Re: Weedy topic!
 

I think you have to approach some posts here with a sense of humour :D

@Dick Dasterdly
I dont consider alcohol any different in that respect to Marijauna. It too has been around in one form or another for a long time (not as long as alcohol which was used as a substitute for water centuries ago in England). In fact as far as we know Cannabis was used certainly in the early 1800's and probably well before that. Yet alcohol is free for all and cannabis is not. It's (reputably) known to help some medical conditions, whereas alcohol most certainly is not

You walk down the streets of San Francisco and it's not unusual to get a whiff of the evil weed. I'm sure George Bush Jnr was on it half of the time.

Re: Weedy topic!
 

I'm not sure why you would be shot down in flames for asking what must be considered a very pertinent question.

The answer I'm afraid to say is simple political expediency. You know how that works, the government makes up its own rules to suit whatever it fancies doing. They make the laws after all and that make them to suit themselves—not the population they're supposed to represent.

If you were to look at which out of cannabis and alcohol causes more harm to society, alcohol would win every time. The government has been told this and the government knows this, the statistical figures prove this, but the government still continues to maintain legality for the harmful one and illegality for the unharmful one. This just flies in the face of rationality or logic. Which isn't surprising really when you consider the people making the decisions are mostly career politicians.

This simply proves that perceived harm to society is completely ignored when the politicians consider it politically expedient to do so. A bit like they ignore the rules on their expense claims when they feel like it too.

You can throw in a bunch of other reasons for why it's politically expedient to maintain the status quo. The millions of pounds worth of lobbyist money that is paid to government by the alcohol companies and the pharmaceutical companies who both have a vested interest in maintaining Cannabis illegality. Add in the tax revenues generated from alcohol and that neither of the two main parties of Labour or Conservative would ever risk upsetting their core voters by proposing Cannabis legality.

Easy to see then why the government is quite happy to maintain the status quo—it has far more to gain from keeping things the way they are.

Which is why it continues to ignore the very real harm one does to society in favour of keeping the unharmful one illegal despite the fact that it's irrational to do so.

But that's the way governments work and it's an object lesson in understanding how governments do not make or take the decisions that is best for society. They take and make the decisions that's best for them.

None of this will change either whilst we continue with the archaic 'first past the post' voting system that can only produce one of two election outcomes, effectively a Labour or Conservative government or one main one propped up by an insignificant one as we have at the moment.

Neither are prepared to risk upsetting their core voters by proposing Cannabis legalisation regardless of whether it's the right, rational, logical, reasonable or moral thing to do or not.

Re: Weedy topic!
 

Does anyone remember this, Cocaine and LSD found in the air.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...sh-cities.html

Re: Weedy topic!
 

Not everybody who drinks alcohol is a binge drinker or a alcoholic, all of the negative bad points about drinking here seem to involve those who drink to excess, and all of the 'for cannabis' are the people who just enjoy a light one, the comparison cant be made that way.

The opposite would be comparing someone who has glass of wine with dinner to a junkie, the extreme is too big too compare

Re: Weedy topic!
 

Hemp seeds were found in the tombs of some of the Pharoahs of ancient egypt. It's been used for at least that long. It's a natural plant that grows wild in many places, that's why it's called a 'weed'. It's been used for millennia as a pain reliever and the hemp fibres used for many different applications such as cloths, textiles and paper production.

It's interesting to look back at how and why drugs become illegal in the UK and as per my mini-rant above—it's all about political expediency.

Around the turn of the 18th C, when Britain was on the gold standard (in other words any loans the British government took out had to be secured by whatever gold or silver deposits they held) they found that the insatiable appetite the English had for tea imported from china (who insisted that this be paid for in silver bullion) caused a huge balance of payment deficit. In other words to pay for the tea imports more silver (hard bullion) was going out of the country than was coming in. Given the British government could only borrow against its bullion deposits this was causing them a bit of a problem. Particularly so as early in the 19th C they were fighting a war in Europe against the French which they had to borrow money to fund.

Their solution was to pay China for the tea in opium from India rather than silver bullion. This is was ultimately caused the opium wars between Britain and China.

So we see, that when it suits the British government they're quite happy to not only import hard drugs themselves but actually use them as payment for commodities they wanted to buy. The British government were the first drug cartel. However when the 'opium dens' predominantly situated in the East End of London where many of the Chinese immigrants had settled started to become a problem, or at least perceived to be a problem by the British government they decide to make all drugs illegal.

The irony of of course is that they made a drug illegal that they themselves used for their own political ends.

The same drug laws introduced back then are pretty much the same ones in effect right now with a few extra ones added such as Cannabis. The fact that Cannabis had nothing whatsoever to do with opium, the opium dens or opium wars of course is entirely irrelevant as far as the British government is concerned.

