Should IT be legalised?

ScumLord

You all seem quite aggressive in your push for legalisation. where's that relaxed buzz you all talk about?

Well I don't know about everyone else but I'm at work now so not stoned, my relaxed buzz won't come until much later tonight. Of course we're upset, we're being criminalised for doing something we love. I do love it, everything about it. The history, the art, the storeys, the music. Cannabis is so much more than just a drug there's a whole culture there. It's just not right or fair that stoners should be classed as a criminals we've done nothing wrong.

meditraitor

ScumLord wrote:

but you see, it's not all that harmful. Smoking will cause problems but smoking it is a personal decision you can always eat it.


I still can't see any valid reason for cannabis to remain an illegal drug.

Because it has adverse effects and it would be abused, alcohol is a very good example of this abuse
Like marajuana alcohol can be used safely and is by the majority of the population but the percentage of the population that use it is higher than the dope heads so the damage caused seems higher, because of proportionality.


Why add another ill to an already sick society!

Floodzie

meditraitor wrote:

Because it has adverse effects and it would be abused, alcohol is a very good example of this abuse
Like marajuana alcohol can be used safely and is by the majority of the population but the percentage of the population that use it is higher than the dope heads so the damage caused seems higher, because of proportionality.


Why add another ill to an already sick society!

You seem be another one of those people who believes that just because something is illegal, it reduces the number of people who do it.

You can't legislate something out of existence.

Dope is used by tens of thousands of Irish people and always will be. We're not looking to introduce it to Ireland, it's already here.

We want to be sure of quality, strength and price and take the whole business out of the hands of the John Gilligans of this world (how many more shootings between drug gangs in Dublin is enough?).

Prohibition is a waste of time and doesn't work - because dope is a fairly harmless drug and most people who have tried it don't see the harm in it.

Anyone who wants to get pot can get it, so let's take the whole business off the black market.

Laws don't mean the difference between dope and no dope, they only mean the difference between the market and the black market.

greenkittie

Floodzie wrote:

You seem be another one of those people who believes that just because something is illegal, it reduces the number of people who do it.

You can't legislate something out of existence.

Dope is used by tens of thousands of Irish people and always will be. We're not looking to introduce it to Ireland, it's already here.

We want to be sure of quality, strength and price and take the whole business out of the hands of the John Gilligans of this world (how many more shootings between drug gangs in Dublin is enough?).

Prohibition is a waste of time and doesn't work - because dope is a fairly harmless drug and most people who have tried it don't see the harm in it.

Anyone who wants to get pot can get it, so let's take the whole business off the black market.

Laws don't mean the difference between dope and no dope, they only mean the difference between the market and the black market.

True to a certain extent but i know for a fact the general public cannot get it whenever and wherever they want. Remember all the heartfelt "i'm dying for a smoke, damn the drought" posts we saw last summer? Also i couldn't count the number of times i had friends asking me do i know where they could get.
I personally think the harder it is for people to get it the better. Criminalization

exCrumlinBoyo

rb_ie wrote:

How many times does this topic have to be done to have the threads locked and deleted on sight?



You'd move back to Dublin purely because cannabis was legalised? Despite the obscene cost of living, inflation, cost of houses/property etc? Thats a bit stupid.

That would be an ecumenical matter… :eek:

Floodzie

greenkittie wrote:

True to a certain extent but i know for a fact the general public cannot get it whenever and wherever they want. Remember all the heartfelt "i'm dying for a smoke, damn the drought" posts we saw last summer? Also i couldn't count the number of times i had friends asking me do i know where they could get.
I personally think the harder it is for people to get it the better. Criminalization

I never had a problem during the drought. I must have a good supplier!

If it were legal, then schoolkids would find it harder to get. At the moment no dealer asks to see ID....

In Holland (liberal drug laws) fewer teenagers smoke pot than in Ireland (strict drug laws)...

ScumLord

Because it has adverse effects

Like what? You keep saying it's bad but you give no examples. People seem to think that if the words recreational and drug are used in the same sentence their must be a dieing addict in there somewhere but that's just not the case with cannabis. I think I know where your comming from, there's no need for people to smoke cannabis, so why should they be let. People shouldn't need drugs to enjoy themselfs.

