Cannabis safety report

[NoVetec]

Oakey said:

Has Canada descended into an apocalyptic wasteland of psychopathic stoners yet?

Only on hockey days.

[Macski]

gregs656 said:

I'm not sure you understand the argument as you are misrepresenting it quite badly. One of the key elements of it is that it would make the nation healthier, where as you are labouring under the impression it would make it unhealthier. You can see how this has been effective in Portugal.

Your second misrepresentation is your analogies -

Take speeding - the Govt recognised that everyone does it anyway and has worked out ways to raise money from it.

Smuggling and counterfeit goods - there is no benefit to us legalising these things - it would mean we had an open border for goods. Not analogous at all. This would be massively giving up control of something and massively losing out on tax revenue, the legalisation argument is about gaining control and raising revenue.

What we should be aiming for is evidence driven legislation.

I started my post here saying 'explain Portugal' - so far no one has. I am not surprised.

But I have explained Portugal, in Portugal there is a huge emphasize on treatment - as I understand it - and it is not true drugs have been legalized in Portugal.
Here is a list of penalties you may face if you are found with small amount of drugs

Fines, ranging from €25 to €150. These figures are based on the Portuguese minimum wage of about €485 (Banco de Portugal, 2001) and translate into hours of work lost.
Suspension of the right to practice if the user has a licensed profession (e.g. medical doctor, taxi driver) and may endanger another person or someone's possessions.
Ban on visiting certain places (e.g. specific clubbing venues).
Ban on associating with specific other persons.
Foreign travel ban.
Requirement to report periodically to the committee.
Withdrawal of the right to carry a gun.
Confiscation of personal possessions.
Cessation of subsidies or allowances that a person receives from a public agency.

You can be refereed to a drug rehab program too.

You seem to be arguing that just legalizing something will improve health and reduce the use of drugs, so abolishing speeding will result in the number of people speeding, fewer accidents, not checking imports/exports will reduce smuggling, Of course this would not happen and there is no good reason to suggest it would happen if you legalize drugs.

You explain Portugal as you haven't so far

Edited by Macski on Sunday 24th February 02:11

[gregs656]

Portugal have decriminalised drugs and seen an improvement in public health.

Your analogies still don’t work for the reasons I stated above.

My argument is that we should have evidence driven legislation. The evidence suggests that there are few downsides to legalisation and a number of upsides.

[Derek Smith]

Macski said:

You seem to be arguing that just legalizing something will improve health and reduce the use of drugs, so abolishing speeding will result in the number of people speeding, fewer accidents, not checking imports/exports will reduce smuggling, Of course this would not happen and there is no good reason to suggest it would happen if you legalize drugs.

Edited by Macski on Sunday 24th February 02:11

He is not, patently, suggesting that legalising speeding will reduce the number of accidents, as you well know. The analogy is flawed on a number of criteria.

Your argument comes from the wrong direction. You should be asking what did the Drugs Act do for the health of the populations. With a little research you will discover that it increased the supply of controlled substances exponentially. It also brought about the increase in potency of the drugs of abuse. It built up criminal gangs that controlled, to an extent, neighbourhoods. It produced very rich criminals. It gave breaking the law a legitimacy.

It also ruined the lives of many victims.

We'll never get back to the pre 71 era of drugs use, and in all probability it would have changed considerably in the interim. However, controlling drugs did not control drugs. They increased their availability.

I'm in my dotage and, to quote a film, less hip and more hip replacement. However, I bet I could find some cannabis this evening.

There are few positives to the Drugs Act. The UK was pressured into it by the US. There were no projections, there were no targets, there was no logic.

[CzechItOut]

I strongly recommend the first 30-minutes or so of Joe Rogan's podcast with Johann Hari. He provide the most cognisant and articulate description of the causes of addiction and the various responses, from the incarceration and shaming approaches in the US to the Portuguese and Swiss decriminalisation and treatment method.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CDpjvFn4wgM

[Macski]

gregs656 said:

Portugal have decriminalised drugs and seen an improvement in public health.