The same political expediency argument was used in the USA with regards to Cannabis or 'Marijuana' to give it its Mexican name. Large pharmaceutical companies such as DuPont switching to man made fibres such as nylon didn't want the competition from natural hemp fibres which was a natural product and far cheaper to produce. So they came up with a spurious PR scheme to persuade the politicians of the insidious, evil nature of 'Marijuana' and got it made illegal.

It's all about political expediency and nothing whatsoever to do with whatever harm it might cause society.

Re: Weedy topic!
 

Alcohol has a wide variety of uses within the medical profession and has done for thousands of years.
As regards it's use instead of water, that's not quite so long ago

Marijuana has only been reasonably readily available in the Western world in the past half century or so, even less in some places, so the caution of various authorities regarding it's use and now proven negative effects is quite understandable IMHO.

Oh and on a side note Mitzy, as you did ask, yes I've used Marijuana on a few occasions.
Pleasant at the time, but on each and every occasion I woke up to a painfully swollen and sore throat the very next day, possibly a bad allergic reaction as I am slightly that way inclined.

In total contrast, I've many a time used a wee dram of Brandy to temporarilly at least, ease similar symptoms. :thumbup:

Re: Weedy topic!
 

What proven negative effects might those be?

The last link you posted stated that: research has strongly suggested that there is a clear link between early cannabis use and later mental health problems in those with a genetic vulnerability...'

Where in there does it say it's been proven? Strongly suggested does not mean proven I'm afraid. Neither does those with a genetic vulnerability mean the whole population either.

Is it not common sense not to take substances that are likely to be harmful to your health? Or is that too simplistic? If someone has a genetic vulnerability towards mental illness, is it wise to take substances that might trigger that mental illness?

If someone shoots another person with a gun, is it the guns fault or the person who pulls the trigger?

Re: Weedy topic!
 

Yes well some would say that the negative effects of smoking tobacco haven't actually been proven.:sneaky:

There are well documented negative effects of cannabis - both short and long term. Just one example, anybody thinking that someone under the influence could drive a car safely would be pretty silly.

Re: Weedy topic!
 

As to expert opinion, there has of course been a very well known instance where a Government sought the views of experts and then chose to ignore them when the opinion didn't suit them (and subsequently sacked the expert from his post as a Government special adviser):-


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Nutt

His more recent thinking seems to me to make so much sense:-

http://profdavidnutt.wordpress.com/

Re: Weedy topic!
 

The subject may be Cannabis, and then addiction. There are all sorts of addictions, and I believe they may not all be harmful.

I'm addicted to Spanish coffee, I go out every morning for my fix. I go to various Spanish bars and have a couple of Americanos. I used to have a chocolate doughnut with them, but I'm on a diet now.

One such cafe is situated next to a busy roundabout. I sit there and enjoy the ambience. It can't be the roundabout, surely? Another favourite overlooks some bleak concrete playing fields, in scenery terms it must rank somewhere near zero.

The top of my list is a cliff top cafe overlooking the sea, but it's a ten minute drive away and my doctor has told me I need to walk more.

I also like Mars bars, but when I eat a couple of them I put on a kilo.

Re: Weedy topic!
 

Obviously you belong to the flat earth society, as in my Grandad smoked 50 tabs a day and lived to be a 100 so there can't be any connection between cigarettes and cancer.

I posted a research link from US experts which you prefer to ignore, likewise with the research from the UK link so here's a link from Sweden based on no fewer than 30, yes THIRTY DIFFERENT research programmes.

http://www.schizophrenia.com/prevent...reetdrugs.html

If that isn't enough then scroll to the bottom and find even more links and evidence than you could shake a stick at.

If the side effect it had on me personally wasn't enough to put me off it for life then the thought of having my brains scrambled and ending up in the funny farm with countless other regular users certainly is.

However carry on as you will and ignore it all, I'm sure your own blinkered opinion is far more convincing, ........even if only to yourself. :cool:

Re: Weedy topic!
 

Just by chance today's Independant newspaper


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...h-8818064.html

Re: Weedy topic!
 

I think some of us who have contributed to this thread would have a good case for suing the authors of this report for plagiarism - we could have written it ourselves!:rofl:

It's all grist to the mill, although I'm doubtful the Government will pay any heed to it.

Re: Weedy topic!
 

Who said Cannabis was safe ? :eek:

http://elpais.com/elpais/2013/09/16/...76_118470.html

Re: Weedy topic!
 

This is terrible, but it looks like a 'back street' operation, illegal.

Accidents happen, but if it was legalised and controlled, then the production facilities would not be in a basement in an apartment block, but in a properly controlled and managed facility, producing safe 'pharmaceutical grade' product

Jon