Legalise it?

  • Poll
  • 812 Views
  • Last Post 5 weeks ago
No!
5 vote
Yes!
18 vote
TedMaul posted this 10 March 2016

I'd be surprised if he didn't (dabble with coke).  Being that he worked in PR in London in the early 90's.   More annoying is his love of The Smiths and worse is George Osborne banging on about

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/george-osborne-going-nwa-gig-6583929

  • Liked by
  • KRG
KRG posted this 10 March 2016

Originally posted by TedMaul

I'd be surprised if he didn't (dabble with coke).  Being that he worked in PR in London in the early 90's.   More annoying is his love of The Smiths and worse is George Osborne banging on about

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/george-osborne-going-nwa-gig-6583929

 It does nothing bad  for my (deliberately outlandish) theory that Smiths fans are generally twats.

Always made me laugh that he claimed Eton Rifles was his favourite song. And Willerby reply of "has he actually listened to it?" Pretty great too.

Dozy prat.

TedMaul posted this 10 March 2016

 http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2010/dec/03/johnny-marr-david-cameron-twitter

pap posted this 11 March 2016


https://www.instagram.com/herbkitchen/

  • Liked by
  • Goatboy
  • Jack Schitt
CB Saint posted this 11 March 2016

Originally posted by pap


https://www.instagram.com/herbkitchen/

 See cannabis is bad for you - its side effects force you to engage in an unhealthy diet leading to greater chances of obesity and diabetes. I wouldn't be surprised if all the lobbying to legalise it was being funded by Dominos

pap posted this 17 April 2016

Nick Clegg has accused the home secretary, Theresa May, of attempting to delete sentences from a Whitehall report after it concluded that there was no link between tough laws and the levels of illegal drug use.

The former deputy prime minister also said senior Conservatives, such as David Cameron and George Osborne, have failed to act on drug reform because they saw the issue as a “naughty recreational secret” at Notting Hill dinner parties instead of a public health crisis.

In an interview with the Guardian before a major UN conference on the global drug problem, Clegg said the Conservative government was failing to listen to warnings that the war on drugs had failed.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/apr/17/nick-clegg-accuses-theresa-may-drug-report-conservatives

Jack Schitt posted this 17 April 2016 - Last edited 17 April 2016

I like it when threads I missed before suddenly pop back up again. If some of your points totals have risen unexplained, it's cos I was reading back through in here.

 

Originally posted by prickly

I think that your personality more than "gateway" products is what will lead to drug and alcohol use and abuse.

I very much agree with this. At least as far as that someone with an addictive personality is going to be much more likely, to succumb to cannabis addiction as a result (assuming they try it of course).

I've seen both sides, as someone who enjoys the odd puff or two when I'm not working the next morning, I appreciate the magical herb for its immediate relaxing and mellowing qualities. Yet having seen a close family member succumb to a heavy cannabis addiction that did indeed have serious mental health implications as a result -- I also understand the view that the plant can be dangerous to some who are already disposed to mental health issues, which can be aggravated by excessive use of strong cannabis.

The key here for me, as in so many areas of life -- is in moderation, and taking personal responsibility for your actions, and consumption rates. I love the stuff myself, and swear by its medicinal qualities -- but I don't abuse the substance. And therein lies the secret. Likely pretty much any substance, if overused and abused, is going to lead you into difficulties. So if you know you're inclined to over indulgence and addiction -- then probably best to leave it well alone.

But if you're perfectly capable of being a responsible human being, and taking care of yourself, knowing your limits etc. I see no reason you can't enjoy a nice chillaxing smoke a couple of nights a week.

As to whether or not it should be legalised -- I voted "yes" mainly as I don't like government legislation being so invasive as to poke its dirty little snout into our private lives. What is done in the privacy of one's own home, as long as you're not murdering and raping people etc. should be no-ones business but our own.

But more than anything, with the massive tax windfall that could be raised with its legalisation -- I think the government is missing out on a potentially huge source of income for the country, which seems somewhat insane to me. Certainly it seems to indicate some confused thinking on their part, at least. Almost like they've been smoking too much weed, and can't follow a train of thought for more than a few seconds lou_wink2.

That's what it is. They want to keep their stash all to themselves, for those sneaky behind closed doors "Sessions" of Parliament. tongue-out

For me, I'd be happy with decriminalisation. I don't think an otherwise good and law-abiding citizen should be tarnished with a criminal record, for enjoying the odd toke on a phat spliff, whilst chillin' out listening to mellow electronica in their car at night by the beach (as happened to one of my neighbours). But even with that, I'd still think the government are missing out on a massive opportunity, by not taxing its sale.

 

  • Liked by
  • Mangobean
Areola Grandee posted this 17 April 2016

Uhm.. 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 'cure'. 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 problems... 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 etc... 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 it's 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 health... oh.. wait a minute.. we can still buy fags. booze etc all of which cause health problems... 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 environments... so how is this different from a ban on drugs? It's 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 with... and that is the dilemma. 

 

 

  • Liked by
  • PhilippineSaint
KRG posted this 21 April 2016

Report from 420 in Hyde Park yesterday. 

The scientific case is strong, the economic case is stronger. 

Not that either of those will ever matter to our evidence-phobic government. 

pap posted this 09 May 2016

P'raps not, eh?

pap posted this 04 October 2016

A former Conservative justice minister has revealed that he was discouraged from asking difficult questions about drugs policy – for fear that looking at evidence could “unpick” 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.

“It always had occurred to me that drugs misuse was obviously a major driver of demand in the criminal justice system,” he told a fringe event at the Conservative annual conference in Birmingham.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/crispin-blunt-drugs-legalisation-difficult-questions-former-justice-poppers-a7343511.html

KRG posted this 5 weeks ago

 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 'War on Drugs' is not only futile, but serves to solidify gangster monopolies, and increase violence. 

It's about 18 months old, but I don't think that really matters too much. 

Neil Woods - Distraction Pieces

  • Liked by
  • Tokyo-Saint
  • pap
Tokyo-Saint posted this 5 weeks ago

A big claim. That's a lot of blame to place on a single band. 

  • Liked by
  • KRG