To grass or not to grass

Davaeo09

I think his mother deserves to know, and you need to decide soon before that kid deals to more kids.

Just my two cents worth :pac:

CiaranC

hallelujajordan wrote: »

The point isn't the "wee bit of weed" . . the point is the criminal structure that provides the weed, the other activities it engages in and the need to dismantle it piece by piece . .

You are living in Cuckoo land. You dont dismantle a structure that has been in place for 10000 years (the distribution of cannabis) by slapping the wrist of a 15 year old kid who bought an ounce of crappy hash to sell to his mates for 40 euros profit.

hallelujajordan

CiaranC wrote: »

You are living in Cuckoo land. You dont dismantle a structure that has been in place for 10000 years (the distribution of cannabis) by slapping the wrist of a 15 year old kid who bought an ounce of crappy hash to sell to his mates for 40 euros profit.

Of course you don't and of course I am not naive enough to believe you can . . But surely taking any link out of the supply chain is a positive move . . and if everyone took the attitude that it is not OK for a 15 year old to supply drugs to his mates surely that would be a move in the general direction of removing the availability ? ? ? ?

CiaranC

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Of course you don't and of course I am not naive enough to believe you can . . But surely taking any link out of the supply chain is a positive move . . and if everyone took the attitude that it is not OK for a 15 year old to supply drugs to his mates surely that would be a move in the general direction of removing the availability ? ? ? ?

I see what you are getting at and I admire your idealism. But you cannot remove the availability of drugs. Ever.

The reality of the situation is, that one kid buys the ounce this time and sorts out his mates. The next time its another kid. Maybe one kid does it for six months and becomes the big man. Six months later its another kid.

99 times out of 100 nobody gets caught, no concerned mammies get involved, the kids grow up and the next batch of kids do the same.

hallelujajordan

CiaranC wrote: »

I see what you are getting at and I admire your idealism. But you cannot remove the availability of drugs. Ever.

The reality of the situation is, that one kid buys the ounce this time and sorts out his mates. The next time its another kid. Maybe one kid does it for six months and becomes the big man. Six months later its another kid.

99 times out of 100 nobody gets caught, no concerned mammies get involved, the kids grow up and the next batch of kids do the same.

Agreed and understood. . however, looking back at OP this seems a little more than that . . The kid in question is supplying a lot of other kids and has already had some scrapes with the law . .

. . and I should have said reduce the availability, I know you will never remove it . .

My name is URL

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Agreed and understood. . however, looking back at OP this seems a little more than that . . The kid in question is supplying a lot of other kids and has already had some scrapes with the law . .

Which is public knowledge according to the OP, :rolleyes:

It all reeks of over-involvement.. and over-reactionary displays of outrage.

Ipso Facto, the OP's son bought the stuff, got caught*, and dropped another kid's name.

The OP should caution their son in a manner befitting their own stances on these sort of things.. and think before involving forces that delve for the facts* of what happened, rather than another kid's past involvements.

ebmma

bullpost wrote: »

Something a bit more scientific:

Depression

A study following 1600 Australian school-children, aged 14 to 15 for seven years, found that while children who use cannabis regularly have a significantly higher risk of depression, the opposite was not the case - children who already suffered from depression were not more likely than anyone else to use cannabis. However, adolescents who used cannabis daily were five times more likely to develop depression and anxiety in later life.



Schizophrenia

Three major studies followed large numbers of people over several years, and showed that those people who use cannabis have a higher than average risk of developing schizophrenia. If you start smoking it before the age of 15, you are 4 times more likely to develop a psychotic disorder by the time you are 26. They found no evidence of self-medication. It seemed that, the more cannabis someone used, the more likely they were to develop symptoms.



Why should teenagers be particularly vulnerable to the use of cannabis? No one knows for certain, but it may be something to do with brain development. The brain is still developing in the teenage years – up to the age of around 20, in fact. A massive process of ‘neural pruning’ is going on. This is rather like streamlining a tangled jumble of circuits so they can work more effectively. Any experience, or substance, that affects this process has the potential to produce long-term psychological effects.

Source : http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/mentalhealthinfo/problems/alcoholanddrugs/cannabis.aspx

Thanks for supplying something more than anecdotal evidence.

I was not trying to say that there's nothing to worry about, but i hate "pigeon science".

Comments like the one I was replying too previously are completely unhelpful.

I know people who have smoked previously and now are leading great fulfilling life and have excellent education. Does that mean I should jump in and say it is a direct result of smoking as a teenager and a lad should be just left to his own devices? No. Because it is just plain silly.

However people with negative experience have no hesitation in jumping into discussion and declaring their opinion an absolute truth on a basis of usually one or 2 examples from their immediate circle of friends.

rant over