Want a laugh about weed re-classification? read the Daily Mail

[JonnySpeed]

Always worth a giggle...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=341960 &in_page_id=1770&ct=5

Surely makinging cannabis illegal is against true blue conserverativism? I thought being a tory twat was all about the the state not interfer in a person's free willl to trade or consume - especially a common plant like hemp, or it that just things that effect the wealth of the rich?

Must be a section missing on my copy about the relative effects of alcohol.

[nikrem]

don't really see your point. there is a proven link between strong weed and psychosis. this has been proven. i work in mental health and have seen this first-hand. the daily mail in this case are just reporting the fact that the government has finally bowed to pressure from mental-health experts, and are actually doing something fucking sensible (no pun intended) for a change.

[JonnySpeed]

There's also a very, very strong link between alcohol, violence and depression... but we don't stay that has to be illegal - actually you can join the Daily Mail Wine Club if you want.

A tiny, tiny percentage of people have aggravated symptoms from smoking weed - the other vast majority enjoy smoking it and have no problems. Why should it be illegal just because a few people with mental health problems insist on smoking it - despite it being a controlled substance.

What you think that keeping it illegal for the whole population will stop these people from smoking it?

Even more the point, you think the Daily Mail has a balanced argument. joker.

[V Knid esq]

Originally posted by nikrem
don't really see your point. there is a proven link between strong weed and psychosis. this has been proven. i work in mental health and have seen this first-hand. the daily mail in this case are just reporting the fact that the government has finally bowed to pressure from mental-health expmerts, and are actually doing something fucking sensible (no pun intended) for a change.

It's a little more complex than that... what has been proven is that people with a genetic predisposition (which there is very little way of knowing) can be permanently affected if they smoke weed heavily in their teens. If you start later, there can still be adverse effects (something I know only too well) but they will wear off if you give up.

I did an interview for the Daily Telegraph (another conservative newspaper) with a spokesperson from MIND the mental health charity, and one of the top pyschologists from the Maudsley Interview in London. They were both - despite acknowledging these dangers - pretty much pro-legalisation, as they said that is the only way in which people can be educated properly and the strength and availabillity of the drug be controlled.

[V Knid esq]

The inquest last week into the death of Robert Dickinson, who shot dead his neighbour in a dispute over a garden hedge and then committed suicide in prison, heard that he had been "drunk and drugged" and had smoked "up to five cannabis cigarettes a day".

The coroner told jurors: "I would want to stress... that cannabis is not a harmless drug and this case demonstrates how devastating its effects can be." Outside the court, Det Insp Peter Bray, of Lincolnshire Police, said: "It does nobody any good to use cannabis and can lead to these sorts of things."

Yet cannabis use is steadily increasing, and the drug will be redefined later this month from a Category B controlled substance (like amphetamines) to Category C (with prescription-only drugs, such as Valium). Many high-profile police officers have campaigned for the relaxation of the law, most notably Brian Paddick, who controversially introduced de facto decriminalisation of cannabis in Brixton last year.

So how does the resurgence of the term "cannabis psychosis" square with the seeming increased acceptance of the drug? Dr Zerrin Atakan of the National Psychosis Unit, who has researched the issue, is cautious about the use of the term:

"Cannabis psychosis is a very vague term. If we ever use the phrase, it is only to describe very short-term effects immediately following smoking, and it certainly doesn't refer to users having a psychotic disorder. People may feel frightened or paranoid, but these feelings pass in a matter of hours or, more rarely, days, and practically never require treatment."

Certainly, many people who have smoked cannabis talk of experiencing these paranoid symptoms. One user recalls:

"When I was smoking all day every day, I would read so much into everything that people said. A friend could say 'Hello' to me and I'd reply: 'What? What do you mean by that?' "

But there are more serious risks. "What we are finding is that people who smoke very strong stuff very regularly from a young age - when their brains are still forming - are, in fact, in danger of triggering problems," says Dr Atakan.

"If you have a genetic predisposition - and you may not be aware of this - then it appears that heavy usage can set off schizophrenic symptoms, for example."

Dr Atakan points to the new varieties of the drug, which are deliberately bred to contain very large amounts of the active ingredient THC (tetrahydrocannabinol), are grown in this country, and are replacing the more traditional imported varieties of grass and hash on the streets.

He says: "The other main active substance in cannabis is cannabidiol or CBD, which has a calming effect - indeed, there is research being undertaken at the moment into its potential uses as an anti-psychotic. The problem with the new varieties is that they are bred to contain more THC and less CBD, and the amounts are unpredictable."

This means that people who smoke cannabis as a relaxant may buy a new variety and find that its effects are drastically different to those they are used to, and have a very unsettling experience. Research shows that strong cannabis causes a tolerance to build-up in users, and is very habit-forming, which can exacerbate these problems, causing users to buy without discriminating between varieties.

A spokesman for the mental health charity Mind is circumspect, though: "We have no proof at all of a direct link between the immediate disorientation caused by cannabis and violent behaviour. If anything, the average user is unlikely to venture far beyond their front door, if they do over-indulge and suffer from paranoia.

"It's true that people who use a lot of cannabis are statistically more likely to be convicted of violent crime, but there is a very complex web of factors at work here. These tend to be people caught up in criminal activities, thanks to their contact with the drug world, so they may be violent anyway, or simply more visible to the police. There is, however, absolutely no evidence that cannabis itself causes violent behaviour.

"The direct link between alcohol and violence is proven, and the damage caused as a result is increasing constantly. Even prescription drugs have huge hazards - only recently, the entire new generation of anti-depressants, apart from Prozac, were banned for under-18s, because, like cannabis, they can trigger severe mental illness in later life."

Will the forthcoming recategorisation have any useful effect? Dr Atakan is not convinced: "It's a fudge, it won't make any difference at all to who is selling and who is buying the stuff.

"Without education, it is completely useless. Children need to be taught the hazards at an early age, and it needs to be regulated so people know what they are getting. This can only happen through legalisation."

[nikrem]

deleted

[nikrem]

@jonny - so, i stand accused of being a mail-reading "joker' because i've got an informed opinion about the proven links between weed-smoking and psychotic illness? i've also got more personal reasons for this standpoint, which i'm not prepared to discuss with you.

yeah yeah we all know about the problems with alcohol, but if you thought about it for a nanosecond you'd realise that circumstantially the argument is very different, and incomparible. and not really on the agenda.

for the record, i don't read the mail (i fucking detest it and every thing it stands for), i smoke a bit of weed and enjoy it, and i don't like being personally insulted for having an opinion by arse-wipes like you who don't really know what they're talking about.

[JonnySpeed]

lol - don't get in a huff.

I was taking aim at you backing the daily mail by staying it was only reporting the facts. oh no no no no. For that I was calling you a joker - a term even my 7yo niece doesn't cry about.

[JonnySpeed]

and no the argument for expanding alcohol sales and making weed a class B drug are not different.

Why do you think it is illegal in the first place? because oil and liquour companies wanted that way and had way to much power in the US.

[nikrem]

@knid - on the other hand..i agree it's a fudge on the governments part, and the only real way of dealing with the problem long-term research, education, and debate. but i think the fact that the whole argument is being put back on the agenda, and that the informed concensus seems to be that smoking weed is not necessarily harmless is a good thing. i just don't want to be reading too many more stories about kids who think it's cool smoking shit-loads of ganja like snoop running amok with machetes. obviously the same logic does apply to booze, which we all know is satans own work, but i'm just getting sick of weed-smokers mindlessly ignoring the issues and citing alcohol as a defence for basically telling children it's ok to smoke white-rhino 'til they go mad. in the meantime, i will continue to count myself lucky that i can enjoy the odd spliff without this happening to me.

[JonnySpeed]

..and that's because it effects such a tiny proportion of the population that the chances of you 'going mad' from smoking spunk are too low for it to be an issue which need legislation to attempt to stop people smoking it - you want more research on weed? jesus! Canabis is the most researched drug in the world. give it a rest, please and concentrate restricting people liberty on things that actually matter to a significant amount of the population.

[V Knid esq]

Much though I am loathe to suggest letting weed get into the hands of corporate interests, full legalisation, taxation and regulation seems to me to be the only way forward now... I think I'm mid way between you two^^^ guys - though weed still isn't proven to cause violence, it IS part of an ongoing and increasing culture of fuck-headedness which does contribute to an aggressive air on the streets, and it DOES fuck up young kids... so yeah - legalize it, so we can have labelling etc, proper medical advice in schools, and take it out of the hands of the organised crime gangs.

[Loz]

maybe legalising it and making it illegal to smoke under 18, which should cut down the majority of younger smokers. You could also just legalise the less stronger strains of the weed. Keep that big headfuck stuff illegal.

[V Knid esq]

Maybe, but that would keep the illegal trade in strong stuff going... I'd say the medical evidence definitely suggests under-18s should not smoke (of course this is pure hypocrisy on my part, I was puffing away from the age of 15), and there should be clear labelling... i mean, you can buy absinthe, and 60% alcohol vodkas etc, so why not strong weed with a clear warning.

[JE:5]

I'm all up for legalisation even though I don't smoke the shit anymore, skunk would definately need to come with a warning though, speaking from experience. I started at about 13 but it wasn't until all that skunk replaced normal weed that I started to have problems forcing me to stop smoking any form of cannabis.

[V Knid esq]

Ditto - that quote in the article

"When I was smoking all day every day, I would read so much into everything that people said. A friend could say 'Hello' to me and I'd reply: 'What? What do you mean by that?' "

was, erm, someone very well known to the interviewer.

[Loz]

Well, to be honest, the illegal trade in weed, if weed was legalised would just switch to other drugs at the drop of a hat. You'd just get more people dealing e, speed and charlie, and I seriously doubt if they'd even see much of a drop in profits.

I know the stuff about weed being a 'gateway drug' is mostly bullshit, but it does have a certain truth to it. Most people are unlikely to try harder drugs without having tried the softer ones first (of course, there are exceptions to this rule, myself included).

[V Knid esq]

Yes well I would say legalise EVERYTHING, but make the harder stuf only available on prescription to addicts.

[Loz]

if you do that, the dealers would make money by selling prescription heroin to people on the streets, who would then become addicts, and then get it on prescription.

[V Knid esq]

Evidence from trials in Liverpool and Switzerland is that this doesn't happen, actually - especially when addicts are given a place to take their drugs. This sort of programme is the single most effective weapon against burglary and street crime which is available, and it's fucking sick that conservative elements in the medical and law-enforcement establishment hold it back.

What DOES happen under the current system is that addicts sell their methadone (generally to younger kids) in order to buy smack, which does create a new generation of addicts.

Also - though I'm not quite so sure of my sources on this as with heroin prescribing - I've seen studies recently that show that prescribing dexedrine to crackheads works wonders too.

[Loz]

so are you saying that prescribing heroin to registered addicts will stop new people taking the drug? I'm a bit confused.

[V Knid esq]

No... I am saying prescribing heroin to registered addicts will not make any more new people take up the drug than would have done had it not been prescribed... can't be arsed to dig out the medical studies that prove this, but trust me, they're there.

[Loz]

ah, now I understand what you're saying. And agree totally.

[grobelaar]

Originally posted by JonnySpeed
Always worth a giggle...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=341960 &in_page_id=1770&ct=5

Surely makinging cannabis illegal is against true blue conserverativism?

I was reading that following the last general election it was expected the Portillo would take over leadership of the Conservative Party, and he would probably pilot a new libertarian approach to the right, which amongst other things would include legalising soft-drugs.

Only Portillo didn't win his seat did he - I mean I'm no conservative and I was certainly no fan of Portillo - but have to say he's grown on me since he lost his seat. Not that I'd vote conservative even if he was in charge - but I suspect the conservative party would be in slightly better state to mount a decent (or even some) opposition if things had gone differently.

[Loz]

Portillo lost his seat to Stephen Twigg in 1997, but he got back in shortly afterwards, when another Tory MP retired and he stood in that bi-election. I'm trying to remember which constituency he represents now, but I can't.

In the last leadership bid in the Tory party he did stand, but it was clear early on that he didn't have the support needed, and I think he didn't make it to the second round, only Kenneth Clarke and William Hague did. Of course, after Hague was forced to resign, nobody stood against Michael Howard really, so that's why he got in. Then Howard offered him a seat on the cabinet, which he declined, and announced shortly afterwards that he would be stepping down as an MP at the next (forthcoming) election. I would assume that he would be made a Life Peer pretty soon, though, because he is pretty active as an MP.

I have to say, perhaps this should be in the guilty secrets thread, but I quite like Michael Portillo. He is a regularly weekly guest on This Week, the politics show on BBC 1 on Thursday nights with another MP I quite like, Diane Abbott. They actually both went to school together, so they have a great chemistry.

Portillo is actually surprisingly liberal, once you get past the surface. And that's a big part of the reason why he'll never be leader of the Tory party. Plus he admitted he experimented with homosexuality when he was younger, which of course is a big no-no for your average Tory member (think the average age of a Conservative member is 62 or something now). I don't agree with everything he says, he did support the war, but is now in that fudgey place where he supported the war, but doesn't like the fact that there were no WMDs, but can't bring himself to say that the war was wrong, just that it was for the wrong reasons. Oh, and he was largely responsible for the Poll Tax, and you know where that went.

But everything I've seen him in on tv, where it's him talking as himself, and not a mouthpeice of the Conservative party, which he isn't any longer, he's come over really well. He's certainly more charismatic than most of the Tory, or Labour, front bench for that matter. He did that programme where he became a single mother for a week, which he came over pretty good, in too. Oh, and you cannot forget that he is the direct inspiration of Rik Mayall's character Alan B'stard in The New Statesman.

I'm not a Tory voter, I certainly would never vote Tory with Howard in charge, but I'm not voting Labour with Blair in charge, either.

[V Knid esq]

Friend of a friend claims in all seriousness to have seen P_______ at a party with P____ M______, both smoking crack.

[Loz]

Mike and Pete, eh?

not sure if that would surprise me or not

[JonnySpeed]

gotta be rubbish, that one?

[thembuzz]

Originally posted by Loz
Plus he admitted he experimented with homosexuality when he was younger, which of course is a big no-no for your average Tory member (think the average age of a Conservative member is 62 or something now).

i've always found the conservative party's (or indeed, most of westminster's) implicit homophobia deeply funny. it's bound to be rooted more in self-preservation than in any kind of 'moral' outrage. my dad and quite a few of his friends went to boarding school - the cliches are all true

[V Knid esq]

Originally posted by JonnySpeed
gotta be rubbish, that one?

Good story though :)

[pongoid]

I dunno if I've brought this one up or not, but I had an idea that I thought might work well. Basically, almost total deregulation of intoxicants, with a single stipulation. A certificate of drug education. Not just some horror movies and a signiture, but real education teaching things like dosages, combinations, administration, side-effects, long and short term, and then a test, and if you pass the test, you are then certified to do all the drugs you want, however, if you are caught engaging in a hazardous behaviour under the influence, i.e. drinking and driving, you go to jail for a very long time to do hard labor. Why? Because you KNEW what you were getting into before you did it. No excuses. If you're just walking down the street and get stopped with a pound of hash on you and you've got your card...as long as you're not giving it or selling it to un-liscensed users, you're free to do what you like.

However, rehabilitation is coming out of YOUR pocket, not the State's. If you become a mess, again, you have no excuse because you knew full well what you were getting into before you started taking the drugs and you were even taught how to handle witdrawals, and strong doses in your classes.

On the other hand, if you are caught high, or with drugs and you do NOT have certification, you will be rehabed immediately, and fined severely, with the option of drug education afterward to avoid a second infringement .

Education and personal accountability. Thoughts?

[Loz]

I think that's a bit of a messy policy. Messy because I know full well the effects of alcohol, the dangers of alcohol, and yet, occasionally, I still get carried away and drink far too much, and throw up everywhere. Education is great, because we really lack much in the way of responsible and balanced drug education, but it doesn't solve all problems. And I have been known to overdo the pills a couple of times, but I know I shouldn't, but I get carried away. It's not a good thing, but it happens.

If you make drugs 100% legal, more people will take drugs, and that's a fact. If you control drugs, such as the idea of making heroin available on prescription to registered addicts (such as being trialed in a few cases in the UK right now), then you can make people, who really want to help themselves, get a clean hit, and ween themselves off it safely. But if people who didn't want to help themselves could get heroin legally, they'd still take heroin, you'd probably get less deaths because it'd be more pure, but it wouldn't necessarily solve the problem.

And although it's all well and good to day rehabilitation would come out of your pocket, but since most drug abusers are typically poor and unemployed (part of the reason they take drugs in the first place), they're not going to have the money to pay for the Betty Ford Clinic or whatever, are they?

[pongoid]

So more people take drugs, so what? The point is not to stop people from taking drugs, it's to allow them to make responsible decisions and deal with their own lives. Yeah, so you get pissed/high once in a while. You know the consequences, and you don't let it destroy your life. Model case of a fairly responsible drug user. Most are. The amount of functioning drugs users compared to the non-functioning ones is massive. The amount of money and resoureces that is spent on keeping people imprisoned for drug related offences is higher than the amount spent on murderers, rapists and child molestors combined. Think about that for a moment. Not only that, but the murderers and rapists get out sooner as well.

Controlling drugs is just for the government and drug companies to make loads of dosh to imprison you further. By decriminalizing and de-regulating, along with education, you have people who can do their own tests for purity and it opens up a massive opportunity for private industry. So people want to poisn themselves...they know what it is. They know how to do it. Who are you or I to say they can't or they shouldn't if they are making an educated choise? As long as they are not a burden to others, it's only their choice.

As for the rehab, you want it, YOU pay for it. If you live in the ghetto, you still have to have the same education to get certified.

Of course it's just an idea, but I'm curious to hear others that offer education and responsibility without exploiting people who choose to use drugs.

[Loz]

the problem is, as I stated, I consider myself responsible, but I still am stupid from time to time. I know from experience that I'm not alone in that matter.

also, where do you get your figures that "The amount of money and resoureces that is spent on keeping people imprisoned for drug related offences is higher than the amount spent on murderers, rapists and child molestors combined." I'm interested to see the report.

as for the fact that education will make people responsible, not sure that would work for everyone. Most people these days know the dangers of smoking, the dangers of alcohol, and more and more people now are getting to know the danger of eating too much unhealthy food. However, people still smoke (and take up smoking), drink (and start drinking) and eat unhealthily.

[pongoid]

When I say responsible, I mean responsible in the sense that they are nobody else's responsibility, only their own. They are responsible for their own choices and the consequences of those choices. You are responsible for the drugs you take, and how you get carreid away and what happens to you afterward. The only time it's wrong is when it affects others. Other than that, it's your own choice, mate, and all the more so because you KNOW what you're doing and the consequences thereof. If you are not happy with what it does to you, it's your choice to not do it. You can't blame it on anyone else, and you shouldn't, nor should anybody else have to bear the burden of those choices. Am I wrong?

[JonnySpeed]

suppose its decision on whether you beleave the state should have a cohesive plan to ensure quality, provide toxidity ratings, educate the population on the pros and cons and tax for the benefit of society. Or should cannibis be dominated by the right-wing newspapers and crime gangs?

[Loz]

Pongoid: so then you're saying that if anyone does something stupid with drugs or alcohol, we should just leave them in the gutter and let them rot?

I disagree, since I believe in a supportive society and welfare state. If someone is not in a position to help themselves, then we should all do our best to help them.

[pongoid]

Originally posted by Loz
Pongoid: so then you're saying that if anyone does something stupid with drugs or alcohol, we should just leave them in the gutter and let them rot?

I disagree, since I believe in a supportive society and welfare state. If someone is not in a position to help themselves, then we should all do our best to help them.

In essence, if somebody is hurting themself and they know they are, then who are you or I to stop them and tell them they can't? Likewise, if they know they are hurting themselves it's their business, but why should it have to hurt everyone around them? So to make a long story short, if someone knows that doing drugs to the point that it hurt themself chooses to do so, yes, let them rot, because they knew that's what they were getting into from the beginning and they chose to do it anyway. The people around them should not have to hurt and bear the burden of the drug user's choice.

I use drugs without remorse, and I see no reason why society should have to bear my burden. If I ever do something that causes me to OD, I should be the one paying the bills if I survive, not you, not anyone else. If I fuck up somebody else's life because I went and did something while under the influence, it's still me who is responsible for those actions.

And as for testing, it should be part of the education. You want drugs? You work for them, you want to test them? YOU test them. Your drugs usage is your business, not anyone else's. What's immoral about that?