this idea that today's strains and phenos are anywhere between 50% and 5000% more potent than the ones of old - also not true. It is true that there has been an increasing preponderance of domestic, high quality herbal cannabis over the last 15 years. But compared to, for example, Highland Oaxaca Gold, they are unremarkable.

 

HOG was legendary for its strength back in the 60s and 70s, and the exact same landrace strain is still available today for comparison - it's stronger than modern herbal cannabis varieties which tend to be of the short flowering, indica heavy breeds.

 

To help confuse the issue, people treat cannabis as a drug, when it is in fact a plant. It contains not just active terpenoids, but congeners that significantly modify the effects of the active terpenoids - it's a complex interplay of factors that determines how "strong" cannabis can be, not it's raw resin content.

 

sand I believe findings in the States have confirmed this hence the reversal of the de-classification,

No the decrim experiment was extended for six months and then wrapped up. The reclassification back to class B was Labour fighting for "Loreandorder" votes, dog-whistle politics.

Personally I dont care if you fry your brains

Using it for 21 years, no sign of frying. But I am an addict - I get addicted to anything, it's very easy for me. If I had been doing it for 21 years with alcohol, I'd be a raddled wreck.

But what I do care about is the condoning of drug taking being aired on what is supposed to be a family forum,what messages is it sending out ?

 

That the government's drug policy is based on Fear, Lies and Vested Interests.

As for the poster who keeps banging on that it will soon be made legal I think he should cut down on his intake, not a prayer!

Reluctantly I agree that it's unlikely to happen any time soon, but I don't think the poster in question is saying that because of their intake. I probably have a higher intake, and I think the opposite.

[Hairyloon 10]

Also this idea that today's strains and phenos are anywhere between 50% and 5000% more potent than the ones of old - also not true.

 

It is not simply a question of strength though, the proportions of THC and cannabinols is also important.

Modern skunk has masses of THC compared to the natural plant. Some believe it was genetically engineered.

THC can cause psychosis, I believe the cannabinols have a mitigating effect on that.

[papertrai1 10]

i say legalise the damn herb

[Phanerothyme 12]

It is not simply a question of strength though, the proportions of THC and cannabinols is also important.

Modern skunk has masses of THC compared to the natural plant. Some believe it was genetically engineered.

THC can cause psychosis, I believe the cannabinols have a mitigating effect on that.

 

See my post in detail where it says:

people treat cannabis as a drug, when it is in fact a plant. It contains not just active terpenoids, but congeners that significantly modify the effects of the active terpenoids - it's a complex interplay of factors that determines how "strong" cannabis can be, not it's raw resin content.

 

It was only "genetically engineered" in so much as the plant has been bred for millenia into what we consume today. The THC content in modern skunk is very high generally because it's fresh off the plant, still green and needing a good cure. The moment you do that it takes on a different character altogether, as the THCs carboxylate.

 

This is the fact that GW Pharma are missing with their standardized Sativex. The growers of the pacific north west understand this, medical marijuana is better than THC/CBD as a medicine. Different strains have different anti-emetic/analgesic/anti-psychotic/opthalmic effects. Some strains are better than others for different ailments and problems. And it appears to be down to the congeners rather than what are traditionally viewed as active constitutents.

Edited March 6, 2012 by Phanerothyme

[Infantry 10]

At being wrong it would seem.

 

reality check, druggies are a cancer in society.

[Magilla 510]

reality check, druggies are a cancer in society.

 

No, they're not. The vast majority of problems are as a direct result of their illegality rather than use.

[Harleyman 12]

Cannabis make you fat (because they cause hunger) and they also destroy personal ambition and eventually cause short term memory loss.

 

If we're attempting to eliminate tobacco use we dont need cannabis either

[Phanerothyme 12]

Cannabis make you fat (because they cause hunger) and they also destroy personal ambition and eventually cause short term memory loss.

 

If we're attempting to eliminate tobacco use we dont need cannabis either

 

Wrong on three counts. Cannabis related short term memory loss is only exhibited whilst under the influence, Short term memory quickly returns after use.

 

Alcohol reliably causes complete memory blackouts of course.

 

If cannabis destroys ambition, then will someone please tell Richard Branson.

 

Fattening foods make you fat, cannabis can help prevent nausea and is an appetite stimulant much like alcohol, only far less toxic.

[Bonzo77 13]

Cannabis make you fat (because they cause hunger) and they also destroy personal ambition and eventually cause short term memory loss.

 

If we're attempting to eliminate tobacco use we dont need cannabis either

 

No it doesn't!

 

Eating too much makes you fat! I've used cannabis on and off for over a decade and I'm still on the ball. It makes me feel productive, inventive, creative and, dare I say it, rather suggestive.

 

It does give me the munchies but I exercise, daily. Same as anyone should if they eat too much.