Your analogies still don’t work for the reasons I stated above.

My argument is that we should have evidence driven legislation. The evidence suggests that there are few downsides to legalisation and a number of upsides.

Derek Smith said:

He is not, patently, suggesting that legalising speeding will reduce the number of accidents, as you well know. The analogy is flawed on a number of criteria.

Your argument comes from the wrong direction. You should be asking what did the Drugs Act do for the health of the populations. With a little research you will discover that it increased the supply of controlled substances exponentially. It also brought about the increase in potency of the drugs of abuse. It built up criminal gangs that controlled, to an extent, neighbourhoods. It produced very rich criminals. It gave breaking the law a legitimacy.

It also ruined the lives of many victims.

We'll never get back to the pre 71 era of drugs use, and in all probability it would have changed considerably in the interim. However, controlling drugs did not control drugs. They increased their availability.

I'm in my dotage and, to quote a film, less hip and more hip replacement. However, I bet I could find some cannabis this evening.

There are few positives to the Drugs Act. The UK was pressured into it by the US. There were no projections, there were no targets, there was no logic.

But your arguments is that just by decriminalizing drugs that improves public health, therefore it should apply to other things too

Yet again both of you fail to understand it is still a criminal offence to deal in drugs and you can still be punished for possessing drugs even small amounts.

If my argument is flawed explain how by just decriminalizing improves health and reduces crime?

[Teddy Lop]

CzechItOut said:

I strongly recommend the first 30-minutes or so of Joe Rogan's podcast with Johann Hari. He provide the most cognisant and articulate description of the causes of addiction and the various responses, from the incarceration and shaming approaches in the US to the Portuguese and Swiss decriminalisation and treatment method.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CDpjvFn4wgM

episode 1246 the pot debate was very interesting too. Sorry if mentioned already I can't be bothered to trudge through a thread of entrenched opinions; the podcast is interesting as they are both forced to address each others points rather than keep repeating their own.

[Halb]

An interesting read
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/dec/05/portu...

[mouseymousey]

CzechItOut said:

I strongly recommend the first 30-minutes or so of Joe Rogan's podcast with Johann Hari. He provide the most cognisant and articulate description of the causes of addiction and the various responses, from the incarceration and shaming approaches in the US to the Portuguese and Swiss decriminalisation and treatment method.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CDpjvFn4wgM

Thanks for that. I've read Chasing The Scream by Johan Harri and I challenge anyone to read it and still think legalising is wrong.

[Derek Smith]

Macski said:

But your arguments is that just by decriminalizing drugs that improves public health, therefore it should apply to other things too

Yet again both of you fail to understand it is still a criminal offence to deal in drugs and you can still be punished for possessing drugs even small amounts.

If my argument is flawed explain how by just decriminalizing improves health and reduces crime?

I'm not sure why you think my knowledge of the law is poor. Perhaps because it was not part of my argument.

My point was clear I thought. The drugs act caused the problems with drugs, and didn't solve anything. We are running with poor legislation but the knee-jerk reaction of the blinkered is to increase sentences, those same sentences that have proved useless.

It is probable that use of cannabis especially, but the others as well, will not increase dramatically if possession is made legal and controlled outlets sell them.

I worked in the City of London. The most use of drugs was not the Rastafarian passing through on the night bus, but in the offices and toilets of the big banks and institutions. Yet very little was done to combat them as they caused no problems. Why bother? It was the gangs in metropolitan areas that were the aspect that gave all the problems because of the drugs gangs. If we could cut the legs from under them, ie the money aspect, that problem will go. The gangs will still exist but will have to do something where power is not so easy to come by.

It is cut substances, or refined drugs, from which most people die or suffer health problems. They also degenerate in many ways as they have the need to feed their habit. Prostitution causes health problems both for the user and the provider.

Many feed their habit by crime. There was a figure quoted some years ago of 70% of crime was drug related. I'm not sure that could be justified as it is almost impossible to calculate. The highest supportable figure is most. So >50% of crime if people have a regular and reasonably priced supply. On top of that, jail cells would become free.

