Discussion in 'Serious' started by cyberspice, 3 Jul 2012.
I'm not for legalizing cannabis but I do believe it should be decriminalised.
No, the issues I have seen have been from where other things have been put into a joint but people haven't known about it. I have never seen or heard anyone die purely from taking cannabis, it's been more of a contributory factor. A good example of that is going a bit wibble after smoking it and thinking you can go for a good swim in the sea in the middle of winter.
This is from a Coroner:
"People use cannabis and think that it is a harmless property. We have heard clear evidence in this case that it is not. Very sadly, Hadrian died as a result of the direct toxic effects on the heart that the use of cannabis had. As such, it was an avoidable death."
I have. You're absolutely right that alcohol makes people more often, and more commonly, violent. But cannabis makes people violent too, due to the paranoia and belief that everyone is against you. Much stronger varieties of cannabis and skunk are more freely available now, and they have a massively different affect on people. Especially younger kids that have a proper addiction to it. Ten years ago getting hold of a ten bag of resin was a right result, whereas now most people would expect nothing less then a strong, crystallised skunk.
A lot has changed in the recreational drug world in twelve years. Twelve years ago 10-15 year old's weren't breaking into people's homes or stealing older person's belongings in order to buy a ten bag.
That's a confusing statement, what do you suggest then?
You actually think thats true?
I reckon, potentially, that could be true of areas where crime is common place anyway.
You cannot become addicted to weed, it doesnt have a physical withdrawal, so there is no NEED for you to have it. It's a mental thing. People don't commit crime to buy weed, unless they commit crime to do everything else. And then its not really a drug thing.
No offence, but that link is to a story on the Sun. The day I put any faith in anything reported in the Sun is the day I start putting on a frilly tutu and prancing around in high heels calling myself Tallulah Queen of the Pixies. Not only is it a link to a story in the Sun, it's third-hand information - their reporter is relying on witnesses who were at the scene. He may not have even spoken to them directly, and the human memory is not exactly reliable at the best of times.
That story is contradictory. The Deputy Coroner states:
Whereas the story later states:
So the quote that states that cannabis does have a toxic effect on the body was indeed from a coroner, but it wasn't the same person that carried out the post-mortem examination. Moreover, we do not know the quantities in which the person in question used to take other drugs as well as cannabis. He could have seriously overdone the amphetamines or peruvian marching powder. Plus, the story itself nor the coroner do not give any link or citation to back up his claims that cannabis has a directly toxic effect on the heart.
For what it's worth, smoking cannabis does have a measurably toxic effect on the body: the increased risk of lung cancer brought about by inhaling the fumes of a substance being combusted. But that's not a direct result of consuming THC, that's because you're smoking the stuff, usually mixed with tobacco.
Do you have a source to back up your claim that stronger cannabis is more freely available these days? I've seen that claim reported over and over and over again, and it is never backed up by anything. Can I also point out that the same arguments were being made around the time that cannabis was first reclassified as Class C... This isn't a new argument, it's been trotted out for the last 10-20 years now and I think it's about time it was laid to rest.
And people have always committed crime to fund whatever particular habit they have. People do it to buy £3 bottles of pisswater cider, and they've been doing that for years too. You can apply the same argument to any addictive substance you care to name: nicotine, alcohol, cannabis, heroin, cocaine, crack, sleeping tablets, etc.
All things ARE in this category. I have a wagon wheel wrapper and some strawberry laces here, if I was to trip and get the strawberry laces inexplicably densely rammed up both my nostrils and have the wagon wheel wrapper covering my mouth and due to bad cable management have my legs and arms rendered useless, I could, quite possibly die of asphyxiation.
Everything IS dangerous, nothing is safe.
So really, you could say I'm living on the edge. Even then it's more believable than The Sun.
In the UK in 2010 493,242 people died from the biggest killer known to man. Despite this, in 2011 we had 807,271 new participants in this lethal pastime. When are we going to act and do something to stop the madness!!!
Also, for what it's worth, in the UK in 2010 623 died due to exposure to narcotics and hallucinogens. 655 people died from falls on and from stairs and steps. Why the hell haven't we banned stairs and steps yet!?!
