Why is Cannabis still illegal?

[BJG1]

wolves_wanderer said:

God knows why it is illegal. Such a boring drug that makes people so docile would be encouraged you'd have thought. Although from knowing a few people who smoke a lot of it, it doesn't exactly breed the thrusting go-getters of tomorrow.

Or people who have the time/inclination to smoke a lot are not exactly the thrusting go-getters of tomorrow anyway.

[wolves_wanderer]

BJG1 said:

wolves_wanderer said:

God knows why it is illegal. Such a boring drug that makes people so docile would be encouraged you'd have thought. Although from knowing a few people who smoke a lot of it, it doesn't exactly breed the thrusting go-getters of tomorrow.

Or people who have the time/inclination to smoke a lot are not exactly the thrusting go-getters of tomorrow anyway.

Could be, although the people I'm thinking of had the time and inclination to smoke a lot at the same time as the rest of us did. They seemed to enjoy it more and never "grew out of it" like the rest of us.

[LocoCoco]

wolves_wanderer said:

BJG1 said:

wolves_wanderer said:

God knows why it is illegal. Such a boring drug that makes people so docile would be encouraged you'd have thought. Although from knowing a few people who smoke a lot of it, it doesn't exactly breed the thrusting go-getters of tomorrow.

Or people who have the time/inclination to smoke a lot are not exactly the thrusting go-getters of tomorrow anyway.

Could be, although the people I'm thinking of had the time and inclination to smoke a lot at the same time as the rest of us did. They seemed to enjoy it more and never "grew out of it" like the rest of us.

Weed probably just suits their personality, as you said, they enjoyed it more, life's all about doing the things that you enjoy.

[TTwiggy]

BJG1 said:

wolves_wanderer said:

God knows why it is illegal. Such a boring drug that makes people so docile would be encouraged you'd have thought. Although from knowing a few people who smoke a lot of it, it doesn't exactly breed the thrusting go-getters of tomorrow.

Or people who have the time/inclination to smoke a lot are not exactly the thrusting go-getters of tomorrow anyway.

Rather like the tales of people who have gone off the rails as a result of smoking, I'd say that again it all varies from user to user. I know a chap who smokes an inordinant amount of ganja. Every evening and every weekend. He also has a top job with a big international company, is in the office by 6 every morning and earns a big 6-figure salary.

[BJG1]

TTwiggy said:

Rather like the tales of people who have gone off the rails as a result of smoking, I'd say that again it all varies from user to user. I know a chap who smokes an inordinant amount of ganja. Every evening and every weekend. He also has a top job with a big international company, is in the office by 6 every morning and earns a big 6-figure salary.

Yup, I smoke a lot, although not quite every day and I've done alright for myself. People only see the problem users because they are much more obvious and visible. The same goes for other drugs, most people wouldn't believe it but there are plenty of high-flyers who shoot up heroin as well.

[wolves_wanderer]

It appears our respective anecdotes cancel each other's out then

[anonymous-user]

Prohibition doesn't work. It just leaves enormous amounts of money in the hands of serious and organised criminals. The state should have a limited say as to what people put in their own bodies, with the balance of the wider protection of society.

Cannabis is a good one to consider first, because some states in the US are already going down the road so we can use their results and experience to make a judgement ourselves.

Richard Brunstorm, the CC who most people hate, was very 'radical' on the issue for someone in his position: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/7038552.stm

[killingjoker]

wolves_wanderer said:

God knows why it is illegal. Such a boring drug that makes people so docile would be encouraged you'd have thought. Although from knowing a few people who smoke a lot of it, it doesn't exactly breed the thrusting go-getters of tomorrow.

Hmmmm coming from someone whos occupation is listed as Dosser

[killingjoker]

FredClogs said:

killingjoker said:

Yeah i mean look at Howard Marks. That guy was thick, lazy, and never amounted to anything. He never made much money, or wrote a book, or worked for the govenment, or toured and sold out venues, lived all over the world, met loads of different cultures, or the like....

Edited to say: Or cool of cool 70's style smuggling weed in Ford Capri's

I'm not sure Howard Marks had a life he or anyone else should be proud of, consider cool or be painted as some kind of loveable rogue...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Marks

What next? The Krays were just misunderstood? El Chapo is a community leader? Pablo Escobar loved his mum?