There's no free lunch of course, and there are downsides. But just because everything in the garden is not lovely does not mean it should be rejected.

The benefits of legalising some aspects of drugs use are obvious and easily supportable and they overwhelm the downsides.

[Macski]

Derek Smith said:

I'm not sure why you think my knowledge of the law is poor. Perhaps because it was not part of my argument.

My point was clear I thought. The drugs act caused the problems with drugs, and didn't solve anything. We are running with poor legislation but the knee-jerk reaction of the blinkered is to increase sentences, those same sentences that have proved useless.

It is probable that use of cannabis especially, but the others as well, will not increase dramatically if possession is made legal and controlled outlets sell them.

I worked in the City of London. The most use of drugs was not the Rastafarian passing through on the night bus, but in the offices and toilets of the big banks and institutions. Yet very little was done to combat them as they caused no problems. Why bother? It was the gangs in metropolitan areas that were the aspect that gave all the problems because of the drugs gangs. If we could cut the legs from under them, ie the money aspect, that problem will go. The gangs will still exist but will have to do something where power is not so easy to come by.

It is cut substances, or refined drugs, from which most people die or suffer health problems. They also degenerate in many ways as they have the need to feed their habit. Prostitution causes health problems both for the user and the provider.

Many feed their habit by crime. There was a figure quoted some years ago of 70% of crime was drug related. I'm not sure that could be justified as it is almost impossible to calculate. The highest supportable figure is most. So >50% of crime if people have a regular and reasonably priced supply. On top of that, jail cells would become free.

There's no free lunch of course, and there are downsides. But just because everything in the garden is not lovely does not mean it should be rejected.

The benefits of legalising some aspects of drugs use are obvious and easily supportable and they overwhelm the downsides.

Can I ask how would legalizing drugs stop crime, will people still not need to feed their habits, why is it not working with alcohol?

I asked this before will the people involved in drug crime give up and get ordinary jobs?

I am curious as to which aspects of drug use would you legalize?

[anonymous-user]

Macski said:

Can I ask how would legalizing drugs stop crime, will people still not need to feed their habits, why is it not working with alcohol?

I asked this before will the people involved in drug crime give up and get ordinary jobs?

It’ll definitely stop crime as it won’t be an offence any more (Legalising murder would do the same). Yes that’s great for the Police but not for health services or
Parents. It’s a shame the MH sector isnt as good at lobbying as those with a vested interest who want to get rid of the stigma of their habit.

The dealers will just adapt, undercut the shops, sell stronger weed and try to get people into harder drugs.

[Halb]

https://www.drugwise.org.uk/how-much-crime-is-drug...

[CzechItOut]

Macski said:

Can I ask how would legalizing drugs stop crime, will people still not need to feed their habits, why is it not working with alcohol?

I asked this before will the people involved in drug crime give up and get ordinary jobs?

I am curious as to which aspects of drug use would you legalize?

It is a very interesting question. If you offer addicts treatment, which includes free access to drugs, then they no longer need to commit crime to feed their habit. This approach has proven very successful in places like Portugal and Switzerland.

Similarly, most low level dealers are also drug users themselves who sell enough to feed their own habit.

Both these groups could be tackles with the right treatment policies.

The bigger problem is the larger scale suppliers who have an existing supply chain which can be turned to other types of crime.

[Derek Smith]

Macski said:

Can I ask how would legalizing drugs stop crime, will people still not need to feed their habits, why is it not working with alcohol?

I asked this before will the people involved in drug crime give up and get ordinary jobs?

I am curious as to which aspects of drug use would you legalize?

I'm happy to try anything which might improve the situation. However, in typical grumpy old man mode, I'll go back to the 'good old days'.

The pre-1971 system seemed to work adequately. There were problems, and these were hyped as the legislation went through parliament, but looking back it was almost halcyon times. There's no way we can revert to those less drug-addled times, but I see no reason why the old ways could not be reintroduced in modified form.

