cannabis made legal

[Canis]

I think most people younger than the baby boomers have been exposed to drugs in a greater or lesser extent in their youth.

 

Where adults are concerned though i'm never quite sure if they take the drugs because they are %^&*£$ in the head or that they get %^&*£$ in the head by the drugs. Chicken and egg situation !

 

For someone that ther moniker "slightly to the right of Gengis Kahn " applied to him at university years ago i would stop short of asking " what calibre for Junkie ?" but would step up the criminalisation of drugs in manners that would whip the bleeding hearts at the European court of human rights into a frenzy!

[bi9johnny]

my wife works in a housing association for 16--23 yr olds and i do occasional part time there and if you guys saw the aftermath of weed/skunk/resin/pot/hash or whatever you old hippy boys wanna call it as well as drink/ coke/mcat/ketamine/heroin sweet baby yazu you would want it taken of the face of this earth......it is heartbreaking to see the misery this muck brings to society

[e2000e2000e]

I think the term legalising it might actually be over egging the pudding, they are decriminalising the possession of small quantities of pot, for personal use. It will still be an offence to deal etc. Not the worst idea in my book, frees up police time to deal with dealers and pusher etc. who are the route cause of the problem. I'm not a fan of drugs to be honest, just like alcohol some people can take in moderation, and it ruins some people’s lives, do we really need it?

[Catweazle]

i would stop short of asking " what calibre for Junkie ?" but would step up the criminalisation of drugs in manners that would whip the bleeding hearts at the European court of human rights into a frenzy!

 

Except for Tobacco of course, because you enjoy it. Forget the fact that millions are desperately trying to give it up before it kills them.

[gazzthompson]

End the war on drugs, Legalise all drug use. Get it off the streets and away from kids, Educate people. Get the state out of peoples bodies. The billions spent on this failed "war" spend on rehabilitation and NHS.

.

[al4x]

or just release a load that is toxic and kill them off simples job done........

[gazzthompson]

or just release a load that is toxic and kill them off simples job done........

 

Mass murder sounds so much better than drug use!

[Bloke]

I ran detox programmes for the majority of street drugs for over six years, and these arguments have been going on almost continually for over 50 years. With the most notorious drugs, i.e. Heroin, Crack Cocaine/Cocaine, Crystal Meth, Barbiturates, Benzodiazepines, LSD, etc - the scientific arguments are so well researched now that anyone who denies the harm these drugs can do if not taken under medical supervision, is woefully ignorant of the medical evidence.

 

Marijuana however, remains one of the last bastions of debate. Hippies and stoners over the years (myself included ) have all wailed "It doesn't do any harm - look at me, I'm OK!", and maybe they are, good for them. I came out of a stretch of over 10 years when I would smoke it at least every other night without any ill-effects (unless you count the smoking related cancer I now have - but that is more likely at least 50% down to the fags!). But most of the baby boomers are arguing from the viewpoint of the dope of the 60s and 70s - which bears as little relation to some of the strains about now as a steam engine to a passenger jet. Some of the super skunk now available is well into the tens of times stronger than some of the resin and floor sweepings we used to smoke.

 

Does it cause mental health problems? Well, certainly quite a high percentage of younger/middle aged people with some of the more chronic mental health problems have tried using cannabis to help them cope with their symptoms - a mistake usually, because although cannabis induces euphoria and apparent relaxation, it also reduces your ability to make rational decisions and differentiate between reality and any hallucinations or delusional effects you may already have, one of the reasons why cannabis can be seen as the causative agent for first-time presentations at A&E with psychosis. Would they have become ill anyway? - hard to tell, because the symptoms are already there, but spending the rest of my life with any form of schizo-affective disorder is not a prospect I want to entertain enough to risk it. Certainly ex-colleagues of mine who currently work within Mental Health in-patient units, are seeing people brought in with acute psychotic episodes after heavy skunk cannabis use, which spontaneously disappears after a few weeks away from the drug.

 

But if it eventually could be proved in law at a future time, to have been the primary cause for mental illness, and the government had legitimised its use, the law suits would be enormous! Cannabis certainly negatively affects people with anxiety/depression, it is a "state-dependant" drug, that will enhance your current mood, which is why it is never good to get stoned if you are really low, it will just exaggerate that. Long-term?- well we have all seen the local stoners, wandering around dazed and confused, not pretty or clever - what is the chance of them contributing in any useful way to society?

 

Another major point that caused me to have a "strong disagreement" with the then "Drugs Czar" Keith Hellawell, at the National Drug conference, is the subject of tox screen, or drug screening. As Marijuana is fat-soluble, it is excreted over a period of time. Therefore, if you had a really good session over a few days (perfectly legally of course, I went over to Amsterdam, officer! ) You could test positive on a drug screen for over three weeks, even though it is pretty certain it is no longer affecting your performance! Now, if during that period you were/are pulled over for a test by the police, e.g.after an accident, (unless the screening tools have greatly improved since I retired) the officer has no way of knowing when you smoked/ate dope, he has no other choice but arrest you for DUI, one of the reasons why forces around the world are considering going back to performance testing for roadside stops. Also, if they bring in drug testing at airports, or as they do now, in the workplace, can you PROVE you smoked it legally in Holland? I doubt it, that is why many firms use screens for instant dismissal! As it stands now, there is a good chance you could endanger ANY licences you hold because of a joint or three a week ago - again, not good!

 

Will anyone be harmed by a few joints a couple of days a week? - probably not significantly, but if you posed the same question about cigarettes a few years ago, people would have said the same, trust one who knows, cancer is NOT funny! It is all about choice - if you really want to, go ahead, but don't try and deny the risks, and don't try and expect it to be legalised any time soon.

Edited December 7, 2012 by Bloke

[gazzthompson]

Interesting post bloke, How come the research into Marijuana has lacked compared to meth, coke and the likes?

 

And the driving aspect (Ie catching people) needs to be looked into before any legalization thats for sure.

Edited December 7, 2012 by gazzthompson

[bi9johnny]

I ran detox programmes for the majority of street drugs for over six years, and these arguments have been going on almost continually for over 50 years. With the most notorious drugs, i.e. Heroin, Crack Cocaine/Cocaine, Crystal Meth, Barbiturates, Benzodiazepines, LSD, etc - the scientific arguments are so well researched now that anyone who denies the harm these drugs can do if not taken under medical supervision, is woefully ignorant of the medical evidence.

 

Marijuana however, remains one of the last bastions of debate. Hippies and stoners over the years (myself included ) have all wailed "It doesn't do any harm - look at me, I'm OK!", and maybe they are, good for them. I came out of a stretch of over 10 years when I would smoke it at least every other night without any ill-effects (unless you count the smoking related cancer I now have - but that is more likely at least 50% down to the fags!). But most of the baby boomers are arguing from the viewpoint of the dope of the 60s and 70s - which bears as little relation to some of the strains about now as a steam engine to a passenger jet. Some of the super skunk now available is well into the tens of times stronger than some of the resin and floor sweepings we used to smoke.

 

Does it cause mental health problems? Well, certainly quite a high percentage of younger/middle aged people with some of the more chronic mental health problems have tried using cannabis to help them cope with their symptoms - a mistake usually, because although cannabis induces euphoria and apparent relaxation, it also reduces your ability to make rational decisions and differentiate between reality and any hallucinations or delusional effects you may already have, one of the reasons why cannabis can be seen as the causative agent for first-time presentations at A&E with psychosis. Would they have become ill anyway? - hard to tell, because the symptoms are already there, but spending the rest of my life with any form of schizo-affective disorder is not a prospect I want to entertain enough to risk it. Certainly ex-colleagues of mine who currently work within Mental Health in-patient units, are seeing people brought in with acute psychotic episodes after heavy skunk cannabis use, which spontaneously disappears after a few weeks away from the drug.

 

But if it eventually could be proved in law at a future time, to have been the primary cause for mental illness, and the government had legitimised its use, the law suits would be enormous! Cannabis certainly negatively affects people with anxiety/depression, it is a "state-dependant" drug, that will enhance your current mood, which is why it is never good to get stoned if you are really low, it will just exaggerate that. Long-term?- well we have all seen the local stoners, wandering around dazed and confused, not pretty or clever - what is the chance of them contributing in any useful way to society?

 

Another major point that caused me to have a "strong disagreement" with the then "Drugs Czar" Keith Halliwell, at the National Drug conference, is the subject of tox screen, or drug screening. As Marijuana is fat-soluble, it is excreted over a period of time. Therefore, if you had a really good session over a few days (perfectly legally of course, I went over to Amsterdam, officer! ) You could test positive on a drug screen for over three weeks, even though it is pretty certain it is no longer affecting your performance! Now, if during that period you were/are pulled over for a test by the police, e.g.after an accident, (unless the screening tools have greatly improved since I retired) the officer has no way of knowing when you smoked/ate dope, he has no other choice but arrest you for DUI, one of the reasons why forces around the world are considering going back to performance testing for roadside stops. Also, if they bring in drug testing at airports, or as they do now, in the workplace, can you PROVE you smoked it legally in Holland? I doubt it, that is why many firms use screens for instant dismissal! As it stands now, there is a good chance you could endanger ANY licences you hold because of a joint or three a week ago - again, not good!

 

Will anyone be harmed by a few joints a couple of days a week? - probably not significantly, but if you posed the same question about cigarettes a few years ago, people would have said the same, trust one who knows, cancer is NOT funny! It is all about choice - if you really want to, go ahead, but don't try and deny the risks, and don't try and expect it to be legalised any time soon.

very good words bloke

alas as well as my experience with drugs through work it also came rushing home a couple of years back when my lad suffered schizophrenia and we were told it was cannabis induced which he later developed capgras syndrome and made an attempt to kill me...... this stuff really is not the soft drug people think it is these days

[Bloke]

Interesting post bloke, How come the research into Marijuana has lacked compared to meth, coke and the likes?

 

And the driving aspect (Ie catching people) needs to be looked into before any legalization thats for sure.

Have to ask the scientists for the full reply, but partly because cocaine and medical heroin (Diamorphine) is still prescribed in various forms, and has been for many years, so research data is available. However marijuana was made illegal before any properly validated scientific data was available, so any testing now means supplying illegal drugs, always at a guaranteed definite strength, on a medically supervised routine, without any other influences, to patients, something few governments will sanction. Data will come from the countries where it is now decriminalised, but that will take time. Maybe it will be seen as safe enough to decriminalise, who knows? But I would like to see proper research done first.

Edited December 7, 2012 by Bloke

[gazzthompson]

This is why advocating legalisation (Mostly for civil liberties and economic/criminal benefits) I also advocate for a parallel in education for safer drug use (And alcohol and tobacco whistle we are at it). I would much rather people who are using this stuff know the real risks and safe usage rather than what we have currently which is the state saying "Drugs are bad 'mmm'k" and god knows what these people are being told by their dealers and other users "Yeah its fine, i haven't had any problems!

 

Have to ask th scientists for the full reply, but partly because cocaine and medical heroin (Diamorphine) is still prescribed in various forms, and has been for many years, so research data is available. However marijuana was made illegal before any properly validated scientific data was available, so any testing now means supplying illegal drugs, always at a guaranteed definite strength, on a medically supervised routine, without any other influences, to patients, something few governments will sanction. Dat will come from the countries wher it is now decriminalised, but that will take time. Maybe it will be seen as safe enough to decriminalise, who knows? But I would like to see proper research done first.

 

Makes sense, thanks.

Edited December 7, 2012 by gazzthompson

[Jonno243]

I ran detox programmes for the majority of street drugs for over six years........and don't try and expect it to be legalised any time soon.

 

Apologies for butchering your post Bloke, but I didn't want to clutter everyone's screen by reposting it in its entirety.

 

What I do want to do is congratulate you on one of the best written, most balanced and well thought out posts that I have ever read on this forum. Bravo sir, bravo.

[Bloke]

This is why advocating legalisation (Mostly for civil liberties and economic/criminal benefits) I also advocate for a parallel in education for safer drug use (And alcohol and tobacco whistle we are at it). I would much rather people who are using this stuff know the real risks and safe usage rather than what we have currently which is the state saying "Drugs are bad 'mmm'k" and god knows what these people are being told by their dealers and other users "Yeah its fine, i haven't had any problems!

 

 

 

Makes sense, thanks.

 

One of the problems in trying to educate people is that there are many otherwise sensible people, who when presented with a proposay to educate ref drugs, will wail -"You are just encouraging drug use, when you are teaching people to use more safely". By far the biggest percentage of my patients were heroin users, a big problem in this part of the country, Mostly fairly decent people caught by a drug they thought they could control. My sole aim was to keep them alive and away from offending, long enough for them to get off the stuff and back into the real world. Part of that include safer drug use education, if I had a drug user whose veins were so shot that they were injecting into their neck, or their fingers, then by educating them on safer injecting (That they would inject no matter what I said), then hopefully they would live at least long enough to survive. But I had parents/partners who tried to stop me, saying that somehow, if i didnt give them the advice, their loved ones would stop using, unfortunately I couldnt show them my other patients with HIV/AIDS/Hep who could have been spared the illness by safer practices. Just the same with dope, which although shows NO physical addiction, can certainly be psychologically addictive.