Are you seriously putting Howard Marks in the same league as the Krays? Behave. He has lead one hell of an interesting life. Look, just because i picked a prime example that disputes your theory instead of being a bit silly why not have a think and try another approach. Although you have made me giggle. Good effort... well done you

[wolves_wanderer]

killingjoker said:

wolves_wanderer said:

God knows why it is illegal. Such a boring drug that makes people so docile would be encouraged you'd have thought. Although from knowing a few people who smoke a lot of it, it doesn't exactly breed the thrusting go-getters of tomorrow.

Hmmmm coming from someone whos occupation is listed as Dosser

At least I've got a job

[vetrof]

John145 said:

I don't believe the scientific evidence I've seen because from my personal experience, it's wrong. I put the error down to the method of experimentation and the use of flaky statistics.

Brilliant!

[vetrof]

wolves_wanderer said:

God knows why it is illegal. Such a boring drug that makes people so docile would be encouraged you'd have thought. Although from knowing a few people who smoke a lot of it, it doesn't exactly breed the thrusting go-getters of tomorrow.

Yeah. Steve Jobs and Bill Gates never did anything of note.

[HRL]

OpulentBob said:

JS748 said:

AJS- said:

I am at heart libertarian on drugs. Up to the individual. However Peter Hitchens is very interesting on this.

The amount of spree killers and even Jihadists with a history of cannabis use seems worth investigating.

Speak to anyone who's tried cannabis, and likely the last thing they're plotting is a murderous rampage through the streets, well maybe attack a pizzeria and eat a pizza to death. Hitchens and the mail will try to find any connection they can. I read some crap in the mail a while ago, and the headline was trying to pin the blame on cannabis. Yet when you read the whole article, and the judge mentioned the psychiatric assessment it was blamed on amphetamine use with no mention of cannabis!

When such a large percentage of a population uses a substance. When something bad happens, it's very easy to make a connection to a widely used substance, but what about the millions who use it and live their lives without causing any trouble. My opinion is that people with mental illness will go off the rails anyway, whether they use alcohol, drugs, gamble or read hateful articles in cheap newspapers – wonder how many they've killed?

"99% of murderers eat eggs. Therefore, eggs make you murder people."

Yes, ridiculous isn't it. You could replace he word with aspirin and it would still mean just as little unless you were attempting to make an invalid point valid.

Stoners don't hurt people, they're too busy chilling out or playing video games.

[TTwiggy]

HRL said:

OpulentBob said:

JS748 said:

AJS- said:

I am at heart libertarian on drugs. Up to the individual. However Peter Hitchens is very interesting on this.

The amount of spree killers and even Jihadists with a history of cannabis use seems worth investigating.

Speak to anyone who's tried cannabis, and likely the last thing they're plotting is a murderous rampage through the streets, well maybe attack a pizzeria and eat a pizza to death. Hitchens and the mail will try to find any connection they can. I read some crap in the mail a while ago, and the headline was trying to pin the blame on cannabis. Yet when you read the whole article, and the judge mentioned the psychiatric assessment it was blamed on amphetamine use with no mention of cannabis!

When such a large percentage of a population uses a substance. When something bad happens, it's very easy to make a connection to a widely used substance, but what about the millions who use it and live their lives without causing any trouble. My opinion is that people with mental illness will go off the rails anyway, whether they use alcohol, drugs, gamble or read hateful articles in cheap newspapers – wonder how many they've killed?

"99% of murderers eat eggs. Therefore, eggs make you murder people."

Yes, ridiculous isn't it. You could replace he word with aspirin and it would still mean just as little unless you were attempting to make an invalid point valid.

Stoners don't hurt people, they're too busy chilling out or playing video games.

Everytime I see the name Peter Hitchens I'm reminded that the wrong brother died.

[remkingston]

Not sure if this will surprise any of you guys:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_British_poli...

[jakesmith]

technodup said:

In 95 they were £12ish, dropping to as little as £1in the 00s and now they're a tenner. Apparently.

Fell out of favour due to reduced quality and the rise of coke, mephedrone and other legal highs. Now reported strength is higher than ever.

Nope, there was a drought in 2008-9 due to China clamping down on export of precursors to dodgy dutch and Belgian front companies.

This is what fueled the rise of mephedrone.

Then a new synth route was developed using more freely available precursors and the quality shot up.

Not much demand for meph now decent mdma is freely available

Uk coke is an utter joke too, 99% of the people who buy a cheeky g for friday night are snorting utter dog poo, but that's the uk public for you, all about price and not quality

[Ali G]

I mainly inject etenercept these days - with a cheeky sulfasalozine on the side.



ETA speeling 'ckeeky' was beyond my 'bong' filled head.
Which was intended as a joke.

