I think you did. But whatever system you voted for doesn't invalidate my previous statement, if the source is in fact correct.
Of course, but what if there is a market for the synthetic drugs even if the alternatives are decriminalised?
I can't see that happening, I'm guessing it costs money to make a new psychoactive substance, where as the non synthetic variety just needs dirt, water, and sunlight, even if your talking about existing synthetic psychoactive substances it would still cost less to make them than spend the time+money developing something new.
I disagree. I'd bet that the Chinese labs who develop and mass produce the synthetic compounds do it in a very "quick & dirty" fashion, very quickly and cheaply. To grow the equivalent amount of weed you'd need acres of land, much more time and either a very warm climate or one-or-two (thousand) grow lamps (and generators). But regardless of the economics, there is clearly a market for the synthetic stuff. I know someone who's been a slave to it for a few years and he swears he prefers it to cannabis, saying the affects are much stronger. Should he be able to buy it?
If that's what he wants to do why not, people buy other types of legal drugs so I'm not sure what makes one type of psychoactive substance acceptable and others not.
For me, the difference between say, alcohol and tobacco (and the other established drugs) and these new synthetic compounds is the appreciation of risk. We all understand the risks associated with fags & booze now so are equipped to make the decision whether to partake or not. Unfortunately, nobody knows anything about these synthetic compounds or the effects they will have further down the line. If the government decided to treat them the same as alcohol & tobacco, I would imagine things would turn pretty sour if there was a sudden health scare. Remember the fuss about food additives in the 80's?
Don't we only understand the risks associated with fags & booze now because they have been legal for so long, lots of research has been done on them versus the illegal drugs, it could even be said that these new psychoactive substances only exist because the alternatives are illegal. And I don't see there being a sudden health scare, after all we hear next to nothing about the 8,500 alcohol related deaths UK or the 100,000 smoking related death each year, instead of panic and alarm we try to educate people on the harms.
We know about them because they've been widely used for so long, not necessarily because they are legal. Take pot for example, or heroin. Both are very well understood yet both are illegal. The point with alcohol & cigarettes is that there are no excuses - everyone should know by now what could happen if they indulge. Do you really think that "legal high" consumers are going to just think "fair enough" if there's say, a sharp increase in respiratory diseases or cancers amongst users in 10 years time? I bet they wouldn't.
Really? We know as much about cannabis and/or heroin as we know about alcohol and tobacco, that seems to be counter to what I've read. And the reason they've been widely used for so long is because for the majority of that time they haven't been illegal (afaik), you only have to go back a couple of generations to see doctors recommending people should take up smoking because it would be good for them. The augment that if "legal high" consumers are going to just think "fair enough" if there's say, a sharp increase in respiratory diseases or cancers amongst users in 10 years time is daft, unless you're suggesting that thousands of people don't take up smoking each year knowing full well that's exactly what awaits them.
Yes, the effects of cannabis and heroin are very well known. There have been countless studies over the years, millions of addicts have been treated so the problems are widely understood. Just like with booze and fags, you know exactly what you're getting into. That's not the case with these new synthetic compounds though. Literally nobody knows what the risks are and some people actually think they're relatively harmless because they're "legal".
If there so well know then why has the first medical cannabis study in Australia recently been announced, why are studies still being done, and why is it so hard for... And the only reason we know so much about heroin is because it has medical uses, diamorphine and other opiates have been in use for hundreds of years.
So, you think the affects of cannabis are unknown? Blimey, I don't think there's any point continuing this discussion. P.S. Like diamorphene, THC has been used in medicine too, and still is in some countries.
Thank you, I'd somehow managed to miss this one. Some real eye-opening stats in that video. This guy explains things extremely well, I'd highly recommend subscribing to his channel and going hunting through his back catalogue. No we didn't. We turned down the Alternative Vote (AV) system and AV is not proportional representation - in fact in some cases it can be even worse than FPTP. It's a complicated system which is no more representative than FPTP and was poorly explained at the time. We didn't get a referendum on proportional representation, we got a referendum on a different voting system so that the Tories could say they had at least made an effort to compromise with Lib Dem on the Lib Dem manifesto pledges.
I can't go more than half a foot scrolling on my facebook without some hippy nonsense artist sharing some video about how cannabis oils are curing every ailment known to man, in less than an hour after giving up conventional medication. Testimonials being the only proof they need. "Definitely give up your chemotherapy. All you need to do is buy this bud grinder, and stop paying the evil corporations money and you'll be cured in no time." Surely legalising it would help with these kinds of claims.
Cannabis oil is just another "alternative medicine" fad, it probably doesn't have anything to do with smoking the stuff. Also, you can choose who and what to see on Facebook, you know. Don't like the crap that someone shares, but don't want the "social stigma" of un-friending them? Unsubscribe from their posts. Alternatively, make a list of people you actually want to read updates from and just scroll through that. You don't have to see the dross if you don't want to see it.
Obviously that's nonsense and anyone claiming people should give up cancer treatment in favour of ANY unproven alternative needs a kick in the nuts. Personally though, if I wanted to "get stoned" I'd take my chances with Mary J than any of that dodgy synthesised rubbish.
