The drugs problem

[Signalcalc]

I am of the opinion that there should be no more drug control than that of alchohol. People will get drugs from the black market whatever the moralizing chumps in Parliament say.

However they should not then rely on handouts from the NHS and others to save them. If they do not have the self discipline to say NO to harmful drugs then they are on their own. The country is better off without them.

We could say that about sugar also, it is after all a chemical component that can lead to a physical dependency that is hard to shake off and leads to people getting fat.

And sugar takes the form of the sweet substances we all know about, but also includes all carbohydrates and fruits. All of which is converted to glucose by the body and any excess is converted and stored as body fat which is why we have a massive problem that no politician is really doing anything about.

Sugar is a harmful drug, vastly more harmful than anything on prescription or otherwise.

Totally legal, of course!

 

[forker]

one hell of an incentive for government revenue and its growing:

Legal US pot sales soar to $5.4B in 2015

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/02/01/legal-us-pot-sales-soar-in-2015.html

 

[Pat494]

one hell of an incentive for government revenue and its growing:

Legal US pot sales soar to $5.4B in 2015

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/02/01/legal-us-pot-sales-soar-in-2015.html

When the Govt. takes over from the criminal gangs they might just afford a bit of social care ?

 

[tomorton]

When the Govt. takes over from the criminal gangs they might just afford a bit of social care ?

Wait till the bill comes in for the psychiatric care.

On another tack, it seems a %age of cannabis users become functionally dependent on the drug, leading to social disfunction and increasing personal intake. Is that really something any government should condone?

 

[forker]

Wait till the bill comes in for the psychiatric care.

On another tack, it seems a %age of cannabis users become functionally dependent on the drug, leading to social disfunction and increasing personal intake. Is that really something any government should condone?

Did you know about 1 in every 12 people in America suffer from alcohol problems. That's about 17 million people. Did you also know that alcohol abuse costs America, according to the center of disease control, around 250 billion a year.

Point is alcohol is much worse, about 114 times worse than cannabis. (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4311234/). You can overdose on alcohol but you can't on cannabis. Alcohol also kills more people than cannabis does.

With every compound there are side effects and it differs by person. The facts speak for themselves.

 

[forker]

Proven benefits (not the full list) that cannabis offers medically. http://www.leafscience.com/2014/07/22/7-proven-medical-benefits-thc/

 

[forker]

Some more
http://www.cannabis-med.org/english/patients-use.htm

 

[tomorton]

Maybe alcohol and cannabis physiological impacts can be compared (though I'm not convinced 100% on that anyway).

However, there's no comparing the social position of alcohol with the social position of cannabis. They are different substances starting from different points in the argument. If you're saying alcohol is bad, and cannabis is bad, is that really an argument pro-legalisation of cannabis?

 

[forker]

In reference to psychological effects

Psychiatric Symptoms
An improvement of mood in reactive depression has been observed in several clinical studies with THC.There are additional case reports claiming benefit of cannabinoids in other psychiatric symptoms and diseases, such as sleep disorders, anxiety disorders, bipolar disorders, and dysthymia. Various authors have expressed different viewpoints concerning psychiatric syndromes and cannabis. While some emphasize the problems caused by cannabis, others promote the therapeutic possibilities. Quite possibly cannabis products may be either beneficial or harmful, depending on the particular case. The attending physician and the patient should be open to a critical examination of the topic, and a frankness to both possibilities.

 

[tomorton]

With regards the medicinal effects of THC / various substances inherent to cannabis, these are already incorporated into products available by prescription through the NHS. Legalisation of the raw drug is not required.

 

[forker]

With regards the medicinal effects of THC / various substances inherent to cannabis, these are already incorporated into products available by prescription through the NHS. Legalisation of the raw drug is not required.

So sufferers of diseases that are refused access (well documented) are criminals for growing it and using it to relieve pain.

 

[tomorton]

No, home growers with small numbers of plants intended for personal supply are not prosecuted in the UK.

 

[forker]

No, home growers with small numbers of plants intended for personal supply are not prosecuted in the UK.

And it should be decriminalised. It's a natural plant and should never have been made crime in the first place. Did you know it was criminalised during the Mexican revolution in 1910 when the locals referred to the Mexicans as a menace and blamed their smoking of cannabis. The peculiar thing is that cannabis was one of the 3 major crops grown and was legal tender. It seems as though politics and racism played a part in making cannabis an offence.

 

[tomorton]

And it should be decriminalised. It's a natural plant and should never have been made crime in the first place. Did you know it was criminalised during the Mexican revolution in 1910 when the locals referred to the Mexicans as a menace and blamed their smoking of cannabis. The peculiar thing is that cannabis was one of the 3 major crops grown and was legal tender. It seems as though politics and racism played a part in making cannabis an offence.

Politics has always been a part of law-making and always will be. Some laws will be better and some pretty poor but that's the system we have.

I don't see any obvious relevance between some possibly political and possibly racist law-making in another country a century ago.

There are lots of natural plant products that have been made illegal and some that have been regulated and some that the law ignores. Possibly tobacco and alcohol would be illegal if they were produced today either from plants or from pure chemical research. But (in relation to cannabis) so what?

 

[forker]

Politics has always been a part of law-making and always will be. Some laws will be better and some pretty poor but that's the system we have.

I don't see any obvious relevance between some possibly political and possibly racist law-making in another country a century ago.

There are lots of natural plant products that have been made illegal and some that have been regulated and some that the law ignores. Possibly tobacco and alcohol would be illegal if they were produced today either from plants or from pure chemical research. But (in relation to cannabis) so what?

Well unlike other plants that have been tuned into drugs like Cocaine or tobacco, cannabis used to have wide ranging value from fibre production to medicines, today I believe it can also be used as a source of biofuels. The other difference is that it was banned for a lame excuse and clearly the slow progress of making it legal (23 states currently in the USA) and many other countries, shows how stupid the criminalisation was in the first place

 

[darktone]

No, home growers with small numbers of plants intended for personal supply are not prosecuted in the UK.

 

[tomorton]

Well unlike other plants that have been tuned into drugs like Cocaine or tobacco, cannabis used to have wide ranging value from fibre production to medicines, today I believe it can also be used as a source of biofuels. The other difference is that it was banned for a lame excuse and clearly the slow progress of making it legal (23 states currently in the USA) and many other countries, shows how stupid the criminalisation was in the first place

The basis for criminalisation is something we can't accurately delve into from this distance and across so many different cultures.

But the basis for legalisation just isn't there, its already de-criminalised unless you're a commercial importer/producer/vendor. Anything that deters uptake is probably therefore a more prudent choice as the physiological, psychiatric and societal effects are unlikely to be positive. They may not be as dangerous as currently suspected, but the scientific proof just isn't there yet.

 

[forker]

The basis for criminalisation is something we can't accurately delve into from this distance and across so many different cultures.

But the basis for legalisation just isn't there, its already de-criminalised unless you're a commercial importer/producer/vendor. Anything that deters uptake is probably therefore a more prudent choice as the physiological, psychiatric and societal effects are unlikely to be positive. They may not be as dangerous as currently suspected, but the scientific proof just isn't there yet.

The basis isn't there? What are you smoking

 

[forker]

60 peer reviewed studies for cannabis medicinal properties. How much more basis do you need

http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000884

 

[tomorton]

The basis isn't there? What are you smoking

Nothing, therefore I have that much lower a probability of moronic chuckling and mental confusion.

Later in life I am confident of being less likely to develop schizophrenia and other psychoses, also oral, throat and lung cancer.