I think we have two completely different frames of mind here, I don't smoke to excape from reality or forget my troubles. I enjoy it. I have abused the drug in the past but lately I smoke when I've nothing better to do. I see drugs as an experience. People like to smoke becauses it's fun it won't really change your personality like other drugs do it'll just change your perspective. That's why I love cannabis so much it changed my view of the world just when I needed it.

You will always have people that abuse drugs for one reason or another but the rest of us shouldn't be punished for that.

Floodzie

rb_ie wrote:

You'd move back to Dublin purely because cannabis was legalised? Despite the obscene cost of living, inflation, cost of houses/property etc? Thats a bit stupid.

People move to places because the weather's good, they like an area or it's near a pub they like... all sorts of reasons.

What's wrong with moving somewhere because it has better drug laws? It may seem silly to you, and you're entitled to that opinion, but please don't let your obvious dislike of potheads (for whatever reason, I don't know) translate into voting for parties that seek to make life difficult for stoners.

Actually, what is it exactly that you dislike about stoners as opposed to drinkers? We are curious.

Wez

ScumLord wrote:

I don't smoke to excape from reality or forget my troubles. I enjoy it. I have abused the drug in the past but lately I smoke when I've nothing better to do. I see drugs as an experience. People like to smoke becauses it's fun it won't really change your personality like other drugs do it'll just change your perspective. That's why I love cannabis so much it changed my view of the world just when I needed it.

You will always have people that abuse drugs for one reason or another but the rest of us shouldn't be punished for that.

I strongly agree with this, getting high isn't just going out for the night and getting baked it's a whole culture and a kinda tradition. It's about listening to music, appreciating art, telling stories etc. We're harming nobody but ourselves by toking.

I'm against pills and powders, although I don't have any problem with the legal stuff, purely because there are regulations etc covering them, so you know they're safe.

A friend of mine's been dealing since he was 15 (comes from a very nice area) and he doesn't need to, he's got as much money as he wants, yet he's taking these risks. If you could buy it in a shop (say a chemist to get by the legalities of smoking indoors) then there wouldn't be any customers for him and he'd stop dealing.

Another guy I kinda know was made to take a drug test by his parents, he'd been toking a couple years, but when he took the test there were traces of coke and heroin in him, something he'd never touch, and this was because he was buying weed that'd been laced which he didn't know about.

I'm not pushed either way, I've got a very good and very strong supply whenever I want it (two dealers living on my road and loads all over Dublin) but I think it'd be alot safer if it was just legalized and regulated.

ScumLord

Another guy I kinda know was made to take a drug test by his parents, he'd been toking a couple years, but when he took the test there were traces of coke and heroin in him, something he'd never touch

I didn't know they laced weed, I don't see why they'd do that. Soap is laced because the hash content is so low but I always thought they laced it with sleeping pills which would be easier and maybe cheaper to get. did he smoke soap before the test? Heroin and coke only stay in your system for 2-5 days.

Heroin can show up in your system from poppy seeds which are used on allot of burger buns and coke is just an unrefined version of pharmaceutical medications.

I'm not pushed either way,

until you get done. It doesn't matter how safe or clever you are if your in the wrong place at the wrong time....

meditraitor

Quote:
Because it has adverse effects

ScumLord wrote:

Like what? You keep saying it's bad but you give no examples. People seem to think that if the words recreational and drug are used in the same sentence their must be a dieing addict in there somewhere but that's just not the case with cannabis. I think I know where your comming from, there's no need for people to smoke cannabis, so why should they be let. People shouldn't need drugs to enjoy themselfs.

I think we have two completely different frames of mind here, I don't smoke to excape from reality or forget my troubles. I enjoy it. I have abused the drug in the past but lately I smoke when I've nothing better to do. I see drugs as an experience. People like to smoke becauses it's fun it won't really change your personality like other drugs do it'll just change your perspective. That's why I love cannabis so much it changed my view of the world just when I needed it.

