If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
As for the cannabis thing way back in 1968 if i remember right ...the Wooton report was published ...a very indepth study on cannabis ...ordered by the government of the day. The result ...they could see no reason why anyone should be treated as a criminal for posessing it ...the law did more harm than the drug ...the punishment meted out often did even greater harm to the individual and his family. The penalties for posessing and for supplying ...should be lessened....what did the government do ...imediately upped the penalties.
Behind all this at the time was the usual drug companies plus the tobacco companies and the distillers and brewers ...along with the mighty petro chemical interests. The baccy companies soon after ...actualy started designing packaging and brand names for the inevitable legalisation ...which turned out not to be inevitable at all.
I think that you could apply that to most politicians really, not just Gordon Brown - even though you seem to have a hard on for him or something
There are very few politicians who would accept being portrayed as "soft on drugs" because they think that it would lose them votes. It has to be said at the moement they are right because there is so much misinformation and prejudice towards the subject - especially in the media. If there was a truly informed debate then I have no doubt that the vast majority of people would come to the conclusion that cannabis offers no greater risk to our nation than alochol does already.
I have never touched it, and have no intention of doing so. It doesn't appeal to me but then I rarely drink to excess these days either. I just don't need that to have a good time and I feel sorry for people who think that they do. However, that doesn't mean that I cannot look at this subject objectively.
As an aside, I think that it should be madatory for all musicians. The greatest songs in histroy were written by people off their heads on a illegal substances, you only have to look at the music of people like The Who, The Beatles and the Stones to see that. The opposing side to that would have you looking at Westlife, Sir Cliff etc... kind of speaks for itself really.
Whaaa?
I was in agreement with stargalaxy.
yessssss :yes:
If khat can be shown to be of use medicaly in a huge range of situations ...it will be made illegal.
How much black market beer is there round your way?
Khat has very limited medical use, if any. Its effectively just a different form of ephadrine.
The law means fuck all, If somebody gogi8n to do somethin they'll do it. It's attitudes that need to cahnge not laws.
And the fact cannabis is not for everyone ...should mean the law protects people more by doing something about the problems that occur in society through such free use of such powerful substances. How the hell can it be right that criminals and terrorists handle these poweful substances ...medicines ...hallucinagens ...opiates ...stimulants?
The qualkity and the cash ...controlled by people in the shadows who generaly don't give a fuck. aThere have been a few brave moves in different parts of the world and each time the penaliteies are lessened or removed ...themutitude of problems start to inch back ...and quite rapidly.
For the individual and thoise around them ...for the courts the prisons the kids etc. The ending or easing of prohibitions everywhere have been positivce ...except for a few individuals.
The medical and scientific evidence points to the fact that things would be better such and such a way ...ignoring the facts is notdemocracy in action. Or even common sense.
Not everyone wants to actualy use it to excess by getting shit faced every time they use it ...epecialy those self medicating ...with a product they have discovered is far superior to any industrial medication they can legaly have ...with the toxicity risks that often entails.
It is simply imoral to criminalise such people.
Take a look at this guy who medicates ...and is alowed to drive having just had a few puffs on a spliff.
http://www.videojug.com/interview/marijuana-as-medicine-2
Has mental illness increased in proportion to the ammount of cannabis thats being smoked?
There does seem to be a good link between young heavy use of cannabis and mental health issues.
But that's actually beside the point, cannabis should be legal not because its safe but because it is dangerous.
Khat has very limited medical use, if any ...yes ...allready said that.
cannabis should be legal not because its safe but because it is dangerous....yes ...already said that.
The growing evidence linking early use of cannabis to mental health issues.
Is there? or is there evidence of mental health diagnosis happening after cannabis use has started...?
That is a very good question, it does seem that we are moving from a correlation to a causation, at least in some people with the specific risk factors, including genetic predisposition.
Doesn't mean that either is what causes MH issues...
No, in most cases they dont, I was talking specifically about young heavy use of cannabis. I'll have a root around and see if I can dig up a few papers.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/4104702.stm#devpsycho
Quite how government after government all around the Western world can keep it illegal defies belief. You have to wonder if it's just pure stupidity, or whether its part of a wider conspiracy...
They do it because in large part its what the voters want. It might not be what the majority of people want but thats quite different.
The third and fourth paragraphs are so true..
Since when have governments bothered about what voters want? There's clearly an alterior motive.
There are loads, but none of the big conspiracies really hold water. Both alcohol and tobacco have less lobbying power than they used to, especially tobacco. As for medical companies, I doubt they really see drugs as a threat, more as a chance to make money - who would the government turn to if they legalised MDMA?
Its more based on outdated moralistic view points, the fact that they are tied into international agreements, the pressure on them from the US, the pressure of the tabloids, the fear of looking like a radical...