Legal Highs

[Vince Green]

"Its not so much that cannabis is a gateway drug as the fact that the people you probably get it from are keen to lead you / trick you down the path to heavier and more expensive substances. Often handing out freebies etc to reel you in."

 

I`m sorry but you`ve been reading too many sensasionalist newspaper articles or you`re still believing what you saw on Grange Hill as a kid.

 

The majority of dealers who sell cannabis are smokers themselves.They buy a few ounces, sell smaller amounts at a slightly inflated price and after they`ve made their money back or maybe a small profit they have enough weed left for themselves to smoke until the next time they buy.

 

Most of them deal exclusively in cannabis because they know as a class B drug the penalties for being caught with it are considerably less than being caught dealing class A drugs. If they do sell anything alongside it it will only be in small amounts and will most likely be a bit of coke or speed or perhaps a few ecstasy pills.

 

I`ve never known anyone deal in cannabis and heroin or crack at the same time. And I`ve never known a dealer to hand out free samples, other than offering to share a spliff whilst you`re there.

Danger mouse, as a former magistrate I think I have seen enough to know you are talking out of what you should be sitting on. I don't need to read sensational newspaper articles or watch Grange Hill. You really haven't got much of a clue have you?

 

Its not exactly as you say but you don't realise what you are saying. "The majority of dealers are smokers themselves" WRONG the majority of real dealers live in million pound houses, never touch the stuff themselves and send their kids to private schools. The people you are talking about are the expendables.

Edited June 1, 2015 by Vince Green

[evo]

Danger mouse, as a former magistrate I think I have seen enough to know you are talking out of what you should be sitting on. I don't need to read sensational newspaper articles or watch Grange Hill. You really haven't got much of a clue have you?

 

Its not exactly as you say but you don't realise what you are saying. "The majority of dealers are smokers themselves" WRONG the majority of real dealers live in million pound houses, never touch the stuff themselves and send their kids to private schools. The people you are talking about are the expendables.

+ 1 , well said Mr green

 

as you say the real dealers don't touch the stuff,, its only the idiot drug soldiers we see

[Harnser]

I have been following this thread with great interest . For many years I have been involved with helping drug users to come off drugs and to try and get their lives back on track .

Many on here think that cannabis is not a dangerous drug and should be legalised . I have seen many ,many lives ruined by the smoking of cannabis particularly by mental illness . I have found it very scary to read some of the posts on here from people who actually own guns and admit and infer to using illegal drugs . It's all very sad and again I say scary to read this on this thread .

Harnser

[Danger-Mouse]

Danger mouse, as a former magistrate I think I have seen enough to know you are talking out of what you should be sitting on. I don't need to read sensational newspaper articles or watch Grange Hill. You really haven't got much of a clue have you?

 

Its not exactly as you say but you don't realise what you are saying. "The majority of dealers are smokers themselves" WRONG the majority of real dealers live in million pound houses, never touch the stuff themselves and send their kids to private schools. The people you are talking about are the expendables.

 

And who does the average guy on the street who is buying an oz or a few grams deal with?

 

I`m not disputing that there`s a food chain and the guy buying a couple of ounces and selling it on is at the bottom of it. But the average smoker is buying from exactly the kind of dealer I`ve described.

[Vince Green]

This has the potential of becoming a little bit pathetic, we do seem to have an overwhelming capacity to turn what could be a decent discussion into something juvenile.

 

It is an emotive subject but I would have thought that grown ups could understand that folks may have a different point of view and try to understand why that might be, but that really isn't the strength of PW at times.

 

It is such a shame as one of the great things about this forum is the diversity of discussion topics.

 

Definitely my last contribution to this thread.

I would never describe this as a pathetic subject, it is in many ways the most fundamental struggle going on invisibly yet in full view of us all. Drink and drugs destroy lives, families and careers. Apart from all the misery, most of which we don't see there is violence, debt, bankruptcy,

 

 

And who does the average guy on the street who is buying an oz or a few grams deal with?

 

I`m not disputing that there`s a food chain and the guy buying a couple of ounces and selling it on is at the bottom of it. But the average smoker is buying from exactly the kind of dealer I`ve described.