You will always have people that abuse drugs for one reason or another but the rest of us shouldn't be punished for that.

http://www.who.int/substance_abuse/facts/cannabis/en/
World health org

Acute health effects of cannabis use

The acute effects of cannabis use has been recognized for many years, and recent studies have confirmed and extended earlier findings. These may be summarized as follows:

Cannabis impairs cognitive development (capabilities of learning), including associative processes; free recall of previously learned items is often impaired when cannabi is used both during learning and recall periods;
Cannabis impairs psychomotor performance in a wide variety of tasks, such as motor coordination, divided attention, and operative tasks of many types; human performance on complex machinery can be impaired for as long as 24 hours after smoking as little as 20 mg of THC in cannabis; there is an increased risk of motor vehicle accidents among persons who drive when intoxicated by cannabis.

Chronic health effects of cannabis use

selective impairment of cognitive functioning which include the organization and integration of complex information involving various mechanisms of attention and memory processes;
prolonged use may lead to greater impairment, which may not recover with cessation of use, and which could affect daily life functions:
development of a cannabis dependence syndrome characterized by a loss of control over cannabis use is likely in chronic users;
cannabis use can exacerbate schizophrenia in affected individuals;
epithetial injury of the trachea and major bronchi is caused by long-term cannabis smoking;
airway injury, lung inflammation, and impaired pulmonary defence against infection from persistent cannabis consumption over prolonged periods;
heavy cannabis consumption is associated with a higher prevalence of symptoms of chronic bronchitis and a higher incidence of acute bronchitis than in the non-smoking cohort;
cannabis used during pregnancy is associated with impairment in fetal development leading to a reduction in birth weight;
cannabis use during pregnancy may lead to postnatal risk of rare forms of cancer although more research is needed in this area.
The health consequences of cannabis use in developing countries are largely unknown beacuse of limited and non-systematic research, but there is no reason a priori to expect that biological effects on individuals in these populations would be substantially different to what has been observed in developed countries. However, other consequences might be different given the cultural and social differences between countries.

Floodzie

meditraitor wrote:

Quote:
Because it has adverse effects


http://www.who.int/substance_abuse/facts/cannabis/en/
World health org

Acute health effects of cannabis use

The acute effects of cannabis use has been recognized for many years, and recent studies have confirmed and extended earlier findings. These may be summarized as follows:

Cannabis impairs cognitive development (capabilities of learning), including associative processes; free recall of previously learned items is often impaired when cannabi is used both during learning and recall periods;
Cannabis impairs psychomotor performance in a wide variety of tasks, such as motor coordination, divided attention, and operative tasks of many types; human performance on complex machinery can be impaired for as long as 24 hours after smoking as little as 20 mg of THC in cannabis; there is an increased risk of motor vehicle accidents among persons who drive when intoxicated by cannabis.

Chronic health effects of cannabis use

selective impairment of cognitive functioning which include the organization and integration of complex information involving various mechanisms of attention and memory processes;
prolonged use may lead to greater impairment, which may not recover with cessation of use, and which could affect daily life functions:
development of a cannabis dependence syndrome characterized by a loss of control over cannabis use is likely in chronic users;
cannabis use can exacerbate schizophrenia in affected individuals;
epithetial injury of the trachea and major bronchi is caused by long-term cannabis smoking;
airway injury, lung inflammation, and impaired pulmonary defence against infection from persistent cannabis consumption over prolonged periods;
heavy cannabis consumption is associated with a higher prevalence of symptoms of chronic bronchitis and a higher incidence of acute bronchitis than in the non-smoking cohort;
cannabis used during pregnancy is associated with impairment in fetal development leading to a reduction in birth weight;
cannabis use during pregnancy may lead to postnatal risk of rare forms of cancer although more research is needed in this area.
The health consequences of cannabis use in developing countries are largely unknown beacuse of limited and non-systematic research, but there is no reason a priori to expect that biological effects on individuals in these populations would be substantially different to what has been observed in developed countries. However, other consequences might be different given the cultural and social differences between countries.

And how is keeping dope illegal reducing these side effects?

Once again, for the hard of hearing - dope is as freely available as alcohol. In fact more so, because it can be gotten 24 hours a day and by people who are underage.

