Add Comment

The reclassification of cannabis to class B is not only pointless as you say, Adam. It will also end once and for all the claim that British drugs policy is in any way evidence based.

the reason it will not work is that re-classification will be supported by legislation, but not criminal proceedings.

[quote]The reclassification is nothing more than a ploy.[/quote]-Adam Crawford (age 19) It IS a ploy, but maybe just a wee toattie bit mair: Gordon has also discovered that today's weed (EG skunk) is a lot more powerful than the stuff smoked when he was 19 -not by him of course.

cynicus falls for the new propaganda line. i am 55 y o , smoked since the age of sixteen. i have seen relaxation followed by prohibition followed by relaxation and so on , ad nauseum . these profoundly authoritarian pronouncements are at variance with recent developements in the nederlands where the main police union has threatened strike action if the government goes ahead with plans to include smokey dope in its internal drug testing ." our officers need to relax on their own time " a union rep was quoted as saying . mabye the dutch boabies know more than cynicus or broon on this topic , it sends you MAD dontcha know ?

P S i am strictly tea total , dont smoke fags . and have never seen the inside of an A&E for years , never mind assaulted the good people that work there . my only crimes are THOUGHT-CRIMES

Cannabis should be as available as tobacco or alcohol. It is less harmful than either and if it was regulated in the same way we would cut crime, empty jails, and raise revenue to an extent that the savings made would enable income tax to be halved. Such regulation would also remove the need to source the herb from pushers who tout impure and dangerous versions of heroin and provide a healthier alternative to either alcohol or neat tobacco.

I take a smoke and think it should be legalised. Booze does way more harm that weed in terms of health, violence, family breakdown, accidental deaths by misadventure. Booze should reclassified in my humble opinion

[quote] cynicus falls for the new propaganda line[/quote]-britfree, camelon on 1:57am today If you think I fall for ANYBODY'S propaqganda line,s you cannot have read many of my posts. I only pointed out that skunk (for example) is more powerful than the weed available when you were 19. True or false? You and ColinE, Dundee on 10:17am today are the suckers for an old propaganda line: [quote]Cannabis should be as available as tobacco or alcohol. It is less harmful than either[/quote] Research citations, Colin? Any substance whose [bold]sole[/bold] purpose is to alter one's mental state should be automatically assumed, without contrary evidence, to cause more harm than more sophisticated ones like tobacco and, especially, alcohol. There is no denying that the abuse of these two, especially alcohol, CAN do enormous damage but their social use, especially alcohol's, have brought enormous benefits for centuries. If you guys want to use substances that deliberately make you lose knowledge of your own minds ([italic]and nothing else[/italic] ) then that is your affair. Indeed, my sadness at lives of such emptiness is matched by a listening ear to calls for legalisation, if only to bust the market monopolies of criminals.

The 'propaganda line' that britfree refers to is the infernal that most or all cannabis is stronger than it was many years ago. Certainly, there are stronger strains around now than in that past but the vast majority of cannabis consumed is of the 'old-strength' variety. That is the key point. Indeed, I remember the Independent running a piece, which stated that old style cannabis contained less than 1% active ingredient whereas skunk and the like could contain as much 15% active ingredient. While I sure there is truth in that statement, the article went on to assert that "The skunk smoked by the majority of young Britons bears no relation to traditional cannabis resin - with a 25-fold increase in the amount of the main psychoactive ingredient, tetrahydrocannabidin ol (THC), typically found in the early 1990s." Are they trying to say that the majority of young people who smoke cannabis smoke skunk or that the majority of skunk sold to young people is stronger than old style cannabis. At the very least, that article allowed the reader to construct the former. There was no mention of how common tradition cannabis is, compared to skunk. Also to obtain the “25-fold increase” figure they compared the weakest strains of tradition resin with the strongest strains of skunk. Extremely misleading, at several levels. And Cynicus, there actually was some research do on this resulting in a “Top 20” of drugs (I caught it on an Horizon programme a few months ago). From what I remember, ecstasy and LSD were near the bottom, cannabis somewhere in the middle, with alcohol, cocaine, tobacco and heron at the top. You may disagree with these findings (personally, I though they were a little subjective) but research does exist. Again this was reported by the Independent as: "New research being published in this week's Lancet will show how cannabis is more dangerous than LSD and ecstasy." But no mention of the fact that the paper concluded LSD and ecstasy were barely harmful at all and that alcohol and tobacco were off the proverbial Reichter Scale... As I say, extremely misleading.

[quote]You may disagree with these findings (personally, I though they were a little subjective) but research does exist.[/quote]-Deasún, Glasgow on 2:18pm today I share your views on the subjectivity-only more so!

