Why is Cannabis still illegal?
Discussion
Brother in law has been a regular /fairly heavy weed smoker for 30yrs. He'll tell you its done him no harm..
I'd tell you different, looking at him and listening to him and seeing how he's slowed down/slurs/eyes and general demeanour.
He has to be fair never used it as a gateway to anything stronger, has always worked albeit on and off as a jobbing builder, and has raised a decent family .
I'd tell you different, looking at him and listening to him and seeing how he's slowed down/slurs/eyes and general demeanour.
He has to be fair never used it as a gateway to anything stronger, has always worked albeit on and off as a jobbing builder, and has raised a decent family .
200Plus Club said:
Brother in law has been a regular /fairly heavy weed smoker for 30yrs. He'll tell you its done him no harm..
I'd tell you different, looking at him and listening to him and seeing how he's slowed down/slurs/eyes and general demeanour.
He has to be fair never used it as a gateway to anything stronger, has always worked albeit on and off as a jobbing builder, and has raised a decent family .
I know several regular users - all in their 50’s - and jets just say I wouldn’t employ them. It’s the lack of focus and drive that seems to be the thing that shows most.I'd tell you different, looking at him and listening to him and seeing how he's slowed down/slurs/eyes and general demeanour.
He has to be fair never used it as a gateway to anything stronger, has always worked albeit on and off as a jobbing builder, and has raised a decent family .
andy_s said:
I've taken it for over 30 years, generally a couple on the weekend so quite light and casual. I wouldn't describe myself as a 'stoner' and have managed to hold down decent jobs, bring up two great kids, do ultra distance mountain running as a hobby and get a degree in my 40's. I don't buy from a 'guy in the park', I get specific strains of good quality from a trusted source and would never touch, nor been tempted by, anything 'harder'. I've friends who indulge occasionally that are solicitors, senior CEOs, doctors and so on. I can honestly say that it's done me no harm, especially nowadays as vaporisers become the delivery method of choice, and I've done no one any harm either in the process.
'Everything in moderation' is of course key; whether it be drink or weed or food or anything else we do, and barring the occasional binge, I generally stick to that. I've certainly been in worse states through alcohol than drugs, both during and after. I don't care for severe hangovers now, it must be said. But I'd care a whole lot less if I ended up with a criminal record for, in my opinion, something that is - certainly in my case - eminently benign to me and everyone else in society. It would be an unnecessary justice in my opinion.
Leaving aside mythbusters for a moment though - of course we're right to be cautious about the consequences of legalisation; there are inevitably downsides and contraindications for a small percentage of the population and some people may fall foul of one aspect or another. But generally speaking, those that want to smoke do so already, those that have addictive personalities or constantly seek bigger ways of obliterating themselves are doing so already, either the junkie under the bridge or the middle-class manager with a bottle of Vodka hidden in the bathroom. There is some truth to the gateway drug idea in that people who are apt to go that way may start small and grow big, but
it may help that instead of having to go to the only current source of dope who can also readily access other drugs vs. a legal source that only deals with dope may actually help cut that chain/temptation.
There is a concern on brain development in the young, concern that under-18's/21's may use it and concern for secondary/tertiary effects such as the bad smells for close neighbours(!), driving under the influence, being 'dull' at work or study, operating machinery etc but guess what - that already happens today and is unlikely to increase by any major percentile post-legalisation - don't forget, legalisation will surely come with more rigorous testing, educational material, cultural sensitivity, social awareness in workplace and education and advisory/help/support 'centres'; things that aren't so prevalent now. 2.2 million take it already and if you go off the countries that have legalised the numbers don't spike, they stay more or less the same or at least stay in the same ball park but you'll have better and more resources to deal with the issues that already exist today.
The main downside in the Colorado case has been an increase in homelessness, not because every one has become a waster and spent the family silver, but because so many people want to move there that prices and rents have shot through the roof. In Colorado the factories are akin to top tier medical facilities where everything is scrupulously grown in a laboratory-like environment, individual plants are bar-coded just like other consumables to track any cases of contamination or other. The shops are like craft beer pubs with an eclectic array of different varieties and 'yob buying' is firmly discouraged. Why go to an illegal dealer who cannot offer any of those benefits for about the same price (you ought to see their mark-up...)?
