Why is Cannabis still illegal?
Discussion
172 said:
Every single cannabis smoker I know is struggling to get ahead in life
Read into that what ever you like
You must be unlucky because that's just not the case . Legal here for a few years now not that you'd notice , nothing has changed . Friends that use , I do not , have tried the shops but have gone back to their own sources purely down to cost , some even grow their own as we're allowed 4 plants per home .Read into that what ever you like
Still gets light in the mornings and dark at night
I grew up with many friends who smoked weed. As it happened I did not smoke at all ( I had stolen cigarettes from my mother at 10 years old, some and became so ill that I was very loth to smoke).
There was zero correlation with their later successes of failures. Same as people who drank. Most were one and went on to normal lives. At the extremes some were made huge careers and some went into misery and even suicide. Not related to booze or drugs.
There was zero correlation with their later successes of failures. Same as people who drank. Most were one and went on to normal lives. At the extremes some were made huge careers and some went into misery and even suicide. Not related to booze or drugs.
172 said:
Every single cannabis smoker I know is struggling to get ahead in life
Read into that what ever you like
I can suggest a pensions/financial advisor (retiring at 45), a head teacher, a chartered engineer, and the owner of a sunseeker (I don't actually know exactly what he does for a living!) who would all disagree with your statement. Read into that what ever you like
Indeed, says more about the company 172 keeps, than anything else. I wonder if he knows anyone with an alcohol problem too?
It's odd that some folk who accept the importance of double blind trials in medicine, choose to accept anecdote with illegal drugs.
Gave a tour of my allotment yesterday. Always interesting to see who spots the weed plants!
It's odd that some folk who accept the importance of double blind trials in medicine, choose to accept anecdote with illegal drugs.
Gave a tour of my allotment yesterday. Always interesting to see who spots the weed plants!
Elatino1 said:
172 said:
Every single cannabis smoker I know is struggling to get ahead in life
Read into that what ever you like
Whereas I don't know one that isn't doing reasonably well and a couple that are millionaires.Read into that what ever you like
Read into that whatever you like.
"Household income was $93,800 (£73,470) for consumers in California, significantly higher than the $70,000 (£54811) average for abstainers."
"Similar results were found in Colorado with 64 percent of cannabis consumers in full-time jobs, compared to 54 percent of those who would not consider consuming the drug."
"In California, 64 percent of consumers had started a family, while the figure for abstainers stood at 55 percent."
https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/cannabis-...
Lannister902 said:
Elatino1 said:
172 said:
Every single cannabis smoker I know is struggling to get ahead in life
Read into that what ever you like
Whereas I don't know one that isn't doing reasonably well and a couple that are millionaires.Read into that what ever you like
Read into that whatever you like.
Sambucket said:
Indeed, says more about the company 172 keeps, than anything else. I wonder if he knows anyone with an alcohol problem too?
It's odd that some folk who accept the importance of double blind trials in medicine, choose to accept anecdote with illegal drugs.
Gave a tour of my allotment yesterday. Always interesting to see who spots the weed plants!
people don't like inconvenient facts?It's odd that some folk who accept the importance of double blind trials in medicine, choose to accept anecdote with illegal drugs.
Gave a tour of my allotment yesterday. Always interesting to see who spots the weed plants!
jakesmith said:
I don’t rate the gateway drug thing. If people want to try drugs they may well start on cannabis as it is freely available. That doesn’t mean cannabis made them want to start trying drugs it’s just the first one on the list. If it didn’t exist and someone wanted to try drugs they’d just start on the next one up like speed or Mandy or coke or whatever
New York Times.''In 1999, reporting on the dangers of medical marijuana for Congress, the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences declared “there is no conclusive evidence that the drug effects of marijuana are causally linked to the subsequent abuse of other illicit drugs.” The report did not address nicotine or alcohol.
What the medical community knows about addiction has evolved significantly since the 1930s, when a team of researchers introduced an early version of the gateway concept. Known as Stepping Stone Theory, it was based on the researchers’ observation that 100 percent of the heroin addicts they interviewed had first used marijuana. Their conclusion: Marijuana leads inexorably to heroin use.
Later versions of the theory focused less on the idea that using one drug necessarily causes use of the other and more on establishing the order in which addicts typically move through substances. “You’re never really able to establish a clear causal connection because there are so many factors you can’t control for,” said Dr. Kandel, whose first paper on the topic is considered seminal. “All you can say is there is an association between the use of these drugs, and there tends to be a sequence.”
But those sorts of distinctions went up in smoke once Robert L. Dupont, a former White House drug czar and director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, coined the term gateway drug in his 1984 book, “Getting Tough on Gateway Drugs: A Guide for the Family.” With the war on drugs nearing its height, legislators and activist groups like D.A.R.E. seized on the idea that preventing kids from getting involved with booze or pot could save them from a lifetime of drug abuse.
“The program was much more didactic back then,” said Frank X. Pegueros, D.A.R.E.’s president and chief executive, when asked whether his group’s position on gateway drugs had changed. Since 2008, the program has shifted focus away from just saying no and toward the teaching of good decision-making skills, he said.
Today, health advocates tend to rally around a concept known as common liability theory, which states that certain people, by virtue of biology, environment or both, are simply more likely than others to become addicted to drugs. Part of the appeal of the theory is it explains why so many people can use so-called gateway drugs and never become addicted.