You are backpeddling, don't think i can't see it

[Vince Green]

Anyway guys, bed now, talk more in the morning

[Danger-Mouse]

 

 

You are backpeddling, don't think i can't see it

 

I`m not backpeddling Vince. In the post you first picked up on I was describing what I know to be the case. Been there, got the t-shirt, sat in their houses, bought their gear, sat and smoked it with them. Those are the guys the everyday smoker deals with. I know that because I used to be one (not anymore I will point out). So please don`t try and tell me I`m wrong about that.

 

You then pointed out that there were the Mr Big type figures at the top and I agreed with you. But I reiterate that is not the guy who your average smoker buys from.

 

I never said there wasn`t someone further up the chain. In fact I said the low level dealers bought a few ozs from someone. Obviously that someone is a person who has access to higher quantities and only sells in relative bulk.

[keg]

Twin girls in their late teens are in full time care after they smoked weed for the first time. Both reacted badly to it...

[evo]

Twin girls in their late teens are in full time care after they smoked weed for the first time. Both reacted badly to it...

not a chance keg, its harmless bud :lol:

[sp1richy]

Although a few post's on here have been childish.

 

There was/is a documentary on Netflix that i watched a while back not too sure if its on there but if i can remember the name i will post it. There was a very sad moment in particular when a father had a son who suffered with badly with fits etc (cant remember the illness). The son was only around 6 but was on adult amounts of prescribed drugs to try and prevent this, it failed. The father then tried to get him into rehab and the workers were shocked when they found out the age of the boy and they would not accept him. The father then slowly ween'd his son off the drugs along with medicating him with cannabis oil. He hasn't had a fit since! Anyway's im not saying taking drugs is right, they are illegal! However, i am saying that i dont agree with cannabis being illegal, especially with it being proven to be useful in medical terms. I do feel for the people who have lost loved ones due to drugs and if my opinion offends then i must stress this was not my intention, it is simply my opinion. Anyways if you can be bothered just have a quick look at below txt, this is for the U.S by the way!

 

Also, please dont judge me for my opinion, or how intelligent i sound etc It is nothing personal against anyone who disagrees with me.

 

Mexican immigrants referred to this plant as “marihuana”. While Americans were very familiar with “cannabis” because it was present in almost all tinctures and medicines available at the time, the word “marihuana” was a foreign term. So, when the media began to play on the fears that the public had about these new citizens by falsely spreading claims about the “disruptive Mexicans” with their dangerous native behaviors including marihuana use, the rest of the nation did not know that this “marihuana” was a plant they already had in their medicine cabinets.

The demonization of the cannabis plant was an extension of the demonization of the Mexican immigrants. In an effort to control and keep tabs on these new citizens, El Paso, TX borrowed a play from San Francisco’s playbook, which had outlawed opium decades earlier in an effort to control Chinese immigrants. The idea was to have an excuse to search, detain and deport Mexican immigrants.

That excuse became marijuana.

This method of controlling people by controlling their customs was quite successful, so much so that it became a national strategy for keeping certain populations under the watch and control of the government.

During hearings on marijuana law in the 1930’s, claims were made about marijuana’s ability to cause men of color to become violent and solicit sex from white women. This imagery became the backdrop for the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937 which effectively banned its use and sales

[Vince Green]

Although a few post's on here have been childish.

 

There was/is a documentary on Netflix that i watched a while back not too sure if its on there but if i can remember the name i will post it. There was a very sad moment in particular when a father had a son who suffered with badly with fits etc (cant remember the illness). The son was only around 6 but was on adult amounts of prescribed drugs to try and prevent this, it failed. The father then tried to get him into rehab and the workers were shocked when they found out the age of the boy and they would not accept him. The father then slowly ween'd his son off the drugs along with medicating him with cannabis oil. He hasn't had a fit since! Anyway's im not saying taking drugs is right, they are illegal! However, i am saying that i dont agree with cannabis being illegal, especially with it being proven to be useful in medical terms. I do feel for the people who have lost loved ones due to drugs and if my opinion offends then i must stress this was not my intention, it is simply my opinion. Anyways if you can be bothered just have a quick look at below txt, this is for the U.S by the way!

 

Also, please dont judge me for my opinion, or how intelligent i sound etc It is nothing personal against anyone who disagrees with me.

 

Mexican immigrants referred to this plant as “marihuana”. While Americans were very familiar with “cannabis” because it was present in almost all tinctures and medicines available at the time, the word “marihuana” was a foreign term. So, when the media began to play on the fears that the public had about these new citizens by falsely spreading claims about the “disruptive Mexicans” with their dangerous native behaviors including marihuana use, the rest of the nation did not know that this “marihuana” was a plant they already had in their medicine cabinets.

The demonization of the cannabis plant was an extension of the demonization of the Mexican immigrants. In an effort to control and keep tabs on these new citizens, El Paso, TX borrowed a play from San Francisco’s playbook, which had outlawed opium decades earlier in an effort to control Chinese immigrants. The idea was to have an excuse to search, detain and deport Mexican immigrants.

That excuse became marijuana.

This method of controlling people by controlling their customs was quite successful, so much so that it became a national strategy for keeping certain populations under the watch and control of the government.

During hearings on marijuana law in the 1930’s, claims were made about marijuana’s ability to cause men of color to become violent and solicit sex from white women. This imagery became the backdrop for the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937 which effectively banned its use and sales

There is a book called the cannabis conspiracy (or similar) published about twenty years ago which set it all out really well. Cannabis is hemp and the fibres from the stems of the hemp plants were used to make the finest ropes in the world. Indeed even the word canvas comes from the same origin. Not only that but a huge amount of clothing was made from the fibres of the hemp plants.

The book sets out how very big business in the form of the patent holders for the new man made fibres funded the campaign in the US to ban it not because they cared about poor black people smoking it in the deep South. What they wanted was to destroy a rival industry and in that they were successful.

Edited June 2, 2015 by Vince Green

[Mungler]

I'm interested by the perceived link between cannabis use and mental problems.

 

I've known of 2 prolific smokers who have ended up with the mental health team on their door steps, but you know what, they were the same two I would have pegged from Day 1 for a nervous breakdown anyway. I would guess that any drug use can help send you on your way to breakdown if you're heading there anyway. Statistically though it's on a level with social drinkers who end up alcohol abusers.

 

The parallel remains however that alcohol is legal, acceptable and taxed but the majority of the population are not alcoholics. Alcohol and canbabis sit together at the bottom end of the spectrum however, and there remains a strong argument for treating class A drugs entirely differently (given their addictive and destructive qualities).

 

It's a tricky one alright, but what I do know is the Daily Mail approach and the approach taken by the last generations just hasn't worked. Indeed, you know it's all upside down when the government seek an independent drugs adviser or tsar and then wholesale ignore everything he says causing him to quit.

[keg]

The twin girls i knew reacted to some very strong stuff, i think they thought it was just a bit of weed

[grrclark]

This is terribly frustrating as I really wasn't going to post in this thread again, but Vince has misinterpreted something that I said in my last post and I feel obliged to respond to that. If in doing so it makes me look like a a hypocritical knob then so be it!

 

Vince, I never suggested that the subject was pathetic, I think that it is both a hugely important subject for debate and one of great interest and one that needs to happen beyond the confines of PW. What I did say was that I think this discussion thread had the making of becoming quite pathetic, but it has improved again.

 

Your experience as a magistrate does of course give you insight, however I think it would be reasonable to suggest that as a magistrate you will see things rather more towards the extreme end of behaviour as by its nature you are making decisions based on a certain level of criminality and most likely repeat criminality. As with everything in life it pays us not to make generalised decisions based on extreme factors as it lends itself to bad solutions, this is true of drug policy as it is of welfare policy or even when making roads and buildings.

 

I don't think that anybody could suggest with any sense of credibility that drug use does not create massive harm, it absolutely does and there is indisputable evidence in support of that, however as I have said numerous times it is both ill informed and irresponsible to bundle all drugs into a single criteria and treat them as though they are a single entity, they absolutely are not.

 

I also think that our current approach to tackling drugs is ineffective and is in the main an expensive failure on a grand scale. Our broad scale approach is to demonise drugs and those who use them and in the process we criminalise and marginalise them too, but what the evidence shows us is that people still take drugs on a massive scale even with all the stigma and attendant risks of prosecution.

 

Throughout this thread I have sought to highlight that you can differentiate cannabis from all other illegal recreational drugs and that can be done in a number of ways.

 

In relative terms cannabis is fairly harmless, it is used by millions of people in this country across all elements of the social spectrum. I will say once again that there is no single recorded instance of a fatality through cannabis toxicity anywhere in the world, there are of course other issues beyond mortality and I will touch on these in a bit.

 

Cannabis is also relatively free from the large scale organised drugs supply chain and could be much more so, it can be grown easily at home using the simplest of setups and contrary to popular belief it really doesn't need anything high tech. A huge amount of herbal cannabis in circulation comes via home growers selling or distributing to a local circle and not networked criminal gangs.

 

There are of course many high profile busts of large scale cannabis farming by organised criminal gangs and that is largely due to the scale of demand for the crop and the profit associated with selling it, but it really doesn't need some sort of large scale criminal enterprise behind it, however as with anything if there is big money to be made then big players will get involved. Ironically in my part of the world it is cheaper to buy cocaine than it is cannabis and cocaine is infinitely more harmful that cannabis is, both to the human body and to the environment.

 

Other drugs such as cocaine and heroin do need a much larger enterprise as they are brought into the country from overseas and to do that at any sort of scale needs big money and big planning. Fortunately we don't have a chronic issue with meth amphetamine in this country, yet, as that is a severely destructive drug that is also fairly easy to produce at home, in fact it is easier to produce in higher volumes than cannabis, has a stronger profit yield and much easier to transport. It has become a major issue in the US where there is a relative shortage and difficulties in getting cannabis, whilst the same is not true of meth.

 

Despite the relatively benign nature of cannabis it does of course have many issues as well, with the most significant of these being the potential for harm on the adolescent brain and mainly the male adolescent brain. As I mentioned in a previous post there are unique receptors in the human brain that mesh perfectly with some of the psychoactive elements of cannabis, it is like a perfect fitting jigsaw piece we have dedicated cannabinoid receptors. I believe that as yet science has not found any other chemical substance that has such a perfect fit for our brain. There were some really interesting science papers released on this a few years ago that I will try to find and reference later.

 

Regrettably when the adolescent brain is developing the presence of cannabis in sufficient quantity can have lasting damage in the development of these neural pathways. When the brain is fully mature there is no such risk, unless there is an underlying psychosis. In all cases adolescents should avoid the use of cannabis, but the same also holds true with alcohol although the damage created by that is more generalised and wide spread as is the use of alcohol.

 

Cannabis has two main psychoactive elements, one gives a high (THC) and is the common measure of cannabis potency and the other (CBD) has almost a countering effect and research has indicated has some extremely effective anti psychotic qualities. Medical cannabis has a much higher prevalence of CBD and the strains of the drug sold to get people high has much higher THC.

 

The term most commonly referred to in the media is 'skunk' which is cannabis plants that have been hybridised to have a higher THC content, although they still produce CBD's. The most effective measure to determine THC or CBD content is when the plant is harvested, if harvested early in the plants maturity cycle the THC content is higher and if later then the CBD is higher.

 

THC has fantastic pain control and anti ****ity qualities whilst CBD has brilliant anti epileptic, anti anxiety, and psychosis protection qualities. Despite all efforts to date pharmaceutical companies cannot synthesise these qualities without creating significant side effects which is why progressive nations are supporting the use of medicinal cannabis with tremendous efficacy.

 

Alongside the damaging effect of cannabis on the adolescent brain and the danger of THC rich cannabis on those with underlying psychotic illness, or significant precursors to psychotic illness, there are also stupid people that adulterate the plant with things like LSD or MDMA (ecstasy) which due to the ability of both THC and CBD to amplify other psychoactive drugs, due to these unique cannabinoid receptors, can be extremely dangerous and it is things like that which lead to the anecdote referenced by Keg in the previous post.

 

There are also people who spray the plant, which are sticky, with finely ground silica gel or finely powdered glass to add weight to the crop for sale, this of course risks absorption into the lung walls if inhaled through smoking.

 

Even allowing for all of this, compared to alcohol pretty much every non politicised and peer reviewed credible scientific study of cannabis says it is less harmful than alcohol. As I mentioned before, both peanuts and cows milk have a much higher risk of mortality than cannabis. Aspartame, the artificial sweetener in many diet drinks, has a higher recorded level of neural toxicity than cannabis I believe.

 

Now to try and get to some sort of point, what we have done in this country and many others is to demonise a plant and those who use it and this has built a massive wall of ignorance, misinformation and fear around the drug to the point where even trying to have a measured discussion around it results in hysteria, much of which is evidenced in this thread. It has also absolutely failed to stop the use of the drug.

 

We tend to fall back to the argument that it is illegal so therefore the evidence is incontrovertible and therefore it must be very bad, which is quite frankly lot of tripe. The legal status confers no additional risk medicinally or biologically, just a criminal one. The reason alcohol has been mentioned many times in this thread is that it perfectly highlights the hypocrisy of how we approach legislation around drugs.

 

If our argument that it is the legal status of the drug is the principal consideration of use, especially in the context of some contributions in this thread re suitability of firearm ownership, then anything which is illegal must have the same consideration as it is breaking the law that is determinant. By that reasoning anybody who has broken the law for anything at all is also as equally culpable in being irresponsible to own a gun. Which is of course absolute and utter drivel and a total aside to the main discussion.

 

I would absolutely advocate that we should decriminalise cannabis use, but that has to be coupled with a much wider and informative education campaign around some of the particular risks of the drug. I would support a licensed programme of certified growing for those using the drug for medicinal purposes, that way appropriate crops can be grown that are developed toward medicinal benefits other than just a head high and we can avoid the risk of having drugs spiked with other chemicals or substances entering the supply chain.

 

A number of licensed and regulated outlets for those wishing to use the drug recreationaly with all the attendant educational literature and material on hand so we can control the supply chain, much as we do with licensed alcohol sales in pubs.

 

For other drugs in which I would include pretty much all synthesised 'recreational drugs', including the legal highs of the OP then I would not support decriminalisation, but I absolutely would support an alternate approach.

 

Probably the most effective anti drug campaign in British history was the anti heroin one during the late 70's and through the 80's, that campaign significantly reduced heroin usage. During the 90's and early 00's the emphasis for drug education moved to ecstasy and other 'party drugs' which has resulted in the dangers of heroin being much less understood in younger generations to the point that it is now resurfacing as a major problem. What this does prove is that education is effective, unlike enforcement through legislation; heroin has always been a class A drug so the legal status has not been effective in preventing the increase in prevalence on this drug in the last 20 years since the high profile education campaign stopped, ergo what we do now doesn't really work.

 

Just for the benefit of those who may imply that anybody supporting decriminalisation of cannabis much be a toker or a pothead, I am neither. I have a vested interest in the medicinal use of the drug as it has the potential to offer me a higher quality of life as i get older, but on several fronts that is outweighed by the risk of criminality, for now at least.

 

A criminal record for drug use would do me no favour in business, due to hysteria and ignorance I rather suspect it would do me no favour in owning firearms and in a practical sense it can also limit things like overseas travel especially to the USA.

 

Having said that I am very much interested in the subject and I absolutely believe that as a progressive society we should embrace challenging discussions all the time without fear of censure, so I would happily share my thoughts on this subject with the FEO or anybody else for that matter.

 

Our continued attempts to stifle debate on the basis of contrived political correctness or by being cowed by the threat of retribution by authority for challenging something which is illegal is damaging and is a great discredit to ourselves.

 

Apologies for the huge long post and unless anybody wishes to discuss or debate anything in particular in reference to what I have said I shall try to shut up

[Gordon R]

grrclark - whilst my view is in line with Vince Green's and not your own - you make some fair points, whilst avoiding the urge to make rash generalisations.

