Man jailed for growing Cannabis in Watford house (From Watford Observer)
Get involved: send your pictures, video, news and views by texting WO to 80360, or email us
Vietnamese man jailed for growing Cannabis in Watford house in Vicarage Road
3:00pm Thursday 3rd January 2013 in News By Court Reporter
A Vietnamese man caught tending 300 cannabis plants at a house in Watford told the police he wanted to be deported.
Thuong Hoang, 37, entered the UK illegally and was met by a man at a railway station in London, who took him to a house in Vicarage Road.
Hoang, who left a wife and two children behind in Vietnam, was arrested on 9 November last year when police raided the house, St Albans crown court was told today.
He pleaded guilty, via video link, to being involved in the production of cannabis. He had no convictions in the UK and has now been served with a deportation order.
Prosecutor David Chrimes said: "It was a relatively sophisticated cannabis factory operation. The house was a 3 bedroom semi-detached. There were cannabis plants in two of the bedrooms and in the loft. Plastic sheeting, high-energy lighting and ventilation equipment had been installed."
The defendant, who was aided in court by a Vietnamese interpreter, was responsible for the day-to-day growing of the plants and there was no evidence he was higher up in the chain, said the prosecutor.
When questioned by officers, he claimed he did not know the plants were cannabis. He said he had entered the UK illegally and had been met by another Vietnamese man at a railway station in London and taken to Watford, where he was to live and look after the plants.
Gavin Harris, defending, said: "The man visited the house once a week. Mr Hoang was not paid and was simply provided with food. He was simply a grower of plants.
"He left his wife and two children in Vietnam due to economic hardship. He wants to be deported - that was one of the first things he told the police.
"He was a low-level gardener who was very close to the bottom of the criminal enterprise."
Judge Stephen Warner jailed him for 12 months saying he would be deported half way through the sentence. The judge said: "This was a significant number of plants spread out over three rooms. It was production on a significant scale with premises adapted to enable the production to take place."
Comments(112)
Sanity 750
says...
4:35pm Thu 3 Jan 13
For once I would agree with Mohandas (Councillor Meerabux).
Babs Stanley
says...
7:36pm Thu 3 Jan 13
Madness!
It is the great immoral evil of prohibition that creates a criminal market where prices are so high that human trafficking and gangsterism surround a natural and relatively harmless plant.
All the public money and law enforcement resources are wasted on this because our idiotic politicians refuse to recognise that taking responsibility, regulating and taxing is a safer and more intelligent approach.
It is the great immoral evil of prohibition that creates a criminal market where prices are so high that human trafficking and gangsterism surround a natural and relatively harmless plant.
All the public money and law enforcement resources are wasted on this because our idiotic politicians refuse to recognise that taking responsibility, regulating and taxing is a safer and more intelligent approach.
LSC
says...
8:09pm Thu 3 Jan 13
Ah, Babs, I wondered when you'd be along. Thank you for proving my theory of how dangerous cannabis is.
It is the only thing you comment on.
Council tax goes up? You don't care.
Town centre to be re-vamped? You don't care.
Un-employment up? You don't care.
Politicians caught out? You don't care.
Train crash? You don't care.
Aliens landing? You don't care.
The ONLY thing that appears to matter in your life is cannabis. Nothing else appears to matter to you. And that my friend, suggests you have a problem with it. And that is why it is illegal. To attempt to protect people like you who structure your entire lives around it.
It is the only thing you comment on.
Council tax goes up? You don't care.
Town centre to be re-vamped? You don't care.
Un-employment up? You don't care.
Politicians caught out? You don't care.
Train crash? You don't care.
Aliens landing? You don't care.
The ONLY thing that appears to matter in your life is cannabis. Nothing else appears to matter to you. And that my friend, suggests you have a problem with it. And that is why it is illegal. To attempt to protect people like you who structure your entire lives around it.
corban
says...
8:19pm Thu 3 Jan 13
OMG this is dreadful. That poor man. He is shipped over here by criminal gangs and they pay him what is a fortune over there to grow these crops (they live in abject poverty). If they get caught then their families back home have to pay for the crop that went missing. If his family cannot pay then they force them to earn the money other ways or take what they have or murder them.. life is cheap.. Why not just deport him.. Blood on your hands.
LSC
says...
8:31pm Thu 3 Jan 13
corban wrote:The article quite clearly states he was not paid at all. Or do you know something about this case that we don't?
OMG this is dreadful. That poor man. He is shipped over here by criminal gangs and they pay him what is a fortune over there to grow these crops (they live in abject poverty). If they get caught then their families back home have to pay for the crop that went missing. If his family cannot pay then they force them to earn the money other ways or take what they have or murder them.. life is cheap.. Why not just deport him.. Blood on your hands.
corban
says...
9:42pm Thu 3 Jan 13
LSC wrote:generally their family get the money. It's quite common for organized crime to use vietnam farmers like this
corban wrote:The article quite clearly states he was not paid at all. Or do you know something about this case that we don't?
OMG this is dreadful. That poor man. He is shipped over here by criminal gangs and they pay him what is a fortune over there to grow these crops (they live in abject poverty). If they get caught then their families back home have to pay for the crop that went missing. If his family cannot pay then they force them to earn the money other ways or take what they have or murder them.. life is cheap.. Why not just deport him.. Blood on your hands.
corban
says...
9:46pm Thu 3 Jan 13
corban wrote:check out bbcs "the truth about cannabis" (think it can be found on youtube if you can find it. It goes into some detail about this sort of thing and the vietnamese farmers. You might also want to check out breakingTheTaboo (http://www.youtube.