It's like saying 'alcohol has harmful effects so it should be illegal and supply handed over to the gangs'.

What's your point? I don't doubt that irresponsible use of pot, alcohol, sugar, fatty foods, salt etc can cause health problems.

So how does keeping pot illegal reduce those problems? It certainly doesn't affect supply.

Making dope legal would result in better quality, fewer adulterants and less harmful side effects. Currently, a lot of people who can't get grass use hash, which is mixed with tobacco. How is that better?

Making dope legal would result in people being given advice/warnings on packets concerning irresponsible use. How does banning it do that? Do the dealers in your area make nice little cartons for dope with health warnings on the side?

But that is immaterial because the drug laws DO NOT affect supply and demand. They only result in a ****ter quality product - ie WORSE for your health.

Oh, and most of your post concerns people who use cannabis irresponsibly for a long time. Hardly the majority of tokers. So why should we be punished for the few? If these people are chronic users, the law is no deterrent.

pbsuxok1znja4r

I've been looking at the title of this thread for weeks without reading it, thinking it had something to do with I.T. being legalised. Which struck me as odd.

Floodzie

scouser.tommy wrote:

I've been looking at the title of this thread for weeks without reading it, thinking it had something to do with I.T. being legalised. Which struck me as odd.

Me too :-)

It was actually the reason I opened it - and possibly why it's not attracting a huge amount of potheads... and IS attracting a large number of people who don't really understand the issue (but to be fair, they are representative of the general attitude to doobie by the majority of people in our very, very conservative wee country)

Perhaps we should ban IT and legalise the weed? Chill this country out a bit ;-)

meditraitor

Floodzie wrote:

And how is keeping dope illegal reducing these side effects?

Floodzie wrote:

Once again, for the hard of hearing - dope is as freely available as alcohol. In fact more so, because it can be gotten 24 hours a day and by people who are underage..

No its not

Floodzie wrote:

It's like saying 'alcohol has harmful effects so it should be illegal and supply handed over to the gangs'..

Alcohol is harmfull and it is being abused everyday causing many social ill's, it being legal hasnt made it any less harmfull( re dope)

Floodzie wrote:

What's your point? I don't doubt that irresponsible use of pot, alcohol, sugar, fatty foods, salt etc can cause health problems. .

Sugar, fatty acids, and salt are all essential for the upkeep of your body,

Floodzie wrote:

So how does keeping pot illegal reduce those problems? It certainly doesn't affect supply..

How will legalising it make the problems go away?

Floodzie wrote:

Making dope legal would result in better quality, fewer adulterants and less harmful side effects. Currently, a lot of people who can't get grass use hash, which is mixed with tobacco. How is that better?.

Please elaborate and show me how better quality = less side effects , did you read my post?
And none of this " i heard it from a friend of a friend" dope smoker nonsense either, show me proof!

Floodzie wrote:

Making dope legal would result in people being given advice/warnings on packets concerning irresponsible use. How does banning it do that? Do the dealers in your area make nice little cartons for dope with health warnings on the side?.

Has this resulted in the reduction of harm associated with Tobacco? No and it wont with dope either!

Floodzie wrote:

But that is immaterial because the drug laws DO NOT affect supply and demand. They only result in a ****ter quality product - ie WORSE for your health..

Of course they do, and quality does not mean healthier

Floodzie wrote:

Oh, and most of your post concerns people who use cannabis irresponsibly for a long time. Hardly the majority of tokers. So why should we be punished for the few? If these people are chronic users, the law is no deterrent.

Because some people need guidance, especially people that have formed opinions on a subject through a haze of smoke in a room full of teenage angst and with little regard to facts or common interest

Floodzie

jaysus, quoting something with quotes gets a bit messy on this site...

