Impressed Holy shit, America in forward thinking shocker

[MYstIC G]

So just carry on with prohibition then? Which has clearly worked sooo well. The "War On Drugs" has cost the US over 1 trillion dollars since the eighties, and for what? More people take drugs than ever, and the Americans have more people imprisoned on drug offences than any other nation on Earth (they have more people imprisoned anyway, but drugs drive the numbers), so the poor aren't exactly doing well out of current policy. Better to try something, anything else, than to continue to piss money and lives away on a failed strategy.

Didn't say that did I. Good old FreddysHouseism, what you did not say is what you said. I'm not saying that I've got the solution but pushing forward that it is a good idea to start building a future where we fund essential services out of peoples inabilities to do without substances of a certain ilk, alcohol/booze/weed, is morally reprehensible. Oh look, you're a bit weak, so lets bleed you fucking dry because you won't be able to do fuck all about it and hey, just remember it's all so little jimmy can have an iPad in his new school made out of glass and steel... fuck off.

 

[DaGaffer]

Didn't say that did I. Good old FreddysHouseism, what you did not say is what you said. I'm not saying that I've got the solution but pushing forward that it is a good idea to start building a future where we fund essential services out of peoples inabilities to do without substances of a certain ilk, alcohol/booze/weed, is morally reprehensible. Oh look, you're a bit weak, so lets bleed you fucking dry because you won't be able to do fuck all about it and hey, just remember it's all so little jimmy can have an iPad in his new school made out of glass and steel... fuck off.

Except we do that already. Booze, fags, the fucking lottery is effectively a tax on the poor. I don't see why this is any more "morally reprehensible" than those things, and I don't really see why they're morally reprehensible either. Surely its better to use the money from, shall we say, "the socially ambiguous" to fund something positive, like education, rather than spend it on new weapons for the FBI and the narco-police?

 

[Raven]

For many people it is not a problem though, I like a joint now and again (Though I haven't had one in a couple of years now) why shouldn't I be able to in the comfort of my own home? How is the action of having a joint a weakness? I know the Mail and politicians like to paint a picture of a weed smoker as some kind of fiend. It is simply not true though. Loads of people from all walks of life enjoy a bit of weed now and again.

Out of interest, do you drink alcohol?

 

[Bodhi]

Didn't say that did I. Good old FreddysHouseism, what you did not say is what you said. I'm not saying that I've got the solution but pushing forward that it is a good idea to start building a future where we fund essential services out of peoples inabilities to do without substances of a certain ilk, alcohol/booze/weed, is morally reprehensible. Oh look, you're a bit weak, so lets bleed you fucking dry because you won't be able to do fuck all about it and hey, just remember it's all so little jimmy can have an iPad in his new school made out of glass and steel... fuck off.

People will smoke weed whatever though, as it's a nice way to relax that causes very little harm, enhances all sorts of day to day activities from food to sex, and helps massively with stuff like IBS and insomnia.

Bearing this in mind, would you rather my weed money went on stuff for new schools, or so my dealer can get a new pair of trainers?

Morally I have more.of an issue with people dictating what I can and can't put into my body than schools being paid for by a commodity.

 

[Scouse]

I know from first hand experience that weed isn't harmless for everyone. It would need to be highly regulated and skunk shouldn't be legal.

It's the person tho, not the substance.

 

[Olgaline]

Cigarettes are also harmful, and so is alcohol.
I'm all for legalising marijuana/weed/Hash/ganja bla bla bla.
But saying it isnt harmfull, or adictive is - I'm sorry but - kinda very dumb, and really very stupid

Don't forget adiction can be many things - example gamblling and gaming.

 

[Raven]

It is not chemically addictive though. You could argue TV or burgers are addictive. Most things are addictive in one way or another but that does not necessarily mean they are a bad thing.

 

[Scouse]

But saying it isnt harmfull, or adictive is - I'm sorry but - kinda very dumb, and really very stupid

Completely disagree.

I said weed isn't physically addictive. Aside from my first-hand experience, medical science backs me up.

As for addictive in different ways - I completely accept that. But then I stand by what I said above - that's down to the person and how they deal with things, not the substance itself.


For instance, for a period of about 3 years I smoked more weed than most people smoke in their lifetime. It's not a good mix for my personality type, at all. But there's nothing wrong with the weed itself - it was me that was the problem.

However, I can drink happily and in moderation and have no problem with that drug of choice. My alcoholic mate can't though. He's fucked and needs to stop - but alcohol is physically addictive. He really struggles off alcohol, whereas it took me all of two seconds to give up weed - a simple mental decision - and I've not missed it for a second since.


Be responsible for what you put in your own body - don't try to legislate for anyone else's. If you are scared of weed - don't do it. But leave everyone else to make their own decisions with their own lives.

 

[Olgaline]

It is not chemically addictive though. You could argue TV or burgers are addictive. Most things are addictive in one way or another but that does not necessarily mean they are a bad thing.

This guy would disagree:

He wrote this book on the matter:

And,
Most addictive behavior is not related to either physical tolerance or exposure to cues.
People compulsively use drugs, gamble, or shop nearly always in reaction to being emotionally stressed, whether or not they have a physical addiction.

Since these psychologically based addictions are not based on drug or brain effects, they can account for why people frequently switch addictive actions from one drug
to a completely different kind of drug, or even to a non-drug behavior like gaming. The focus of the addiction isn't what matters; it's the need to take action under certain kinds of stress.

 

[Aoami]

Thing is - suggest prohabition in the 1920s USA stuck and spread and Alcohol was illegal now, do you think it would be legalised? Personally, I don't, which is why i don't buy that "well booze and fags are legal" argument. Fags certainly wouldn't be legalised if they were discovered tomorrow.

 

[Chilly]

I know several people who smoke daily and have tried to give up and failed. Saying it's not addictive is complete and utter tosh. Just because it's not heroin doesnt mean it's not addictive. Addiction is an extremely complex issue that combines many different mechanisms in the brain and body.

WASHING is addictive, because if you dont wash you feel like you need to. Addiction is a central part of human nature and is vital to the normal functioning of people and society.

 

[Olgaline]

medical science backs me up.

Not quite,
The fact that most users never develop an addiction doesn't mean that it never happens.
Some marijuana users will exhibit all the classic behaviors of someone who has an addiction.

And aside from the whole addiction question you have issues like risk of severe impact on one’s lungs (when smoked), cancer,
increasingly poor memory and mental aptitude, Anxiety, risk of weed induced psychosis, insomnia, mood swings etc etc etc... ...


Again, I'm all for it, but at least be smart enough to aknowlage the dangers associated with the substance.

 

[TdC]

I know several people who smoke daily and have tried to give up and failed.

Tbh if I measure the top <blah> things I quit that caused me difficulty, stopping drinking Coca-Cola and stopping smoking cigarettes take the top two places. Stopping doing the weed was literally -like Scouse said- a question of not doing it any more. I found that I did miss the social environment of the coffee shop though. Still, even living in the NL where the availability and accessibility of it trumps just about every other place I ever have been, it was not a problem for me.

 

[Bigmac]

Weed can be addictive. I know someone who has been on weed all his life and he's more or less a vegetable now, he doesn't work, doesn't hang about with his friends any more, his mind has gone to mush and he's paranoid that the NSA etc are after him. Just because you can stop at any time doesn't mean everyone else can.

Personally I hope it never becomes legalised, I don't want to smell that shit everywhere I go. Smoking was bad enough inside pubs.

 

[rynnor]

Completely disagree.

I said weed isn't physically addictive. Aside from my first-hand experience, medical science backs me up.

I knew guys at uni who were completely addicted to weed - had to have it at least once a day and really messed themselves up quite badly in the end.

The other big problem with weed is the schizophrenia - its particularly harmful in adolescents.

 

[soze]

I am for this in the UK. Take a big dent out of organized crime and regulate it as well as taxing it. It is pretty much legal now the Police officers I know seemingly still ignore personal use weed. With the amount of work involved in prosecuting a crime and the fact no one will get time for a few joints keeping it illegal is a pointless endeavor.

 

[rynnor]

There's a difference between saying we cant win the war on drugs and then saying so we should legalise it.

Anyway in the not too distant future we can win the war on drugs...

 

[Scouse]

I knew guys at uni who were completely addicted to weed - had to have it at least once a day and really messed themselves up quite badly in the end.

Could have gone that way myself. But quit. Not physically addictive. At all.

I knew (and still know) some big-ass stoners. It's the pull of the baccy that draws them back to the weed. The only hard thing about coming off weed is that it makes it OK to be bored (and lowers your quality bar - you'll watch any old shit and think it's good).

If your life is shit (which it is for people who aren't good on weed - like Job said, you just want to stay in and smoke rather than go out) - then weed makes you feel like it's OK again. What those blokes need is hobbies - they need to get off their arses and go out and make a proper life for themselves rather than sit about all day alleviating their boredom with a drug.

Harder said than done getting out on a bike (for example) when you could just stay in and get stoned. But again, that's not a physical addiction to a drug - it's a mental problem that exists in them (and me).

The other big problem with weed is the schizophrenia - its particularly harmful in adolescents.

Evidence on adults is inconclusive. It doesn't say whether it's causal or whether people with mental illness seek the drug out because it gives them relief from their symptoms (which is what I find (despite the inconclusive evidence) the much more plausible explanation because it's not hard to imagine wanting to escape from the horrors of mental illness if all it takes to make you feel much better is to smoke a joint).

The evidence on children is similar to that of alcohol - anything behaviour-modifying being used regularly on a developing brain probably isn't the best - and the brain doesn't stop developing until the early to mid twenties really. But that goes for alcohol, coke, heroin, all the other drugs - but again without physical withdrawal symptoms.

@Olgaline - yep, some weed users exhibit all the classic behaviours of addiction. But I'll say again - it's not physical. Not a single person suffers from physical withdrawal symptoms.

Mental? Yes. Of course - for exactly the reasons discussed above. But, again, that's down to the "weakness" or "imbalance" in the user not the drug itself.

The evidence is clear on that Olga. The millions of people who use it with no ill effects whatsoever are testament to that it's not the drug itself that's inherently dangerous. Yes, it's smoked with tobacco - and smoking anything is going to be bad for your lungs. But if it was legalised it won't be long before someone came up with a "pure THC pill" - gets you stoned without you having to smoke it. Or people could simply start baking more hash cakes - which, unless you're gonna complain about the very real health effects of sugar and chocolate, solves that one very nicely

 

[Scouse]

Anyway in the not too distant future we can win the war on drugs...

Maybe the question should be: Why would you want to?

What the fuck is wrong with doing what humans have been wanting to do for a long long time? Drug use is almost as ubiquitous as sex amongst humans and has been throughout history.

It's a ridiculous moral outrage issue that shouldn't exist. We should be looking at ways of making them safer to take - not ways of stopping normal and extremely pleasurable behaviour happening.

 

[soze]

There's a difference between saying we cant win the war on drugs and then saying so we should legalise it.

Anyway in the not too distant future we can win the war on drugs...

The war on drugs will never be won unless @Scouse gets his way and the whole world becomes one nation with one police force and wealth spread evenly between everyone. While there is poverty people will take drugs. While there is corruption Countries will look the other way while they are produced and exported. The War on Drugs was never meant to be won it is another form of population control.

 

[DaGaffer]

There's a difference between saying we cant win the war on drugs and then saying so we should legalise it. Anyway in the not too distant future we can win the war on drugs...

Really? How?

 

[ileks]

But if it was legalised it won't be long before someone came up with a "pure THC pill" - gets you stoned without you having to smoke it.

They already exist. They take ages to take effect though.

 

[Olgaline]

Stuff

Mate I get that you're all for it, and it seems it's something close to your heart.
But saying stuff like:

Not a single person suffers from physical withdrawal symptoms.

is kinda fucked up.

It seems to me that you'ed have us believe that Weed is harless? it isn't! Not even close.
As I mentioned in my last post. Please be smart enough to recognize the dangers of a drug, any drug.
It really is quite important in any attempt at having a controlled use.

But neither is alcohol and that is for the most part a legal drug. That doesn't mean it doesn't come with it's very own set of dangers and benefits.
Also does it matter if they are physical or "only" psychological? I'm sure we'ed agree that withdrawal = withdrawal, right?

 

[Scouse]

While there is poverty people will take drugs

Well, you clearly know that's shit.

Poverty and drug use do not go hand in hand. Humans and drug use do. Plenty of rich people are habitual drug users, casual drug users, absolutely fine and happy drug users and fucked and broken drug users.

It seems to me that you'ed have us believe that Weed is harmless?

Nope. Not said that once - I couldn't be clearer.

Weed (it's active component) THC has no, zero, physical side effects.

Psychological? Loads. Yep. Based on the type of person you are.

 

[Olgaline]

Weed has no physical side effects.

"Effects on the Heart
Within a few minutes after smoking marijuana, the heart begins beating more rapidly and the blood pressure drops. Marijuana can cause the heart beat to increase
by 20 to 50 beats per minute, and can increase even more if other drugs are used at the same time.Because of the lower blood pressure and higher heart rate,
researchers found that users' risk for a heart attack is four times higher within the first hour after smoking marijuana, compared to their general risk of heart attack when not smoking."

"The harmful effects of smoking marijuana should not be ignored. Marijuana contains more carcinogenic hydrocarbons than tobacco smoke and because marijuana smokers typically inhale deeper
and hold the smoke in their lungs longer than tobacco smokers, their lungs are exposed to those carcinogenic properties longer, when smoking.

Because marijuana smoke contains three times the amount of tar found in tobacco smoke and 50 percent more carcinogens,
it would seem logical to deduce that there is an increased risk of lung cancer for marijuana smokers"

"Research indicates that THC impairs the body's immune system from fighting disease, which can cause a wide variety of health problems."

"Research has shown that THC changes the way in which sensory information is transmitted to the brain and the way that the hippocampus acts upon the information. The hippocampus is a component of the limbic system that is critical for learning, memory and the integration of emotions, motivations and sensory experiences. THC has been shown to suppress the neurons involved in information processing by the hippocampus, and it has also been shown that learned behaviors (which depend on the hippocampus to “stick” in the brain) also deteriorate."

"Marijuana can also affect parts of the brain responsible for sex and growth hormones. In men, marijuana can decrease testosterone, cause enlarged breasts and lead to a decrease in sperm count and infertility"


Yup,
No physical side effects, none, nada

Be smart!

 

[Scouse]

No physical side effects, none, nada

Be smart!

I said it wasn't physically addictive. Still not seen anything to counter that, ever. I never once said it was harmless.

• Your heart rate after exercise is massively increased. Risk of heart attack goes up.
• Smoking anything is bad for you (I already made the point that it is and that legalising will lead to cakes and pills - and maybe inhalers).
• THC may have a short term effect on the immune system, but has positive effects elsewhere (relief of pain for example).
• THC impairs memory formation - just like alcohol.

Jeesus @Olgaline - do you want to live in a world where people are completely barred from mild short-term adverse affects? Why not ban sugar? Why not make exercise mandatory?

Face it - people take drugs, people have always taken drugs. Caffine is a drug. Alcohol is a drug. In terms of harm THC is miles less harmful than alcohol. Says the science.

Thankfully the argument is already won and legalisation will gradually be rolled out.

 

[Olgaline]

Are you high? right now?

I couldn't be clearer. Weed has no, zero, physical side effects.

I'm all for legalising marijuana.

"Research has shown the overall addiction potential for cannabis to be less than for caffeine, tobacco, alcohol, cocaine or heroin, but slightly higher than that for psilocybin, mescaline, LSD.[

"Dependence on cannabis is more common amongst heavy users. Marijuana use can lead to increased tolerance and withdrawal symptoms when trying to stop. Prolonged marijuana use produces both pharmacokinetic changes (how the drug is absorbed, distributed, metabolized, and excreted) and pharmacodynamic changes (how the drug interacts with target cells) to the body. These changes require the user to consume higher doses of the drug to achieve a common desirable effect (known as a higher tolerance), and reinforce the body's metabolic systems for synthesizing and eliminating the drug more efficiently.

Cannabis users can develop tolerance to the effects of THC. Tolerance to the behavioral and psychological effects of THC has been demonstrated in adolescent humans and animals.The mechanisms that create this tolerance to THC are thought to involve changes in cannabinoid receptor function"

 

[Olgaline]

Cannabis is made up of over 400 cannabinoids, THC is one of them.
are you familiar with the risk and effects of the remaining 399?

 

[Yoni]

Having lost a few years and actually have very little memory of some days / weeks due to cannabis, I think this is a really shite idea.

It was not difficult to give up this was certain however I didn't want to for a very longtime because it made all my problems go away...... Now if I don't sound like an addict in that statement then my understanding of addiction is severely floored. In retrospect I can compare how I felt with how I feel after a drink or a cigarette.

I don't drink habitually however for a while I feel a little carefree but mostly very aware of my actions. Smoking a cigarette is habitual a short term fix to an emotional situation. Weed however just made everything go away and the experienced was enhanced w/o tobacco. Everything was enhanced sex, food, silliness.... The reaction I had to weed was just awesome and because of that I don't allow myself to go near the stuff and I don't want to be in a social situation where other people are smoking around me, I would have to leave.

It's weird whilst I lived in NL I didn't touch the stuff and I didn't know anyone who smoked.... When I talked to colleagues about it, it was completely dismissed as not something that is done by 'professionals' although I could see that the coffee shop next to my local station was usually quite full....

 

[DaGaffer]

Any drug use will result in casualties. The question is simply whether the cost to society of a few more lost souls (who, let's be honest would probably be lost to something anyway) is higher than the cost to society of fighting an unwinnable and absurdly costly "war". A century ago cocaine was legal and people had it with their cornflakes, society didn't end. Nearly a century ago America banned the most social drug of all and society nearly did end (the prison population increased by nearly 400% during prohibition), and yet the general public never seem to make the connection that prohibition creates markets for the unscrupulous, and I don't just mean the criminals. Banning stuff never stops people getting hold of their drug of choice (and may in fact make it seem more attractive) and makes money for those who sell it and money for those who provide the tools to try and stop it.