LSC wrote:generally their family get the money. It's quite common for organized crime to use vietnam farmers like this
corban wrote:The article quite clearly states he was not paid at all. Or do you know something about this case that we don't?
OMG this is dreadful. That poor man. He is shipped over here by criminal gangs and they pay him what is a fortune over there to grow these crops (they live in abject poverty). If they get caught then their families back home have to pay for the crop that went missing. If his family cannot pay then they force them to earn the money other ways or take what they have or murder them.. life is cheap.. Why not just deport him.. Blood on your hands.
com/user/breakingthe
taboofilm)
Razor Sharp
says...
10:28pm Thu 3 Jan 13
corban wrote:Perhaps if it were legalised, as suggested by Babs, there could an argument for Fair Trade in it!
OMG this is dreadful. That poor man. He is shipped over here by criminal gangs and they pay him what is a fortune over there to grow these crops (they live in abject poverty). If they get caught then their families back home have to pay for the crop that went missing. If his family cannot pay then they force them to earn the money other ways or take what they have or murder them.. life is cheap.. Why not just deport him.. Blood on your hands.
LSC
says...
10:37pm Thu 3 Jan 13
I couldn't find the first but found the second and watched about 5 minutes. It was mainly going on about how we have failed to win the war against heroin use.
I knew that.
We have also failed to win the war against murder, rape and child abuse, and they have been going on a lot longer than drug use. But they happen every day, all over the world.
Do you suggest we should just accept them because we can't seem to stop them? It would save a LOT of police time.
I knew that.
We have also failed to win the war against murder, rape and child abuse, and they have been going on a lot longer than drug use. But they happen every day, all over the world.
Do you suggest we should just accept them because we can't seem to stop them? It would save a LOT of police time.
corban
says...
10:58pm Thu 3 Jan 13
LSC wrote:my personal view is users require medical help and it should be treated as a health issue. Of course if a user commits a crime of burglery or theft to fund their habit then this should be treated for what it is and the user arrested.
I couldn't find the first but found the second and watched about 5 minutes. It was mainly going on about how we have failed to win the war against heroin use.
I knew that.
We have also failed to win the war against murder, rape and child abuse, and they have been going on a lot longer than drug use. But they happen every day, all over the world.
Do you suggest we should just accept them because we can't seem to stop them? It would save a LOT of police time.
Dealing in hard drugs that cause pain and suffering lock them up all day long.
Prohibition on a soft drug like cannabis causes more harm than good and helps the black market and leads to mixing with unsavoury types (All many dealers need as a form of ID is a £20 note) If cannabis were legalized and regulated like tobacco or alcohol with a strict age limit and taxed it could actually be a benefit to society. It is certainly less harmful than alcohol and you might get gangs of youths hunting for cookies rather than causing alcohol fueled mayhem. Also it would dry the black market trade in cannabis up overnight. Unless taxed too heavily ofc. I cannot stand this comment program this site uses. Anyway I got the name wrong of the BBC thing but it is cannabis:what's the harm part 2 here is a link to the vid (http://www.youtube.
com/watch?v=_bbqs9mS
zy4) The piece about the vietnamese can be found at 42:10 :)
kate_stenberg
says...
11:09pm Thu 3 Jan 13
Cannabis is NOT a dangerous drug, heroine, cocaine, methotrexate, warfarin, prozac, alcohol, and nicotine are dangerous drugs. Cannabis is a very valuable medicine that has improved the quality of life dramatically. There is such a large criminal base around cannabis simply because cannabis can be shifted very quickly as it doesn't have life threatening side effects. It is our moral responsibility to get drugs off the street. All a drug dealer needs for ID is a twenty pound note. We need to regulate cannabis to keep our children safe. Our children need to be educated with the truth and that its not okay for them to consume but that it benefits the ill and disabled. It's time to change the drugs policy. It's time to compromise something that works.
Kate Stenberg
Cear Media Team
Cannabis Law Reform
Kate Stenberg
Cear Media Team
Cannabis Law Reform
John Dowdle
says...
2:15am Fri 4 Jan 13
Most of us know that the policy of alcohol prohibition in the USA failed spectacularly in the 1930s, fueling an absolute tsunami of a crime wave, in which mainly the mafia became enriched. Once prohibition was ended, they had to find other areas of criminal activity to replace the considerable sums they earned through bootleg liquor.
The same situation applies in the case of drugs like cannabis and other similar substances.
The so-called 'war on drugs' in this country and around the world is lost.
In places like Afghanistan, local war lords and terrorist gangs profit from the illicit production of opium, which is turned into heroin products in Central Asia, and then shipped to the Western world.
Instead of attacking opium growers and their crops, Western pharmaceutical companies could pay them legitimate prices and then use the product for legitimate purposes. The same is true of coca growers in South America.
Legalising all drugs would reduce tension between growers and nations, as well as de-criminalize people who consume modest amounts of recreational drugs.
Making all drugs available would make them un-cool in the eyes of young people, who would probably decide to give them a miss then.
The same situation applies in the case of drugs like cannabis and other similar substances.
The so-called 'war on drugs' in this country and around the world is lost.
In places like Afghanistan, local war lords and terrorist gangs profit from the illicit production of opium, which is turned into heroin products in Central Asia, and then shipped to the Western world.
Instead of attacking opium growers and their crops, Western pharmaceutical companies could pay them legitimate prices and then use the product for legitimate purposes. The same is true of coca growers in South America.
Legalising all drugs would reduce tension between growers and nations, as well as de-criminalize people who consume modest amounts of recreational drugs.
Making all drugs available would make them un-cool in the eyes of young people, who would probably decide to give them a miss then.
Babs Stanley
says...
8:39am Fri 4 Jan 13
LSC wrote:LSC, I really don't believe that you're quite as stupid as you pretend to be. Murder, rape and child abuse are crimes with victims committed with a motive to cause harm. Drug 'crimes' are mostly victimless or the victims are created by prohibition, not drugs.
I couldn't find the first but found the second and watched about 5 minutes. It was mainly going on about how we have failed to win the war against heroin use.
I knew that.
We have also failed to win the war against murder, rape and child abuse, and they have been going on a lot longer than drug use. But they happen every day, all over the world.
Do you suggest we should just accept them because we can't seem to stop them? It would save a LOT of police time.
The only purpose of drugs policy must be to reduce harm and present policy cause more harm than it prevents.
garston tony
says...
9:11am Fri 4 Jan 13
LSC I'd add, someone dies from taking an illegal drug. They don’t care.
Where were the pro drug lot on the recent stories (two or three of them) of people having died from taking drugs? Not so easy to defend your position when someone has actually died is it? Yet on the bandwagon they come when it’s a story of a grower or user or dealer being caught.
Just goes to show they havent actually got a leg to stand on, if they did they would be trying to claim drugs should be legalised on the articles about people dying. But they don’t because someones death just blows their whole argument out of the water. I'd like to see them justify 'drugs don’t hurt anyone' on the recent murder of party goers in Mexico by a drugs gang. Do you think people who do that are going to shrug their shoulders and get a 9 to 5 office job if drugs were made legal?
I think you've hit the nail on the head LSC, they are so addicted all they care about is their habit and nothing else in the world.
Just because the current policy on illegal drugs may not be working in some cases (it does in many instances, isnt drugs use down overall?) doesn’t mean you should just shrug your shoulders and make it legal. Illegal drugs are harmful to individuals and to society and they will remain so even if legalised so legalisation is not the answer either.
Where were the pro drug lot on the recent stories (two or three of them) of people having died from taking drugs? Not so easy to defend your position when someone has actually died is it? Yet on the bandwagon they come when it’s a story of a grower or user or dealer being caught.
Just goes to show they havent actually got a leg to stand on, if they did they would be trying to claim drugs should be legalised on the articles about people dying. But they don’t because someones death just blows their whole argument out of the water. I'd like to see them justify 'drugs don’t hurt anyone' on the recent murder of party goers in Mexico by a drugs gang. Do you think people who do that are going to shrug their shoulders and get a 9 to 5 office job if drugs were made legal?
I think you've hit the nail on the head LSC, they are so addicted all they care about is their habit and nothing else in the world.
Just because the current policy on illegal drugs may not be working in some cases (it does in many instances, isnt drugs use down overall?) doesn’t mean you should just shrug your shoulders and make it legal. Illegal drugs are harmful to individuals and to society and they will remain so even if legalised so legalisation is not the answer either.
garston tony
says...
9:16am Fri 4 Jan 13
Babs Stanley wrote:Tell the 60,000 people killed by drugs gangs in Mexico that drug taking is a mostly victimless crime.
LSC wrote: I couldn't find the first but found the second and watched about 5 minutes. It was mainly going on about how we have failed to win the war against heroin use. I knew that. We have also failed to win the war against murder, rape and child abuse, and they have been going on a lot longer than drug use. But they happen every day, all over the world. Do you suggest we should just accept them because we can't seem to stop them? It would save a LOT of police time.LSC, I really don't believe that you're quite as stupid as you pretend to be. Murder, rape and child abuse are crimes with victims committed with a motive to cause harm. Drug 'crimes' are mostly victimless or the victims are created by prohibition, not drugs. The only purpose of drugs policy must be to reduce harm and present policy cause more harm than it prevents.
Tell the victim of a burglary, mugging or car theft that drug taking is a victimless crime.
Tell the tax payer who has to foot the cost of looking after 'space cadets' who have taken too much funny stuff that this is a victimless crime.
Tell the family and friends of said space cadets or people who have changed into gollum like creatures due to drug taking that this is a victimles crime.
Tell the people who have been hit by a car driven by someone on drugs that this is a victimless crime.
Babs Stanley
says...
9:30am Fri 4 Jan 13
The 60,000 killed in Mexico are victims of the great immoral evil of prohibition.
People who are so ill with addiction to opiates need help, not criminalisation. Keep up present policy and you only have yourself to blame. 70% of all street crime is rooted in addiction but caused by our stupid policy.
There are hardly any 'space cadets' as you describe them a tiny fraction of a percentage compared to the most dangerous drug of all - alcohol.
Finally, the fact that you can't distinguish between cannabis and dangerous addictive drugs like alcohol and heroin really says everything about you that anyone needs to know.
It is because of ignorance and dullard stupidity like yours that our drugs policy is such a disaster.
People who are so ill with addiction to opiates need help, not criminalisation. Keep up present policy and you only have yourself to blame. 70% of all street crime is rooted in addiction but caused by our stupid policy.
There are hardly any 'space cadets' as you describe them a tiny fraction of a percentage compared to the most dangerous drug of all - alcohol.
Finally, the fact that you can't distinguish between cannabis and dangerous addictive drugs like alcohol and heroin really says everything about you that anyone needs to know.
It is because of ignorance and dullard stupidity like yours that our drugs policy is such a disaster.
LSC
says...
10:15am Fri 4 Jan 13
You are missing the point Babs. Perhaps your lot are correct and legalising cannabis would reduce crime (it won't, but I'll go with it for a moment).
What about right now? You KNOW it is funding everything from murder to prostitution. You KNOW that today, lives are being ruined. But such is the grip of the drug, that people buy it anyway knowing full well that somewhere along the chain somebody is dieing. Hence factories like the above exist, because there is a market for people that are so selfish or so addicted that they simply do not care.
THAT, is a dangerous drug by definition.
The day people stop using cannabis is the day to look at legalising it.
What about right now? You KNOW it is funding everything from murder to prostitution. You KNOW that today, lives are being ruined. But such is the grip of the drug, that people buy it anyway knowing full well that somewhere along the chain somebody is dieing. Hence factories like the above exist, because there is a market for people that are so selfish or so addicted that they simply do not care.
THAT, is a dangerous drug by definition.
The day people stop using cannabis is the day to look at legalising it.
mkhan1
says...
10:42am Fri 4 Jan 13
LSC/Malcolm I agree with you that legalising Cannabis would reduce crime.
John Dowdle
says...
10:47am Fri 4 Jan 13
LSC: I am surprised to see you sharing the same views as Tony. That ought to give you pause for thought? The fact that 60,000 people have died in Mexico is a direct outcome of the lost war against drugs. The big crime bosses and terrorist overlords are all doing very nicely out of the war on drugs. Criminalizing drugs fuels other crimes. When I grew up in the 1950s I did not know anyone who consumed drugs other than tobacco and alcohol, most often in moderation. Drug users were usually war time survivors with very painful injuries who had become dependent upon drugs as a result of medical treatment. They were provided with supplies on the NHS and the numbers actually involved was very few. As long as we continue with the same old failed policies, we will continue to "enjoy" the same failed outcomes, with the odd Vietnamese gentleman being brought over here to the benefit of some Vietnamese crime overlord.
Is this what you really want?
Is this what you really want?
mummy_1
says...
12:14pm Fri 4 Jan 13
Babs Stanley wrote:Babs
LSC wrote:LSC, I really don't believe that you're quite as stupid as you pretend to be. Murder, rape and child abuse are crimes with victims committed with a motive to cause harm. Drug 'crimes' are mostly victimless or the victims are created by prohibition, not drugs.
I couldn't find the first but found the second and watched about 5 minutes. It was mainly going on about how we have failed to win the war against heroin use.
I knew that.
We have also failed to win the war against murder, rape and child abuse, and they have been going on a lot longer than drug use. But they happen every day, all over the world.
Do you suggest we should just accept them because we can't seem to stop them? It would save a LOT of police time.
The only purpose of drugs policy must be to reduce harm and present policy cause more harm than it prevents.
I think that you are totally delusional but I am interested in your vision?
Please tell me how you think the Government should go about legalising cannabis?
Include in it for me; from what date? age for purchasing? licensing laws?advertising gudance? and quality.control measures?
John Dowdle
says...
12:17pm Fri 4 Jan 13
You don't have to legalise drugs - just decriminalise them. Abolish all legislation under which possession of drugs is a criminal offence. Job done. We forget that in the past the volume of legislation was a tiny fraction of its present-day level. People were a whole lot freer then than they are today.
LSC
says...
1:36pm Fri 4 Jan 13
"LSC: I am surprised to see you sharing the same views as Tony. That ought to give you pause for thought?"
Partly for the reasons stated above. People are using cannabis despite being fully aware that people are getting killed because they do. AT PRESENT.
Now, that either makes them 'bad people' (not a group I like to encourage) or it means the lure of the drug overides any good morals they might have, which is also a 'bad thing'.
That is reason enough, but there are others, like seeing what it can do to people.
Or the fact that the criminal gangs won't go away; they will change their product or their market (ie children and vulnerable adults denied the drug by the State).
Partly for the reasons stated above. People are using cannabis despite being fully aware that people are getting killed because they do. AT PRESENT.
Now, that either makes them 'bad people' (not a group I like to encourage) or it means the lure of the drug overides any good morals they might have, which is also a 'bad thing'.
That is reason enough, but there are others, like seeing what it can do to people.
Or the fact that the criminal gangs won't go away; they will change their product or their market (ie children and vulnerable adults denied the drug by the State).
Babs Stanley
says...
2:24pm Fri 4 Jan 13
mummy_1 wrote:In great detail here: http://www.clear-uk.
Babs Stanley wrote:Babs
LSC wrote:LSC, I really don't believe that you're quite as stupid as you pretend to be. Murder, rape and child abuse are crimes with victims committed with a motive to cause harm. Drug 'crimes' are mostly victimless or the victims are created by prohibition, not drugs.
I couldn't find the first but found the second and watched about 5 minutes. It was mainly going on about how we have failed to win the war against heroin use.
I knew that.
We have also failed to win the war against murder, rape and child abuse, and they have been going on a lot longer than drug use. But they happen every day, all over the world.
Do you suggest we should just accept them because we can't seem to stop them? It would save a LOT of police time.
The only purpose of drugs policy must be to reduce harm and present policy cause more harm than it prevents.
I think that you are totally delusional but I am interested in your vision?
Please tell me how you think the Government should go about legalising cannabis?
Include in it for me; from what date? age for purchasing? licensing laws?advertising gudance? and quality.control measures?
org/wp-content/uploa
ds/2011/09/CLEARplan
And if you think I am 'delusional' then why does every expert scientific report on the subject since the Indian Hemp Commission of 1894 advocate the same thing?
John Dowdle
says...
3:15pm Fri 4 Jan 13
I am not a promoter of cannabis. I did try it a few times in Africa and America in the 1970s. However, it is my understanding that the cannabis now available is very much stronger and it has been suggested that people who consume strong cannabis on a regular basis - especially young people - are decreasing their brain's ability to function such that their IQ is detrimentally affected. In addition, regular consumption of cannabis can lead to consumers developing paranoia and neuroses.
Ideally, no one should consume any of the drugs which are harmful to their physical or mental health. But criminalising such behaviour helps no one. The resources expended on the unsuccessful war on drugs would be far better spent on public health information campaigns.
Ideally, no one should consume any of the drugs which are harmful to their physical or mental health. But criminalising such behaviour helps no one. The resources expended on the unsuccessful war on drugs would be far better spent on public health information campaigns.
garston tony
says...
4:13pm Fri 4 Jan 13
Babs you are deluded.
But lets imagine that drugs are made legal and those working for drug cartel start working in fast food restaurants, offices, petrol stations etc giving up their lucrative life of crime (yeah right, like that would happen). The addict who currently has to turn to crime to fund his habit would still have to turn to crime to fund his newly legal habit, that’s not going to change is it.
So if 70% of crime now is linked to people trying to get money to buy drugs then if legalised 70% of crime will still be related to drugs. That isn't miraculously going to disappear is it.
Oh right, so x is worse than y so lets legalise y. Sure, that’s like saying getting shot by bullet from a pistol is less damaging then getting shot by an artillery shell so everyone go get shot!!
Sorry love but you're the stupid dullard
One final point, even when drugs like opium where legal indeed popular in Britain it was surrounded by death and destruction. There wasn’t a mythical moment where all was hunky dory and sweet which if made legal again the situation will return to. There was death and destruction at the start, there is death and destruction now and if made legal there will still be death and destruction.
Just because the current policy isnt working (and again I would point out that recent research shows usage is actually down) doesn’t mean the product is suddenly alright
But lets imagine that drugs are made legal and those working for drug cartel start working in fast food restaurants, offices, petrol stations etc giving up their lucrative life of crime (yeah right, like that would happen). The addict who currently has to turn to crime to fund his habit would still have to turn to crime to fund his newly legal habit, that’s not going to change is it.
So if 70% of crime now is linked to people trying to get money to buy drugs then if legalised 70% of crime will still be related to drugs. That isn't miraculously going to disappear is it.
Oh right, so x is worse than y so lets legalise y. Sure, that’s like saying getting shot by bullet from a pistol is less damaging then getting shot by an artillery shell so everyone go get shot!!
Sorry love but you're the stupid dullard
One final point, even when drugs like opium where legal indeed popular in Britain it was surrounded by death and destruction. There wasn’t a mythical moment where all was hunky dory and sweet which if made legal again the situation will return to. There was death and destruction at the start, there is death and destruction now and if made legal there will still be death and destruction.
Just because the current policy isnt working (and again I would point out that recent research shows usage is actually down) doesn’t mean the product is suddenly alright
garston tony
says...
4:15pm Fri 4 Jan 13
Babs, next time there is a report of someone dying through drug use please if its what you really believe post on that story your belief that drugs should be legalised
kate_stenberg
says...
5:00pm Fri 4 Jan 13
When they say they want to decriminalize drugs they mean to stop prosecuting those who need help. Those who die from drug abuse have either overdosed or have consumed a drug that has been cut with something nasty such as rat poison ect. It doesn't mean that drugs should be a free for all. If there were some sort of regulation, drug users could be watched more closely. Instead of just pretending that sending them to jail or fining them is gong to solve the problem, they could easily be weened off the drug or be allowed to consume a small amount of the drug. There are several prescription drugs that do far worse and no one bats an eyelid. A friend of a friend of mine was suicidal and he was sectioned. The next day he was released and given prescription medication to 'help' his suicidal tendencies and he took the whole lot. Drug prohibition is not there to protect people but to protect big pharmaceuticals from loosing out on money. I have been using the 'more potent' cannabis on and off to treat PTSD and for the past eight years and not only am i perfectly fine it has improved my life considerably and I am not even a little bit dependent on cannabis where as I became very dependent on the prescription medicines that my GP said were okay to take. Everyone needs to know the true facts of what drugs can do to you especially information surrounding cannabis. It is statistical fact that prohibition leads to crime and that would most certainly go down if the drugs trade was brought out of the black market and into formal regulation system. This would not only protect children but society as well as users.
Kate Stenberg
Clear Media Team
Cannabis Law Reform
Kate Stenberg
Clear Media Team
Cannabis Law Reform
Babs Stanley
says...
5:18pm Fri 4 Jan 13
garston tony wrote:Why do you persist in your bigoted refusal to distinguish between dangerous drugs such as alcohol and heroin and relatively harmless drugs such as cannabis?
Babs you are deluded.
But lets imagine that drugs are made legal and those working for drug cartel start working in fast food restaurants, offices, petrol stations etc giving up their lucrative life of crime (yeah right, like that would happen). The addict who currently has to turn to crime to fund his habit would still have to turn to crime to fund his newly legal habit, that’s not going to change is it.
So if 70% of crime now is linked to people trying to get money to buy drugs then if legalised 70% of crime will still be related to drugs. That isn't miraculously going to disappear is it.
Oh right, so x is worse than y so lets legalise y. Sure, that’s like saying getting shot by bullet from a pistol is less damaging then getting shot by an artillery shell so everyone go get shot!!
Sorry love but you're the stupid dullard
One final point, even when drugs like opium where legal indeed popular in Britain it was surrounded by death and destruction. There wasn’t a mythical moment where all was hunky dory and sweet which if made legal again the situation will return to. There was death and destruction at the start, there is death and destruction now and if made legal there will still be death and destruction.
Just because the current policy isnt working (and again I would point out that recent research shows usage is actually down) doesn’t mean the product is suddenly alright
Your repetitive abuse of me calling me deluded overlooks the overwhelming weight of evidence, scientific and epidemiological, which supports my position.
Why can't you open your mind?
LSC
says...
5:33pm Fri 4 Jan 13
I notice everyone is ignoring my point. Which is quite simple.
I really love bacon, and apart from a bit of salt and fat content, it doesn't do a lot of harm.
But what if bacon was illegal, although there was a black market for it?
But that black market involved organised crime, murder, slavery (like the Vietnamese guy above) prostitution, theft, extortion, people trafficking and money laundering.
As well as the fact eating it could land me in court.
Would I give my beloved bacon?
Yes, in a heartbeat. Unless of course I discovered bacon is addictive and I simply couldn't live without it, which means it is dangerous; or I was too selfish to care about any of the above, which makes ME dangerous.
I really love bacon, and apart from a bit of salt and fat content, it doesn't do a lot of harm.
But what if bacon was illegal, although there was a black market for it?
But that black market involved organised crime, murder, slavery (like the Vietnamese guy above) prostitution, theft, extortion, people trafficking and money laundering.
As well as the fact eating it could land me in court.
Would I give my beloved bacon?
Yes, in a heartbeat. Unless of course I discovered bacon is addictive and I simply couldn't live without it, which means it is dangerous; or I was too selfish to care about any of the above, which makes ME dangerous.
LSC
says...
5:38pm Fri 4 Jan 13
What I am saying is, there is no point in using the argument about cutting crime. Current users quite clearly are not interested in that at all. Or they would stop using it. Today.
So please be honest and admit you want it legalised because you are desperate for your fix and don't want to end up in court.
So please be honest and admit you want it legalised because you are desperate for your fix and don't want to end up in court.
theturpster
says...
5:47pm Fri 4 Jan 13
LSC wrote:I see your point LSC, but there is no "ethical" drugs market and the upshot is people still buy knowing fully well what happens in the background. We know that most value clothes are made in non ethical conditions and these shops are still making a profit, certain phone,laptop and tablet manufacturers are renowned for using slave labour with some reported suicides at assembly plants. The bottom line is that in today's society, no one cares two hoots sadly.
I notice everyone is ignoring my point. Which is quite simple.
I really love bacon, and apart from a bit of salt and fat content, it doesn't do a lot of harm.
But what if bacon was illegal, although there was a black market for it?
But that black market involved organised crime, murder, slavery (like the Vietnamese guy above) prostitution, theft, extortion, people trafficking and money laundering.
As well as the fact eating it could land me in court.
Would I give my beloved bacon?
Yes, in a heartbeat. Unless of course I discovered bacon is addictive and I simply couldn't live without it, which means it is dangerous; or I was too selfish to care about any of the above, which makes ME dangerous.
Babs Stanley
says...
6:18pm Fri 4 Jan 13
LSC, teh harms you are concerned with (as are we all) are harms of prohibition, not of drugs. The same harms would exist if you prohibited peanuts, ice cream or chillis. So it's not the 'crime' causing the harm (unlike murder, rape, theft, etc) it's the law!
kate_stenberg
says...
6:20pm Fri 4 Jan 13
LSC wrote:If growing cannabis from home was decriminalized then there would be no need to use the black market and the money wouldn't be fueling the effects of the drug war. If something was aiding your health why not push for what is right? If bacon were illegal and it didn't affect your health wouldn't you pursue the ignorant reason the decision had been made criminalize it especially if there were wrong? Or are you just another person who bends over and lets the government take advantage of you?
What I am saying is, there is no point in using the argument about cutting crime. Current users quite clearly are not interested in that at all. Or they would stop using it. Today.
So please be honest and admit you want it legalised because you are desperate for your fix and don't want to end up in court.
kate_stenberg
says...
6:21pm Fri 4 Jan 13
LSC wrote:If growing cannabis from home was decriminalized then there would be no need to use the black market and the money wouldn't be fueling the effects of the drug war. If something was aiding your health why not push for what is right? If bacon were illegal and it didn't affect your health wouldn't you pursue the ignorant reason the decision had been made criminalize it especially if there were wrong? Or are you just another person who bends over and lets the government take advantage of you?
What I am saying is, there is no point in using the argument about cutting crime. Current users quite clearly are not interested in that at all. Or they would stop using it. Today.
So please be honest and admit you want it legalised because you are desperate for your fix and don't want to end up in court.
Kate Stenberg
Clear Media Team
Cannabis Law Reform
LSC
says...
8:41pm Fri 4 Jan 13
"If something was aiding your health why not push for what is right?"
In my opinion, medicinal cannabis is a separate issue to anything to do with the story above.
"If bacon were illegal and it didn't affect your health wouldn't you pursue the ignorant reason the decision had been made criminalize it especially if there were wrong?"
Yes, I would do almost anything to make bacon legal. Except buy it and eat it when it wasn't.
"Or are you just another person who bends over and lets the government take advantage of you?"
I don't think the government are taking advantage of me. They are telling me not to use something that makes it hard to drive, work or parent.
This is where the arguments don't add up. Many pro-drugs people point out that with the tax and police/court savings, the government would save, or even make, money.
Yet no party is even entertaining the idea at a time we are more desperate for cash than ever before. Of all skint governments only the Portugese dipped their toe in the water, and they are, apparently, not seeing one single benefit. Their crime rate is the same, their prison population is the same, their health bill is the same, and their economy is the same. The only thing that has changed is the increase in the use of harder drugs.
In my opinion, medicinal cannabis is a separate issue to anything to do with the story above.
"If bacon were illegal and it didn't affect your health wouldn't you pursue the ignorant reason the decision had been made criminalize it especially if there were wrong?"
Yes, I would do almost anything to make bacon legal. Except buy it and eat it when it wasn't.
"Or are you just another person who bends over and lets the government take advantage of you?"
I don't think the government are taking advantage of me. They are telling me not to use something that makes it hard to drive, work or parent.
This is where the arguments don't add up. Many pro-drugs people point out that with the tax and police/court savings, the government would save, or even make, money.
Yet no party is even entertaining the idea at a time we are more desperate for cash than ever before. Of all skint governments only the Portugese dipped their toe in the water, and they are, apparently, not seeing one single benefit. Their crime rate is the same, their prison population is the same, their health bill is the same, and their economy is the same. The only thing that has changed is the increase in the use of harder drugs.
LSC
says...
8:50pm Fri 4 Jan 13
"I see your point LSC, but there is no "ethical" drugs market and the upshot is people still buy knowing fully well what happens in the background. We know that most value clothes are made in non ethical conditions and these shops are still making a profit, certain phone,laptop and tablet manufacturers are renowned for using slave labour with some reported suicides at assembly plants. The bottom line is that in today's society, no one cares two hoots sadly."
I care two hoots. Yes, in my house there is absolutely no doubt there are items made in the way you describe. But never knowingly bought; sometimes I simply do not know the facts behind their background.
But there is no cannabis in the house because I DO know the facts behind it's background.
I'm not a saint, but I try to stay within the law, do my bit for the planet, and buy ethically. If everyone tried that the world might just be a better place.
I care two hoots. Yes, in my house there is absolutely no doubt there are items made in the way you describe. But never knowingly bought; sometimes I simply do not know the facts behind their background.
But there is no cannabis in the house because I DO know the facts behind it's background.
I'm not a saint, but I try to stay within the law, do my bit for the planet, and buy ethically. If everyone tried that the world might just be a better place.
LSC
says...
9:00pm Fri 4 Jan 13
"If growing cannabis from home was decriminalized then there would be no need to use the black market and the money wouldn't be fueling the effects of the drug war."
Please explain how this works. You KNOW that people would grow extra and sell it for extra cash to the people unable or unwilling to do it themselves.
That would be a crime, and therefore you would need police and courts to sort it out. A bit like now.
Cannabis users, as we have established, are not ethical people.
Then someone would realise they could actually grow a lot, and make a lot of money; enough to live nicely on. So we go full circle and still get the factories and the crime network.
The only people to gain from your idea is the people with one flowerpot on the window sill. And they hardly clog the courts, do they?
Please explain how this works. You KNOW that people would grow extra and sell it for extra cash to the people unable or unwilling to do it themselves.
That would be a crime, and therefore you would need police and courts to sort it out. A bit like now.
Cannabis users, as we have established, are not ethical people.
Then someone would realise they could actually grow a lot, and make a lot of money; enough to live nicely on. So we go full circle and still get the factories and the crime network.
The only people to gain from your idea is the people with one flowerpot on the window sill. And they hardly clog the courts, do they?
kate_stenberg
says...
11:44pm Fri 4 Jan 13
LSC wrote:Just because you don't 'think' the government isn't taking advantage of you doesn't mean that they aren't and that isn't a valid argument to conclude that my argument doesn't add up when that facts are clear for everyone to see. Cannabis has completely made it whole lot easier for me to drive, work and parent. The sativa plant actually improves your judgment and awareness which are the key factors for safe driving and there are several articles that show this. It has not only improved my ability to parent by toning down my flashbacks of being sexually abused as a child but has flourished me into an amazing calm and collective parent. It has also helped me to hold a steady job for the past six years by deceasing my anxiety and allowing me to interact with people that I don't trust. Just research the facts. Prohibition is there to protect big Pharma, not society. I don't know where you obtained your information about Portugal because the statistics show that there was an overall decrease in the rate of crime. I am simply here to inform people about the benefits of medicinal cannabis and fight for what is right. The ill and disabled show have the right to decide what medicine to put in their body.
"If something was aiding your health why not push for what is right?"
In my opinion, medicinal cannabis is a separate issue to anything to do with the story above.
"If bacon were illegal and it didn't affect your health wouldn't you pursue the ignorant reason the decision had been made criminalize it especially if there were wrong?"
Yes, I would do almost anything to make bacon legal. Except buy it and eat it when it wasn't.
"Or are you just another person who bends over and lets the government take advantage of you?"
I don't think the government are taking advantage of me. They are telling me not to use something that makes it hard to drive, work or parent.
This is where the arguments don't add up. Many pro-drugs people point out that with the tax and police/court savings, the government would save, or even make, money.
Yet no party is even entertaining the idea at a time we are more desperate for cash than ever before. Of all skint governments only the Portugese dipped their toe in the water, and they are, apparently, not seeing one single benefit. Their crime rate is the same, their prison population is the same, their health bill is the same, and their economy is the same. The only thing that has changed is the increase in the use of harder drugs.