The revenue aspects are immense, probably well into the billions. Where do you want that money to go? At the moment it is distributed through criminal gangs, Chinese slave labour and into the pockets of gangsters with violence, prostitution, racketeering and dubious other drugs being supported by it. It could be going into the pockets of the grower, retailer and government. Talk to any front-line police officer and ask them how many tussles they've had with someone on dope versus how many alcohol related violent altercations and Domestics they've dealt with. I'd wager it's in single figures vs. 'every bloody weekend' for a 20 year experience bobby. It's winner-winner chicken dinner.
When I hear someone advance an argument with 'I don't know much about it but...death and destruction etc..' I immediately wonder at the relative cognitive functions between this person versus a quarter of a century stoner...
Peace, out.
With the exception of the first paragraph, which is only excluded as I'm not a user, non drinker too by way of a useless additional bit of information, but therefore have nothing to say to that side of the issue, the rest of that excellent post seems pretty much spot on.'Everything in moderation' is of course key; whether it be drink or weed or food or anything else we do, and barring the occasional binge, I generally stick to that. I've certainly been in worse states through alcohol than drugs, both during and after. I don't care for severe hangovers now, it must be said. But I'd care a whole lot less if I ended up with a criminal record for, in my opinion, something that is - certainly in my case - eminently benign to me and everyone else in society. It would be an unnecessary justice in my opinion.
Leaving aside mythbusters for a moment though - of course we're right to be cautious about the consequences of legalisation; there are inevitably downsides and contraindications for a small percentage of the population and some people may fall foul of one aspect or another. But generally speaking, those that want to smoke do so already, those that have addictive personalities or constantly seek bigger ways of obliterating themselves are doing so already, either the junkie under the bridge or the middle-class manager with a bottle of Vodka hidden in the bathroom. There is some truth to the gateway drug idea in that people who are apt to go that way may start small and grow big, but
it may help that instead of having to go to the only current source of dope who can also readily access other drugs vs. a legal source that only deals with dope may actually help cut that chain/temptation.
There is a concern on brain development in the young, concern that under-18's/21's may use it and concern for secondary/tertiary effects such as the bad smells for close neighbours(!), driving under the influence, being 'dull' at work or study, operating machinery etc but guess what - that already happens today and is unlikely to increase by any major percentile post-legalisation - don't forget, legalisation will surely come with more rigorous testing, educational material, cultural sensitivity, social awareness in workplace and education and advisory/help/support 'centres'; things that aren't so prevalent now. 2.2 million take it already and if you go off the countries that have legalised the numbers don't spike, they stay more or less the same or at least stay in the same ball park but you'll have better and more resources to deal with the issues that already exist today.
The main downside in the Colorado case has been an increase in homelessness, not because every one has become a waster and spent the family silver, but because so many people want to move there that prices and rents have shot through the roof. In Colorado the factories are akin to top tier medical facilities where everything is scrupulously grown in a laboratory-like environment, individual plants are bar-coded just like other consumables to track any cases of contamination or other. The shops are like craft beer pubs with an eclectic array of different varieties and 'yob buying' is firmly discouraged. Why go to an illegal dealer who cannot offer any of those benefits for about the same price (you ought to see their mark-up...)?
The revenue aspects are immense, probably well into the billions. Where do you want that money to go? At the moment it is distributed through criminal gangs, Chinese slave labour and into the pockets of gangsters with violence, prostitution, racketeering and dubious other drugs being supported by it. It could be going into the pockets of the grower, retailer and government. Talk to any front-line police officer and ask them how many tussles they've had with someone on dope versus how many alcohol related violent altercations and Domestics they've dealt with. I'd wager it's in single figures vs. 'every bloody weekend' for a 20 year experience bobby. It's winner-winner chicken dinner.
When I hear someone advance an argument with 'I don't know much about it but...death and destruction etc..' I immediately wonder at the relative cognitive functions between this person versus a quarter of a century stoner...
Peace, out.
Edited by andy_s on Thursday 21st June 00:17
Even the BMJ points out the 20,000 published papers on this and thousands of years of experience in comparison to some medical drugs which are approved on the basis of a single clinical trial of relatively short duration, and that's ignoring the issue of cherry picked data to be used in applications.
e30m3Mark said:
andy_s said:
there can be slight 'dependence' on a psychological sense, like liking your favourite sweet, so it's quite easy to stop if needed.