Right [cracks knuckles and starts to type furiously ;-) ]

meditraitor wrote:

No its not [as freely available as alcohol]

Dunno what your experience is, but I was never asked for ID when buying pot as a teenager (LONG time ago, btw). Ok, perhaps I should have been more specific - it's not available on every street corner like alcohol (and nor should it be) but it IS available in just about every town in Ireland. I've lived all over and never had much of a problem. And the dealer didn't stop selling at 11:30pm.

meditraitor wrote:

Alcohol is harmfull and it is being abused everyday causing many social ill's, it being legal hasnt made it any less harmfull( re dope)

Cirrohsis of the liver actually DROPPED after alcohol was re-legalized in the US. People started imbibing better quality alcohol, which wasn't as strong. When booze was illegal it obviously made more sense to smuggle stronger but smaller-in-size bottles of booze.

meditraitor wrote:

Sugar, fatty acids, and salt are all essential for the upkeep of your body,

So... what? Only things that are essential for life should be legal??? I presume you mean you want to ban alcohol? I won't be inviting you to any parties ;-)

meditraitor wrote:

How will legalising it make the problems go away?

Ah ha! We are both in agreement that pot (if taken in immoderation) can be harmful. Legalization will at least result in better quality. You can be sure that nobody would be smoking pot that is mixed with sleeping pills, diesel, boot polish etc and all the other junk you find in dope. When people have a choice, they will buy based on quality.

meditraitor wrote:

Please elaborate and show me how better quality = less side effects , did you read my post?
And none of this " i heard it from a friend of a friend" dope smoker nonsense either, show me proof!

Better quality = no adulterants (see above). It doesn't matter how cheap the pot is, if it's got boot polish in it, no one will smoke it. Supply and demand.

meditraitor wrote:

Has this resulted in the reduction of harm associated with Tobacco? No and it wont with dope either!

Yes it has. Cigarettes are taxed (as a deterrent), filtered, and have warnings on the packets. But then tobacco/pot is a bad analogy - pot is a LOT safer than tobacco and FAR less addictive (although I don't smoke tobacco so I wouldn't really know, to be honest. Never had a problem going without pot, unlike my tobacco smoking friends who can't get through a morning without a cigarette).

meditraitor wrote:

Of course they do, and quality does not mean healthier

Yes. Yes it does. Quality does not mean 'healthy', no. But healthier, most certainly.

meditraitor wrote:

Because some people need guidance, especially people that have formed opinions on a subject through a haze of smoke in a room full of teenage angst and with little regard to facts or common interest

Ouch. Someone needs to chill out.

My opinions have been formed from living all over the world in various jusridictions that have diffferent attitudes to pot (and really, our attitude in Ireland, relative to a lot of other places I've lived, is laughable).

As I mentioned in a previous post, fewer Dutch teenagers smoke pot (with their liberal drug laws) than Irish teenagers (with our antiquated drug laws).

As regards common interest, though, one last point. People who work on the black market have no recourse to the judicial process - they tend to resolve their disputes through intimidation and shootings (as we are all too aware of in Dublin these last few months). And you think this is a better situation for society?

meditraitor wrote:

Well, at least we can have this argument and still smile...

ScumLord

Meditraitor,

The biggest problem with facts on Cannabis is both sides are biased. The world health organisation would be under pressure from their biggest detonators to show it in it's worst light. It is a simple fact that most tests are rigged or hopelessly out of date. At the same time Cannabis is not completely safe and does have side effects all drugs do.

Cannabis impairs cognitive development (capabilities of learning), including associative processes; free recall of previously learned items is often impaired when cannabi is used both during learning and recall periods;

These affects are temporary and minimal, I'm speaking from experience. Other tests have shown that cannabis can improve your long term memory.

Cannabis impairs psychomotor performance in a wide variety of tasks, such as motor coordination, divided attention,

That it prevents divided attention is seen by some as a major benefit of the drug it allows you to give your undivided attention to a particular task. That's why artist like it so much you get into a zone and really into whatever your doing.

human performance on complex machinery can be impaired for as long as 24 hours after smoking as little as 20 mg of THC in cannabis;

Same can be said for alcohol, the fact that you get a better hit with a smaller dosage means you do less of the drug when compared to alcohol. This means less damage is done in the long run.

there is an increased risk of motor vehicle accidents among persons who drive when intoxicated by cannabis.

