Jeremy Vine Show..should Passengers Be...
Film, Media & TV0 min ago
Cannibis in the news again.....
Is it possbile to debate this subject without the dope heads trying to change the subject to alcohol? Just been reading the BBC talk point and it seems that the discussion always get's changed.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Loosehead. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
So Loosehead, whats the question or statement we are to debate.
Let me start. Cannibis is a drug that often leads to more addictive drugs and the inevitable consequences. There is an argument of course that if you legalise it then it can be sold in the shops and removes dealers and contact with them. But what happens when someone wants something a little stronger ? - back to square one.
There is only one option, enforce the law to the max, no soflty soflty options it does not work
Cannabis retains the 'happy hippy' image for many people, even though today's 'skunk' is a million miles from the 'grass' of my Dad's day.
My Dad has smoked both (he's sixty and embarrassing) and is glad he didn't start smoking today because the effects are too extreme for him to consider them pleasurable.
Personally, I would legalise it, make it available over the counter and pump the tax profits into the NHS, rather than the pockets of dealers. I would also set legal limits for driving, as with alcohol.
Sorry, Loosehead, I honestly tried to avoid using the 'a' word.
Rather a mischaracterisation of those who widen the debate about cannabis/ other drugs to include alcohol as 'dope heads', there!
Perhaps this widening of the debate occurs because those people recognise that there's rather a major double standard and logicial inconsistancy in applying one set of rules to some intoxicants with negative social implications and a completely different set of rules to another set of intoxicants with negative social implications, particularly when the legal intoxicant is known to be responsible for more health and social problems than the illegal one?
(As for the notion that cannabis is a stepping stone to harder drug use, perhaps the (IMO) well-argued page at:
https://www.drugscope.org.uk/druginfo/evidence-select/cannabisgateway.htm
might change a few views.)
It'll no doubt get poo pooed but it's stories like this that make me think how dangerous dope is:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4630938.stm
Trouble is due to dope enthusiasts and government inconsistencies a lot of people think it's harmless when it clearly isn't
Yeah, but the guy was spending �5000 a year on the stuff. That's at least an ounce a fortnight without a break. If you overdo stuff it's bound to affect you. You don't need scientists to tell you that. He was probably aware himself that something was up with his head.
I have no sympathy for the guy, no more than if he'd spent �5000 a year on cakes and pies and ended up with arteries full of clotted cream.
as much as I abhor illegal drugs I am actually in favour of totally legalising cannabis, as said purely for the Treasury. Further, I don't think people go out and mug old ladies for a bit of dope like they do for heroin and crack do they?
However, the new law seems to have a massive flaw in it. I envisage most cannabis dealers are in it for the money. When the govt downgraded it to class C, they upped the anti for dealers to be in line with class A dealers.
Therefore, surely a dealer will now deal in smack/crack as no doubt there is more money involved and the penalty the same.
cannabis is not physically addictive - there are no withdrawal symptoms.
People just develop the feeling that they like it so much that it becomes a way of life and thats why they nip out for a 'fix' - same as the worker who keeps a bootle of scotch in their desk drawer, or the worker who keeps chocolate in their handbag - its like a security blanket - not because they are hooked.
as for the overdoing it - too much of anything is bad for you - oxygen, water, food, painkillers, smoking, alcohol etc etc etc etc
Like many people of my age and era I enjoyed a puff occassionally. There was a period where |I smoked regularly but didnt really make a huge habit of it. I dont drink much either and dont smoke cigarettes. But I have a brother in law who was a heavy user over a great number of years. He is 58 now. He is quite odd. Has developed epilepsy and has days when he is depressed and acts strangely. There is no proof that thisis directly attributed to cannabis but doctors and he him self believe this to be the case. My friends 28 yearold son has developed paranoia and other strange behaviour which is believed to be caused by cannabis use. He started smoking it age 14 and smoked habitually until recently.
So In my mind its not the danger of addiction or use of other drugs that are the real problem. But does this drug have long term life altering effects that we are only starting to learn about. My friends sonmoved home after living years away and now wont leave the ouse and becomes extremely anxious when his mum goes to work or even to the shops.
"Waldo - ever heard the expression two wrongs don't make a right?"
Now let me see... have I ever heard that expression..? I'm not sure... ;-)
I take it then, that you think the legality of alcohol for consumption is a wrong? I don't, therefore I don't accept your point as valid, I'm afraid.
"Why is the comparison relevant when considering the base effects of a harmful drug?"
As in 'What does substance x do to a human body'? Such comparisons are entirely normal in any sort of research, science context etc. since they contextualise the scenario. Moreover, since alcohol is legal, it therefore gives us an appropriate base of comparison by which to judge other substances.