Is it? and maybe people with depression could just pull themselves together?https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/research-re...
On cannabis, I'm talking about an average majority experience rather than the 7% of severe cases, for sure if you are stoned 24/7 your body will no doubt be affected more profoundly, and even this report admits to not being 'settled', and I'd venture perhaps people who are that committed have other issues in their life that don't help.
I get a bit itchy if I don't run for a week, and of course I've had moments when I think 'I fancy a j' and have to put up with it, but its not like crack!
And let's not forget, with legalisation I'd hope would come better education/social engineering and support for the extreme cases that doesn't exist or is stigmatised currently.
I've consistently said that it doesn't come without potential downsides for some and like all things moderation is key; to deny this completely is as bad as exaggeration and hyperbole.
Davos123 said:
Fermit The Krog and Sexy Sarah said:
Indeed.
With this in mind, can anyone offer any light why Cameron reversed Labours bill taking cannabis from class C to B?
It seemed appropriate to me.
Because Theresa May wanted to as Home Secretary iirc. Very much her policy and not Cameron's, who has a liberal personal position on drugs.With this in mind, can anyone offer any light why Cameron reversed Labours bill taking cannabis from class C to B?
It seemed appropriate to me.
V6 Pushfit said:
Evolved said:
You also only have to go a hospital, or walk down the street to see the end result of alcohol use! Yet these future generations you mention, will be free to chug down as much as they wish.
And no, I’m not a pot head trying to justify my ‘addiction’.
Deflection to alcohol doesn’t cut it as an excuse for cannabis use. Burgers won’t work either!And no, I’m not a pot head trying to justify my ‘addiction’.
I don’t smoke at all btw but am very much in favour of legalising it.
V6 Pushfit said:
e30m3Mark said:
I've worked in criminal justice (drug and alcohol team) for a good few years and that hasn't been my experience. Very few people who deal in weed (in one form or other) have anything to do with the sale of Heroin and Cocaine.
Many (and probably most) of my clients started their drug taking with weed as it was deemed the softest / most socially acceptable drug, ignoring alcohol. Drug use is progressive though and once the taboo of using any mood altering drug regularly is broken, many are certainly more open to the prospect of using stronger drugs. I'm not saying that anyone who smokes weed will automatically move on to Heroin, but I have certainly seen a good number where their path into addiction started with weed.
Bang on, but the Space Cadets will have it that legalising weed stops all escalation to harder drugs. Oooh yes. Many (and probably most) of my clients started their drug taking with weed as it was deemed the softest / most socially acceptable drug, ignoring alcohol. Drug use is progressive though and once the taboo of using any mood altering drug regularly is broken, many are certainly more open to the prospect of using stronger drugs. I'm not saying that anyone who smokes weed will automatically move on to Heroin, but I have certainly seen a good number where their path into addiction started with weed.
If it’s not an issue with addiction to mood and mind altering cannabis I presume the users here could easily stop now? It would certainly help reduce the pressure on the nhs and mental health sectors.
The problem we have now is the type of weed, it is strong, and it is designed to be quite trippy, everyone grows a skunk type weed.
This does have negative effects on peoples mood, not everyone, but you see it in a lot of people.
Personally I see weed do more damage to people than cocaine.
I must admit, I'm now in my mid 40s and I don't really know anyone that smokes anymore, we all did late teens and twenties, but now out of 50 or so people I know I can think of 2 that do.
Weed is harmless for some, for others it can be very, very dangerous to their metal being.
V6 Pushfit said:
200Plus Club said:
Brother in law has been a regular /fairly heavy weed smoker for 30yrs. He'll tell you its done him no harm..
I'd tell you different, looking at him and listening to him and seeing how he's slowed down/slurs/eyes and general demeanour.
He has to be fair never used it as a gateway to anything stronger, has always worked albeit on and off as a jobbing builder, and has raised a decent family .
I know several regular users - all in their 50’s - and jets just say I wouldn’t employ them. It’s the lack of focus and drive that seems to be the thing that shows most.I'd tell you different, looking at him and listening to him and seeing how he's slowed down/slurs/eyes and general demeanour.