I've heard the exact opposite said, that cannabis improves your driving especially if your a speedy driver, of course it's never a good idea to drive under the influence of any drug but legalising it would allow the gardi to enforce a complete ban on smoking and driving.

development of a cannabis dependence syndrome characterized by a loss of control over cannabis use is likely in chronic users;

Some people have addictive personalities this shouldn't be held against those that don't. These people could just as easily become alcoholics in the absence of cannabis and I still think that it's better for your health to be a dedicated stoner over an alcoholic. We've probably all seen the damage done by drink it completely destroys your body and mind. Responsible use has to be encouraged which isn't happening now under prohibition. The bang per buck side of things is an important point. Because you get your high quicker and on a smaller dose means your not subjecting your body to as much of the harmful side of the drug as you do with drink.

cannabis use can exacerbate schizophrenia in affected individuals;

In affected individuals, not the majority of the population

epithetial injury of the trachea and major bronchi is caused by long-term cannabis smoking;
airway injury, lung inflammation, and impaired pulmonary defence against infection from persistent cannabis consumption over prolonged periods;
heavy cannabis consumption is associated with a higher prevalence of symptoms of chronic bronchitis and a higher incidence of acute bronchitis than in the non-smoking cohort;

Duh. Smoking is bad for you but this is all irrelevant as you don't have to smoke it. You can get the same if not better high from eating it. Smoking it is personal preference.

cannabis used during pregnancy is associated with impairment in fetal development leading to a reduction in birth weight;
cannabis use during pregnancy may lead to postnatal risk of rare forms of cancer although more research is needed in this area.

I'm afraid this also goes under the Duh heading, don't do any drugs while pregnant. It's not safe to drink or smoke cigarettes during pregnancy either

Cannabis is not "good for you" but it's not so dangerous that it should be classed as a dangerous drug. Is it really worth all the time, effort and money ensuring that adults don't get high? It can be used responsibly and it is a much more sociable drug. Money would be much better spent educating consenting adults than fighting a battle that can't be won, just constantly trowing money at the war against drugs will just consume resources indefinitely.

Are you totally opposed to letting others enjoy cannabis if they want to? Nobody's going to force you to smoke so why not live and let live?

Another thing. About stats on smokers. Like it's already been pointed out most smokers have jobs and allot have families and don't want to be stigmatised because they like to unwind with a spliff in the evening so they tell very few people that they do smoke. The stats only show figures on people that get caught or don't mind everyone knowing their smokers which in fairness is the minority.

Léan

meditraitor wrote:

there is an increased risk of motor vehicle accidents among persons who drive when intoxicated by cannabis.

Eh.. I thought it was common sense not to drive under the influence of any substance..

meditraitor wrote:

cannabis use can exacerbate schizophrenia in affected individuals;

That's a very very controversial topic which has not been fully explored.
I've read a good bit on the subject and for every article that states it's linked with schizophrenia there is another article that states otherwise, and vice versa.

meditraitor wrote:

epithetial injury of the trachea and major bronchi is caused by long-term cannabis smoking;
airway injury, lung inflammation, and impaired pulmonary defence against infection from persistent cannabis consumption over prolonged periods;
heavy cannabis consumption is associated with a higher prevalence of symptoms of chronic bronchitis and a higher incidence of acute bronchitis than in the non-smoking cohort;

There are many different ways to take cannabis, endless recipes, for different foods, liquids, and all sorts of different concoctions.

meditraitor wrote:

cannabis used during pregnancy is associated with impairment in fetal development leading to a reduction in birth weight;
cannabis use during pregnancy may lead to postnatal risk of rare forms of cancer although more research is needed in this area.

Wtf. As far as I know you aren't supposed to drink alcohol or smoke cigarettes if you're pregnant either, because of cancer risks and various other diseases ...Maybe it's just me :rolleyes:

slipss

Ha, I can't believe I read all of that, me eyes are killing me.

Ehh anyways, I thought I'd add my own two cents. I was planing to write a big massive summary response put I type about 10 words a minute so i guess thats out of the question, so just a few points.