Legalising possession of all drugs in certain circumstances is a short step. It could be managed quite easily with not worsening of the situation.

Let's go by a modified form of pre 71, to take into consideration the current situation.

Cannabis: illegal to sell apart from licenced premises. The price needs to be sufficiently low to discourage gangs undercutting the price. The quality must be carefully controlled.

Class B and A: If a person is an addict then they can register and receive the real stuff. This will mean that gangs will be undercut, the dose will be safe and the quality dependable.

If this or something similar is set up then drugs crime is likely to drop. It is likely to drop by a high percentage. There are a number of crimes related to drugs use.

Those using are in breach of it. This allows them to possess certain amounts.

Users commit crime to feed their habit. This is a significant cause of burglaries, thefts and such. There have been suggestions of well over half of such crimes being drugs related. How firm this relationship is can be difficult to say, but no one argues against substantial. If they can get their fix, the imperative is at a lower level.

Suppliers at street level are often users themselves, dealing to make enough to feed their habit. If there's not need to deal on the streets, this is likely to make people use registered outlets.

The main reduction in crime is to hit the profits of the drugs gangs. Once they start to make less money, they have to move onto other earners. This won't stop them offending but one must ask why they haven't opted for this other way of earning a crust before. It will probably mean less money with all that that entails for organised crimes. If the beginning of videos is to be believed, there might well be more bootleg dvds available.

You asked if people involved in drugs will get ordinary jobs. Well, those using might well do that. Don't forget that usage of Class As was and probably is rampant in many high powered jobs. The City of London was rife with it when I worked there and these people held onto their jobs because they bought good, clean stuff. This was denied those lower down.

I was in a licencing unit in Brighton and used to inspect premises. I used to go into the toilets. There was sometimes a fair bit of powder around, and I don't think they had just had showers or were fighting athlete's foot. Yet these went back to work on the Monday.

You ask why legalising alcohol has not put a stop to alcohol-related crime.

If we leave the behaviour of those under the influence of alcohol for the moment, there is little crime associated with alcohol that is unique to it. In other words, most of it is 'normal' criminal behaviour and you could swop alcohol for any number of other products.

As regards the behaviour problems with alcohol, the same sort of aggressive behaviour is not the norm with people taking drugs. I know there are some drugs which encourage aggressive behaviour, but if other drugs were available cheaply then it is likely that such usage would drop. One never knows of course.

If you look at the aggravation one gets from drunks to that from those on cannabis, there is little competition. The same goes for most As and Bs as well. Someone on A and Bs can be a problem when provoked, such as by arresting them, but in general they are little problem. As a gaoler, I much preferred a druggie to a drunk. I had to send three prisoners to A&E from my cells, each one with problems from alcohol. One was touch and go and CID was called in as we were told it would be a death in police custody. With druggies, all I did was to check their breathing if asleep, then wake them, get them to walk around for a while, and then let them rest.

What must be accepted is that the current method of legislating against drugs misuse is not working. There are a lot of researchers who've said that it encourages misuse. We don't need a miracle cure for all ills. What we want is something better.

If the changes don't work, or if there are problems in certain areas, then these should be changed until they do work.

The targets should be: fewer deaths of users, a reduction in drugs related crimes such as assaults, robberies, thefts and burglaries, a reduction in the power of the drugs gangs, a reduction in the amount of illegal drugs on the market.

Monitored: mental problems, drug driving.

Report back in two years.

I hope this answers your questions.

[Kiwi LS2]

Derek Smith said:

<snip for brevity >

Mr Smith, as a long time lurker and infrequent poster - and also someone with a street possession order against his name - it a encouraging to read such sensible opinions.

I can't really add a lot but would also mention that a lot of low-level dealers I know tend to be growers of fine quality products, the type and strength (to a degree) is known, and they only sell amongst themselves and select friends. Similar attitude to homebrew I guess, they are enthusiasts and it is their hobby as well as something they enjoy using.

As stated the drug laws in the UK are broken.