He has to be fair never used it as a gateway to anything stronger, has always worked albeit on and off as a jobbing builder, and has raised a decent family .
Oakey said:
Davos123 said:
Fermit The Krog and Sexy Sarah said:
Indeed.
With this in mind, can anyone offer any light why Cameron reversed Labours bill taking cannabis from class C to B?
It seemed appropriate to me.
Because Theresa May wanted to as Home Secretary iirc. Very much her policy and not Cameron's, who has a liberal personal position on drugs.With this in mind, can anyone offer any light why Cameron reversed Labours bill taking cannabis from class C to B?
It seemed appropriate to me.
Disastrous said:
Yes, it absolutely does cut it. Your position is completely untenable unless you are also in favour of prohibiting alcohol.
That's an interesting assertion to make - and it's not one that I think stands up to scrutiny. I have said many times before that if alcohol were a newly discovered drug today, it would not be legalised. We cannot put that genie back into the bottle ( so to speak!) But that is not an excuse for letting another one out! Although, if Mr Hague is right, it's already out, we're just in denialandr3w said:
Brave Fart said:
Genuine question: users smoke cannabis mixed with tobacco, right? Or not, I genuinely don't know.
If the former, then legalising cannabis increases smoking (of tobacco) - this cannot be a good thing.
If the latter, is there evidence about inhaling lungfuls of cannabis smoke........cancer, heart disease, all that?
I'm guessing that smoking cannabis in any amount is bad for you........so keep the law as it is. The idea that we should all be free to do whatever we wish is just nonsense and that includes using narcotics. Society needs fewer stoners, not more.
People smoke it with or without tobacco. However whether it's good or bad for you is not really the argument, you could apply that logic and ban chocolate. If the former, then legalising cannabis increases smoking (of tobacco) - this cannot be a good thing.
If the latter, is there evidence about inhaling lungfuls of cannabis smoke........cancer, heart disease, all that?
I'm guessing that smoking cannabis in any amount is bad for you........so keep the law as it is. The idea that we should all be free to do whatever we wish is just nonsense and that includes using narcotics. Society needs fewer stoners, not more.
Smoking cannabis in small amounts isn't inherently "bad for you", the problems come when people with underlying/undiagnosed or pre-existing mental health issues smoke it, or they mix it with other drugs.
andy_s said:
Oakey said:
Davos123 said:
Fermit The Krog and Sexy Sarah said:
Indeed.
With this in mind, can anyone offer any light why Cameron reversed Labours bill taking cannabis from class C to B?
It seemed appropriate to me.
Because Theresa May wanted to as Home Secretary iirc. Very much her policy and not Cameron's, who has a liberal personal position on drugs.With this in mind, can anyone offer any light why Cameron reversed Labours bill taking cannabis from class C to B?
It seemed appropriate to me.
V6 Pushfit said:
This type of thread always has the potheads coming out trying to justify their addiction so it’s pretty pointless. Burgers are legal and so is alcohol and both aren’t exactly health benefitting but the damage that will be done to future generations of school kids from freely smoking weed will be a big issue.
As I have said before you only have to go to a mental health hospital to see the end result of drug use.
Why do you think they would legalise cannabis sales and use to school kids?As I have said before you only have to go to a mental health hospital to see the end result of drug use.
The addiction thing makes me chuckle.
If you enjoy a couple pints a few nights after work every week, are you addicted to alcohol? If you go out twice a week for chinese food, are you addicted to it?
Doing something for relaxation and enjoyment is very different to being addicted to it.
I've been snowboarding 15 years but haven't ridden since march...i'm not huddled in a corner losing my mind because i'm not doing it at the moment.
Not everyone who smokes is "addicted" to it...i'll happily go days/weeks without, and not really miss it.
If you enjoy a couple pints a few nights after work every week, are you addicted to alcohol? If you go out twice a week for chinese food, are you addicted to it?
Doing something for relaxation and enjoyment is very different to being addicted to it.
I've been snowboarding 15 years but haven't ridden since march...i'm not huddled in a corner losing my mind because i'm not doing it at the moment.