 

Yes, there will always be the scumbag drug users, there are scum in all parts of life, but most are people like us who made ### choices and paid hard for them.

Edited December 7, 2012 by Bloke

[Bloke]

Apologies for butchering your post Bloke, but I didn't want to clutter everyone's screen by reposting it in its entirety.

 

What I do want to do is congratulate you on one of the best written, most balanced and well thought out posts that I have ever read on this forum. Bravo sir, bravo.

 

Aw, Shucks! :blush: - just nice to know dementia hasn't set in yet and that I haven't forgotten everything I learned.

[gazzthompson]

HIV/AIDS/Hep who could have been spared the illness by safer practices.

 

Interesting you mention that, One of the main points i got out of portugals decriminalization was a fall in HIV:

 

"New HIV infections in drug users fell by 17% between 1999 and 2003"

 

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.html

[Blackpowder]

I ran detox programmes for the majority of street drugs for over six years, and these arguments have been going on almost continually for over 50 years. With the most notorious drugs, i.e. Heroin, Crack Cocaine/Cocaine, Crystal Meth, Barbiturates, Benzodiazepines, LSD, etc - the scientific arguments are so well researched now that anyone who denies the harm these drugs can do if not taken under medical supervision, is woefully ignorant of the medical evidence.

 

Marijuana however, remains one of the last bastions of debate. Hippies and stoners over the years (myself included ) have all wailed "It doesn't do any harm - look at me, I'm OK!", and maybe they are, good for them. I came out of a stretch of over 10 years when I would smoke it at least every other night without any ill-effects (unless you count the smoking related cancer I now have - but that is more likely at least 50% down to the fags!). But most of the baby boomers are arguing from the viewpoint of the dope of the 60s and 70s - which bears as little relation to some of the strains about now as a steam engine to a passenger jet. Some of the super skunk now available is well into the tens of times stronger than some of the resin and floor sweepings we used to smoke.

 

Does it cause mental health problems? Well, certainly quite a high percentage of younger/middle aged people with some of the more chronic mental health problems have tried using cannabis to help them cope with their symptoms - a mistake usually, because although cannabis induces euphoria and apparent relaxation, it also reduces your ability to make rational decisions and differentiate between reality and any hallucinations or delusional effects you may already have, one of the reasons why cannabis can be seen as the causative agent for first-time presentations at A&E with psychosis. Would they have become ill anyway? - hard to tell, because the symptoms are already there, but spending the rest of my life with any form of schizo-affective disorder is not a prospect I want to entertain enough to risk it. Certainly ex-colleagues of mine who currently work within Mental Health in-patient units, are seeing people brought in with acute psychotic episodes after heavy skunk cannabis use, which spontaneously disappears after a few weeks away from the drug.

 

But if it eventually could be proved in law at a future time, to have been the primary cause for mental illness, and the government had legitimised its use, the law suits would be enormous! Cannabis certainly negatively affects people with anxiety/depression, it is a "state-dependant" drug, that will enhance your current mood, which is why it is never good to get stoned if you are really low, it will just exaggerate that. Long-term?- well we have all seen the local stoners, wandering around dazed and confused, not pretty or clever - what is the chance of them contributing in any useful way to society?

 

Another major point that caused me to have a "strong disagreement" with the then "Drugs Czar" Keith Hellawell, at the National Drug conference, is the subject of tox screen, or drug screening. As Marijuana is fat-soluble, it is excreted over a period of time. Therefore, if you had a really good session over a few days (perfectly legally of course, I went over to Amsterdam, officer! ) You could test positive on a drug screen for over three weeks, even though it is pretty certain it is no longer affecting your performance! Now, if during that period you were/are pulled over for a test by the police, e.g.after an accident, (unless the screening tools have greatly improved since I retired) the officer has no way of knowing when you smoked/ate dope, he has no other choice but arrest you for DUI, one of the reasons why forces around the world are considering going back to performance testing for roadside stops. Also, if they bring in drug testing at airports, or as they do now, in the workplace, can you PROVE you smoked it legally in Holland? I doubt it, that is why many firms use screens for instant dismissal! As it stands now, there is a good chance you could endanger ANY licences you hold because of a joint or three a week ago - again, not good!

 

Will anyone be harmed by a few joints a couple of days a week? - probably not significantly, but if you posed the same question about cigarettes a few years ago, people would have said the same, trust one who knows, cancer is NOT funny! It is all about choice - if you really want to, go ahead, but don't try and deny the risks, and don't try and expect it to be legalised any time soon.

 

Excellent post. Hopefully it will have cleared up a lot of doubt from some posters who seem to be suffering from some form of delusion.

