Labour delegates call to legalise cannabis

mise_me_fein

ScumLord wrote: »

I don't know? I know I didn't. I am just highlighting the fact that this "terrible scourge of a drug" hasn't actually killed anyone.

Hey man, I'm happy with things the way they are.

If you feel that strong about it, set up a party and campaign.

Despite the views here on the boards, I'm pretty sure this is not the view of most of the population - that can vote.

bubonicus

InFront wrote: »

Depends on whether you include alcoholism. In terms of something like schizophrenia, such a link hasn't been documented or reported to anywhere near the same extent with alcohol as with marijuana.

Neither drug are without some very serious potential repercussions.

Breaking news :
16 November 2007

MedWire News: Schizophrenia risk is not influenced by variations in the cannabinoid receptor (CNR1) and alpha7-nicotinic acetylcholine receptor (CHRNA7) genes, say UK researchers.

They also found no evidence for the purported effects of cannabis use on schizophrenia according to variation in the catechol-O-methyltransferase (COMT) gene.

Schizophrenia is associated with an increased use of tobacco and cannabis, with evidence suggesting that patients may use the drug to alleviate neurophysiological symptoms. The benefits of these substances are thought to be mediated through their effects on CHRNA7 and CNR1, respectively, notes the team.

They therefore looked at the effects of variants in the genes encoding CHRNA7 and CNR1 on the risk for schizophrenia and the potential effects of tobacco and cannabis use.

Stanley Zammit, from Cardiff University, and colleagues genotyped 750 patients with schizophrenia and 688 mentally healthy controls for the CHRNA7 promoter polymorphism -86C/T and the CNR1 polymorphism rs1049353. They also gathered information on tobacco and cannabis use via interviews and case-note records.

In addition, the team conducted a case-only study of 493 participants from the schizophrenia group, examining interactions between cannabis use and the Val158Met polymorphism in the COMT gene, as well as the rs737865 and rs165599 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs).

The team reports in the British Journal of Psychiatry that there was no evidence of an association between the CHRNA7 -86C/T genotype and schizophrenia. Schizophrenia patients were 4.4 times more likely than controls to smoke, but among the schizophrenia patients, there was no association between tobacco use and the -86C/T genotype.

Similarly, there was no significant association between the CNR1 rs1049353 genotype and schizophrenia. Schizophrenia patients were 2.6 times more likely than controls to use cannabis, but cannabis use was not affected by rs1049353 genotype among schizophrenia patients.

The results also showed that there were no associations between the Val158Met genotype and cannabis use, or between cannabis use and the variations at rs737865 and rs165599.

The only genetic effect on phenotypes of schizophrenia was a weak association between the -86C/T genotype and a younger age at onset of schizophrenia.

“In summary, we failed to find any evidence that variation at the CHRNA7 or CNR1 locus was associated with schizophrenia, or that the effect of variation at these loci was modified by use of tobacco or cannabis, respectively,” the researchers write.

They add: “Cannabis use was not associated with the presence of valine allele at Val158Met with COMT in our sample, therefore our findings do not support a previous report of a putative gene–environment interaction between COMT genotype and cannabis use on risk of schizophrenia.”

Link:
http://www.psychiatrysource.com/NewsItem/Cannabis-and-smoking-gene-links-to-schizophrenia-u.aspx?l1=3&firstpage=true

*Just to keep all the drinkers happy, I am not saying Cannabis is full of natural goodness, but lets not be calling the election before all the votes are in.

ScumLord

mise_me_fein wrote: »

Hey man, I'm happy with things the way they are.

If you feel that strong about it, set up a party and campaign.

Despite the views here on the boards, I'm pretty sure this is not the view of most of the population - that can vote.

Most people wouldn't really care, they where brought up to believe drugs are bad mmkay and have no interest in hearing anything to the contry.