Not everyone who smokes is "addicted" to it...i'll happily go days/weeks without, and not really miss it.
andymadmak said:
That's an interesting assertion to make - and it's not one that I think stands up to scrutiny. I have said many times before that if alcohol were a newly discovered drug today, it would not be legalised. We cannot put that genie back into the bottle ( so to speak!) But that is not an excuse for letting another one out! Although, if Mr Hague is right, it's already out, we're just in denial
You’d be hard pushed to argue that cannabis is a newly discovered drug!I think Mr Hague is correct.
Disastrous said:
You’d be hard pushed to argue that cannabis is a newly discovered drug!
I think Mr Hague is correct.
I didn't. What I did say was that just because alcohol, despite the harm it causes, is legal, does not mean that cannabis should be. It's the counter to your point that because alcohol is legal, cannabis should be legal. I think Mr Hague is correct.
My reasoning is that whilst neither drug is new, one has has been absorbed into our culture over centuries and we have developed laws, social mores and control mechanisms to (at least try to ) mitigate its worst effects.
If you like, society understands alcohol.
Cannabis has the potential to be as harmful as alcohol but is not "understood" by society.
I do think that on balance Hague is correct. The "war on cannabis" is lost, largely because it was never really fought in the first place
andymadmak said:
I didn't. What I did say was that just because alcohol, despite the harm it causes, is legal, does not mean that cannabis should be. It's the counter to your point that because alcohol is legal, cannabis should be legal.
My reasoning is that whilst neither drug is new, one has has been absorbed into our culture over centuries and we have developed laws, social mores and control mechanisms to (at least try to ) mitigate its worst effects.
If you like, society understands alcohol.
Cannabis has the potential to be as harmful as alcohol but is not "understood" by society.
I do think that on balance Hague is correct. The "war on cannabis" is lost, largely because it was never really fought in the first place
It may not have been fought with determination as the societal effects were negligible in comparison to other matters when only finite resources are available. My reasoning is that whilst neither drug is new, one has has been absorbed into our culture over centuries and we have developed laws, social mores and control mechanisms to (at least try to ) mitigate its worst effects.
If you like, society understands alcohol.
Cannabis has the potential to be as harmful as alcohol but is not "understood" by society.
I do think that on balance Hague is correct. The "war on cannabis" is lost, largely because it was never really fought in the first place
The whole 'war on drugs' [general] is an interesting concept and I must admit I try to put on the other shoe as I'm not sold on decriminalisation of other drugs - which may mean I'm hypocritical or have bias - but I am aware of it and at least open to discussion of the further concept of wholesale deregulation, but I remain to be convinced.
The amount of money, resources, effort and the interweaving of political bodies, government agencies, public perceptions, vested interests and fluid/non-fluid societal values/morals make it a complicated beast. What's for certain is that rather like prostitution, whether it's legal, illegal, regulated or chaotic, people still do it and have done since man first chewed a coca leaf.
andymadmak said:
Disastrous said:
You’d be hard pushed to argue that cannabis is a newly discovered drug!
I think Mr Hague is correct.
I didn't. What I did say was that just because alcohol, despite the harm it causes, is legal, does not mean that cannabis should be. It's the counter to your point that because alcohol is legal, cannabis should be legal. I think Mr Hague is correct.
My reasoning is that whilst neither drug is new, one has has been absorbed into our culture over centuries and we have developed laws, social mores and control mechanisms to (at least try to ) mitigate its worst effects.
If you like, society understands alcohol.
Cannabis has the potential to be as harmful as alcohol but is not "understood" by society.
I do think that on balance Hague is correct. The "war on cannabis" is lost, largely because it was never really fought in the first place
I’m not stating that cannabis should be legal because alcohol is. I’m stating that being anti-cannabis is pretty impossible to justify without being anti-alcohol too, as V6 Pushfit is vociferous in his anti-cannabis stance but argues it can’t be compared to alcohol.
I think cannabis should be legal for several reasons but I do believe it’s ridiculous to argue the dangers it poses to society whilst not seeking to prohibit the far more damaging alcohol.
I think society does understand cannabis and would argue that it’s absolutely been absorbed by society. I can’t think of any more socially acceptable illegal act tbh.
As mentioned, non user here so no dog in the fight.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff