Uruguay to legalise marijuana

ScumLord

Grayson wrote: »

I'll agree. One of the worst things about weed is the tar. It has 3 times the tar of tobacco. But that does need a few qualifiers. Firstly, no-one smokes as much weed as a regular cigarette smoker. Secondly, there are plenty of other ways to consume it. eating, vaporiser, bong etc...

If it was legal people would have much more options open to them other than smoking. Going to a weed restaurant where it's cooked into food, a vapour bar, one things for sure smoking would be out in any public place. It could be used to improve the health of all cannabis users by allowing them less harmful ways of using the drug in a public setting. I think it could even have a knock on effect to reduce tobacco smokers as well, if you don't need tobacco for your spliff you might avoid the stuff altogether.

Leftist wrote: »

It was sarcasm.

Oh.

MonaPizza

studiorat wrote: »

It's OK with sugar though! :pac:

Yes, it IS ok with sugar. A spoonful of refined sugar has ZERO health benefits and only causes harm.....albeit a tiny bit of harm that one can revover from quite easily.

A glass of red wine has benefits AND drawbacks.

Shouldn't you be randomly writing "WTF???" round about now again instead of your trademark glib one-liners?

Jonny7

ScumLord wrote: »

So when do the long term effects of weed start to take effect?

There are medical problems (akin to tobacco use, heart and lung issues, cancer)

There have been studies which link mental illnesses, e.g. schitzophrenia, bipolar. Nothing conclusive has been produced yet as far as I know.

As with most drugs, people react differently to long-term use. Also what are they smoking, how often, and other factors.

fibonaccii

Jonny7 wrote: »

As I said its debatable.

Some reports show smoking tobacco is less harmful, others that it is more harmful.

Well how about the millions of people that die every year from tobacco use. And the, wait how many? 0 people that have ever died directly from cannabis use.

Debatable? I think not.

srsly78

Hoop66 wrote: »

However the effects of nicotine on the body, aside from the addiction issue, would be far greater than the effects of THC

Nicotine is as dangerous as coffee, ie not very much at all. Go do some reading about e-cigarettes - these have nicotine in them and are not harmful. Nicotine is a mild stimulant, the main problem in the past with it was addiction to smoking - not the nicotine itself.

ScumLord

Jonny7 wrote: »

There are medical problems (akin to tobacco use, heart and lung issues, cancer)

If you smoke it. Like I've already pointed out legalising the drug and making it easier to use other methods of using the drug would remove most of those harms.

There have been studies which link mental illnesses, e.g. schitzophrenia, bipolar. Nothing conclusive has been produced yet.

There has been conclusive results. If you have schizophrenia (you're born predisposed to it) and smoke cannabis regularly in your teens cannabis will bring on the early onset of the condition. It's almost the same as having an allergy, once you know you're predisposed to the condition you can avoid the catalyst. A person who isn't predisposed to the condition won't get the condition from using cannabis. It doesn't matter how much or how long they use the drug.

Jonny7

MonaPizza wrote: »

Oh yes, I know.
I'm just responding to those who say it's harmful but have nothing say about sugar, or salt or caffeine.

Salt (sodium) is essential for life, without it you'd die.

fibonaccii

srsly78 wrote: »

Nicotine is as dangerous as coffee, ie not very much at all. Go do some reading about e-cigarettes - these have nicotine in them and are not harmful. Nicotine is a mild stimulant, the main problem in the past with it was addiction to smoking - not the nicotine itself.

E cigarettes is a vaporiser, you can get the same addiction to it as to cigarettes. Its not near as damaging on your health though.

You can get the same vaporisers for weed to get rid of the bad effects of smoking.

fibonaccii

Jonny7 wrote: »

Salt (sodium) is essential for life, without it you'd die.

And with to much of it....you die.

studiorat

Leftist wrote: »

who's us?

you know what the original quote was, I never omitted alcohol from the quote.
You're hanging off the omittance of the alcohol description. It's pathetic

I imagine you are here to win pedantic mini-victories because if you behaved like this offline people would walk away.

Like I said, have some self respect.