Edited by Ali G on Friday 31st July 18:06

Edited by Ali G on Friday 31st July 18:33

[Dragoncaviar]

jakesmith said:

Nope, there was a drought in 2008-9 due to China clamping down on export of precursors to dodgy dutch and Belgian front companies.

This is what fueled the rise of mephedrone.

Then a new synth route was developed using more freely available precursors and the quality shot up.

Not much demand for meph now decent mdma is freely available

Uk coke is an utter joke too, 99% of the people who buy a cheeky g for friday night are snorting utter dog poo, but that's the uk public for you, all about price and not quality

It's a double edged sword though, since all the precursors are Schedule 1 watched chemicals, so now, clandestine chemists are using precursors to precursors, primarily PMK-glycidate.

However, the quality of these reagents just isn't the same as the Saffrole of old, and that, twinned with the fact that clandestine chemists don't really know jack st about stereochemistry or enantiomeric ratios ... and we have a sad situation today, where MDMA is abundant, but of questionable quality.

N.B., it's of questionable quality, not questionable purity. When Shulgin first started working with MDMA in a therapeutic environment, he suggested 100mg as a dose, wtih a 40mg supplement 1 hour in to extend the experience.

Today, pills over here (The Netherlands) are routinely tested at 250mg+. That, twinned with the fact that MDMA today seems more racy and stimulating than ever, and lacks the magical psychedelic hints that came with pre-2008 MDMA ... and it seems more than likely to me that there's an abundance of S+ MDMA where before it was a more evenly balanced racemic/R-MDMA.


One thing is for certain, the widely available and cheap MDMA on the streets today is NOT the same as the therapeutic MDMA being produced in legal labs, or the MDMA of years gone by. (Yes those pills from the early 90's really were special, regardless of how many hundreds of mg your pills today have).

[Ali G]

Dragoncaviar said:

It's a double edged sword though, since all the precursors are Schedule 1 watched chemicals, so now, clandestine chemists are using precursors to precursors, primarily PMK-glycidate.

However, the quality of these reagents just isn't the same as the Saffrole of old, and that, twinned with the fact that clandestine chemists don't really know jack st about stereochemistry or enantiomeric ratios ... and we have a sad situation today, where MDMA is abundant, but of questionable quality.

N.B., it's of questionable quality, not questionable purity. When Shulgin first started working with MDMA in a therapeutic environment, he suggested 100mg as a dose, wtih a 40mg supplement 1 hour in to extend the experience.

Today, pills over here (The Netherlands) are routinely tested at 250mg+. That, twinned with the fact that MDMA today seems more racy and stimulating than ever, and lacks the magical psychedelic hints that came with pre-2008 MDMA ... and it seems more than likely to me that there's an abundance of S+ MDMA where before it was a more evenly balanced racemic/R-MDMA.


One thing is for certain, the widely available and cheap MDMA on the streets today is NOT the same as the therapeutic MDMA being produced in legal labs, or the MDMA of years gone by. (Yes those pills from the early 90's really were special, regardless of how many hundreds of mg your pills today have).

You really are a complete tt.

[Slyjoe]

Ali G said:

Dragoncaviar said:

It's a double edged sword though, since all the precursors are Schedule 1 watched chemicals, so now, clandestine chemists are using precursors to precursors, primarily PMK-glycidate.

However, the quality of these reagents just isn't the same as the Saffrole of old, and that, twinned with the fact that clandestine chemists don't really know jack st about stereochemistry or enantiomeric ratios ... and we have a sad situation today, where MDMA is abundant, but of questionable quality.

N.B., it's of questionable quality, not questionable purity. When Shulgin first started working with MDMA in a therapeutic environment, he suggested 100mg as a dose, wtih a 40mg supplement 1 hour in to extend the experience.

Today, pills over here (The Netherlands) are routinely tested at 250mg+. That, twinned with the fact that MDMA today seems more racy and stimulating than ever, and lacks the magical psychedelic hints that came with pre-2008 MDMA ... and it seems more than likely to me that there's an abundance of S+ MDMA where before it was a more evenly balanced racemic/R-MDMA.


One thing is for certain, the widely available and cheap MDMA on the streets today is NOT the same as the therapeutic MDMA being produced in legal labs, or the MDMA of years gone by. (Yes those pills from the early 90's really were special, regardless of how many hundreds of mg your pills today have).

You really are a complete tt.

Really? I thought he'd posted one of the best informed posts I've ever seen on PH a couple of pages back. (page 6 for me)

Edited by Slyjoe on Friday 31st July 18:51