Should Cannabis be Legalised

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

Originally posted by Typedef
No it shouldn't.

In fact I would support prohibition of cigarettes, alochol and of course hash.

Yeah, and ban Castor Troy! By your reasoning we should ban fatty foods, snowboarding, skydiving, disband the police, fire services, in fact any profession that carries an element of mortal risk. Or indeed any product that has the potential for harm- including coffee, TV sets, air travel plans etc. That list isn't even exhaustive and it already sounds ridiculous.

Now in my book the governance of people means the protection of those people,citizens, whatever you want to call them. The government is charged with providing military protection via the army, civil protection via the police force, fire protection and so on. The government must also enact legislation to protect it's citizens.

The same argument can easily be used to justify censorship, the execution (read murder) of convicted criminals, and the imprisonment of those deemed to be publishing "seditious" material. All under the guise of protecting one's citizens, a dangerous line of thinking to take if you wish to live in a free society.

but the emotional and mental health aspects of hash, I would oppose it's decriminalisation.

The reason for the laziness of the cannabis user is that cannabis inhibits the production of seratonin, which is why cannabis users need so much more sleep than most normal people.

Mild seratonin inhibition is nothing to fear by the way- most green teas inhibit seratonin levels more than cannabis. Or do you suggest that we ban jasmine tea too?

If a way could be found such that the side affects of cannabis could be limited to roughly the same time limit as alochol then the substance would not be quite as repellant to me as it is.

Alcohol is considerably more harmful, certainly in the short run, compared to cannabis. Consider the fairly large numbers of youth who use cannabis, and those who use alcohol. Comparing the two, we would find that alcohol influences the decision-making process, makes some violent, others obnoxious, and alcohol-related violence has the potential to kill, and not just from behind a steering wheel. I haven't heard of a single "cannabis-related" crime since I've been in the UK, a sobering thought if you're comparing the effects of the two.

Cannabis is nicknamed dope specifically because of the fact that if we take the consumption of €7.50 worth of resin (as opposed to unprocessed grass or hash oil), the user will seem slower, and not as quick to understand or interact with people as before it's consumption even long after the high has worn off from the drug, sometimes for two or three days after consumption a user can seem, stupid, though not actually stoned anymore. This is why the drug is called dope.

That's not the reason at all- it's called dope because for a few hours after use it dulls peripheral nervous sensation. Not something I would equate with a dysfunctional human being- the assertion that it makes people "stupid" is absurd as well. Would you call Rimbaud stupid? Or Verlaine? How about Descartes or Euler for that matter? Poets, philosophers, mathematicians, brilliant in their own right, and all heavy users of cannabis. Some might argue that THC helps relieve restrictions on creative aspects of human behavior, not harm the process of thought. The reality is that there is no real detriment to mental health, nor are there significant mental health benefits- it does however, dull perhipheral sensation well enough to be used medically, or as a health food. Hardly grounds for banning.

Like I say, right now, cannabis is too potent and it's side effects last too long, aside from being a cause of cancer.

I would suggest a thorough reading of relevant studies into the long-term effects of cannabis

Thus as I believe that society actually should try to discourage people from doing stupidly dangerous things to themselves as a rule of thumb, I don't believe that cannabis should be legalised.

The state should never make our lifestyle choices for us, or if they should, why not just programme our personalities too? Individuality is easily sacrificed when the choices that shape us as human beings are taken out of our hands and vested in a governing body.

Originally posted by Sand
Let doctors treat them - I just find it objectionable taxpayers have to pay for an *extremely* moronic group of people. Much as say pro-lifers in Texas might be upset their taxes go to kill death row inmates. But how and ever - guess we should all just get with the program.

You might find it less objectionable if you thought about it for a moment. You'd then realize that a paltry percentage of your taxes devoted to healthcare go to treating narcotic addiction. Or indeed any harmful substance- a sum a hundred times as large goes towards treating the victims of unhealthy eating/living/lack of exercise. Why isn't that moronic behavior to you Sand? It isn't brought on by a moment of madness, nor is it enforced by physical addiction. A momentary idiotic decision compared with day upon day upon day of moronic behavior- and the every-day moron gets the care according to you. As I said, if you're going to implement distasteful and amoral policies, you at the very least need to be consistent with their subject content.

Unless of course, you're arguing that ignorance is an acceptable defence for moronic behavior :rolleyes: Which brings me back to jc's point- I fail to see how I am any less informed about healthy eating than I am about drug abuse. In fact, given the severity of the tax burden, I would imagine we are, or at least should be more informed about eating more wholesome foodstuffs and exercising more. As for those pro-lifers in Texas, they might be considerably more upset if they thought about not how their taxes are going towards murdering criminals, but what a huge proportion of their taxes are going into national defence. And in particular, that money's purpose in putting American lives unnecessarily at risk far away on foreign shores.

The only reason we're running around in circles here Sand, is because you're failing to address a pair of fairly basic, commonsense questions.

1) DeV's question- Where do you draw the line in terms of who is given access to treatment and who is turned away?

2) jc's question: If your answer to DeV's question is "the moronic", who decides who those people are?

The conclusion that all three of us have come to is that you treat everyone- I can't speak for the other two gentlemen on this thread, but personally I'm glad you don't decide who lives and who dies Sand.

Occy

DeVore

Sand, I'm waiting for an answer to my discussion with you.

Awwww, come on, stay and play!

DeV.

Clintons Cat

to be honest i really dont think canibis will be legalised by this generation of politicians,as social conditioning is far more persuasive than personal experience when it comes to formulating political policy.For example only last week the tory party "announced" its first "openly" gay member of parlaiment.This was seen as a major step in "modernising" the party,i mean ffs UK politicians just dont live in the same world as the rest of us and seem to communicate with the rest of us via its proxies in the daily mail.
Anyways my point is that for generations the political othodoxy has held that canibis=the first step to hard drugs and subversion and it will take more than infinate personal testimony that that isnt necessarily the case to change the doctrine.

However i welcome Blunkets relaxation of the laws on canabis but i feel more clarification and direction is necessary,for example its still an imprisonable offence to grow your own.

Corega

I voted yes for reasons I have already stated in this thread.

Typedef

Originally posted by DeVore
Jesus Typedef, thank jaysis you arent in power.

I dont need you or my government telling me whats too dangerous for little old me to try.

Would you stop me snowboarding? (an activity with far greater inherent risk then smoking a joint).

Devore there is no connection between snowboarding and hashish, nor wearing a helment on a bicycle and cigarettes, one does not justify the other.

Besides yes, 'if' snowboarding were shown to increase your likelyhood of getting a carcenogenic tumour in the dendrites of your lungs, it'd be pretty irresponsible not to try and stop you doing something like that.

Society trys to stop people comitting suicide and the pseudo liberal mantra of (it's my body, I'll do what I damn well want) just doesn't pertain to suicide, but somehow does to ingesting carcenogenic substances?

Hmm, good thing logic plays no part in prole feed administration.

Bonkey.

Call it urban legend if you will. The term 'dope' is applied to long term illicate substance abusers especially those who abuse THC, because abusers of THC seem to be stoic with a real aloof slowness about how they are disjointed from reality, stupid, is what I mean, THC abusers seem stupid, long after the high itself has worn off.

This stupidity can last for a long time in someone who has abused THC over a period of years.

So yes without arguing the etymology of the word dope, I think it reasonably endemnafies the condition people would ascribe to long term THC abusers.

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

Originally posted by Typedef


Devore there is no connection between snowboarding and hashish, nor wearing a helment on a bicycle and cigarettes, one does not justify the other.

Yes there is a very certain connection- they both carry an element of mortal risk. In fact, one might argue legitimately that in the former cases, the threat is far more immediate and carries the possibility of serious physical harm.

Besides yes, 'if' snowboarding were shown to increase your likelyhood of getting a carcenogenic tumour in the dendrites of your lungs, it'd be pretty irresponsible not to try and stop you doing something like that.

Now you're being farcical- suppose I told you that snowboarding increased the chances dramatically that you would be paralyzed hmm? Or that you would break a limb, permanent spinal cord/brain damage in the mix as well? That's a risk you accept in pursuing that activity. How about driving Typedef? It pollutes heavily, uses up precious fossil fuels, belches out lead and carcinogens in greater quantities than a cigarette which EVERYONE breathes....and on top of that, how many people were killed in car-crashes last year? Should the government ban automobile transport? After all, public transport does exist!