So you post nonsense and when it's pointed out you have a hissy fit.
Nice...

studiorat

srsly78 wrote: »

Nicotine is as dangerous as coffee, ie not very much at all. Go do some reading about e-cigarettes - these have nicotine in them and are not harmful. Nicotine is a mild stimulant, the main problem in the past with it was addiction to smoking - not the nicotine itself.

Dude about 50mg of nicotine is toxic enough to kill a person. People have poisoned themselves with cigarettes and patches. Nicotine passes through the skin really easily. Meaning you can ingest nicotine even spilling electronic cig e-juice or pesticides which use nicotine on your skin.

It's nothing like coffee.

Jonny7

fibonaccii wrote: »

Well how about the millions of people that die every year from tobacco use. And the, wait how many? 0 people that have ever died directly from cannabis use.

Debatable? I think not.

Cannabis has been linked to raised testicular cancer rates, studies have shown increased rates of lung cancer

Cancer and diseases (like heart disease, lung disease) and so on are the killers.

The issue with cannabis is that it's harder to study (because it's illegal) and secondly many smoke it in conjunction with tobacco.

frank reynolds

kylith wrote: »

The dealers would still sell to kids, if there was a market for it.

Fair enough "IF" there was a market for it, and they sell it to them already, so if there was a reduction in this, then thats a win-win anyway.

ScumLord

Jonny7 wrote: »

Cannabis has been linked to raised testicular cancer rates, studies have shown increased rates of lung cancer

Which studies? All I can find is that cannabis is no worse than tobacco and in fact cannabis is shown to reduce lung cancer in particular (not though smoking).

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/20/marijuana-lung-cancer_n_3474960.html

http://www.endalldisease.com/harvard-study-says-marijuana-cures-cancer/

The issue with cannabis is that it's harder to study (because it's illegal) and secondly many smoke it in conjunction with tobacco.

Medical tests have all the access to cannabis that they need.

kylith

srsly78 wrote: »

Nicotine is as dangerous as coffee, ie not very much at all. Go do some reading about e-cigarettes - these have nicotine in them and are not harmful. Nicotine is a mild stimulant, the main problem in the past with it was addiction to smoking - not the nicotine itself.

Pure nicotine will kill you if it touches your skin, you can do serious damage to yourself if you, for instance, break open an e-cig cartridge and neck the contents.

Pure caffeine will also kill you. A British guy who took 2 teaspoons of caffeine powder and washed it down with a caffeinated drink died.

Amazing really; both nicotine and caffeine are much more dangerous than weed. Nicotine only takes a drop to kill you, caffeine a couple of spoons, and weed... last I heard you'd have to chew through a few pounds of it to do yourself any harm.

frank reynolds

People are reluctant to read/watch/listen to research on cannabis when it goes against their shoddy makey-up-ey arguments for why it's "BAD" for you.

frank reynolds

kylith wrote: »

Pure nicotine will kill you if it touches your skin, you can do serious damage to yourself if you, for instance, break open an e-cig cartridge and neck the contents.

Pure caffeine will also kill you. A British guy who took 2 teaspoons of caffeine powder and washed it down with a caffeinated drink died.

Amazing really; both nicotine and caffeine are much more dangerous than weed. Nicotine only takes a drop to kill you, caffeine a couple of spoons, and weed... last I heard you'd have to chew through a few pounds of it to do yourself any harm.

NOBODY has ever died from cannabis consumption alone. literally ... NOBODY in ALL of history.

ScumLord

kylith wrote: »

Amazing really; both nicotine and caffeine are much more dangerous than weed. Nicotine only takes a drop to kill you, caffeine a couple of spoons, and weed... last I heard you'd have to chew through a few pounds of it to do yourself any harm.

I don't think chewing would even work, you have to heat the plant material to release the THC, eating it raw does nothing as far as I know.

The only way to overdose would be to concentrate a large crop the same way they would make essential oils and then drink that in one go. You might have a chance of killing yourself with it then, although the cost of doing that would be in the tens of thousands.

kylith

frank reynolds wrote: »

NOBODY has ever died from cannabis consumption alone. literally ... NOBODY in ALL of history.

I KNOW.

kylith

ScumLord wrote: »

I don't think chewing would even work, you have to heat the plant material to release the THC, eating it raw does nothing as far as I know.

The only way to overdose would be to concentrate a large crop the same way they would make essential oils and then drink that in one go. You might have a chance of killing yourself with it then, although the cost of doing that would be in the tens of thousands.

Chew through a few pounds of hash cake in that case.

Jonny7

ScumLord wrote: »

All I can find is that cannabis is no worse than tobacco

That's my point here.

As for the studies, I am in work, I can link them later, off the top of my head there are studies which link THC to increased testicular cancer and studies done in 2006 or so which showed an increased link with lung cancer.


I'm not debating legalisation, I am debating health effects.

Medical tests have all the access to cannabis that they need.

We are talking tests involving that can span decades here, it's not easy with an illegal drug, and also the fact that it can't often be determined if that person was affected by passive smoking, or using tobacco with the cannabis, how pure was the cannabis and so on.

dublinbhoy88

still nobody has given a valid reason for keeping cannabis illegal..!

ScumLord

kylith wrote: »

Chew through a few pounds of hash cake in that case.

If you insist.

Jonny7 wrote: »

As for the studies, I am in work, I can link them later, off the top of my head there are studies which link THC to increased testicular cancer and studies done in 2006 or so which showed an increased link with lung cancer.

The problem I have is that while you can argue with the pro cannabis lobby promoting benefits of cannabis the lack of anything conclusive to say cannabis is definitely dangerous to use is telling. It's quite easy to see the harmful effects of most drugs almost immediately. With cannabis they can't find those effects and have now resorted to long term tests over decades in the hope something will turn up. In the meantime of course everyone else has to live in a world of criminality while they desperately extend their dogma and scrape the bottom of every barrel rather than admit cannabis just isn't dangerous enough to justify the laws against it.

The Pheasant2

I'd be interested to learn how many of the adverse health effects supposedly caused by weed are brought on by other factors associated with it's consumption, like lighting it when it's in tinfoil or smoking hash, which has all sorts of crap cut into it.

If it could be proven that many of the "risks" are not due to the properties of the plant itself and that if it were to be legalised; only regulated, pure weed would be available - Then I'd say a few people may change their minds (at least those constantly spouting the "health effects" argument anyway)

The Pheasant2

frank reynolds wrote: »

Yes Exactly. It WOULD be 18+ for it most likely if it were legalised.

nobody is going to start forcing kids to smoke it, nor anyone else for that matter.

a lot of legal stuff has NO health benefits: alcohol, cake, coffee, cigarettes, mcdonalds, etc etc...

as well, agree, of course you would - same as you wouldn't allow them to become an alcoholic!?

I think you had better see this:

the_syco

Tipsy McSwagger wrote: »

Should be legal to anyone who suffers from Alzheimer's, Parkinson's disease, Arthritis etc.

They could legalize cannabis high in CBD, and low in THC, and ban cannabis with a high THC count to achive this.

=-=

Cigarettes are a gateway drug to every drug there is.

Artful_Badger wrote: »

There was also a few I recall who were drove out of business and one iirc burned out. The criminal gangs that controlled the drugs didnt take kindly to the sale of bath salts eating into their business.

So we shouldn't take money and power away from gangs because they may not like it? That is actually one reason to take it away from them! As for the products the head shops sold; most wouldn't be fit for human consumption.

Play To Kill wrote: »

Do you honestly think there will be an increase in usage just because it's legal?

Peak increase after it becomes legal, but long term, I doubt it. There may however be a drop in alcohol sales, and one or two pubs converting to "coffee shops" though.

Staff Infection

I was reading on facebook that Ming is bringing a private members bill to the dail in October (around the 29th I think) regarding legalising, regulating and taxing cannabis here. Now it probably won't pass but how far do yee think we are from our politicians considering it?
I'd say seeing as we share the border in the North they'll hold off till the UK legalise it and move with them when they do.

MonaPizza

Folks I think we can safely say that the authorities who want this banned have an ulterior motive. Massive profits can be made for corporations when the great unwashed masses consume things that are harmful. Billions can be made off sick people by the pharmaceutical and health industry. If people are obese, diabetic, ADHD, hypertense, whatever from consuming utter crap you can wring even more money out of these people who will shell out to try and stay alive. Likewise alcohol and tobacco. Smokers and pissheads will eventually start getting ill and after you've bled them of billions in the taxes they pay for their habit you can squeeze more out of them for liver or cancer treatment.

We shouldn't even be having this discussion about the health effects of weed because the government couldn't give a fcuk. Weed is a cheap, virtually free painkiller that you can grow yourself.....not exactly a popular thing with companies like GlaxoSmithKline, Bayer, Johnson & Johnson, etc. If Joe-Pensioner pays $500 a month for his arthritis prescription do you think Beecham Corporation are going to be thrilled that he can get the same relief for free from the few potted plants he has in the greenhouse alongside his geraniums and tomatoes?

Legalising weed would most probably lead to the legalisation of industrial hemp growing and that would pose another problem for the corporations who manufacture all sorts of materials and fabrics.

So scratch the health debate...it's a non-issue.

Jonny7

ScumLord wrote: »

If you insist.

The problem I have is that while you can argue with the pro cannabis lobby promoting benefits of cannabis the lack of anything conclusive to say cannabis is definitely dangerous to use is telling. It's quite easy to see the harmful effects of most drugs almost immediately. With cannabis they can't find those effects and have now resorted to long term tests over decades in the hope something will turn up. In the meantime of course everyone else has to live in a world of criminality while they desperately extend their dogma and scrape the bottom of every barrel rather than admit cannabis just isn't dangerous enough to justify the laws against it.

It took a very long time to conclusively show that the contents of cigarettes were causing cancer. That's a legal drug with a enormous study set.

When compared, cannabis research is positively minuscule.

We don't know enough yet, that doesn't mean we should accept every study that says cannabis is harmless and reject any study that links it to an increased chance of x y or z. That would just be ridiculous.

Anecdotally, after a decade of smoking weed, the majority of people I know who used to (or still) smoke it view it negatively rather than positively.

I'm not talking about a few puffs at the weekend here (which I think is harmless) I am talking longer-term use.

srsly78

MonaPizza wrote: »

Legalising weed would most probably lead to the legalisation of industrial hemp growing and that would pose another problem for the corporations who manufacture all sorts of materials and fabrics.

Anyone that wants to use industrial hemp in Ireland can apply for a licence. I'm not sure if the minister has been denying people licences tho... There have been some Teagasc studies done on it.

So in theory there is nothing stopping industrial hemp right now. Maybe there is so much bureaucratic nonsense involved that it stops people trying!

ScumLord

Jonny7 wrote: »

It took a very long time to conclusively show that the contents of cigarettes were causing cancer. That's a legal drug with a enormous study set.

That's due to a cover up though isn't it? There's nobody actively trying to block the cannabis tests so that they can maintain their profit margin. It's the exact opposite, they do the test, don't get the results they want and then say we need longer term tests. The medical testing environment we're working in now is also a completely different kettle of fish to the medical world that was around in the 50s and 60s when the tobacco industry was trying to hide the effects of tobacco smoke.

When compared, cannabis research is positively minuscule.

Cannabis was considered harmful for a lot longer than tobacco, so I would hazard a guess that maybe there is at least as much if not more research on cannabis than tobacco.

Anecdotally, after a decade of smoking weed, the majority of people I know who used to (or still) smoke it view it negatively rather than positively.

Anecdotally, I hear the exact opposite. The most common complaint I hear is the pricing that's around at the moment. The profit margins on cannabis are going through the roof.

MonaPizza

Jonny7 wrote: »

Salt (sodium) is essential for life, without it you'd die.

Gimme a break with your nitpicking. A small amount of sodium is required to regulate blood pressure and it can be acquired naturally from a couple of olives or a bit of fish. You don't need a damn vat of Saxa in your cupboard.

dublinbhoy88

Jonny7 wrote: »

It took a very long time to conclusively show that the contents of cigarettes were causing cancer. That's a legal drug with a enormous study set.

When compared, cannabis research is positively minuscule.

We don't know enough yet, that doesn't mean we should accept every study that says cannabis is harmless and reject any study that links it to an increased chance of x y or z. That would just be ridiculous.

Anecdotally, after a decade of smoking weed, the majority of people I know who used to (or still) smoke it view it negatively rather than positively.

I'm not talking about a few puffs at the weekend here (which I think is harmless) I am talking longer-term use.

of course the research is miniscule, because there is nothing there to research, when you smoke weed it reveals yourself to you, that's the only research that's needed..!

studiorat

MonaPizza wrote: »

A small amount of sodium is required to regulate blood pressure and it can be acquired naturally from a couple of olives or a bit of fish.

Ainsley Harriott there wha?

Olive anyone?

dublinbhoy88

MonaPizza wrote: »

Folks I think we can safely say that the authorities who want this banned have an ulterior motive. Massive profits can be made for corporations when the great unwashed masses consume things that are harmful. Billions can be made off sick people by the pharmaceutical and health industry. If people are obese, diabetic, ADHD, hypertense, whatever from consuming utter crap you can wring even more money out of these people who will shell out to try and stay alive. Likewise alcohol and tobacco. Smokers and pissheads will eventually start getting ill and after you've bled them of billions in the taxes they pay for their habit you can squeeze more out of them for liver or cancer treatment.

We shouldn't even be having this discussion about the health effects of weed because the government couldn't give a fcuk. Weed is a cheap, virtually free painkiller that you can grow yourself.....not exactly a popular thing with companies like GlaxoSmithKline, Bayer, Johnson & Johnson, etc. If Joe-Pensioner pays $500 a month for his arthritis prescription do you think Beecham Corporation are going to be thrilled that he can get the same relief for free from the few potted plants he has in the greenhouse alongside his geraniums and tomatoes?

Legalising weed would most probably lead to the legalisation of industrial hemp growing and that would pose another problem for the corporations who manufacture all sorts of materials and fabrics.

So scratch the health debate...it's a non-issue.

spot on.. the anti legalization lobby have obviously vested interests in keeping it illegal plus the sheep who follow along with them

Jonny7

ScumLord wrote: »

That's due to a cover up though isn't it?

They are just normal studies.
http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/cancer-help/about-cancer/cancer-questions/does-smoking-cannabis-cause-cancer

Anecdotally, I hear the exact opposite. The most common complaint I hear is the pricing that's around at the moment. The profit margins on cannabis are going through the roof.

After 10 or 15 years? they don't talk about price because they've all stopped smoking it or are in process of giving it up

ScumLord

Jonny7 wrote: »

After 10 or 15 years? they don't talk about price because they've all stopped smoking it or are in process of giving it up

I'm no spring chicken, most the people I know have been smoking it for at least 10 years. They still smoke cannabis but keep the harder drugs to a minimum and I'm including alcohol in that. To someone 30 plus, a night's drinking is much harder to deal with than a nights smoking.

studiorat

UruGay want's to license consumers of weed. You'll be filling in a register every month on how much you buy.

I wonder would I like smoking that much?

Jonny7

ScumLord wrote: »

I'm no spring chicken, most the people I know have been smoking it for at least 10 years. They still smoke cannabis but keep the harder drugs to a minimum and I'm including alcohol in that. To someone 30 plus, a night's drinking is much harder to deal with than a nights smoking.

We must live in parallel universes so

my mates went from thinking it was the best thing since sliced bread to all eventually trying to kick it

In a twist of irony most still drink and/or smoke fags

UCDVet

I really, really, really don't understand why people care about weed. The biggest risk associated with using weed is getting caught with weed.

I've lived where it was legal. I used it. How did it change my life?

Well, some nights, instead of drinking alcohol, I'd eat some weed brownies.

OH NO!

Having lived around it and seeing how people use legal drugs....it's all a big joke. Really. I can understand someone saying that weed, alcohol and cigarettes should be illegal....but allowing alcohol and/or cigarettes and not weed is hypocritical and, I'd argue dangerous. Of the three, I really believe weed to be the least dangerous and there is a lot of evidence to support that.

I'm a law abiding kind of guy now, so what happened when I couldn't buy weed? Did I go home on Saturday night and read the bible? No. I drank more often.

UCDVet

dublinbhoy88 wrote: »

spot on.. the anti legalization lobby have obviously vested interests in keeping it illegal plus the sheep who follow along with them

And, contrary to the 'eating everything in site' stereotype - weed reduces the risk of obesity.

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/05/study-why-pot-smokers-are-skinnier/275846/

UCDVet

UCDVet wrote: »

And, contrary to the 'eating everything in site' stereotype - weed reduces the risk of obesity.

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/05/study-why-pot-smokers-are-skinnier/275846/

I can vouch for that, I can eat rings around me, and Im still like a lath

Hoop66

srsly78 wrote: »

Nicotine is as dangerous as coffee, ie not very much at all. Go do some reading about e-cigarettes - these have nicotine in them and are not harmful. Nicotine is a mild stimulant, the main problem in the past with it was addiction to smoking - not the nicotine itself.

I'm afraid you're flat out wrong there. Nicotine is a very dangerous drug indeed. I know, I'm addicted to it.

srsly78

Hoop66 wrote: »

I'm afraid you're flat out wrong there. Nicotine is a very dangerous drug indeed. I know, I'm addicted to it.

Me too but you still don't get it. Is smoking e-cigarettes dangerous? NO! Is smoking normal cigarettes dangerous? YES! Both contain nicotine.

Sure you can overdose on pure nicotine, just like you can overdose on pure oxygen or caffeine - not an issue.

Hoop66

srsly78 wrote: »

Me too but you still don't get it. Is smoking e-cigarettes dangerous? NO! Is smoking normal cigarettes dangerous? YES! Both contain nicotine.

Sure you can overdose on pure nicotine, just like you can overdose on pure oxygen or caffeine - not an issue.

Nicotine has effects on the cardiovascular system whether you smoke a cig or puff on an e-cig.

http://jap.physiology.org/content/76/6/2420.abstract

srsly78

Hoop66 wrote: »

Nicotine has effects on the cardiovascular system whether you smoke a cig or puff on an e-cig.

http://jap.physiology.org/content/76/6/2420.abstract

So does coffee, do you consider that dangerous? It really isn't!

Coffee and tobacco are even part of the same plant family (one known as poisons - nightshades).

dublinbhoy88

srsly78 wrote: »

So does coffee, do you consider that dangerous? It really isn't!

Coffee and tobacco are even part of the same plant family (one known as poisons - nightshades).

Lots of things are dangerous, but health has nothing to do with cannabis prohibition

MonaPizza

studiorat wrote: »

UruGay want's to license consumers of weed. You'll be filling in a register every month on how much you buy.

I wonder would I like smoking that much?

Oh boy!
(facepalm)

See what we're dealing with now? Cue Beavis and Butthead "huh huh, huh, huh, huh huh, he said 'gay', huh uh, huh huh..."

Anymore super trinkets like that, studiorat? Come on, make Obama "Obummer" or something.

studiorat

MonaPizza wrote: »

Oh boy!
(facepalm)

See what we're dealing with now? Cue Beavis and Butthead "huh huh, huh, huh, huh huh, he said 'gay', huh uh, huh huh..."

Anymore super trinkets like that, studiorat? Come on, make Obama "Obummer" or something.

Lots of serious young men on thread obviously. Lighten up Mona, You go Uruguay and I’ll go mine!

melted_face

I think that the biggest problem that any legalization of weed would bring would be that it would be far more accessible to minors. It won't matter if it's illegal for under 18s or 21s, they''l still find some way of getting it as can be seen with the huge amount of underage drinkers in this country. At least when weed is illegal, it's MUCH harder (though not impossible) to access it as they probably won't have the requisite contacts (yet).

On the other hand, the main problem with prohibition, I feel, is that the price of it is way too high. 3 grams for 50 euro is considered a very good price (in Kerry anyway). This leads to the need to spare it snd mix it with tobacco. This is incredibly harmful as, often, it is twice the size of a regular cigarette and with no filter, ensuring smokers inhale way more tar than normal fags. There's also things like "2/3 toke pass" which sees people hold in the smoke as long as possible - maximizing the harmful effects. It's also a good way to get addicted to nicotine.

As a regular toker, I would obviously support legalization but I do recognize it's a delicate issue and probably too controversial for our spineless government to consider.