[Macski]

Derek Smith said:

I'm happy to try anything which might improve the situation. However, in typical grumpy old man mode, I'll go back to the 'good old days'.

The pre-1971 system seemed to work adequately. There were problems, and these were hyped as the legislation went through parliament, but looking back it was almost halcyon times. There's no way we can revert to those less drug-addled times, but I see no reason why the old ways could not be reintroduced in modified form.

Legalising possession of all drugs in certain circumstances is a short step. It could be managed quite easily with not worsening of the situation.

Let's go by a modified form of pre 71, to take into consideration the current situation.

Cannabis: illegal to sell apart from licenced premises. The price needs to be sufficiently low to discourage gangs undercutting the price. The quality must be carefully controlled.

Class B and A: If a person is an addict then they can register and receive the real stuff. This will mean that gangs will be undercut, the dose will be safe and the quality dependable.

You will need to educate me on the pre 71 situation.

While the solutions you advocate might be good for the current drug addicts You are supporting licencing cannabis, selling it cheaply and giving away class A and B drugs and this will not worsen the problem, really?. You need policies to discourage drug use not encourage them.

Derek Smith said:

If we leave the behaviour of those under the influence of alcohol for the moment, there is little crime associated with alcohol that is unique to it. In other words, most of it is 'normal' criminal behaviour

Wel that is OK then, people who suffer crime as a result of alcohol should not complain as it is ordinary crime

Derek Smith said:

and you could swop alcohol for any number of other products.

Like what?

Derek Smith said:

With druggies, all I did was to check their breathing if asleep, then wake them, get them to walk around for a while, and then let them rest.

Because drug addicts don't hallucinate, there bodies don't go into shock, they don't get poisoned by the drugs they had taken. I have news for you Mr Smith, drugs, even taken legally are generally not good for you.Most addicts die by taking increase amounts to get high I believe

I still find it bizarre that the new idea of centers were drug addicts can go a do their drugs, but it be illegal to smoke cigarettes in them

[hairykrishna]

Macski said:

Because drug addicts don't hallucinate, there bodies don't go into shock, they don't get poisoned by the drugs they had taken. I have news for you Mr Smith, drugs, even taken legally are generally not good for you.Most addicts die by taking increase amounts to get high I believe

Generally speaking the negative health effects of illegal drugs aren't actually that severe. Many of the negative health effects are due to poor lifestyles associated with being addicts.Most addicts who die of an overdose die because they're inadvertently taking a stronger dose than they planned to. Both of these problems are addressed by legalisation, regulated control and treatment.

Attempting to restrict the supply of illegal drugs just doesn't work all that well. Now that we have crypto currencies and the tor network I'd argue that it's impossible to meaningfully restrict them. Anyone who can afford drugs can buy literally anything they want from the the comfort of their own home. You don't need any 'connections' or any knowledge at all beyond what you can read in an idiots guide on the internet.

I used to argue legalisation from a moral standpoint as it's my opinion that anyone should be free to do whatever they like with their own bodies. Now I just argue from a practical standpoint. What we're doing at the moment doesn't work.

[vetrof]

CzechItOut said:

I strongly recommend the first 30-minutes or so of Joe Rogan's podcast with Johann Hari. He provide the most cognisant and articulate description of the causes of addiction and the various responses, from the incarceration and shaming approaches in the US to the Portuguese and Swiss decriminalisation and treatment method.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CDpjvFn4wgM

It's a good listen.

Harry Anslinger's spirit seems to be alive and well in some members.
"Don't confuse me with facts"

[gregs656]

Macski said:

Can I ask how would legalizing drugs stop crime, will people still not need to feed their habits, why is it not working with alcohol?

I asked this before will the people involved in drug crime give up and get ordinary jobs?

I am curious as to which aspects of drug use would you legalize?

Why don't you look at.... Portugal!

I don't think it would stop crime anyway, but it would reduce it - if you do it properly you make a huge section of criminal activity related to drugs a waste of time - from making them, selling them, shipping them, consuming them. Drugs fund organised crime and taking away and income cannot be a bad thing in that regard.