It's just not right to criminalise anyone for enjoying cannabis. I am involved over at cannabisireland.com but I don't get to spend as much time as I would like there, I'm a busy man I barely have time for a spliff these days.

mise_me_fein

You know the way things are in Ireland. Nobody really goes to jail for smoking hash. Isn't it decriminalized in Britain?

Something like that would be ok but I'm against the situation in Holland personally.

bubonicus

mise_me_fein wrote: »

You know the way things are in Ireland. Nobody really goes to jail for smoking hash. Isn't it decriminalized in Britain?

Something like that would be ok but I'm against the situation in Holland personally.

Well informed post. :rolleyes:

Sonnenblumen

Terry wrote: »

Oh the fickle posters.
So quick to jump to conclusiopns and unable to read sarcasm.

Regardless, he got my #1 vote, so I'm entitled to question his policies.



QUOTE]

Its more like cynical prejudice is getting in the way of your search for an answer. Otherwise why not explain what or why the relevance of Stagg's sexual preferences etc?

How modest to dress a prima facia personal attack and consider it sarcasm?

How lame, how redundant.

3greenrizla's

mise_me_fein wrote: »

You know the way things are in Ireland. Nobody really goes to jail for smoking hash.

no but people do get criminal records, which could mean you would not be able to travel to the US or could effect (certain) job oppertunities.



forgot to mention - the fines (I was going to say hefty, but I suppose that depends on how much disposable income you have)

Terry

Sonnenblumen wrote: »

Terry wrote: »

Oh the fickle posters.
So quick to jump to conclusiopns and unable to read sarcasm.

Regardless, he got my #1 vote, so I'm entitled to question his policies.

Its more like cynical prejudice is getting in the way of your search for an answer. Otherwise why not explain what or why the relevance of Stagg's sexual preferences etc?

How modest to dress a prima facia personal attack and consider it sarcasm?

How lame, how redundant.

You never give up, do you?

It was a joke.

If I was bothered at all by his sexual preferences, he wouldn't have gotten my vote in every election for the past 14 years.

Get over yourself.

Sonnenblumen

Terry wrote: »

You never give up, do you?

It was a joke.

If I was bothered at all by his sexual preferences, he wouldn't have gotten my vote in every election for the past 14 years.

Get over yourself.

Oh now I understand, first I missed your "I voted for him, so therefore I can make fun/mock him" logic, then I missed your "sarcasm", now your rationale is it's OK to make fun of his sexual preferences even though they don't bother you??? It's a rather strange way to demonstrate loyalty?

Why should I give up, you're the one that needs to get up!

Fair game to make fun of the policy but at least respect the person's private life!

End of lesson.

Terry

Shut the fúck up and get off your high horse.

What the hell are you getting so upset about anyway?
Were you in the Phoenix park that night?

You're in serious need of a sense of humour.

Terry

Terry wrote: »

Shut the fúck up and get off your high horse.

What the hell are you getting so upset about anyway?
Were you in the Phoenix park that night?

You're in serious need of a sense of humour.

I would like to take this opportunity to apologise for this outburst.

Had it been posted by someone else, they would have recieved an infraction or been banned.

I can't ban myself, so I'll bow out of this thread instead.

big b

Terry wrote: »

I would like to take this opportunity to apologise for this outburst.

Had it been posted by someone else, they would have recieved an infraction or been banned.

I can't ban myself, so I'll bow out of this thread instead.

maybe so, but I'd still prefer a Mod with a degree of humanity & all it's failings, to some of the anally retentive, strictly-by-the-book-cos-that-way-you-cant-slag-me moderating elsewhere on boards.

ScumLord

You know the way things are in Ireland. Nobody really goes to jail for smoking hash. Isn't it decriminalized in Britain?

Something like that would be ok but I'm against the situation in Holland personally.

Britain and Holland are not all that different in one important way. Criminals are still involved and making money off it. Even though I'm a smoker I don't really agree with basic decriminalisation for that reason. I can see it backfiring and setting back the pro cannabis movement.

Let people grow there own, it's hard enough to discourage the majority and takes that minority out of the criminal loop.

Oh and I meant to ask does anyone know what Labor said about decriminalising cannabis?

big b

ScumLord wrote: »

Let people grow there own, it's hard enough to discourage the majority and takes that minority out of the criminal loop.

Lovely idea, which will never happen.
Best you can hope for is some degree of decriminalisation, where being caught with a bit of personal only gets you a caution & no criminal record. I reckon even that's a good way off.
For a country with a young, well travelled population, there still seems a very negative vibe towards smokers.

Sonnenblumen

According to the LP website, the nr of voters in favour of the motion was 165 and 141 against. However the matter has been referred back to the National Executive. The online polling was also in favour of the motion.

Wertz

InFront wrote: »

You're completely wrong, and if you're using Google to authenticate your beliefs you're probably far more wrong than you realise.

WTF?
Where am I using google to authenticate anything?
I quickly googled to see if there were any more recent studies than the one I link to above, with a more solid THC/schizophrenia link; I didn't find one and said in my post, that you kindly decided to ignore, that if such a newer study existed that I'd like to hear about as would many cannabis users out there.
...and that's mainly why I think there hasn't been any further conclusive proof; if there had been we would have heard about it the media.

InFront wrote:

Research on marijuana and psychotic illness has now got to the stage where this link is now taken as having been established comprehensively. Journals will often only collate series of papers establishing these links and discuss their collective findings as opposed to any one paper establishing a link to psychosis, such is the abundance of evidence in this regard.
I refer you most recently to The Lancet (Vol 370) of last July and August which ran a particularly impressive collection of these papers establishing the link...

Sorry I don't have a subscription to the Lancet or any other medical journal, but as I said above, if there were a more solid link with scientific proof, such a story would have made it past the journals and into mainstream media....as far as I can see it hasn't.
That's not some form of dopehead denial *glares at Terry*, it's a reasonable assumption on a forum that if a poster wishes to be taken at their word, that a little back up or a hyperlink is of great benefit...when I get that from you or anyone else wishing (or not) to argue this issue with me, I may change my view/opinion on the whole thing, until then I'll continue along with my current mindset, however "wrong" that is.

Infront wrote:

...but again I'd reitierate I'm not willing to debate the thing with someone who can simply disregard such evidence by shrugging it off as a big Government and drug company conspiracy again, without producing evidence to the contrary.

lol
If I could produce evidence of some huge conspiracy would I be sitting here in a futile argument about this issue?
You're unwilling to debate with me for not providing links yet you expect me to just take you at your word with a similar lack of back-up?
I didn't shrug anything off as a government conspiracy, I implied that I was dubious about the motives of privately funded studies to prove that marijuana is psychologically damaging, given the interests that certain private bodies may have, in keeping government and public opinion against decriminalisation/legalisation of cannabis.
That's a personal opinion/theory. I don't ask anyone else to take it at face value. It's certainly not some paranoid fantasy; I have trouble believing a lot of things that politicians and big businesses tell me and the public at large...I would have no such problem believing independent documented scientific proof, if I could be reasonably sure that it wasn't privately funded or wasn't being carried out with a pre-defined agenda.

You have no wish to debate with me, but you're quite willing to try and force your point down my throat, whilst just ignoring any of my other many and varied points in this thread (which are not all in favour of the labour delegate's motion).
I'm not actually looking for debate; I have my opinion and someone on a messageboard isn't going to alter it too much. If someone can point in the direction of some evidence to contradict my beliefs on this matter, then they may change that opinion...their selective arguing isn't going to achieve bugger all...


[edit] Bubonicus, I didn't see your post. Very interesting. Thanks for that.

Dave!

Sonnenblumen wrote: »

According to the LP website, the nr of voters in favour of the motion was 165 and 141 against. However the matter has been referred back to the National Executive. The online polling was also in favour of the motion.

Wow, I'm surprised...

What does it mean when it's referred back to the National Executive? Is this the usual protocol? Or is it a way for the Parliamentary Party to put the motion on the long finger, so to speak, and shelf the idea?

Bottle_of_Smoke

ScumLord wrote: »

Although the best way IMO would be a registered grower, allow any one that wants to go up to 6 plants for there own personal use. They would be registered and subject to inspections to prevent criminal gangs growing tons of it. Everyone's happy.

I've had this idea before & think it's flawless. I wouldn't mind paying an annual sub of E500-1000 to cover inspection costs either but . . . 6 PLANTS!? From what I've heard you'd make a fortune off that. It's a really economic plant.

I'd also like to put a limit on the level of THC allowed in the buds, this would be tested by the inspectors, those having buds with a higher than allowed limit would be punished in the same manner those caught making puceen/illegal limit alchohol. This would be a response to those who claim powerful skunk does more damage than 60s grass.

3greenrizla's

if it did go down this road, I dont think they will allow you to have upto 6 plants. AFAIK in the UK up to 3 is considered personal, someone I am sure will correct me if I am wrong I'm too lazzzzy to look it up

Kold

I can't honestly see why some people get so up in f*cking arms about a few of us enjoying a smoke.

The excuses given tend to be shaky foundation claims that could just as easily be linked to alcohol, caffeine or aspirin and "I hate hippy scumbag stoner" rants. I can't see anyone forcing a joint in your mouth and not everyone who enjoys marajuana is a hippy or a scumbag.

big b

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

I've had this idea before & think it's flawless. I wouldn't mind paying an annual sub of E500-1000 to cover inspection costs either but . . . 6 PLANTS!? From what I've heard you'd make a fortune off that. It's a really economic plant.

Yeah, 6 good plants could easily yield 9oz. Can't see them allowing that. There'd be a worry too, that the local scumbags would target your house to relieve you of said oz.

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

I'd also like to put a limit on the level of THC allowed in the buds, this would be tested by the inspectors, those having buds with a higher than allowed limit would be punished in the same manner those caught making puceen/illegal limit alchohol. This would be a response to those who claim powerful skunk does more damage than 60s grass.

Great idea in theory, but unworkable in practice. Not every crop of the same strain will give exactly the same results. Also, you'd have the defence that "honest, I bought Orange Bud seeds, it says so on the packet - how was I to know it was actually AK47?"

ScumLord

You could just ban the sale of known very strong strains and I wouldn't be against that either.

I picked the number six out of thin air, I've never really grown anything myself so I don't know how much you can get out of a plant. But you would need to have enough to get you through 6 months (however long it takes to regrow your crop).

Overheal

ScumLord wrote: »

This thought that cannabis the country will grind to a halt because everyone will be too stoned to go to work is pure stupidity. .

worked for Mexicans.

being serious. Mexicans afaik, were a major force of labor in growing America in the 1900s. But they got stoned the whole time... which is where the ban originally came from. thanks america.

nowadays though I dont understand all this hostility america has towards mexicans. Ultra Conservatism is sowing that one i think.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

you've got it somewhat right, it wasn't the cannabis that the ban was aimed at.. but the mexicans themselves.

Bottle_of_Smoke

big b wrote: »

Yeah, 6 good plants could easily yield 9oz. Can't see them allowing that. There'd be a worry too, that the local scumbags would target your house to relieve you of said oz.




Great idea in theory, but unworkable in practice. Not every crop of the same strain will give exactly the same results. Also, you'd have the defence that "honest, I bought Orange Bud seeds, it says so on the packet - how was I to know it was actually AK47?"

Don't know for sure but surely the intensity of the light/heat/growing chemicals you're using makes more difference than the actual strain you use? I'm open to being wrong of course.

Though now I'm starting to think "I didn't know a hundred watt bulb would do this"

Don't know enough about it really but I'm imagining the stuff you get in Amsterdam needs to be grown in a very sophisticated manner.

Terry

Ease up on the theories of growth.
Thanks.

rubadub

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

6 PLANTS!? From what I've heard you'd make a fortune off that.

6 plants will grow under a 600W bulb, this is the most efficient bulb energy wise. it is also a good amount to grow tending wise. i.e. to tend to 6 plants only takes a little more than 1. A single harvest could last a person several years. In many countries there is such a limit and it makes sense to have it.

The limits on home brewing beer are extremely high, and people tend to make beer in batches of at least 25 litres at a time. Nobody seems bothered about that. They are not going to brew a nights drinking at a time.

The whole number of plants thing can be loopholed anyway, if the limit was one you simply keep it in vegetative growth for a long time until it is huge.

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

I'd also like to put a limit on the level of THC allowed in the buds, this would be tested by the inspectors, those having buds with a higher than allowed limit would be punished in the same manner those caught making puceen/illegal limit alchohol. This would be a response to those who claim powerful skunk does more damage than 60s grass.

The argument against high strength weed being harmful is illogical. Smoking cannabis is certainly harmful, and idiot would think otherwise. Of course inhaling burning plant matter is going to be harmful, whether it be cannabis, tobacco or smoke from burning garden leaves. People are after a desired level of intoxication with all drugs. If you have packs of 500mg paracetomol you do not take the same number of tablets as your usual 200mg tablets. If you choose to drink whiskey for a change you do not drink your usual 6 pints of it as you would beer. And if you get high strength cannabis you do not smoke the same amount as other weaker types. Therefore you smoke less plant material to achieve the same effects, therefore it is less harmful to your lungs. Twice the potency gives ~half the lung damage. If you are new to the particular strain you take it slowly, just like you would if you got homebrewed beer of which the % was unknown.

This is one reason why people will make concentrated forms of hash (real hash not the crap 9bars of weak crap here). With real hash it takes tiny amounts for the desired effects, so less harmful on the system. If you are really concerned then vapourise or eat it.

You could just ban the sale of known very strong strains and I wouldn't be against that either

That is like banning certain strains of yeast that go too high. Alcohol is usually produced at 95% and diluted back down, by going to 95% it is purified and harmful chemicals can be separated out. Growing the strongest you can makes sense healthwise, and energy usage wise, both electrical and human effort.

bubonicus

rubadub wrote: »

A single harvest could last a person several years.

lol

Bottle_of_Smoke

rubadub wrote: »

The argument against high strength weed being harmful is illogical. Smoking cannabis is certainly harmful, and idiot would think otherwise. Of course inhaling burning plant matter is going to be harmful, whether it be cannabis, tobacco or smoke from burning garden leaves. People are after a desired level of intoxication with all drugs. If you have packs of 500mg paracetomol you do not take the same number of tablets as your usual 200mg tablets. If you choose to drink whiskey for a change you do not drink your usual 6 pints of it as you would beer. And if you get high strength cannabis you do not smoke the same amount as other weaker types. Therefore you smoke less plant material to achieve the same effects, therefore it is less harmful to your lungs. Twice the potency gives ~half the lung damage. If you are new to the particular strain you take it slowly, just like you would if you got homebrewed beer of which the % was unknown.

.

I'm not so sure about this, you become tolerant to strong weed very quickly. After 5 days in amsterdam I was smoking pure weed joints & not getting that high. Whereas I was blitzed after the first one after getting there which was 70% tobacco.

Following on from this,regular smokers would be smoking the really potent stuff all the time. Which would be much more harmful (mentally) than a lower strength weed/

If you don't smoke often, your system is of course much better on the lungs

Terry

Warning given to rubadub.

When I said to ease up on the growing theories, I meant it.

Next person gets a ban.

rubadub

Warning given to rubadub.

Noted, sorry.

Originally Posted by rubadub
A single harvest could last a person several years.

bubonicus wrote: »

lol

A normal single batch of wine is 25L so yeilds around 36 bottles. That would last my mother around 1-2 years at the rate she drinks.

Or can you not accept that people do not all take substances to extreme levels.

It seems people have no problem accepting the fact that people can take legal recreational drugs in small doses with lenghty intervals between them, yet presume all illegal drugs must be taken frequently in massive doses. Probably the media portayal. I suppose if prohibition had been worldwide since the early 1900's then you would be similarly laughing at the thought that a 65 year old woman could enjoy a glass of wine with her sunday roast. The media would portray all alchol "junkies", as homeless wife beating degenerates, pissed 24/7.

There are winos and casual drinkers, there are 60 a day smokers, and people who have 1 cigar a month, there are stoners and people who eat a small cannabis cake twice a year.

If people are so high on a drug that their behaviour is noticeable then they users of that drug tend to get branded as all the same. e.g. you might see some FOAF in a pub acting odd,
"what is he on",
"coke"
then the non-coke user presumes they all are like this, while there could be another lad he is talking to on small amounts and be non the wiser.

I'm not so sure about this, you become tolerant to strong weed very quickly. After 5 days in amsterdam I was smoking pure weed joints & not getting that high. Whereas I was blitzed after the first one after getting there which was 70% tobacco.

I found the same thing going to the octoberfest. If you havent drank in a while it will hit you, then your tolerance is increased the next few days. After the 5 days you were smoking pure weed, the simple fact is if it is twice as strong you smoke half as much for the same effect. Most people will get to their desired level and stop, most can realised when they are too drunk or stoned so cut down. You will become as tolerant to strong weed as you will weak weed. There is no real difference except the amount of plant matter.

bubonicus

rubadub wrote: »

Noted, sorry.





A normal single batch of wine is 25L so yeilds around 36 bottles. That would last my mother around 1-2 years at the rate she drinks.

Or can you not accept that people do not all take substances to extreme levels.

It seems people have no problem accepting the fact that people can take legal recreational drugs in small doses with lenghty intervals between them, yet presume all illegal drugs must be taken frequently in massive doses. Probably the media portayal. I suppose if prohibition had been worldwide since the early 1900's then you would be similarly laughing at the thought that a 65 year old woman could enjoy a glass of wine with her sunday roast. The media would portray all alchol "junkies", as homeless wife beating degenerates, pissed 24/7.

There are winos and casual drinkers, there are 60 a day smokers, and people who have 1 cigar a month, there are stoners and people who eat a small cannabis cake twice a year.

If people are so high on a drug that their behaviour is noticeable then they users of that drug tend to get branded as all the same. e.g. you might see some FOAF in a pub acting odd,
"what is he on",
"coke"
then the non-coke user presumes they all are like this, while there could be another lad he is talking to on small amounts and be non the wiser.



I found the same thing going to the octoberfest. If you havent drank in a while it will hit you, then your tolerance is increased the next few days. After the 5 days you were smoking pure weed, the simple fact is if it is twice as strong you smoke half as much for the same effect. Most people will get to their desired level and stop, most can realised when they are too drunk or stoned so cut down. You will become as tolerant to strong weed as you will weak weed. There is no real difference except the amount of plant matter.

sry rub, I agree with this , but I personally just found that line funny.

I think if someone would go through all the trouble of growing, I would think they would be more than a casual smoker. but you never know.

ScumLord

Going to Amsterdam isn't really a good example either. I don't know how I manage to smoke as much as I do over there without having a whitey. I do the pig on it and smoke as much as I can while I'm there. Last time I went though I didn't go as daft as I did the first few times (and saw much more of Amsterdam) so I guess the novelty is begining to wear off a bit I got more stoned on less smoke this time around I'm guessing it's the shear thrill of being able to smoke without fear or paranoia lets you smoke more.

It's a great city crazy, strange **** starts happening to me as soon as I step off the plane.