“Gateway theory only deals with the initiation of the use of various substances, and this order means exactly nothing,” said Michael M. Vanyukov, a professor of pharmaceutical sciences at the University of Pittsburgh and co-author of a 2012 paper comparing gateway and common liability theories. “What is important is why people start using drugs at all, and common liability accounts for that.”
Still, Dr. Kandel does not believe the rise of the common liability model necessarily discredits gateway theory. “I feel that the two perspectives are actually complementary,” she said.
“I think people have certain tendencies or characteristics that increase the probability that they’re going to do all kinds of deviant behavior,” she said. “But I think that the order in which you’re going to do drugs will have an impact on whether you’re going to do other drugs.”
Though Dr. Kandel’s most recent research dealt only with nicotine and alcohol, she said she is currently wrapping up a similar study on marijuana. That study is likely to be published in the first half of 2018.
In the meantime, parents looking to protect their kids from addiction should focus less on which substances their children might be using and more on the overall context, said Dr. Nadelmann. “What else do they have going on? Are there underlying psychological and mental issues not being treated? Is the person using this substance as a form of self-medication?” he said.
“Those are the questions,” he said, “but I don’t think there’s any hard and fast rule.”
George Smiley said:
Lord.Vader said:
I have a few friends who are habitual users, all have decent jobs and certainly not "weird", you wouldn't know unless they mentioned it, i didn't know about one of them and I've known him 15+ years until we were playing poker at his house.
A drug with great potential and medicinal uses, legalise it and control quality, quantity and price, take the money to fund the NHS (including those areas studies identify as a potential issue).
Ridiculous that tobacco and alcohol are legal yet cannabis is not, the war on drugs has catastrophically failed at considerable cost to the tax payer, rather than fight a losing battle, change it up, take the cashflow away from the criminals and use the money to fund other areas and a focus on preventing drug use.
I know plenty of people who use cocaine yet wouldn't touch a cigarette nor a spiff so i cannot get onboard with the gateway drug mantra, same with all those people who regularly use cocaine, not one has ever touched crack, heroin, etc.
You seem to mingle with cool story bro drug users. So what if your cocaine chums won’t smoke a fag, I bet they’d have a doobie A drug with great potential and medicinal uses, legalise it and control quality, quantity and price, take the money to fund the NHS (including those areas studies identify as a potential issue).
Ridiculous that tobacco and alcohol are legal yet cannabis is not, the war on drugs has catastrophically failed at considerable cost to the tax payer, rather than fight a losing battle, change it up, take the cashflow away from the criminals and use the money to fund other areas and a focus on preventing drug use.
I know plenty of people who use cocaine yet wouldn't touch a cigarette nor a spiff so i cannot get onboard with the gateway drug mantra, same with all those people who regularly use cocaine, not one has ever touched crack, heroin, etc.
Why would they? To smoke a joint combining weed with tobacco? It stinks and is hardly something you’d do on a night out.
Do you drink? If so do you do it for the effect or because it is legal, what would you do if it was made illegal?
Drugs will be legalised
it will lead to a greater tax tie for the government which they can then use to treat the root cause of hard drug use, which is poverty and also to fund the NHS / Police where appropriate. Is cannabis for everyone, no, certainly not for me, but looking at this subject objectively, the pro’s far exceed the con’s, as I said the war on drugs has failed, let’s change our approach.
Lord.Vader said:
Is cannabis for everyone, no, certainly not for me, but looking at this subject objectively, the pro’s far exceed the con’s, as I said the war on drugs has failed, let’s change our approach.
I'd be interested for any of the anti brigade to explain why illegality is better. It doesn't stop people using it.
It doesn't stop growers and dealers making it available.
It doesn't prevent any addictions/gateways/illness/mental health issues.
It doesn't generate any money to pay for treatment of the above.
None of the people above pay any attention to the 'war on drugs'.
What is the point of it being prohibited?
technodup said:
'd be interested for any of the anti brigade to explain why illegality is better.
It doesn't stop people using it.
It doesn't stop growers and dealers making it available.
It doesn't prevent any addictions/gateways/illness/mental health issues.
It doesn't generate any money to pay for treatment of the above.
None of the people above pay any attention to the 'war on drugs'.
What is the point of it being prohibited?
To be fair, there's no way any government would dedicate the tax income to the NHS. That's pie in the sky. It doesn't stop people using it.
It doesn't stop growers and dealers making it available.
It doesn't prevent any addictions/gateways/illness/mental health issues.
It doesn't generate any money to pay for treatment of the above.
None of the people above pay any attention to the 'war on drugs'.
What is the point of it being prohibited?
There are positives as well. Although there's little police time dedicated to cannabis at the moment, it still costs.
The gangs that thrive on low level drugs will have their income reduced, possibly considerably. The suggestion is that people will move away from the harder stuff- reverse gateway ironically - and onto easily available cannabis has not been proven, but it is a distinct possibility.
One reason is more esoteric; it keeps the government out of what people do in private. If it doesn't scare the horses, then the government needs to persuade rather than direct.
There're a number of other points, both pro and con, but me belief is that the pros of legalisation have it.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff