GingerBeerMan
3-0
- Dec 29, 2011
- 8,024
Resident pedant starts again. If you spent half as much time doing learning a skill as you do arguing on NSC you'd bloody good at it.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
I am changing my vote to the Libs
- Thread starter The Birdman
- Start date
Resident pedant starts again. If you spent half as much time doing learning a skill as you do arguing on NSC you'd bloody good at it.
dingodan
New member
- Feb 16, 2011
- 10,080
If Heroin was legal, I guess you would have had a lot more of that too?
Should you be free to **** up your life using alcohol? Or should someone who knows better than you save you from yourself?
Out of interest, what do you see as being the main dangers from Cannabis (for a fully grown adult)?
- Jan 3, 2012
- 16,582
Is Notters implying that GT49er is dismissing the LibDem manifesto without knowing it inside out? Surely such blind prejudice does not exist on the doyen of all football club chat fora.
Am I not supposed to post on this thread?
true. Same applies to how most of us spend our spare time I imagine.You're not good at guessing. I know that heroin is extremely bad for your health, so I won't take it. I don't think small use of canabis is very bad for you (I don't really know) and I've had it a few times. If it was available everywhere totally legal, I'd definitely have had it a lot more. That's fairly common I'm sure.
I'm confident that I can have a glass or two (of wine, beer or whisky) a few days a week , and it never cause me any ill health. Millions of people are able to enjoy alcohol like that, without risk to their health, so banning it would seem unnecessary. I don't think the same is true of cannabis, I don't know. Obviously less is known about the long term affects of cannabis compared to alcohol.
My main concern is the long term affect it can have on your mental health.
I suppose, as a pharmacologist (who has published research on cannabinoids) I probably ought to add to this thread . . . . .
Although. . . I am frankly baffled by current trends. Most of the research on cannabinoids has been, and is done on the pure chemicals (which includes delta9THC, and other less well known substances such as anandamide, cannabidiol etc). But the legalization issue concerns weed, which is smoked. The amount of research on the respiratory health effects of smoked weed is limited and largely retrospective cohort study stuff (which is not massively more rigorous than consulting a horoscope). However I know no examples of natural products that are proven safe to smoke.
Regarding psychoactive effects, someone sneered at the risk (earlier in the thread). However there is good anecdotal evidence that psychosis is a risk in subgroups of smokers (I will come back to that later).
And lets face it, the main reason it was illegalized in the first place is the proles don't work very hard when they have been toofing, and that's bad for the empire. The point being, it is strongly psychotropic. I know that for some people, the giggles etc don't happen, but these folk very often do get the paranoia (an old mate of mine was a classic example.... "go on, tell us, why are you laughing" . . . which just made us laugh even more). Booze does not do this. Booze is an anaesthetic, however, so you can drink yourself unconscious whereas cannabis can at best hlp you sleep.
So the assertions that it is harmless and low risk versus other legal things is really unsustainable, and is certainly unproven. That doesn't mean there are massive hiden dangers, simply that it the dangers are uncertain. However, the trend wordwide is definitely towards legalization. It seems that the voices of the proponents are being heard. I was back in Vancouver a year ago and, during daytime, if you stroll along Granville street you will be walking through clouds of weed smoke. The City has loads of Cannabis stores, albeit none were yet open when I was there (they were all set up ready for further law change). A mate of mine has set up a company to develop cannabis for quasi medical purposes, and there is a lot of venture capital and indeed favourable laws (in Canada and the US) to pursue this.
The bottom line is that cannabis WILL become legal here. it may take another 10 years but it will happen - unless new research proves disputed dangers to be real. The latter will not happen because the only way to get data is to dredge health statistics (an experiment is impossible) and given how long it took Richard Doll to persuade us about the danger of ciggies, there is absolutely no chance of indisputable data emerging that smoking weed is more dangerous than tobacco, or less dangerous.
Am I bovvered? I am not sure. I was a heavy smoker back in my student days. Me and my flatmates smoked literally every evening, after food and writing up our labwork. We all got upper second class degrees (which is good, and enough to guarantee a PhD place, for those unfamiliar with the degree grading system). We all have well paid jobs. (Incidentally, the 4 lads in the flat below us were all boozers (we drank very little). They all got lower second class degrees.). On the other hand, folk who smoke during the day seem somehow quite deviant to me. On a par with having a large G and T at breakfast.
The psychosis that we have all read about probably occurs only in those genetically at risk. It seems to be most prevalent in certain populations (populations who seem to have a higher than average rate of spontaneous psychosis among older adolescents and young adults). So cannabis may simply be speeding up a process that would have happened anyway. Or it may be coincidence. Again, I doubt that it is feasible to conduct proper research into this.
I have to say that old quotes from the likes of Les Iverson are absolutely valueless in the current era. The trend, as I say, is for global decriminalisation. Like others I am concerned about the 'normalization' of something that may be dangerous (smoking a natural product that has thousands of chemicals in in - like tobacco), but like others I regard tobacco and booze as dangerous (not more or less dangerous than cannabis - all depends how much you use) yet indesputably legal, which is, I suspect the key issue, so it will be increasingly difficult to turn the tide. Especially if there is money to be made, and from what I saw in Vancouver, there is a massive new enterprise about to roll itself out.
Thus, the Libdems may have decided to ride a winner here. That said, old tortoise-head, our born-again Christian, recent convert to gay-ism, and all round utterly credibility-free tit, liberal leader, is unlikely to make much hay out of this, sunshine or no.
Although. . . I am frankly baffled by current trends. Most of the research on cannabinoids has been, and is done on the pure chemicals (which includes delta9THC, and other less well known substances such as anandamide, cannabidiol etc). But the legalization issue concerns weed, which is smoked. The amount of research on the respiratory health effects of smoked weed is limited and largely retrospective cohort study stuff (which is not massively more rigorous than consulting a horoscope). However I know no examples of natural products that are proven safe to smoke.
Regarding psychoactive effects, someone sneered at the risk (earlier in the thread). However there is good anecdotal evidence that psychosis is a risk in subgroups of smokers (I will come back to that later).
And lets face it, the main reason it was illegalized in the first place is the proles don't work very hard when they have been toofing, and that's bad for the empire. The point being, it is strongly psychotropic. I know that for some people, the giggles etc don't happen, but these folk very often do get the paranoia (an old mate of mine was a classic example.... "go on, tell us, why are you laughing" . . . which just made us laugh even more). Booze does not do this. Booze is an anaesthetic, however, so you can drink yourself unconscious whereas cannabis can at best hlp you sleep.
So the assertions that it is harmless and low risk versus other legal things is really unsustainable, and is certainly unproven. That doesn't mean there are massive hiden dangers, simply that it the dangers are uncertain. However, the trend wordwide is definitely towards legalization. It seems that the voices of the proponents are being heard. I was back in Vancouver a year ago and, during daytime, if you stroll along Granville street you will be walking through clouds of weed smoke. The City has loads of Cannabis stores, albeit none were yet open when I was there (they were all set up ready for further law change). A mate of mine has set up a company to develop cannabis for quasi medical purposes, and there is a lot of venture capital and indeed favourable laws (in Canada and the US) to pursue this.
The bottom line is that cannabis WILL become legal here. it may take another 10 years but it will happen - unless new research proves disputed dangers to be real. The latter will not happen because the only way to get data is to dredge health statistics (an experiment is impossible) and given how long it took Richard Doll to persuade us about the danger of ciggies, there is absolutely no chance of indisputable data emerging that smoking weed is more dangerous than tobacco, or less dangerous.
Am I bovvered? I am not sure. I was a heavy smoker back in my student days. Me and my flatmates smoked literally every evening, after food and writing up our labwork. We all got upper second class degrees (which is good, and enough to guarantee a PhD place, for those unfamiliar with the degree grading system). We all have well paid jobs. (Incidentally, the 4 lads in the flat below us were all boozers (we drank very little). They all got lower second class degrees.). On the other hand, folk who smoke during the day seem somehow quite deviant to me. On a par with having a large G and T at breakfast.
The psychosis that we have all read about probably occurs only in those genetically at risk. It seems to be most prevalent in certain populations (populations who seem to have a higher than average rate of spontaneous psychosis among older adolescents and young adults). So cannabis may simply be speeding up a process that would have happened anyway. Or it may be coincidence. Again, I doubt that it is feasible to conduct proper research into this.
I have to say that old quotes from the likes of Les Iverson are absolutely valueless in the current era. The trend, as I say, is for global decriminalisation. Like others I am concerned about the 'normalization' of something that may be dangerous (smoking a natural product that has thousands of chemicals in in - like tobacco), but like others I regard tobacco and booze as dangerous (not more or less dangerous than cannabis - all depends how much you use) yet indesputably legal, which is, I suspect the key issue, so it will be increasingly difficult to turn the tide. Especially if there is money to be made, and from what I saw in Vancouver, there is a massive new enterprise about to roll itself out.
Thus, the Libdems may have decided to ride a winner here. That said, old tortoise-head, our born-again Christian, recent convert to gay-ism, and all round utterly credibility-free tit, liberal leader, is unlikely to make much hay out of this, sunshine or no.
- Jan 3, 2012
- 16,582
When they were talking about this on the news yesterday, they were talking about legalisation enabling more regulation and control in terms of some of the nastier types of cannabis - i.e. skank.
I am aware of the dangers to mental health of excess cannabis use, having the son of a good friend (same age as my own children, who died (suicide) through cannabis induced schizophrenia. Also a nephew bordering on the same.
I am no expert on the matter, but would appreciate that if you legalise it, it might make it more controllable, particularly from the point of view of quality and nasty side effects.
I am aware of the dangers to mental health of excess cannabis use, having the son of a good friend (same age as my own children, who died (suicide) through cannabis induced schizophrenia. Also a nephew bordering on the same.
I am no expert on the matter, but would appreciate that if you legalise it, it might make it more controllable, particularly from the point of view of quality and nasty side effects.
- Jan 3, 2012
- 16,582
Thanks for all that. Nice to read something from a contributor who knows what they are talking about on a serious subject!
Two Professors
Two Mad Professors
Wasn't going to bother,as I will be in Gran Canaria at voting time,but the excellent John Hemming has decided to stand again for the Lib Dems,so will get a postal vote for the first time.Our current MP,Jess Philips,is a complete stranger in our area.She seems to prefer being a city councillor,or attending book signings.Typical Labour,making as much cash as possible,while slagging off the rich.I expect Labour will run transport from the local mosques again,but they might not win this time.
I thought they all registered for a postal vote (and from the same address).
[MENTION=1200]Harry Wilson's tackle[/MENTION] is the danger/toxicity relevant in terms of legalisation though? I think all drugs should be legalised, however dangerous as a) prohibition doesn't work and b) it makes it easier to look after people who have drug problems.
Legalisation of drugs will hopefully lead to an improvement in quality as well. Some drugs are not fit to be called class As these days.
I think the danger/toxicity as you put it must be an issue. I would argue, for example, that a substance that is guaranteed to kill, such as arsenic, should be 'illegal' (i.e., sold under licence). So, scale down from that, eventually you reach something such a turkey twizzlers that are clearly not great for you but which we can sell freely, albeit with a warning label. Cannabis is somewhere in between.The question is where, and I actually don't know.
The idea of making anything legal (freely available) clearly doesn't stack up; I would no more want to see heroin legal and freely available than necrophilia. But I am assuming you didn't mean that: I assume you mean sold under licence to folk to whom it has been prescibed (heroin addicts for example)? I don't have a huge problem with the latter but I would add: freely available, perhaps on precription only (not absolutely decided about this) AND administered by a qualified person in a clinic (handing out drugs to addicts would be madness as they would sell them, or, as has happened, use them - including heroin - to sedate their own kids). It is easy to forget that a lot of drug addicts are actually quite unwell, physically and mentally, and giving all people free access to their drug of choice is not ever justifiable.
I am pleased we are moving away from the old days of BS rhetoric ('war on drugs' etc), and I agree that the issue is nuanced to a degree, with the strong lobby to loosen restrictions on all things from junk food and booze to ciggies faced up against the medical community and the moralist prohibitioners, as corners of a triangle. Sensible debate is very difficult to pursue, as it is with everything (look at the toxic influence of the Breitbart contingent to political debate, for example) and it will take a long time before we reach a settled outlook. Wherever we end up, however, it will certainly be the case that folk will abuse substances - human have been doing this since the first ape man found some rotting (fermenting) fruit and the first magic mushroom. But society does have a requirement to protect people from taking dangerous risks uninformed, and it has a responsibility to ensure the vulnerable (children and the soft headed) are protected as best as possible. Making all things freely available to whoever can pay is not something that appeals to me.
Right - time to go cycling with Mrs T
Two Professors
Two Mad Professors
Only those who have somebody at that address that can write in an accepted language.Don't suppose it will be that much longer before we have people voting for the best picture on the voting slip!
Two Professors
Two Mad Professors
There's a lot more 'grow your own' than 'brew your own' around me!THC infused Jack Daniels is quite a classic,and mellow,meld
- Apr 5, 2014
- 23,536
“Cannabis is a safer drug than aspirin and can be used long-term without serious side effects...Cannabis is simply not as dangerous as it is being made out to be.”
- Professor Les Iversen, chair, Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, May 2003.
"We have been terribly and systematically misled for nearly 70 years in the United States, and I apologize for my own role in that."
- Dr. Sanjay Gupta, Chief Medical Correspondent, CNN.
"Marijuana in its natural form is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man."
- Francis Young, DEA Administrative Law Judge, 1988
The original report in the early 2000s that categorised drugs in order of danger was shelved by the then government. Something to do with the play-off positions of tobacco and alcohol.
Ecstacy, and dope had nothing to play for at the end of the season...
In the Zambian election in the early eighties the symbol for Kaunda (the sitting President) was an eagle (their national symbol) and for his opponent it was the coiled snake looking to bite.
So by implication you think any policy should be a policy that might deter teenagers from becoming users and then in the next breath you say it should be legalised ... righto.
Jeeeez, how many contradictions can you possibly make in one simple post, perhaps alcohol is more damaging to individuals and societies due to it being so readily available and legal therefore increasing usage and its associated effects.
How does that in anyway show that legalisation can decrease effect.
daveinprague
New member
Legislation against nature is pretty stupid tbh