1. Gurgle about psychological addiction being "made up", I take it you've revearsed your opinion on that, you made a point "IMHO psychological addiction is a made up term for when they want to keep something illegal even though its not addictive. Really addictive things - Alcohol, nicotine, caffeine, heroin, cocaine, morphine, prozac. Yet the only substance in the world on the 'psychologically addictive' list is marajuana?" For a start cocaine which you group alongside nicotine , heroin ect is considered as a psychologically addictive substance. Where as cannabis is largely regarded as being physically addictive when used chronically i.e it produces physical withdrawl symptoms, cocaine doesn't.

2. Alot of people said various things about cannabis being harmfull or harmless. Well to summarise it is harmfull, physically and mentally. But when used responsibly the negative health effects are negligable(sc). It can be viewed the exact same way as alcohol or salt. If you use it too often or use too much then the health risks rise proportionally, but when used sparingly they decrease and in individually specific cases they can have benifets to health. In my opinion like with alcohol or salt the owness of responsible use should fall on the individual.

3. Should it be legalised here? Well in theory I'd say yes, for the same primary reason the dutch semi-legalised it. To seperate its sale and supply from the sale and supply of harder drugs, coke, heroin, ect. The princible argument given against legalising it seemed to be that more people would start using it because they'd figure "ah well its legal now, so why not". Admitedly there are some people living in this country and the only reason they don't smoke cannabis is because its illegal, but I really don't think it would be a high number. Case in point: there are ten pages of text here alot of it from people that don't smoke cannabis and/or don't agree with its legalisation. None of these people sited legality as the reason they don't take cannabis, they all gave health reasons. In fact i'd be hugely suprised if more than a sparse handful of people on here would give legality as the reason. Is there anyone at all??? Please reply. So I don't think that argument against keeping it illegal really holds water.

Gurgle

slipss wrote:

1. Gurgle about psychological addiction being "made up", I take it you've revearsed your opinion on that, you made a point "IMHO psychological addiction is a made up term for when they want to keep something illegal even though its not addictive. Really addictive things - Alcohol, nicotine, caffeine, heroin, cocaine, morphine, prozac. Yet the only substance in the world on the 'psychologically addictive' list is marajuana?" For a start cocaine which you group alongside nicotine , heroin ect is considered as a psychologically addictive substance. Where as cannabis is largely regarded as being physically addictive when used chronically i.e it produces physical withdrawl symptoms, cocaine doesn't.

I've certainly altered my opinion on cocaine, I have never taken it and through mis-education I had always considered it to be on the same list as heroin.

As for the addictiveness of cannabis; I quit smoking it since this thread started (I would have been classified as a 'chronic' user) without any withdrawal symptoms.

Nicotine, on the other hand, still has a firm grip on me.

Terry

Cannabis impairs cognitive development (capabilities of learning), including associative processes; free recall of previously learned items is often impaired when cannabi is used both during learning and recall periods;

ScumLord wrote:

Meditraitor,

The biggest problem with facts on Cannabis is both sides are biased. The world health organisation would be under pressure from their biggest detonators to show it in it's worst light. It is a simple fact that most tests are rigged or hopelessly out of date. At the same time Cannabis is not completely safe and does have side effects all drugs do.

Case closed.
i could point out more flaws, mis-spelt words and various other things, but i can't be bothered. that one word says it all. well, that and the constant arguements from supposedly mellow people.


someone asked earlier why they should be criminalised for doing something they like. ask the same of a paedophile.
the answer is that it's illegal. Dumb stoners piss me off.

Pighead

You're making a comparison between smoking a natural plant and abusing young kids? Way to put things in perspective Mr julep.

bongo85

julep wrote:

ask the same of a paedophile.
the answer is that it's illegal. Dumb stoners piss me off.

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!

Terry

both are illegal. both are done by people who claim to like what they do. that's my point.

bongo85

Sorry, but that's just ridiculous

Floodzie

julep wrote:

both are illegal. both are done by people who claim to like what they do. that's my point.

Stoners=paedos? A new low, even for you Julep.

The 'gateway drug' theory is a fallacy, so they try 'dope is much stronger nowadays'... doesn't hold much water. So now we're like abusers.

ROTFL (and no, I'm not high right now.)

Who needs drugs when you have Julep?

(Oh - and you criticize other peoples' spelling whilst making glaring grammatical/syntactical errors yourself...)