[Scully]

Gordon Brown stifled such debate on this issue by sacking the very man he appointed as drugs 'tsar' when the findings of his panel didn't find in favour of government policy. Nuff said.

Another excellent post grrclark.

[islandgun]

Good stuff grr so as you retired from the debate does cannabis cause cancers compared to tobacco one study suggests that (THC ?) cures brain tumours

[grrclark]

Good stuff grr so as you retired from the debate does cannabis cause cancers compared to tobacco one study suggests that (THC ?) cures brain tumours

I think that it is mostly smoked with tobacco and normally unfiltered then the smoking element is bad so I can understand when people say there is likelihood increased lung damage, if smoked regularly.

 

The active components of the drug are absorbed into lipids, so if the herbal plant is cooked in butter for a while all the active elements are absorbed into the butter, then it can be used in baking or what not and there are no cancer risks through smoking.

 

If someone uses a vaporiser so you don't inhale combustion gases then also good.

 

There is a lot of research into cannabinoids as they have lots of very effective medicinal qualities and effective against some dreadfully incapacitating illnesses.

[Penelope]

I'm beginning to wonder whether 'The War on Drugs' is such a money spinner for the security services (in it's broadest sense) that they are loath to try anything different.

 

Gordon Brown stifled such debate on this issue by sacking the very man he appointed as drugs 'tsar' when the findings of his panel didn't find in favour of government policy. Nuff said.

Another excellent post grrclark.

[srspower]

If Vince was a magistrate for a while he should know the overwhelming majority of dealers are indeed small time and drug users themselves especially given the magistrates court doesn't deal with 'big time' dealers in the first place! My mother was a crown prosecutor most of her career and presents a very different account of the reality of the situation. And they certainly don't tend to hand out freebies ...

Edited June 2, 2015 by srspower

[Gordon R]

Vince is speaking from first hand knowledge, not from someone who knows someone.

 

And they certainly don't tend to hand out freebies ...

 

 

 

I just love these generalisations. Not many drug dealers will stand up in court and say - "I did or didn't give out freebies".

 

Some of the views on here are reasoned, with some facts to support what they say. I see merit in what some say - even though I might not agree.

 

Sadly, many are just child-like in their innocent view of the world. Seriously scary.

[pimpkiller]

All those drivers caught on something, I wonder what punishment they got?

[keg]

I think SRSpower meant sentences at the least that's the way i read it?

[Gordon R]

They still pass through the Magistrates Court.

[Rewulf]

I was under the impression this debate started about 'legal' drugs/highs.

Seems to have derailed into the whole 'drugs ? yes or no ' thing.

 

People will seek to remove themselves from reality whatever you tell them,illegal/legal ,harmful/harmless ,they are going to get high no matter what!

Why ? Because thats what humans do.

If your weapon of choice is a nip of whisky or brandy,a couple of pints in the pub,a spliff whilst watching TV or a big fat line in the nightclub toilets,they are all a way of altering your state of mind.

It matters not if you are seeking relief after a crappy day ,celebrating a happy event or trying to forget how bad your life has become.

Its virtually built into your DNA.

Humans have been getting off there rockers for tens,possibly hundreds of thousands of years,there was once a study done about how early humans advanced their brains by taking magic mushrooms and other psycotropics during rituals.

Drugs have long been associated with rituals the world over.

 

A few people on here have professed to never touching any drug or alcohol,and never missed it..Well how would you know?

If kids want to snort horse tranquiliser or snort bath salts,they are damn well going to do it ,making it illegal will just drive it underground and give dealers more scope.

Amyl nitrate (poppers) various solvents,glue,mushrooms,various prescription medicine including but not limited to methadone,codeine,tamazapan are all open to abuse in the right volume and mixed with the dreaded ALCOHOL!

Theres even a way to make an hallucinogen out of banana skins.

 

What Im getting at, is its pointless banning or legalising anything,be it alcohol,drugs or cigarettes.

You can try to control it,good luck with that !

People will find a way to circumvent it,thats just the way we are.