'The war on drugs' has been lost, certainly for cannabis, and debatably in toto. The legal status of cannabis has not stopped people consuming it in enormous numbers, so you have to ask whether the law is helpful? Would it make more sense to free police officers to deal with crimes that, I dunno, actually have victims, rather than spending an average of four hours in processing a caution for possessing a drug which makes people talk b0ll0cks, eat a lot and fall asleep? Does it make sense to criminalise people who hold down jobs, relationships, etc and manifestly do not harm society? Does it make more sense to allow millions of pounds which could be used to offset the health damage done by smoking the drug to remain in the hands of criminals, or to tax it? If, as the article I previously posted claims, cannabis is a gateway drug simply because of the social and legal status of that drug, rather than any inherant properties of the substance, doesn't it make sense to change that status?
In order to make that arguement, it is useful to compare cannabis to alcohol. And if you need an example to support this arguement, have a look at what Prohibition did to the United States.
Now let me see... have I ever heard that expression..? I'm not sure... ;-)
I take it then, that you think the legality of alcohol for consumption is a wrong? I don't, therefore I don't accept your point as valid, I'm afraid.
"Why is the comparison relevant when considering the base effects of a harmful drug?"
As in 'What does substance x do to a human body'? Such comparisons are entirely normal in any sort of research, science context etc. since they contextualise the scenario. Moreover, since alcohol is legal, it therefore gives us an appropriate base of comparison by which to judge other substances.
'The war on drugs' has been lost, certainly for cannabis, and debatably in toto. The legal status of cannabis has not stopped people consuming it in enormous numbers, so you have to ask whether the law is helpful? Would it make more sense to free police officers to deal with crimes that, I dunno, actually have victims, rather than spending an average of four hours in processing a caution for possessing a drug which makes people talk b0ll0cks, eat a lot and fall asleep? Does it make sense to criminalise people who hold down jobs, relationships, etc and manifestly do not harm society? Does it make more sense to allow millions of pounds which could be used to offset the health damage done by smoking the drug to remain in the hands of criminals, or to tax it? If, as the article I previously posted claims, cannabis is a gateway drug simply because of the social and legal status of that drug, rather than any inherant properties of the substance, doesn't it make sense to change that status?
In order to make that arguement, it is useful to compare cannabis to alcohol. And if you need an example to support this arguement, have a look at what Prohibition did to the United States.
why even bother considering the grading of this drug... noboby who is involved cares so what difference does it make, it sends no message becuase no one is listening anymore. With millions and millions of dope smokers out there not caring how the government decide to list things like this some one at some point needs to stop getting emotional and admit that this particular battle has been lost... do we want to criminalise all these people, how can we stop drug dealers profiting from this, is there a link between using this drug and using other drugs that can't be broken by simply stopping people having to meet with dealers when they want to by this (and thus being offered other drugs too).
in conclusion it doesn't matter how you classify it what matters is that this downgrading is hopefully paving the way for a sensible debate on a drug management policy that does just simply envolve DRUG ARE BAD LOCK UP USERS AND DEALERS NOW because this is clearly not working... sometime change is not a bad thing, honest.
lots of things are psychologically addictive - not eating, eating too much, chocolate, some painkillers, vitamins, comfort blankets, video games, sports, TV, chat rooms, checking light switches, exercise, hobbies, even alcoholism starts as a psychological dependance, none of these are good or ok, and some can become dangerous.
The point is over use of cannabis is just a crutch, just as all the others are. it is a habit of lifestyle not addiction.
However i do agree that cannabis can have life changing effects on the mental health of vulnerable people - i know people who have smoked every day for 20 years and are fine, and others who are suffering with depression or schizophrenia trouble is no-one knows who is vulnerable and who is not.
the main reason why people may perhaps try harder drugs is because of the people they have to mix with in order to get the cannabis, the dealers who encourage and tempt and offer free trials.
legalising this drug will cut them out of the picture entirely.
one problem would be people who, as it is now, wouldn't dare touch cannabis because its illegal, will try it as it is legal, and therefore must be absolutely fine - just like alcohol...right? With plent of advice, literature education etc perhaps this can be controlled.
perhaps there is a test to decide vulnerability?
Cannabis is a cause of Psychosis & Schizophrenia in young people and wrecks their lives. Because the brain hasn't developed & for people who are vulnerable as joko says, Cannabis is a life sentence of Antipsychotic medication (along with it's side effects), relapse & diminished functioning. There may be 30 ,40,50 year olds, and over, having a chilled time & funtioning well & role modelling that this is OK, but tragically for the young people, it simply isn't. Please bear this in mind.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.