Julep once suffered a bad break-up with a stoner, perhaps?

meditraitor

The replies from Floodzie Lean and Scumlord are exactly what I expected,

Scumlord wrote:

The biggest problem with facts on Cannabis is both sides are biased. The world health organisation would be under pressure from their biggest detonators to show it in it's worst light. It is a simple fact that most tests are rigged or hopelessly out of date. At the same time Cannabis is not completely safe and does have side effects all drugs do.

Not facts- opinions
Please show me proof that the WHO is rigging medical tests to suit there biggest detonators(did you mean donators)

Lean wrote:

That's a very very controversial topic which has not been fully explored.
I've read a good bit on the subject and for every article that states it's linked with schizophrenia there is another article that states otherwise, and vice versa.

Please show me proof that these articles(showing cannabis has no links to schizophrenia) exist in real life- and not in your imagination!

Floodzie wrote:

Yes. Yes it does. Quality does not mean 'healthy', no. But healthier, most certainly

.

Please show me how you formed this opinion, reports, scientific tests etc

This is the usual type of reply I expect from most pot heads, more walter mitty than fact!

coffee_cake

julep wrote:

both are illegal. both are done by people who claim to like what they do. that's my point.

Is your whole morality defined by what's legal and what isn't?

Floodzie

meditraitor wrote:

Please show me how you formed this opinion, reports, scientific tests etc

This is the usual type of reply I expect from most pot heads, more walter mitty than fact!

Look - (dumbing it down again for you, for the third time...) it's very simple.

If a product is being sold legally, it will be regulated. Quality standards etc will be enforced.

Do you understand that bit? Assuming you do, I'll move on.

Now, what currently happens with hashish, is that it gets mixed with adulterants to 'bulk up' the amount. These adulterants (boot polish, plastic etc) are bad for you.

Got that?

Right. So legal hash = no adulterants = healthier than illegal hash. I don't know how I can make it easier for you...

Also, because hashish is bulkier (more bang for the buck) it's more likely to be smuggled in (and it also smells less). Hashsish is almost always smoked in joints with tobacco. Tobacco (as you may already know) is addictive and kills 40% of its users.

If marijuana was legal, we could smoke pure grass joints, hence no need for tobacco.

Also, any hashish we did choose to smoke would be unlikely to be mixed with any adulterants.

Please tell me what you don't understand about that? The experience of mixed hashish and dificulties rolling joints with pure hashish are commn to all stoners. You don't need 'scientific reports' to tell you that. It's as obvious as the nose on your face. It's not 'hearsay' it's the most common thing stoners experience.

It's like saying 'the sun rises in the morning? Pah! Show me how you formed this opinion, reports, scientific tests etc'.

meditraitor

Floodzie wrote:

Look - (dumbing it down again for you, for the third time...) it's very simple.

If a product is being sold legally, it will be regulated. Quality standards etc will be enforced.

Do you understand that bit? Assuming you do, I'll move on.

Now, what currently happens with hashish, is that it gets mixed with adulterants to 'bulk up' the amount. These adulterants (boot polish, plastic etc) are bad for you.

Got that?

Right. So legal hash = no adulterants = healthier than illegal hash. I don't know how I can make it easier for you...

Also, because hashish is bulkier (more bang for the buck) it's more likely to be smuggled in (and it also smells less). Hashsish is almost always smoked in joints with tobacco. Tobacco (as you may already know) is addictive and kills 40% of its users.

If marijuana was legal, we could smoke pure grass joints, hence no need for tobacco.

Also, any hashish we did choose to smoke would be unlikely to be mixed with any adulterants.

Please tell me what you don't understand about that? The experience of mixed hashish and dificulties rolling joints with pure hashish are commn to all stoners. You don't need 'scientific reports' to tell you that. It's as obvious as the nose on your face. It's not 'hearsay' it's the most common thing stoners experience.

It's like saying 'the sun rises in the morning? Pah! Show me how you formed this opinion, reports, scientific tests etc'.

Have you carried out these tests yourself? have they been published in any medical journals?
Again with the " im telling you facts " but havnt any proof syndrome of the dope smoking bourgeoisie