Society trys to stop people comitting suicide and the pseudo liberal mantra of (it's my body, I'll do what I damn well want) just doesn't pertain to suicide, but somehow does to ingesting carcenogenic substances?

On a pedantic note, they aren't ingested, though we ingest enough carcinogens to give most of us bowel cancer anyway. Consumption of fatty foods has been strongly linked to bowel cancer as well- ban that too? There's no getting away from some of the risks we take, we should be allowed to choose them to a great extent, or we sacrifice a large slice of personal freedom.

Hmm, good thing logic plays no part in prole feed administration.

Bonkey.

Call it urban legend if you will. The term 'dope' is applied to long term illicate substance abusers especially those who abuse THC, because abusers of THC seem to be stoic with a real aloof slowness about how they are disjointed from reality, stupid, is what I mean, THC abusers seem stupid, long after the high itself has worn off.

Alter national policy for an urban legend? That's the most ridiculous thing I've heard...perhaps we should advise our police units based on urban legends too?

This stupidity can last for a long time in someone who has abused THC over a period of years.

I would argue that stupidity is an internal factor- this thread is a good example in places :P

So yes without arguing the etymology of the word dope, I think it reasonably endemnafies the condition people would ascribe to long term THC abusers.

And of course you have scientific evidence to back up this ludicrous assertion? Didn't think so.

Occy

bonkey

Originally posted by Typedef
The term 'dope' is applied to long term illicate substance abusers

Originally posted by Typedef
Cannabis is nicknamed dope specifically because of the fact that

Make up your mind.

The term "dope" is, to the best of my knowledge, almost exclusively applied to the substance. Because THC has a mind-altering effect, it is simple to derive "dope head".

Your claim is that dope - the substance - has somehow been transferred in meaning from user to substance (a dope ..... someone taking dope). I cant think of any slang terms which have managed similar transference.

The other claim is that dope is named because of some (even tenuous)similarity between cannabis resin and "dope" (original meaning - thick liquid thing). In this case, I can think of several slang terms which have similar origins .

Regardless of whether you accept this or not...at least keep it consistent. Its the substance or the user. Its more credible that way

jc

Typedef

Umm Occy

http://www.personalhealthzone.com/marijuanasideeffects.html

Effects of Marijuana on the Brain

Researchers have found that THC changes the way in which sensory information gets into and is processed by the hippocampus. The hippocampus is a component of the brain's limbic system that is crucial for learning, memory, and the integration of sensory experiences with emotions and motivations. Investigations have shown that neurons in the information processing system of the hippocampus and the activity of the nerve fibers in this region are suppressed by THC. In addition, researchers have discovered that learned behaviors, which depend on the hippocampus, also deteriorate via this mechanism.

Recent research findings also indicate that long-term use of marijuana produces changes in the brain similar to those seen after long-term use of other major drugs of abuse.

In effect THC consumption inhibits the learning process and even had detrimental effect on it (ie) brain damage (like much of the pro-marijuana lobby). So you may not call the deterioration of the process of being able to learn as becoming stupid, but I would.

Thanks for trolling. :P.

Dope... the word is interchangeable for the substance and the substance user kind of like drunk and drink, except not as differentiated.

deco

You can look up any number of websites and sudies to support either arguement...

But Type you really are a seriously right wing puritian...

I think you could benifit from a spliff...:D

Ajnag

typedef that silly website of yours use's evidense of the discredited american govt nida, whos evidense has been refuted scientificly time and time again.

funny how the lancet journal a world accedited medical journal came out in favour of cannabis.

funny how studies at Harvard came out in favour of cannabis.

funny how the new england journal of medicine once again came out in favour of guess what - thats right cannabis.


the nida are the so-called scientists who suffocated rhesus monkeys and then blamed brain damage on cannabis.they were sued by norml the american legalisation group.

http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v02/n763/a06.html?1117 another example of politics infringing on science.


<flame> and if you wish to call me a ffin idiot, then please on what basis, in fact how come, the regular users of cannabis i know have good jobs, are earning better qualifications.

on what basis, your the one trolling.care to actually research what you say then using the non-scientific evidense of the shamed gabrial nassir.

you come along calling people stupid, and posting one reference, and you havent even discredited my previous links.


Sir! for want of better words, you are talking out of you arse</flame>

deco

Here here

Ajnag

Typedep as mod of green issues, would i be right in assuming that any attempt to supress clean energy by oil corps such as enron would disgust you.would i be right that such cynicaly attempts to profit out of the destruction of the eviroment would cause much pain.

the methodology of science is something that probably concerns us both abeit in different areas of intrest.

would you trust the scientists of oil corporations, i doubt it.

as such you should read the following article.

What the WHO doesn't want you to know about cannabis

Health officials in Geneva have suppressed the publication of a politically sensitive analysis that confirms what ageing hippies have known for decades: cannabis is safer than alcohol or tobacco.

According to a document leaked to New Scientist, the analysis concludes not only that the amount of dope smoked worldwide does less harm to public health than drink and cigarettes, but that the same is likely to hold true even if people consumed dope on the same scale as these legal substances.

The comparison was due to appear in a report on the harmful effects of cannabis published last December by the WHO. But it was ditched at the last minute following a long and intense dispute between WHO officials, the cannabis experts who drafted the report and a group of external advisers.


As the WHO's first report on cannabis for 15 years, the document had been eagerly awaited by doctors and specialists in drug abuse. The official explanation for excluding the comparison of dope with legal substances is that "the reliability and public health significance of such comparisons are doubtful". However, insiders say the comparison was scientifically sound and that the WHO caved in to political pressure. It is understood that advisers from the US National Institute on Drug Abuse and the UN International Drug Control Programme warned the WHO that it would play into the hands of groups campaigning to legalise marijuana.

One member of the expert panel which drafted the report, says: "In the eyes of some, any such comparison is tantamount to an argument for marijuana legalisation." Another member, Billy Martin of the Medical College of Virginia in Richmond, says that some WHO officials "went nuts" when they saw the draft report.

The leaked version of the excluded section states that the reason for making the comparisons was "not to promote one drug over another but rather to minimise the double standards that have operated in appraising the health effects of cannabis". Nevertheless, in most of the comparisons it makes between cannabis and alcohol, the illegal drug comes out better--or at least on a par--with the legal one.

The report concludes, for example, that "in developed societies cannabis appears to play little role in injuries caused by violence, as does alcohol". It also says that while the evidence for fetal alcohol syndrome is "good", the evidence that cannabis can harm fetal development is "far from conclusive".

Cannabis also fared better in five out of seven comparisons of long-term damage to health. For example, the report says that while heavy consumption of either drug can lead to dependence, only alcohol produces a "well defined withdrawal syndrome". And while heavy drinking leads to cirrhosis, severe brain injury and a much increased risk of accidents and suicide, the report concludes that there is only "suggestive evidence that chronic cannabis use may produce subtle defects in cognitive functioning".

Two comparisons were more equivocal. The report says that both heavy drinking and marijuana smoking can produce symptoms of psychosis in susceptible people. And, it says, there is evidence that chronic cannabis smoking "may be a contributory cause of cancers of the aerodigestive tract".

From New Scientist, 21 February 1998


Please note the position of the N.I.D.A your chosen source for information on cannabis.

Might as well take health advise from the tobbaco industry.

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

Ah the NIDA...bastion of scientific foolishness in the good old US of A. Anyone remember the propalizine scandal? Thought you might- that was the time the NIDA swore blind that the drug had no harmful side effects and was in fact, a bona fide fertility drug. Tell that to the hundreds of deformed babies. A federal judge from the 9th Appeals circuit concurred, and upheld damages in excess of $200 million dollars, payable by the FDA for NIDA's misappropriated study. There's little doubt that political pressure from the pharmaceutical lobby, particularly Valton and Pfizer had something to do with this "study". An unbiased study would have seriously hurt 3rd-quarter profits, a greater short-term consequence than birth defects in hundreds of trusting families.

If there's any doubt left that NIDA's political motivation compromises public interest, look no further than their 1999 report advocating the death penalty for the possession of >2 lbs of cannabis. They're a bunch of right-wing cronies, sworn to uphold the well-being of the pharmaceuticals market, and God help any study that attempts to draft competition into the analgesic/painkilling profit margin register. I'm suprised the SEC haven't blown the whistle...but then again, they failed to spot Enron, so it's hardly suprising they fail to act against a federal body with similar irregularities of moral character.

Occy

deco

Disturbingly short post Occy...will this be the beginng of a new you?:D

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

Don't count on it.


DOH!


Occy