Police seal off house after finding cannabis plants (From Watford Observer)

Please cut and paste rubbish below.

My freedom is not rubbish.
People thinking they can except not only for me to care about them but then to do what they say even on my own when it does not effect anybody else. If that's rubbish then we have little left to talk about.

Violent Vomit wrote:
My freedom is not rubbish.
People thinking they can except not only for me to care about them but then to do what they say even on my own when it does not effect anybody else. If that's rubbish then we have little left to talk about.

Sorry, I didn't understand that.

LSC wrote:

Violent Vomit wrote: My freedom is not rubbish. People thinking they can except not only for me to care about them but then to do what they say even on my own when it does not effect anybody else. If that's rubbish then we have little left to talk about.

Sorry, I didn't understand that.

Makes a difference from the usual ctrl alt c, ctrl alt v crowd that have been commenting on these stories of late. But yes, what??

How can anyone be free when they are dependant on a drug im not sure either

cut and paste here we go....

I for one refuse to listen to the harm of any drugs until we take away the harm of enforced moral control. Without choice our helping hand quickly becomes a hated controlling power.
"Lower the gun and we can talk"

Freedom is better for health than drugs laws.

Google Seach 'I for one refuse to listen to the harm of any drugs until we take away the harm of enforced moral control. Without choice our helping hand quickly becomes a hated controlling power. "Lower the gun and we can talk"
See how may hits you get... Yet another copy/paste merchant

Violent Vomit wrote:
cut and paste here we go....

I for one refuse to listen to the harm of any drugs until we take away the harm of enforced moral control. Without choice our helping hand quickly becomes a hated controlling power.
"Lower the gun and we can talk"

Freedom is better for health than drugs laws.

Enforced moral control is the very thing that puts rapists in prison.
The rapist may have no morals, but I'm never going to support his 'freedom' to rape.

Are we so stupid that we cannot learn the lessons of history? If we prohibit something for which there is huge demand then the price rises and violent criminals become involved.

If we introduced a legally regulated system we would solve nearly all the problems around cannabis. Science proves how much safer it is than tobacco, alcohol, prescription medicines and all other recreational drugs. The evidence is that where legal regulation is introduced, consumption by children and health harms are reduced.

Our present policy on cannabis is irrational, irresponsible and dangerous. Washington and Colorado look set to introduce legal regulation of cannabis next week. Then the inevitable change will begin to roll out across the world.

garston tony wrote:

LSC wrote:

Violent Vomit wrote: My freedom is not rubbish. People thinking they can except not only for me to care about them but then to do what they say even on my own when it does not effect anybody else. If that's rubbish then we have little left to talk about.

Sorry, I didn't understand that.

Makes a difference from the usual ctrl alt c, ctrl alt v crowd that have been commenting on these stories of late. But yes, what??

How can anyone be free when they are dependant on a drug im not sure either

Quite right Tony, it's terrible that so many people are completely dependent on drugs like insulin and bendroflumethiazide, the police really should be doing their best to stamp them out. Who cares if they need their drug to be able to have any quality of life at all? At least they would be "free" if they had their drug taken away from them, and would surely thank the police from their death-beds.

\o/ Here they come!
The 'Evidence', Babs, is at the present time users of cannabis contribute knowingly to organised crime.
But you don't care about that and use it anyway.
You will also, no doubt, claim you are not a user, which everyone on here will know is unlikely to be true.

So I put it to you Babs, that you are a liar and an active supporter and financer of organised crime.

So why would anyone care what you think?
You represent the very type of person we don't want in society, so you are unlikely to gain support amoung people without an addiction.

LSC wrote:
\o/ Here they come!
The 'Evidence', Babs, is at the present time users of cannabis contribute knowingly to organised crime.
But you don't care about that and use it anyway.
You will also, no doubt, claim you are not a user, which everyone on here will know is unlikely to be true.

So I put it to you Babs, that you are a liar and an active supporter and financer of organised crime.

So why would anyone care what you think?
You represent the very type of person we don't want in society, so you are unlikely to gain support amoung people without an addiction.

I am a user of cannabis and I prefer not to participate in the criminal market created by present policy so I grow my own.

Your aggressive nature is really unpleasant. What are you going to do when you finally wake up to the fact that the whole world is going in the opposite direction to bigots like you?

Watch what happens in the US polls next week.

LSC wrote:
Please cut and paste rubbish below.

Very many people who are cannabis users have absolutely no desire to give money to criminal gangs and that is why they grow their own, troubling no-one.

The effect of legalising cannabis will be to take the market away from those gangs and give it to legitimate suppliers who will pay tax just like any other legitimate trader of any commodity. They will also employ a great many staff who will be receiving a fair wage and contributing to society.

So is that rubbish, or a thoughtful reason exploration of reality?

Alan-_Hobday wrote:

LSC wrote:
Please cut and paste rubbish below.

Very many people who are cannabis users have absolutely no desire to give money to criminal gangs and that is why they grow their own, troubling no-one.

The effect of legalising cannabis will be to take the market away from those gangs and give it to legitimate suppliers who will pay tax just like any other legitimate trader of any commodity. They will also employ a great many staff who will be receiving a fair wage and contributing to society.

Dont argue with idiots, they may drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

Alan-_Hobday wrote:

LSC wrote:
Please cut and paste rubbish below.

Very many people who are cannabis users have absolutely no desire to give money to criminal gangs and that is why they grow their own, troubling no-one.

The effect of legalising cannabis will be to take the market away from those gangs and give it to legitimate suppliers who will pay tax just like any other legitimate trader of any commodity. They will also employ a great many staff who will be receiving a fair wage and contributing to society.

Er, if you grow your own, where is the tax bit you mention? Where are the staff they employ?

You can't just grab any old argument you know.

Prohibition is a fail, we know this. We know cannabis users would prefer to spend their money at a gardening store as opposed to giving it to a dealer and would prefer to buy from a licensed outlet. I dont think it being illegal makes a dam difference really, in fact the reason why youngsters indulge so much is because they recognise this law as unjust, and its a protest from a young rebel. Only complete idiots want cannabis to remain in the control of criminals, or are happy with prohibition in place, either fools or people with an agenda such as drug dealers, alcohol companies and cowardly corrupt politicians. I thought a drugs policy was about harm reduction? So why do cannabis people get jailed? To save them from themselves? Only SHEEP will keep their heads down as they mindlessly graze in a field, many intelligent people, cannabis users or not acknowledge change is overdue.

''Er, if you grow your own, where is the tax bit you mention? Where are the staff they employ?''

Who sells them the equipment? The seeds? Who makes money from the electricity bill? Who would regulate home grows? Couldnt home growers purchase a license? Costing them a certain amount a month? Dont try a poke holes in an argument that has already been won.

Babs Stanley wrote:

LSC wrote:
\o/ Here they come!
The 'Evidence', Babs, is at the present time users of cannabis contribute knowingly to organised crime.
But you don't care about that and use it anyway.
You will also, no doubt, claim you are not a user, which everyone on here will know is unlikely to be true.

So I put it to you Babs, that you are a liar and an active supporter and financer of organised crime.

So why would anyone care what you think?
You represent the very type of person we don't want in society, so you are unlikely to gain support amoung people without an addiction.

I am a user of cannabis and I prefer not to participate in the criminal market created by present policy so I grow my own.

Your aggressive nature is really unpleasant. What are you going to do when you finally wake up to the fact that the whole world is going in the opposite direction to bigots like you?

Watch what happens in the US polls next week.

Ah the US, the people who voted for George Bush. Twice. You are right, they will show us the right way forward.
And yes, I'm aggressive about drugs because I promise you that right now a young teenage girl is in some seedy bedsit somewhere being forced to sell her body for money.
Financed by people who buy cannabis.

But they obviously aren't too bothered about that. Even if you grow your own, is that what it does to you? Remove your morals because you need the fix so badly?
Not for me thanks.

LSC wrote:

Alan-_Hobday wrote:

LSC wrote:
Please cut and paste rubbish below.

Very many people who are cannabis users have absolutely no desire to give money to criminal gangs and that is why they grow their own, troubling no-one.

The effect of legalising cannabis will be to take the market away from those gangs and give it to legitimate suppliers who will pay tax just like any other legitimate trader of any commodity. They will also employ a great many staff who will be receiving a fair wage and contributing to society.

Er, if you grow your own, where is the tax bit you mention? Where are the staff they employ?

You can't just grab any old argument you know.

Most of them are doing it out of necessity, and would much rather opt for the easy solution of popping along to the local cannabis shop.

LSC wrote:

Babs Stanley wrote:

LSC wrote:
\o/ Here they come!
The 'Evidence', Babs, is at the present time users of cannabis contribute knowingly to organised crime.
But you don't care about that and use it anyway.
You will also, no doubt, claim you are not a user, which everyone on here will know is unlikely to be true.

So I put it to you Babs, that you are a liar and an active supporter and financer of organised crime.

So why would anyone care what you think?
You represent the very type of person we don't want in society, so you are unlikely to gain support amoung people without an addiction.

I am a user of cannabis and I prefer not to participate in the criminal market created by present policy so I grow my own.

Your aggressive nature is really unpleasant. What are you going to do when you finally wake up to the fact that the whole world is going in the opposite direction to bigots like you?

Watch what happens in the US polls next week.

Ah the US, the people who voted for George Bush. Twice. You are right, they will show us the right way forward.
And yes, I'm aggressive about drugs because I promise you that right now a young teenage girl is in some seedy bedsit somewhere being forced to sell her body for money.
Financed by people who buy cannabis.

But they obviously aren't too bothered about that. Even if you grow your own, is that what it does to you? Remove your morals because you need the fix so badly?
Not for me thanks.

''Ah the US, the people who voted for George Bush. Twice. You are right, they will show us the right way forward.''

What has that got to do with the drugs policy and the way they handle it?

''And yes, I'm aggressive about drugs because I promise you that right now a young teenage girl is in some seedy bedsit somewhere being forced to sell her body for money.
Financed by people who buy cannabis.''

Then why do you support prohibition you IDIOT?

''But they obviously aren't too bothered about that. Even if you grow your own, is that what it does to you? Remove your morals because you need the fix so badly?
Not for me thanks.''

What a simplistic view, thank god most people are on a higher intelligence level than yourself.

SuperSilverSourDiese
l wrote:
''Er, if you grow your own, where is the tax bit you mention? Where are the staff they employ?''

Who sells them the equipment? The seeds? Who makes money from the electricity bill? Who would regulate home grows? Couldnt home growers purchase a license? Costing them a certain amount a month? Dont try a poke holes in an argument that has already been won.

I don't think it has been won because it is still illegal. Yes, I suppose there could be some sort of licence, but that would surely push the price up? Paperwork, inspections etc.
And if the price goes up, here come the illegal unlicenced guys sure as eggs is eggs, and we are right back with criminal gangs.

I ask for the 100th time. Why do you keep calling it prohibition?
Everything illegal is prohibited. But you keep using that word and have never explained.

If you look at the States in America where the supply of medicinal cannabis has ben legalisd, the price has either fallen, or the quality gone up for the same price. These businesses all pay their tax and are very well run...

http://youtu.be/5Scl
mOWG1ZA

''Ah the US, the people who voted for George Bush. Twice. You are right, they will show us the right way forward.''

What has that got to do with the drugs policy and the way they handle it?

I'm suggesting the US electorate might not always get it right

Cannabis prohibition is so called because that is the term used by the people who introduced drug prohibition in America in the early 20th century.

Alan-_Hobday wrote:
Cannabis prohibition is so called because that is the term used by the people who introduced drug prohibition in America in the early 20th century.

But we have been around longer than them. Or perhaps you walk on the sidewalk and open the trunk of your car, being careful not to scratch the fender?

Of course, I do know the real reason. I just wondered if any of you actually had the courage of your convictions to admit it.

And BTW, I have absolutely nothing against medicinal cannabis. I hear it can give great relief to MS sufferers, for instance.
It's the self-medicating people I don't like; those too stoned to hold down a job but can appear on the Jeremy Kyle show easily enough, finding out they are their own father, beat up an entire primary school and married a horse, or whatever it is this week. They WITHOUT FAIL cite cannabis use.

LSC wrote:

Alan-_Hobday wrote:
Cannabis prohibition is so called because that is the term used by the people who introduced drug prohibition in America in the early 20th century.

But we have been around longer than them. Or perhaps you walk on the sidewalk and open the trunk of your car, being careful not to scratch the fender?

Of course, I do know the real reason. I just wondered if any of you actually had the courage of your convictions to admit it.

Who are the "we" you speak of?

I don't watch sensationalist claptrap like Jeremy Kyle, he just gets media-whores on who will say anything to get their 15 minutes.

The UK. Our language and culture.
And 'we' don't use the word prohibition as a matter of course, unless, of course, we are trying to skew a viewpoint.

The word prohibition instantly calls to mind the failed and flawed effort to ban alcohol in the USA. Which is why you use it.

As mind games go, 2/10, try harder.

And if your argument is so sound, you shouldn't need it. Cannabis is illegal. Call it so.

LSC wrote:
The UK. Our language and culture.
And 'we' don't use the word prohibition as a matter of course, unless, of course, we are trying to skew a viewpoint.

The word prohibition instantly calls to mind the failed and flawed effort to ban alcohol in the USA. Which is why you use it.

As mind games go, 2/10, try harder.

And if your argument is so sound, you shouldn't need it. Cannabis is illegal. Call it so.

Yes indeed the UK has been around longer than the United States, which makes it even worse that we play lapdog to their damaging prohibitionist policy. All that it has ever done is create violence and misery.

Your statement "As mind games go, 2/10, try harder." makes no sense at all.

Just because something is illegal now does not mean it has to remain so, laws can, and do, get changed. If this were not the case we would still be burning witches at the stake.

This thread is better than Fawlty Towers, Thanks LSC I haven't had such a good laugh in years. Just carry on mate it gets better with every post you make. Jeremy Kyle as a source of reliable evidence, oh that's brilliant, how do you manage to come up with such hilarity, I must show this to the wife, she likes a good laugh even more than I do.

I am suprised no one here has pointed out the actual health damage done by Cannabis. It is known that it is responsible for producing extreme psychosis in a large number of people, a condition so severe that it can have long lasting damage and ruin a persons mental health for life. I am also suprised that your selective use of "science" has not been challenegd Babs, Science does not prove that it is safer than tobacco, in fact science proves that it is 10 times more carcinogenic than tobacco, This means you are 10 times more likely to get lung cancer than someone who smokes normal cigarettes. Iam not coming down on either side here as to whether it should be banned or not as such, but just pointing out that it is in fact more damaging than many people think. However like may drugs they affect different people in different ways - not everyone who drinks alcohol becomes an alcoholic and yet alcohol is damaging to many people. Not everyone who uses Cannabis will become a cancer riddled paranoid stranger stabbing lunatic either.

Annoyed again wrote:
I am suprised no one here has pointed out the actual health damage done by Cannabis. It is known that it is responsible for producing extreme psychosis in a large number of people, a condition so severe that it can have long lasting damage and ruin a persons mental health for life. I am also suprised that your selective use of "science" has not been challenegd Babs, Science does not prove that it is safer than tobacco, in fact science proves that it is 10 times more carcinogenic than tobacco, This means you are 10 times more likely to get lung cancer than someone who smokes normal cigarettes. Iam not coming down on either side here as to whether it should be banned or not as such, but just pointing out that it is in fact more damaging than many people think. However like may drugs they affect different people in different ways - not everyone who drinks alcohol becomes an alcoholic and yet alcohol is damaging to many people. Not everyone who uses Cannabis will become a cancer riddled paranoid stranger stabbing lunatic either.

I'm sorry but what you have posted is simply untrue. It is false propaganda funded by the alcohol industry and promoted by a corrupt and dishonest government.

Many psychiatrists believe that "cannabis psychosis" is a myth. Even if you accept that tehre may be some correlation between cannabis use and psychosis the number of cases each year is tiny and your claim "that it is responsible for producing extreme psychosis in a large number of people" is nonsesense. Look at the NHS/NTA figures below.

“Cannabis has been used safely for many thousands of years…there have been concerted efforts to demonise the drug’s use.” Professor Tim Kirkham, psychologist, Liverpool University

“I don’t think it causes mental illness. I have never seen a case of so-called cannabis psychosis.” Dr Trevor Turner, former vice president of the Royal College of Psychiatrists

Below is a direct quotation from Professor Glyn Lewis, internationally recognised as one of the leading experts on the causes of psychosis and a member of the team at Bristol and Cardiff universities that has probably published the most papers on the subject of cannabis and psychosis.

"I think it is also important to note that we cannot be certain that there is a causal link between cannabis use and psychosis at present."
Professor Glyn Lewis, March 2011

The scientific evidence about cannabis and mental health is:

1. Hickman et al, 2009. A review of all published research so, by definition­, not cherry picked. It shows that the risk of lifetime cannabis use correlatin­g with a single diagnosis of psychosis is at worst 0.013% and probably less than 0.003%.

2. Hospital Episode Statistics. Count of finished admission episodes (FAE) with a primary diagnosis of mental and behavioural disorders due to use of cannabinoids (ICD10 code F12) and alcohol (ICD10 code F10)

Cannabinoids (F12)

2009-10 713
2010-11 799

Alcohol (F10)

2009-10 47,402
2010-11 47,287

Source: Hospital Episode Statistics (HES), The NHS Information Centre for health and social care.

There are three million regular users of cannabis (Atha et al 2011) and 31 million regular users of alcohol (NHS Information Centre 2009). Therefore alcohol use is six times more likely to result in admission for mental and behavioural disorders.

3. Frisher et al 2009. The ACMD commissioned a study by Keele University into the trends in schizophrenia specifically to test the claims in the media of a link between it and cannabis. It looked at almost 600,000 patients and concluded that “..the incidence and prevalence of schizophrenia and psychoses were either stable or declining” despite alleged increased use of allegedly more potent cannabis.

You're also entirely wrong about cannabis and lung cancer. The largest ever case control study of its type by Dr Donald Tashkin of UCLA in 2006 showed that cannabis provides a protective effect against the carcinogens in tobacco and that those who smoke neat cannabis develop fewer cancers than those who smoke nothing at all. Cannabis is known to induce apoptosis in cancer cells which causes them to die. This was confirmed by a 20 year study published in the Journal of the Amercian Medical Association in January of this year.

Your 2006 study on cannabis and lung cancer is out of date and has since found to be incorrect as was in fact my post. My post was incorrect because according to the latest study by the British Lung Foundation (not the alcohol industry which has nothing at all to do with this) you are in fact 20 times more likely to get lung cancer than a normal smoker. see below

http://www.nhs.uk/ne
ws/2012/06june/Pages
/cannabis-lung-healt
h-risks-underestimat
ed.aspx

As for the mental health effects of cannabis, you chose to compare them with those produced by alcohol no doubt as some means of suggesting it is safe. It isn't. Most Cannabis users compare their drug of choice with alcohol as a means of trying to suggest it should be legal. I am looking at cannabis on its own and see comparisons of this nature as irrelevant. I would agree that it is a smaller percentage of people who suffer mental health damage than those who use alcohol however the damage done to the individuals who do suffer is many many times worse. The reason you have never seen a case of Cannabis psychosis is that most of them spend their whole lives in their bedroom too paranoid and feared up to come out, that is apart from the few cases who do get out occaisionally and who'se paranoia causes them to have a tendancy towards stabbing people who they think looked at them a bit funny.

Annoyed again wrote:
Your 2006 study on cannabis and lung cancer is out of date and has since found to be incorrect as was in fact my post. My post was incorrect because according to the latest study by the British Lung Foundation (not the alcohol industry which has nothing at all to do with this) you are in fact 20 times more likely to get lung cancer than a normal smoker. see below

http://www.nhs.uk/ne

ws/2012/06june/Pages

/cannabis-lung-healt

h-risks-underestimat

ed.aspx

As for the mental health effects of cannabis, you chose to compare them with those produced by alcohol no doubt as some means of suggesting it is safe. It isn't. Most Cannabis users compare their drug of choice with alcohol as a means of trying to suggest it should be legal. I am looking at cannabis on its own and see comparisons of this nature as irrelevant. I would agree that it is a smaller percentage of people who suffer mental health damage than those who use alcohol however the damage done to the individuals who do suffer is many many times worse. The reason you have never seen a case of Cannabis psychosis is that most of them spend their whole lives in their bedroom too paranoid and feared up to come out, that is apart from the few cases who do get out occaisionally and who'se paranoia causes them to have a tendancy towards stabbing people who they think looked at them a bit funny.

The BLF report was a disgraceful travesty of science, condemned by every reputable scientist and expert and led directly to the resignation of Dame Helena Shovelton who had been the BLF's chief executive.

The 2006 Tashkin study is not out of date and as I said was confirmed by a 20 years study published in Jan 2012: http://jama.jamanetw
ork.com/article.aspx
?articleid=1104848

Everything you have written apart from the discredited BLF report is conjecture and paranoid scaremongering. Where is your evidence?

I have provided you with detailed figures from the NHS/NTA yet you ignore these and make wild, empty assertions with no evidence to support them.

Oh Dear, just another addict
protecting the most impotant thing in their life - their drug of choice. The staggering facts are these, over 30% of new people entering recovery in Narcotics Anonymous are doing so in order to recover from their destructive Cannabis use. Many of these people suffer from Psychosis,Paranoia and Schizophrenia, conditions that people such as yourself would probaly argue are nothing to do with their cannabis use and yet strangely they didn't have them before they started using.

It is of course common for research projects to be debunked and undermined by the opposition and facts are in these matters frequently twisted and manipulated by those who want their findings to be interpreted as the truth. I am sure that this applies to both sides of opposing research projects.

I have googled Dame Helena Shovelton and find that she resigned from the lottery commision, no mention of resignation from BLF. Never mind love, it's a common symptom for people using cannabis to frequently get a bit mixed up about things. Maybe you should consider getting yourself down to NA before the damage gets too bad.

Annoyed again wrote:
Oh Dear, just another addict
protecting the most impotant thing in their life - their drug of choice. The staggering facts are these, over 30% of new people entering recovery in Narcotics Anonymous are doing so in order to recover from their destructive Cannabis use. Many of these people suffer from Psychosis,Paranoia and Schizophrenia, conditions that people such as yourself would probaly argue are nothing to do with their cannabis use and yet strangely they didn't have them before they started using.

It is of course common for research projects to be debunked and undermined by the opposition and facts are in these matters frequently twisted and manipulated by those who want their findings to be interpreted as the truth. I am sure that this applies to both sides of opposing research projects.

I have googled Dame Helena Shovelton and find that she resigned from the lottery commision, no mention of resignation from BLF. Never mind love, it's a common symptom for people using cannabis to frequently get a bit mixed up about things. Maybe you should consider getting yourself down to NA before the damage gets too bad.

So, yet again, more empty, false assertions with no evidence to back them up. Then, because your argument is so weak and you are incapable of supporting it with any evidence you resort to patronising me and even descend to personal abuse.

Googling Dame Helena returns her resignation from the BLF as the third result so perhaps you should try again?

The number of people in treatment under the NTA's auspices who specify cannabis as their problem is 7% of the total, a figure which has remained stable for 10 years.

I suggest that if you want to stand any chance of being able to participate in a debate you lay off the ad hominem attacks, do some research and base your argument on facts and evidence instead of hysterical, delusional rubbish.

Watch what happens in next week's US elections about cannabis. Then perhaps you'll realise that not only are you out of touch, a glutton for false propaganda and hopelessly misinformed but you're also way, way behind the curve and living in the past.

Thankfully, the world is waking up to the sort of prejudice, lies and discrimination that people like you espouse and you'll see the results in the states of Washington and Colorado next week..

Wow, you actually believe that the US election is going to be decided on the issue of cannabis. Not the economy, not the fiscal deficit, not unemployment, not foreign policy but Cannabis! Are you sure? Could it be that you are perhaps a little bit over obsessed?

Have looked again at Dame Shovelton and have found the article you refered to 3rd in the search results. It actually says that she is retiring rather than resigning and there is no mention at all of this being because of the BLF report.

With regard to all the pointless statistics that you must spend ages googling untill you find the ones that suit your arguement I do not bother with that sort of thing as I have no need. I have the evidence of my own eyes and ears and what I see on a daily basis working in a rehab facility. I As a former cannabis user myself I would admit that it was the least troubling of my several addictions and for me personally the easiest substance that I had to give up.

The NTA statistics you quote mean nothing. The NTA are actually pretty useless at getting anyone to give up anything. People who go to them are generally only there because they have been bullied into it by relatives sick of their behavoir and have no actual desire to stop using themselves. This for some is a kind of first step on the journey into recovery and some of them turn up a rehabs or NA a few years down the line when they have actually had enough of their addictions themselves. As someone who works in the rehab industry I can tell you from dealing with them day to day that the number of people who are in recovery from cannabis is massively on the increase. I promise you that the figure of 30% of new attendees at NA is an accurate one.

As I said before different people all react to different drugs in different ways and I don't doubt that the majority of Cannabis users apart from the usual traits of arragance and selfishness will be relatively untroubled by it. However for those that are damaged by it and even if your statistics are correct and it is as few as you say, they are damaged so severely that it wrecks their lives. This is not uninformed emotional nonsense, it is happening, we see it every single day.

This is down to Skunk and Super Skunk which is as I am sure you know a great many times stronger than the gear around in the old days. Maybe if it was legalised the strength of the stuff could be controlled so that it was less damaging but lets face it there would still be a thriving black market for those wanting the stronger stuff they are used to so I can't really se the point in legalizing it.

I will finish my posting on this subject here as I spend more than enough time talking to drug users. I wish you well on your journey and hope that should you ever find that your using becomes problematic you will be aware that there is help out there.

Steve Hilton wrote:
This thread is better than Fawlty Towers, Thanks LSC I haven't had such a good laugh in years. Just carry on mate it gets better with every post you make. Jeremy Kyle as a source of reliable evidence, oh that's brilliant, how do you manage to come up with such hilarity, I must show this to the wife, she likes a good laugh even more than I do.

I'm glad you are enjoying it. It is a pity there are so many victims of organised crime and drug abuse who are not.
It appears everyone who posts on here grows their own and doesn't buy or sell to anyone else, but I assure you there are plenty of users out there who don't.

What is so great about this drug that people will buy it despite knowing full well the misery that it is causing others?

I confess I'm not up on the medical reports, but I have a fair bit of life experience. I honestly don't know whether the UK should legalise cannabis or not. But I know bad arguments when I see them, clutching at straws, random quotes, not answering direct questions etc.
That always suggests to me people who know they might not be right, but desparetly want their own way anyway.
No matter what the cost might be to others.

Annoyed again wrote:
Wow, you actually believe that the US election is going to be decided on the issue of cannabis. Not the economy, not the fiscal deficit, not unemployment, not foreign policy but Cannabis! Are you sure? Could it be that you are perhaps a little bit over obsessed?

Have looked again at Dame Shovelton and have found the article you refered to 3rd in the search results. It actually says that she is retiring rather than resigning and there is no mention at all of this being because of the BLF report.

With regard to all the pointless statistics that you must spend ages googling untill you find the ones that suit your arguement I do not bother with that sort of thing as I have no need. I have the evidence of my own eyes and ears and what I see on a daily basis working in a rehab facility. I As a former cannabis user myself I would admit that it was the least troubling of my several addictions and for me personally the easiest substance that I had to give up.

The NTA statistics you quote mean nothing. The NTA are actually pretty useless at getting anyone to give up anything. People who go to them are generally only there because they have been bullied into it by relatives sick of their behavoir and have no actual desire to stop using themselves. This for some is a kind of first step on the journey into recovery and some of them turn up a rehabs or NA a few years down the line when they have actually had enough of their addictions themselves. As someone who works in the rehab industry I can tell you from dealing with them day to day that the number of people who are in recovery from cannabis is massively on the increase. I promise you that the figure of 30% of new attendees at NA is an accurate one.

As I said before different people all react to different drugs in different ways and I don't doubt that the majority of Cannabis users apart from the usual traits of arragance and selfishness will be relatively untroubled by it. However for those that are damaged by it and even if your statistics are correct and it is as few as you say, they are damaged so severely that it wrecks their lives. This is not uninformed emotional nonsense, it is happening, we see it every single day.

This is down to Skunk and Super Skunk which is as I am sure you know a great many times stronger than the gear around in the old days. Maybe if it was legalised the strength of the stuff could be controlled so that it was less damaging but lets face it there would still be a thriving black market for those wanting the stronger stuff they are used to so I can't really se the point in legalizing it.

I will finish my posting on this subject here as I spend more than enough time talking to drug users. I wish you well on your journey and hope that should you ever find that your using becomes problematic you will be aware that there is help out there.

Again, a complete absence of any evidence, merely empty assertions and abuse.

The US elections will not be decided on the cannabis issue but the simultaneous ballots in Oregon, Washington and Colorado to regulate cannabis legally will be.

Orgeon is not expected to pass but Washington is polling very strongly with Colorado only just behind.

Not as far behind as you though. I see you're a member of the self-serving drug support industry that makes its living out of dishonest confidence trickery concerning cannabis.

Everything is now clear.

Babs

You are talking absolute nonsense. Many my school friends (now heading towards 50) have smoked this cr*p for years and now I see them daily unable to hold down jobs, relationships, homes because back in the late 70s and 80s they thought (like you) it was cool and harmless.

Their mental health, looks and judgment has deteriorated and the company they keep now puts them with abusers all getting high on whatever there is available.

Anyone who was a teen in North Watford early 80s you will know exactly who I am referring to and you will know that that many of our 'addicted' friends strarted by smoking canabis. FACT!

You tell me (in your life experience) if anything I have written above is not relative to your life and the company you keep and attract?

Babs (honestly) do you hold down a permanent job, have a family, a home of your own, drive a car (please God no) have a bit of money saved for a rainy day, never dabbled in other drugs? I suspect the answer to all of my questions is a big fat NO.

While life is not easy for any of us, trust me it is alot easier if you are not constantly 'stoned!!

too much internet use does more damage than cannabis use. Just look at this thread for the evidence - embarrassing, juvenile personal point scoring, by people who don't know the meaning of "respecting others views" or "courtesy" and shockingly by people who claim to be "educated" (and drop this little nugget into every topic).


Interpersonal skills lacking here folks, time to give keyboards a break....

mummy_1 wrote:
Babs

You are talking absolute nonsense. Many my school friends (now heading towards 50) have smoked this cr*p for years and now I see them daily unable to hold down jobs, relationships, homes because back in the late 70s and 80s they thought (like you) it was cool and harmless.

Their mental health, looks and judgment has deteriorated and the company they keep now puts them with abusers all getting high on whatever there is available.

Anyone who was a teen in North Watford early 80s you will know exactly who I am referring to and you will know that that many of our 'addicted' friends strarted by smoking canabis. FACT!

You tell me (in your life experience) if anything I have written above is not relative to your life and the company you keep and attract?

Babs (honestly) do you hold down a permanent job, have a family, a home of your own, drive a car (please God no) have a bit of money saved for a rainy day, never dabbled in other drugs? I suspect the answer to all of my questions is a big fat NO.

While life is not easy for any of us, trust me it is alot easier if you are not constantly 'stoned!!

Mummy, if that's the way you treat your children then I pity them. I have offered you reason and comprehensive scientific evidence. In return, all you have to offer is abuse.

Pitiful.

Babs

Ironic you use the word abuse when the only person abusing you is yourself.

I asked you a few questions, none of which you have answered. You seemed to have so much to say before

Everytime you are asked a straight question which only you cannnot answer you play the victim and we become 'aggressive' or 'abusers'.

Well you are breaking the law. May I suggest you apply a little common sense to your 'facts' by speaking to people who truly love you and they may tell you IF using affects your lifestyle and the choices you make in life.

You pity my kids, I pity you more.

You state in a post that the whole world is 'going in the opposite direction'. Please keep (sleep) walking and don't stop as I am glad that I will be at the opposite end to you and yours.

Mummy,

They will never answer straight questions. They are like kids offered the choice of sweets or vegetables. Logic goes out the window and ANY argument will do as long as they get what they want.

Like the argument that possibly 2 States in the USA (out of 50) might change the law on cannabis. So that somehow PROVES the case.

Well; more than 2 States in the USA have the death penalty. Does that prove anything about the death penalty being right?
In more than 2 States you can drive with a loaded .45 Magnum on the passenger seat, but you must keep cans of beer locked in the boot.
Does that prove it is a sensible law just because it is the law?

Of course not. What the people of the USA vote for proves little to me. Jerry Springer was voted Mayor of Cincinatti. Arnie, Governor of California. Ronald Reagan, President. George W Bush, President.

I would strongly suggest we don't look to the USA, love them as I do, as a lead.

Mummy,

Answers to your questions:

1. No, what you describe is "is not relative to your life and the company you keep and attract?" (You can't stop yourself from slinging abuse even when you're asking a question, can you?)

2. Yes, I do hold down a permanent job, I have a family, a home of my own (two in fact), I drive a car and I have a bit of money saved for a rainy day. Yes , I have dabbled in other drugs and I regularly consume alcohol, caffeine, OTC medicines and about four POM medicines prescribed by my doctor.

My questions to you, for which I would appreciate an answer

1. Where is your evidence for all the wild and pejorative assertions you make about about cannabis and cannabis users?

2. Why does the scientific evidence, in peer reviewed journals, published by eminent scientists and clinicians, that I have presented to you contradict everything you say?

Babs, if you were a regular on this site who didn't just turn up for the drug stories, you'd see the perfect answer to that right here.

There is a width restriction in Watford. It was designed by engineers, reviewed by experts. It is all on paper. Recorded, tested, logged. There is no reason people should keep crashing into it. But they do, often.

So all your scientific reports might say cannabis doesn't cause major problems. But in real life, we know it does. We have witnessed it. I have certainly seen it for myself; and THAT my friend, is all the evidence I need.

LSC wrote:
Babs, if you were a regular on this site who didn't just turn up for the drug stories, you'd see the perfect answer to that right here.

There is a width restriction in Watford. It was designed by engineers, reviewed by experts. It is all on paper. Recorded, tested, logged. There is no reason people should keep crashing into it. But they do, often.

So all your scientific reports might say cannabis doesn't cause major problems. But in real life, we know it does. We have witnessed it. I have certainly seen it for myself; and THAT my friend, is all the evidence I need.

I hope you're content in your delusional state then LSC. Just stop trying to impose your baseless, ignorant and prejudiced ideas on me OK?

Seriously, as long as you're happy then I'm happy for you but keep your nose out of the lives of others, OK?

Time to pull the plug on having a comments option WO. What a laughing stock of behaviour and shows this population of Watford in a bad light- globally.

Just shows that over reliance on technology and internet makes fully grown adults behave in an embarrassing manner, really poor.

Babs

I could bring to your door half a dozen cannabis users whose minds habe been directly affected by on-going use of cannabis. Not one has ever been admitted to hospital and diagnosed with cannabis related psychosis although 1 relative recently died a rambling, anxious, paranoid shell of a man. His Death Certificate says 'Heart Attack'. I know after 30 plus years of cannabis abuse, his mind and his organs just gave up.

I cannot take the word of a scientists I have never met over real people I have watch deteriorate mentally over 3 decades.

mummy_1 wrote:
Babs

I could bring to your door half a dozen cannabis users whose minds habe been directly affected by on-going use of cannabis. Not one has ever been admitted to hospital and diagnosed with cannabis related psychosis although 1 relative recently died a rambling, anxious, paranoid shell of a man. His Death Certificate says 'Heart Attack'. I know after 30 plus years of cannabis abuse, his mind and his organs just gave up.

I cannot take the word of a scientists I have never met over real people I have watch deteriorate mentally over 3 decades.

Well Mummy, live your life on the basis of anecdote, conjecture and rumour then and ignore science and empirical evidence.

"I hope you're content in your delusional state then LSC. Just stop trying to impose your baseless, ignorant and prejudiced ideas on me OK?

Seriously, as long as you're happy then I'm happy for you but keep your nose out of the lives of others, OK?"

It is called debate, Babs. I have my opinion, and you have yours. I am not an MP, so I have no means of imposing anything on you whatsoever, because I do not make, change or enforce the law in any capacity (except for my vote at elections).

I merely state my experience and opinion and then ask questions.

Which generally don't get answers.

In a good society, 'keeping your nose out' isn't always the right thing.
Should I leave an old lady being mugged to sort her own problems out?
Should I tell my boss that a colleague is stealing from the till?
Should I let a heart attack victim call his own ambulance?

No.

Should I let people know cannabis is a potentially dangerous drug that directly funds organised crime?

Yes.

Of course the current trade in cannabis funds organised crime. The criminals have been given the market to do with as they please, and that's because of prohibition.
Get the market back into the mainstream to protect our children with proper age limits.

Alan-_Hobday wrote:
Of course the current trade in cannabis funds organised crime. The criminals have been given the market to do with as they please, and that's because of prohibition.
Get the market back into the mainstream to protect our children with proper age limits.

Once again, I must point out that organised crime doesn't simply shrug and walk away.
You mention age limits; well there is your market right away for the criminal scum.
So we will still have organised crime, we will still have child users, we will still have the police tied up chasing after them.

So what has been achieved except for YOU being able to use legally?

I'm alright Jack.

Babs Stanley wrote:

mummy_1 wrote:
Babs

I could bring to your door half a dozen cannabis users whose minds habe been directly affected by on-going use of cannabis. Not one has ever been admitted to hospital and diagnosed with cannabis related psychosis although 1 relative recently died a rambling, anxious, paranoid shell of a man. His Death Certificate says 'Heart Attack'. I know after 30 plus years of cannabis abuse, his mind and his organs just gave up.

I cannot take the word of a scientists I have never met over real people I have watch deteriorate mentally over 3 decades.

Well Mummy, live your life on the basis of anecdote, conjecture and rumour then and ignore science and empirical evidence.

Thank you. I will continue to live in ignorance and within the law Babs.

You use the word 'empirical' which I understand to mean observation as a result of experiments.

I have been observing 'my experiments' for 3 decades and I know that regular Cannabis use produces life changing anxious, paranoid individuals. How can anyone believe that something which has such an instant effect to your brain, not have long term effects?

mummy_1 wrote:

Babs Stanley wrote:

mummy_1 wrote:
Babs

I could bring to your door half a dozen cannabis users whose minds habe been directly affected by on-going use of cannabis. Not one has ever been admitted to hospital and diagnosed with cannabis related psychosis although 1 relative recently died a rambling, anxious, paranoid shell of a man. His Death Certificate says 'Heart Attack'. I know after 30 plus years of cannabis abuse, his mind and his organs just gave up.

I cannot take the word of a scientists I have never met over real people I have watch deteriorate mentally over 3 decades.

Well Mummy, live your life on the basis of anecdote, conjecture and rumour then and ignore science and empirical evidence.

Thank you. I will continue to live in ignorance and within the law Babs.

You use the word 'empirical' which I understand to mean observation as a result of experiments.

I have been observing 'my experiments' for 3 decades and I know that regular Cannabis use produces life changing anxious, paranoid individuals. How can anyone believe that something which has such an instant effect to your brain, not have long term effects?

Oh it does have long term effects Mummy. It supplements our endocannabinoid system and helps to maintain health in our cardiovascular system, central nervous system, immune system, reproductive system, gastrointestinal system and promotes homeostasis. Our entire body is regulated by cannabinoids and the only natural source of these vital chemicals outside the body is the cannabis plant.

You really do need to catch up with modern science you know. Then you'll realise why mankind has been using cannabis safely and effectively for more than 5,000 years. Excellent empirical evidence I think you'll agree and probably the longest clinical trial in human history!

Looks like I've missed the fun. Couldn’t be bothered to read all the posts in full but just a few comments on some of the things brought up.

Those that grow their own may not be troubling the criminal element with their custom but they're still going to be a burden on the rest of us when (and occassionally only if) they go nuts and have to have support and treatment from the state.

The comment that young people dabble with it because the law is unjust is hilarious, they dabble in it because they believe they get something out of it. It’s a shame that all too often it’s a mental illness or an addiction to harder substances and an early death.

Arent most countries where they've softened their stance on this drug looking at or actually changing their mind as making it 'legal' hasn’t worked? Yes and I do include the US and Holland.

I know from personal experience (along the same lines of mummy1) that taking this drug does lead to mental illness, those trying to say that is just slander from the drinks companies or untrue are totally delluding themselves or most likely have taken too much of the stuff and cant think straight. Can it have beneficial effects, im sure it can but it has to be used right and I'm guessing the problem for many is that that just doesn’t happen. Again like mummy1 I could bring a good friend of mine to your doorstep Babs who is living (I use that term in the loosest way possible) breathing evidence of the negative impact this drug can have on you over a number of years.

Today Colorado and Washington state legalised cannabis.

Now, inevitably, the rest of the world will follow.

REJOICE!

Babs Stanley wrote:
Today Colorado and Washington state legalised cannabis.

Now, inevitably, the rest of the world will follow.

REJOICE!

I'm not sure REJOICE has the same meaning as 'take a drug that leaves you unable to look after children, drive, or operate machinery', but ok.

You REALLY think the rest of the world will follow Colorado? I'd wager without Google you couldn't point to it on a map.

As I mentioned earlier, and you ignored, it is also legal to walk the streets of Colorado (apart from Denver which has a municipal by-law) with a loaded 'assault weapon'.
That is an AK-47, an MP5 or an M16 to you and me. It doesn't even have to be concealed, and you don't need any licence. They are a bit strict that if you do conceal it in a vehicle, you must not have a round chambered.

The rest of the civilised world has yet to catch up on that one, hasn't it?

You can also have sex with a 15 year old in that state, providing you are under 21 yourself.

Yes, Colorado is a real role model.

Very interesting piece on Radio 5 this morning talking not just about drugs but alcohol and tobacco as well following a study that revealed that young people today consume less of the above than their parents generation did.

Again I would stress wasnt just about illegal drugs but anyone who heard this cant fail to see the negative impact these substances have not just on those that take them but their entire familes and friends.

Is the current 'war' on drugs working, well the fact that less people are using seems to suggest maybe yes. But even if not there is no way that the best alternative is to legalise as ALL of the current issues surrounding them will still remain.

Something that came through loud and clear on the radio program (which I should have said was based around parents and their children discussing how their own personal use of those substances has affected them) was education and open discussion.

Its a shame that the 'pro' lobby on this forum at least are only interested in one option and choose to totally ignore the valid, factual impacts of their habits on people and society and choose to try and use blatant paranoid delusions to support their position.