Uhmā¦ not read all comments, but here is MHO; The question to me is all about health. The issues of drug barrons and criminality, I know fuck all about so cant comment, but there needs to be some clarity on causational v correlations.
It is correct that there is very limited evidence to suggest a direct causational link between the smoking of stronger variants and mental health problems. However, within the clinical environment, there is correctly an emphasis on prevention, and not just ācureā. As a result, medical advice would be to avoid doing things to your head that could potentially act as a trigger where the individual is predisposed to potential mental health problemsā¦ a lack of causational evidence, does not mean no causational link.
Tragically, many mental health problems manifest thelselves in late adoloescence or early adulthood. Particularly in young men. This is a group that is also most commonly attracted to smoking, drinking, drugs etcā¦ there are good medical hypotheses that suggest these activities can trigger mental health issues, even if they are not the direct _cause. _As with smoking, do we need to wait until there IS evidence before something is outlawed?
The long term effects are also not that well understood, but the sterotypical slowed speech and dazed perspective of the 20year + weed smoker are not considered without foundation. Imapct of habitual long term use?
No one likes a nanny state. But if said state has the repsonsibility for your care both financilaly and resource wise should you become mentally ill, then itās not unreasonable for state to suggest certain things to try and help prevent this.
I would find it pretty shocking if any government was prepared to put tax revenue ahead of healthā¦ ohā¦ wait a minuteā¦ we can still buy fags. booze etc all of which cause health problemsā¦ liberty to fuck your own body up versus the public funding to deal with the consequences - delicate issue, but common sense suggests that a Government does have a responsibilty to manage healthcare resources and as such is within its rights to preach caution or ban harmful substances. We have no problem with bans on Lead in in fuel or in water pipes, or carcinogens in foodstuffs or working environmentsā¦ so how is this different from a ban on drugs? Itās not, but as soon as you make fags and alcohol legal, there is no credibilty in banning drugs or anything else that we chose to harm ourselves withā¦ and that is the dilemma.
A former Conservative justice minister has revealed that he was discouraged from asking difficult questions about drugs policy ā for fear that looking at evidence could āunpickā the status quo.
Crispin Blunt, who was in charge of prisons and probations at the Ministry of Justice from 2010 until 2012, said he was told during ministerial discussions that it would politically unwise to ask how much the prohibition of drugs was costing the UK prison system.
āIt always had occurred to me that drugs misuse was obviously a major driver of demand in the criminal justice system,ā he told a fringe event at the Conservative annual conference in Birmingham.
Listened to this episode of Distraction Pieces recently, I found it really interesting. The guest is Neil Woods, who was formerly an undercover Police Officer, working mostly on drug cases. He discusses how, in his opinion, the āWar on Drugsā is not only futile, but serves to solidify gangster monopolies, and increase violence.
Itās about 18 months old, but I donāt think that really matters too much.
A kind of distant relative of mine has a rather severely epileptic son. Someone recommended cannabis oil to them to help with his (frequent) violent seizures. They gave them some to try and the results were pretty remarkable.
They only found out it was illegal and not able to be prescribed once they went to their doctor to get more.
They ended up moving to the US, partly, because of the availability of similar products (his dad did also get a decent job offer out there). How mad is it that we are behind the USA on an issue like this?
Itās believed that there are lots of medical benefits that could be gained from various psychoactive drugs. However, due to our pretty draconian drug laws, scientists and researchers are blocked from carrying out tests on them. Madness.
My 16 year old son asked me to stop smoking dope a couple of weeks ago, just after I came out of hospital with alcohol related liver, pancreas and gall bladder issues (theyāre all fucked, the gall bladder came out).
I am very proud of him for doing this, as most of his mates see smoking weed as a future lifestyle choice. He realises that is not his pathway, though I hoped I could cope with alcohol addiction by replacing it with weed.
The weed he and I used to smoke /bong was very home grown and tame, compared to high thc stuff.