 

Blackpowder

[Bloke]

Interesting you mention that, One of the main points i got out of portugals decriminalization was a fall in HIV:

 

"New HIV infections in drug users fell by 17% between 1999 and 2003"

 

http://www.time.com/...1893946,00.html

 

Good article. Many of the countries who previously outlawed drugs in a very prescriptive way, see the dsecriminalisation open up sefer drug using advice.

 

In the UK however, this is not the case. In the unit where I worked, and as far as I know in all UK drug treatment units, HIV has been steadily reducing for a long time. All people who turn up at the door can freely obtain needles, syringes, swabs, in some areas condoms, and advice on safer drug use, including safer injecting techniques, recognising that if people are injecting, it is better that they do so in a safer manner, and that by telling them the truth, they will hopefully turn up one day to join a detox programme. Nearly all of my paitients who had HIV/AIDS or other blood-borne diseases, had contracted them before such services were available, and most new infections among the drug-using community are from people who don't attend needle exchanges etc, despite their availability. These services are discreet, no names are required, just you year and month of birth (Not exact date) and your initials, these are only used for national statistics and data gathering about average approximate uses etc. We actually had one guy who kept picking up needles/syringes erratically, but when we challenged him, he confessed to not being a drug user, but a fisherman, who had found out he could get free syringes to inject flavourings into his bait, rather that buying these from the bait shops, cheeky ###!

[gazzthompson]

In the UK however, this is not the case. In the unit where I worked, and as far as I know in all UK drug treatment units, HIV has been steadily reducing for a long time. All people who turn up at the door can freely obtain needles, syringes, swabs, in some areas condoms, and advice on safer drug use, including safer injecting techniques, recognising that if people are injecting, it is better that they do so in a safer manner, and that by telling them the truth, they will hopefully turn up one day to join a detox programme.

 

This sounds very promising! Any stats on how many there are and how successful?

Edited December 7, 2012 by gazzthompson

[Bloke]

This sounds very promising! Any stats on how many there are and how successful?

Difficult, as I said, details are not taken unless they fully register for treatment, and any HIV rate stats are contaminated by infections from another source. If someone is diagnosed with HIV, it is not always clear how they contracted it, it is too simplistic to say that it was from drugs, just because they are an IV user, though that is certainly an indication, they may also have taken part in unsafe sex or been infected by a partner who was not aware they were infected. Certainly the HIV nurse that worked in our clinic said that the number of new cases from uk based infections in our area had stabilised and seemed to be dropping overall. recent stuff in the papers indicate that UK stats are artificially raised at the moment with the number of migrant workers, especially from the African continent, where infection rates are almost pandemic.

[JonathanL]

I think the term legalising it might actually be over egging the pudding, they are decriminalising the possession of small quantities of pot, for personal use. It will still be an offence to deal etc. Not the worst idea in my book, frees up police time to deal with dealers and pusher etc. who are the route cause of the problem. I'm not a fan of drugs to be honest, just like alcohol some people can take in moderation, and it ruins some people’s lives, do we really need it?

 

The legalisation that commenced yesterday was only the first part of the law. There is a system of registration and regulation for producers and retailers coming over the next year or so. There is also a tax regeime being put in place and there is also a prescribed limit over which you cannot drive.

 

Personally, I see no problem with it. If that's what people want to do then they should be allowed to. I don't accept that such a system is a worse system than the current one it being illegal.

 

Whichever way you look at it though, this is what the people of Washington want. They voted on it specifically and the majority voted in favour. It wasn't just a policy of some party who happened to be voted into government on other policies.

 

J.

Edited December 7, 2012 by JonathanL

[gazzthompson]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20648276

 

Very suprised to see MP's admit such a thing. The Times They Are A-Changin'.

[al4x]

Its not time to start revealing your stash yet Gazz, the same blokes were on telly this morning and this is the sticking point

 

"Official figures show that drug use in England and Wales is at its lowest rate under current measurements since 1996."

 

while the figures go down with things as they are its not an incentive to change anything

[gazzthompson]

Its not time to start revealing your stash yet Gazz,

 

Haha i get it, because people who support evidence based policy must be drug users? very funny. You should be a comedian.

 

The incentive wil always be there whistle billions of pounds is being wasted and lifes destroyed by a failed system, even if our shift towards more liberal laws are helping.

.

[gixer1]

With Russell Brand as a figurehead i'll be surprised if anything ever gets the green light - he's enough of a reason in my eyes to ban oxygen!!