"Any substance whose sole purpose is to alter one's mental state" Cynicus, whats alcohols sole purpose?

the otago university guff that everyone is dead keen to trhow around is just that : GUFF . it made no allowance for self medication by the mentally ill , that their sense of OTHER-NESS drew them to the drug of choice of perfectly sane people , which is nevertheless against the law , therefore of the " OTHER" just like them . i have seen from personal experience the distress that psychotic illness causes . and would be surprised if cannabis was discovered to have contributed to anyones predisposition towards mental illness in a truly scientific study . personally i suspect its the bias displayed by the alcohol loving medicos that fuels these anecdotal reports of increased incidence of psychotic hospital admissions due to "stronger strains " if you had an equal amount of cider and 40 % spirit two litres of cider you might well consume but not the same in whisky , surely ?

This boils down to personal choice. If you smoke “skunk” it harms nobody but yourself or it would do if it were legally available. If you do so on the understanding that you may go crazy or grow extra tits then that is your decision to take and no one else. Government has no right to stop you exercising your personal prerogative to think what you like and do what you like as long as it does not harm a third party.

March 07 Scientists draw up an alternative system of drug re-classification, with alcohol, tobacco at the top, cannabis in the middle. July 07 New study shows lung damage caused by joints are approx 5 times more destructive, in realation to lung function, than cigarettes. They conclude cannabis smoking poses a serious health risk to the lungs. Wonder how long before cannabis climbs up those rankings if it were to be decriminalised?

hmm 5 times more damaging than a cigarette. difference is joint smokers don't usually smoke 20 or 40 a day.

forgot to add bongs and buckets are always an option. no need for a joint with that nasty tobacco.

so you think people that smoke joints dont smoke cigarettes as well? in any case, there are 50 or so carcinogens in cannabis smoke. it doesnt bother me that people smoke the stuff, its denying the fact it is harmful - plain nonsense.

government scientists today !!!!!! have told the ubergeek that there are 50 ish cancer causing agents in a puff . i dont know if thats true , how do you ? scientists eh ? when they cant get you with the ol' reefer madness , its a cancer scare or the gateway to hell . anyway whats the score with the autism epidemic ? so many questions , evidence like mud

if you simply want to put your head in the sand britfree then you are very welcome. if you want my reference then please follow this link : http://www.erowid.or g/plants/cannabis/ca nnabis_info3.shtml im not sure what autism has to do witht his topic, but maybe there is an autism epidemic because it is being diagnosed more?

[quote][bold]kaljac[/bold] wrote: <b> "Any substance whose sole purpose is to alter one's mental state" Cynicus, whats alcohols sole purpose?</b>[/quote] Sorry kajac for the late reply. Alcohol does not have a SOLE purpose. That is the point. Its most civilised use is with food ("food and drink"). Here it uses vary from whetting the appetite (an [italic]aperitif[/italic] ) to aiding the digestion ([italic]digestif[/italic]) in a mealwhose courses may be accompanied by appropriate wines to enhance their qualities and at the same time bridge and/or replace the [italic]aperitif/digestif[/italic] functions. Even a glass of red plonk with a mutton pie performs these functions and improves the eating experience. Another use is social. Going for a pint in a pub with friends who enjoy the same-with or without food (and some pub grub today is very good) is a time-honoured social custom. Yet another use is medicinal-either preventative or as treatment. Three nights ago I got soaked to the skin and immediately poured a small whisky to drive awat=y the shivers and have avoided a cold. Had I failed, I might now be enjoying a hot toddy with whisky as an ingredient. There are other uses whose intention is far from narcotic.. Of course it sometimes happens that people who would not ordinarily do so sometimes become intoxicated. But that is an accident. You have different folk in mind: people who drink for no other reason but to get drunk. I agree that alcohol, in this instance, becomes indistinguishable from mind-altering narcotics. Many such people are or become addicts-or alcoholics. When this happens our aim should be the same as with other addicts:help get them free of the addiction.

i dont believe it , s'not burying my head in the sand . its someone who has forty years experience , saying he's heard it all before. cynicus is going on about addiction , the SOCIALIBILITY of zombie juice experienced with grub or some such non sense . I DONT DRINK THAT RUBBISH , I DONT TAKE DRUGS , FAGS nada . i suppose for the social fascist types coffee & weed are as harmful . MY OWN FIRST HAND EXPERIENCE says pour a cuppa joe an' fill me a nice chalice .