It is strange, the people in positions to make decisions about the legality of cannabis have probably moved on from experiencing the highs and lows of it and encountering people who benefit or fail on it.
I think the question shouldnāt be ālegalise this or that drugā, rather legalise all, or make all illegal. What is fun? Drugs or health?
I certainly think Cannabis for medicinal reasons is hard to reason against. It doesnāt get you high, not addictive (apart from itās medicinal efficacy) but its use is now recognised as being therapeutically useful for a number of conditions.
Iāve never smoked so wasnāt tempted even though I was surrounded by itā¦cigarettes simply made me sickā¦Iām sure ditto for Cannabis. Iām not in favour of a blanket deregulationā¦I have a niece with mental health problems due to heavy use of āSkunkāā¦her 3 boys are now living with relatives and sheās alienated from the rest of the family.
My wife has had MS for over 30 years, during that time sheās been offered very little, no I lieā¦sheās been offered nothing. She doesnāt get muscle spasms but apparently a lot of MS sufferers do and Cannabis illegally obtained is the only way they can relieve their symptoms. MS has a multiplicity of symptoms most of which have no recognised treatmentsā¦itās shameful one of the treatments available to them can only be accessed by breaking the law.
There was an excellent piece on PM (Radio 4 programme) a week or so back regarding the decriminalisation of drugs in Portugal. Al drugs there, not just cannabis, are now not legal, but possession of them isnāt a criminal offence - unless someone is found to be in possession of more than would be required for their own needs, in which case they will be charged with dealing.
Essentially, the whole area of drug use is now treated as a health issue and not a legal/criminal one. Drug users are offered treatment and not prosecution. The results have been startling; drug use and associated crime have been massively reduced. The police, who were highly sceptical at first, now wholly embrace the policy, not least as they now have far more resources to devote to tackling real crime (including, of course, the trade in illegal drugs).
A couple of links - the thing I listened to isnāt available, though as it formed part of a news programme thatās hardly surprising):
Meanwhile, our own government is more interested in pursuing an unwinnable āwar on drugsā, apparently based more on ludicrous notions of sin and morality than on practicality and effectiveness.
āā¦Meanwhile, our own government is more interested in pursuing an unwinnable āwar on drugsā, apparently based more on ludicrous notions of sin and morality than on practicality and effectivenessā¦ā
Iād say that to a degree you are right @Fowllyd, but I bet that as soon as someone can ālegitimatelyā make millions for investors and/or the product can be taxed then thingsāll change pretty damn quick.
Good point about Portugal. I think some Scandinavian countries also follow this policy.
We have no chance at the moment, as we follow the US system of making incarceration a profit business, so thereās no will to look at it logically.
The war on drugs is a massively profitable business for some and they pay to keep it that way.
Isnāt alcohol the only drug that kills brain cells, whilst being at least on par with mental health problems and thatās before you get the liver problems.
A bit of rational debate by experts, followed by suitable legislation is long overdue.
Having seen the effect of CBD Oil on someone who was terminally ill then that must be legalised now.
On the subject of recreational drugs, the revenues they produce, the care structure around that is important. So yes properly governed States or if it is NOT a religious issue, then legalise it.
UK? Couldnāt put together a Lego set at the moment so perhaps they shouldnāt be trusted.
But they will once Rees Mogg opens a fund to profit from it
I think you may have missed the point here. What you describe isnāt what happens in Portugal, nor is it anything that Iād propose. All the same drugs that are illegal in this country are illegal in Portugal - therefore selling them is illegal, and they clearly canāt be taxed. Thereās a big difference between decriminalisation and legalisation.
Mate, I hope that all works out for you. Sounds like some serious shit. Great that you and your son have that sort of relationship too. Hope you find your drug - if itās not to be alcohol or cannabis. We all need one.
Good to see you back on here, Anal One. Hang around - although youāll find most of us boasting about our alcohol consumption over the weekend.