Would this lethal pastime be life by any chance?
For cannabis, I think it should be legalized and taxed to buggery. This way there would be more control over the quality and more money for the treasury.
The only concern I would have, is that I think a decent method to check weed-driving at the roadside. We wouldn't want the drug driving numbers to increase as a result of weed being legalized.
There are plenty of other substances that can kill or intoxicate you, readily available on supermarket shelves.
I think the main problem lies in the legalization of a known dangerous and addictive substance which also could potentially start more people smoking cigarettes.
Doesn't sound like very sensible idea to legalize it imo
Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 2
At least it's not addictive like cigarettes or alcohol which are already legal.
Read the opening post and first couple of statements...and then scrolled through the thread until I found something from Nexxo....not until page 4 I might add, you're slipping chap.
Methadone in many ways is far more a blight than a solution, but it's not the idea behind methadone and the intention for it's use that is the problem...it's a proportion of the people taking it. This relates to any substance, any of the aforementioned drugs can be useful relatively safely and sensibly, it's the people using the substance that is the problem, not the substance itself. Which is very much in agreement with Nexxo's next point...
This is essentially why I'm generally against the demonstration of drugs, and believe that careful long term legalisation if the right direction for us to move in. It's all about education, people need to know about the real facts and dangerous/benefits of different drugs in a clear and unbiased way, then at least if they make the decision to use them, then they will be better educated and prepared for the effects.
I'd like to add a favourite little anecdote of mine here, a little off topic...
Back when I worked in housing support, we left the shelter open the day of Princess Dianna's funeral so that residents could watch it if they choose. I have an ever lasting memory from that day, at the exact moment Dianne's coffin appeared on the screen, 2 residents reached down, picked up their methadone prescriptions....chinked them together...and downed them in her honour.
People commit crime for the sole purpose of funding a cannabis habit. I have burglars sit there in interview and admit to me that the reason they do it is so they can get another bag of weed. Not amphetamine, not some food or cigarettes, just weed.
The link to the Sun was in no way meant to be serious or educative. We all know cannabis can give people mental health problems, I don't need to evidence it.
My 'source' (since you seem the kind of person that doesn't believe anyone without some kind of Professor backing it up) is me going out doing my job and finding that not a single person has cannabis resin on them any more. Drug addicts tell me that skunk is easier to get hold of and of a similar price, so obviously they are going to buy that over a block of resin packed out with cheap chocolate or soap powder (seen both, in fact even seen a nine bar with half a tesco carrier bag in it). It is cheap to set up a simple hydroponics room now and the information on how to do it is more freely available (interwebs) therefore more cannabis 'factories' exist. People don't have the time or patience to make resin any more, therefore herbal is more common place. Herbal is stronger than resin THEREFORE stronger cannabis is more freely available. There.
As for your second point, I'm not trying to argue that cannabis is any better or worse than alcohol. Drunks shoplifting is far more common than cannabis users offending. I've never heard of anyone people committing crime to get sleeping tablets though...
So your saying these people committed theses crime's for cannabis not Heroin, Crack, just cannabis Interesting but extremely unlikely.
People have mental health problems with out cannabis, Maybe people with mental health problems should stay away from all illegal drugs and of course legal ones like alcohol, But like your statement thats a matter of opinion.
Actually when "Hash" or resin as you call it was being imported from the countries of origin it was far stronger than Skunk, It's only since it was imported from Amsterdam it started to get repressed with god knows what cr*p people started to wise up and started growing their own and of course the resin was weak and rubbish so born was the myth about Skunk being a super weed
Do you honestly believe they are telling you the truth lol
Sorry man I want sure if you were being sarcastic, but yeah it's just as addictive as alcohol and cigarettes.
I highly doubt if we knew what we now know about cigarettes and alcohol and attempted to legalize it at this point in time, then they would be in the same situation as most drugs and I doubt they would be legalized
Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 2
I'm guessing these burglar's don't have jobs. Therefore, I reckon their crime extends beyond buying their next ten bag.
I reckon, they steal for everything.
Person A - has a job, works quite hard, smokes weed, buy's a couple of twenty bags a week, its the last week of the month and person A is skint, person A wouldn't go out and steal to buy draw, there is no point and no need, they are just a little bit pissed off they can't have a joint for a couple of day's, but it's not a game changer, just unfortunate circumstance - there is nothing physically drawing you towards cannabis, and therefore forcing your hand, as it isn't physically addictive.
Person B - has no job, is immersed in crime, peddles stolen goods, steals, smokes a lot of draw. Person B runs out of draw so go's stealing to get a tenner to buy a bag. this person, stealing is common place. still, they dont NEED to steal to buy weed, but they steal as an income anyway.
^ Well explained.
And you could extend it to say that if Person A got addicted to something serious like coke or alcohol or heroin, then they might actually end up breaking the law because they NEED a fix. Not so with weed tho.
That's exactly what I'm saying. Just because they smoke weed doesn't mean they inject heroin or smoke crack. Some people do just take weed. How is that so hard to believe? The vast vast majority of them are between 13 and 18 years old, mostly too scared to try anything harder.
Talk about stating the obvious. People commit crime without having a drug problem. People are violent without having an alcohol problem. Need I go on?
Sorry, who? The people who steal to fund their sleeping tablet problem?
Of course some do, but the majority, once again, are kids. Kids go home to their parents for food, drink and shelter. Their parent's won't fund their drug habit so they go out and steal.
Of course weed is addictive, same way as computer games are addictive or food is addictive.
Addiction can make even the most seemingly normal person do something completely out of character, the world is not so black and white that you can break down drug users behavior into A and B
Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 2
On it's own chemical basis. There is no trait for addiction. However there can be people who are. And that's no surprise. There are people who are genetically and behaviorally inclined towards addiction. It doesn't have to be weed, crack, heroin, it could be video games, books, you name it. But you have to remember that it if we're discussing cannibis, it isn't the substance itself that is entirely addictive, but rather it's addictive because of the personality of the person who imbibes in it.
This is Serious Discussion, so please forgive me if asking people to be able to back up their arguments is considered to be bad form (I wasn't aware that it was, by the way; I don't criticise the author, I criticise the argument). Besides, in my very first post in this thread I stated:
With that as my opening position, you can't really expect me to come back with any other response to unsubstantiated claims.
Cannabis can cause increased levels of anxiety and depression among daily users (although this particular study was only conducted on 44 teenagers), but so can any other drug available; legal or otherwise. In fact when talking about serious mental health issues, there has been no proven link between increased use of stronger cannabis and serious mental health issues.
If we're going to throw personal experience into the mix... I first started smoking cannabis around 15 years ago, and even back then no regular smoker would touch resin; we knew that it was nasty stuff and if no skunk/herbal was available, most of us would have rather (and still would rather) go without. From my experience, herbal cannabis is no more prevalent than it was 15 years ago.
Which is exactly my point about backing up your argument; even if you're right, anecdotal evidence is not empirical evidence and therefore has no place in a rational discussion.
One of the links I posted does actually confirm (via a study from Keele University) that herbal cannabis is more readily available than resin; fair enough, I accept that. But the prevalance of either type of cannabis is only relevant in as far as the risk of taking either variety. In a discussion around the legal status of various drugs, this is the key point - is it actually harmful enough to considered illegal, or have a Class B status?
The fact still remains that cannabis is less harmful than alcohol, which is perfectly legal and it's consumption is considered to be socially acceptable:
No no, I said, physically addictive - its not physically addictive. Once you start using it, your body doesnt NEED it, like say coke or heroin, which is physically addictive, as after you start using it, your body physically needs it for you to remain normal, which is why there is withdrawal symptoms etc. Which doesnt happen with weed, I mean, mentally someone can think they want it, and they can think they want it alot, but its not physically their body breaking down because they aren't getting it.
EDIT: Well I am a bit wrong as apparently recent studies have shown that in some users it does create a physical withdrawal, about 9% - 10% of users become addicted http://healthland.time.com/2010/10/19/is-marijuana-addictive-it-depends-how-you-define-addiction/
Separate names with a comma.