[quote][bold]Cynicus[/bold] wrote: [quote][bold]kaljac[/bold] wrote: &lt;b&gt; "Any substance whose sole purpose is to alter one's mental state" Cynicus, whats alcohols sole purpose?&lt;/b&gt;[/quote] Sorry kajac for the late reply. Alcohol does not have a SOLE purpose. That is the point. Its most civilised use is with food ("food and drink"). Here it uses vary from whetting the appetite (an [italic]aperitif[/italic] ) to aiding the digestion ([italic]digestif[/italic]) in a mealwhose courses may be accompanied by appropriate wines to enhance their qualities and at the same time bridge and/or replace the [italic]aperitif/digestif[/italic] functions. Even a glass of red plonk with a mutton pie performs these functions and improves the eating experience. Another use is social. Going for a pint in a pub with friends who enjoy the same-with or without food (and some pub grub today is very good) is a time-honoured social custom. Yet another use is medicinal-either preventative or as treatment. Three nights ago I got soaked to the skin and immediately poured a small whisky to drive awat=y the shivers and have avoided a cold. Had I failed, I might now be enjoying a hot toddy with whisky as an ingredient. There are other uses whose intention is far from narcotic.. Of course it sometimes happens that people who would not ordinarily do so sometimes become intoxicated. But that is an accident. You have different folk in mind: people who drink for no other reason but to get drunk. I agree that alcohol, in this instance, becomes indistinguishable from mind-altering narcotics. Many such people are or become addicts-or alcoholics. When this happens our aim should be the same as with other addicts:help get them free of the addiction. [/quote] Canabis does not have a sole purpose then either Cynicus. It's most civiliseduse is as an ingredient in cooking, not necessarily for narcotic purposes. It has also been shown to aid digestion in some cases. Another use is social; going to a friends house or to some event and having a quiet smoke with like minded individuals is an incredibly social pastime that has been practiced at least as long - and far more widely at one point - than similar situations with alcohol. You are also highly unlikely to find that the person who has had too much is boring you to tears/dribbling on you/trying to get you into bed or keen to start a fight. Hardly "social" activities and yes I know they are examples of aberrant behaviour and not "the norm" but there is a reason why over 70% of weekend A&E admissions are alcohol related. Your "medicinal" examples of alcohol use are at best poorl;y chosen, how about sterile swabs for medical interventions that break the skin? Yes, that wonderful drug you hold in such high regard is used in its pure form to kill off everything from a wounds site.And yet we drink it..nice. A hot toddy is "medicinal" almost purely from a psychological point of view. Please stick to good examples. For instance, management of chronic pain and appetite problems in MS or Cancer treatment - excpet that the medicinal uses of Cannabis isn't it? Ther are other uses; for instance the Hemp museum in amsterdam has over 2,000 recorded uses for the plant which include: biodegradable plastics, a form of concrete made from lime and hemp fibre which is substantially stronger and lighter than traditional concrete, a form of fibreglass like substance based on fibre and resin from the plant which Henry Ford atually mad a car out of because it is stronger and lighetr than the usual steel. The list goes on. Admittedly these are mainly hemp rather than psychoactive plants but all the same. You have different folk in mind Cynicus; people who only smoke to get wasted. Your comments on addiction, even in alcohol, show an almopst complete lack of understanding abotu the nature of dependence. Your contention that [bold]"Any substance whose sole purpose is to alter one's mental state should be automatically assumed, without contrary evidence, to cause more harm than more sophisticated ones like tobacco and, especially, alcohol. "[/bold] WHy? Automatically assumed on what basis exactly? There is no evidence that in normal use canabis causes more harm and since tens of thousands of people die annually from either alcohol or tobacco I would say your argument there is shot full of very very large holes. You clearly have a contribution to make to the debate but Iwould advise thinking your answer through more carefully and maybe getting some real facts behind them?

My apologies for the awful spelling and punctuation in my last comment. I guess that's what happens when you fail to proof read your own work! However, the arguments stand; Ther is plentiful evidence around the harms associated with cannabis use - it is not a "safe" drug by any measure other than relative to several others. But there are no truly "safe" psychoactive substances, a fact which especially applies to both alcohol and tobacco - the two substances that cost the most in health and judicial costs. Many of the problems around cannabis use stem from ignorance and political cowardice, perhaps if someone in authority had the political will, the courage and the foresight to be truly honest about such substances we would make some head way. How fortunate then, that the internet allows those of us with genuine expertise and experience (I work in the field of substance misuse) a voice that governments and ignorant busybody's have always denied us. How unfortunate it is however, that such voices are drowned out and denied by the very people who should be most receptive to the; politicians, members of the UNODC as just two examples. Search for "Costa avoids question" on you tube and you will see the UNODC flatly refusing to accept a question that very simply asks: "How do you account for the fact that the prevalence of cannabis use in any age group is much lower in Holland than any of the surrounding countries - despite it being essentially legal there". WhichI think is a fair question don't you?