Kate Stenberg
Clear Media Team
Cannabis Law Reform
kate_stenberg
says...
11:57pm Fri 4 Jan 13
LSC wrote:I was referring to the fact that it is unethical to fuel the drug war and it could easily be avoided by growing your own. I don't agree with people growing to sell as it makes them just as bed as the next person trying to sell cannabis. Medicinal cannabis users should be allowed to produce their own medicine in a safe and lawful environment. A single plant on the windowsill wouldn't yield enough for someone that is disabled. I think they should be either licensed and/or monitored for criminal activity but not criminalized for using cannabis to treat an illness or disability.That alone is unethical.
"If growing cannabis from home was decriminalized then there would be no need to use the black market and the money wouldn't be fueling the effects of the drug war."
Please explain how this works. You KNOW that people would grow extra and sell it for extra cash to the people unable or unwilling to do it themselves.
That would be a crime, and therefore you would need police and courts to sort it out. A bit like now.
Cannabis users, as we have established, are not ethical people.
Then someone would realise they could actually grow a lot, and make a lot of money; enough to live nicely on. So we go full circle and still get the factories and the crime network.
The only people to gain from your idea is the people with one flowerpot on the window sill. And they hardly clog the courts, do they?
Kate Stenberg
Clear Media Team
Cannabis Law reform
LSC
says...
1:21am Sat 5 Jan 13
Kate, I have never argued against cannabis as a medicine. I know nothing of your circumstances.
But what you are suggesting is clearly fraught with danger.
You might well be a qualified horticulturist who knows what plant to grow and how to grow it. You might also be a qualified chemist who can test samples for constistancy and quality. On top of that, you might also be a qualified medical practitioner who would know the correct dose and how frequently to administer it.
But I have a sneaky suspicion that if you were all these things rolled into one, I'd have seen you on the telly by now. And if you are an expert in all these diverse fields, the last thing you'd want is your head messed up by cannabis.
I'm more than happy for cannabis to be available on prescription to those who benefit from it. But if anyone asks me to try their 'home-made' paracetamol that they made in the kitchen from all the right chemicals, I shall decline. I suggest you do the same.
But what you are suggesting is clearly fraught with danger.
You might well be a qualified horticulturist who knows what plant to grow and how to grow it. You might also be a qualified chemist who can test samples for constistancy and quality. On top of that, you might also be a qualified medical practitioner who would know the correct dose and how frequently to administer it.
But I have a sneaky suspicion that if you were all these things rolled into one, I'd have seen you on the telly by now. And if you are an expert in all these diverse fields, the last thing you'd want is your head messed up by cannabis.
I'm more than happy for cannabis to be available on prescription to those who benefit from it. But if anyone asks me to try their 'home-made' paracetamol that they made in the kitchen from all the right chemicals, I shall decline. I suggest you do the same.
LSC
says...
1:40am Sat 5 Jan 13
"Cannabis has completely made it whole lot easier for me to drive, work and parent. The sativa plant actually improves your judgment and awareness which are the key factors for safe driving and there are several articles that show this."
So you are seriously suggesting Airline pilots should fly while stoned?
I'd LOVE to read the articles you refer to that suggest this. (Although I'd never get on a plane again).
I mean seriously? You think that?
Improved judgement and awareness would be an asset to air traffic controllers, paramedics, racing drivers, surgeons, and many other professions. You SERIOUSLY think they would perform better if they were pot-heads?
This is why I am so anti cannabis. The people who argue for it will say ANYTHING, do anything, no matter how ridiculous, to justify a fix.
So you are seriously suggesting Airline pilots should fly while stoned?
I'd LOVE to read the articles you refer to that suggest this. (Although I'd never get on a plane again).
I mean seriously? You think that?
Improved judgement and awareness would be an asset to air traffic controllers, paramedics, racing drivers, surgeons, and many other professions. You SERIOUSLY think they would perform better if they were pot-heads?
This is why I am so anti cannabis. The people who argue for it will say ANYTHING, do anything, no matter how ridiculous, to justify a fix.
kate_stenberg
says...
2:00am Sat 5 Jan 13
LSC wrote:You don't have to be qualified to be knowledgeable. For some reason you are mistaking growing a plant and brewing up paracetamol in the same way meth is prepared. Cannabis was the best option for me as the prescription drugs I was taking were messing up my head. Why are you not arguing that all medicines are harmful and should be banned when they have more harmful side effects than cannabis?
Kate, I have never argued against cannabis as a medicine. I know nothing of your circumstances.
But what you are suggesting is clearly fraught with danger.
You might well be a qualified horticulturist who knows what plant to grow and how to grow it. You might also be a qualified chemist who can test samples for constistancy and quality. On top of that, you might also be a qualified medical practitioner who would know the correct dose and how frequently to administer it.
But I have a sneaky suspicion that if you were all these things rolled into one, I'd have seen you on the telly by now. And if you are an expert in all these diverse fields, the last thing you'd want is your head messed up by cannabis.
I'm more than happy for cannabis to be available on prescription to those who benefit from it. But if anyone asks me to try their 'home-made' paracetamol that they made in the kitchen from all the right chemicals, I shall decline. I suggest you do the same.
kate_stenberg
says...
2:05am Sat 5 Jan 13
LSC wrote:If it didn't impare there judgement I wouldn't have a problem with it. This is just one of a few articles that back up that people are simply over reacting to the use of cannabis: http://www.tokeofthe
"Cannabis has completely made it whole lot easier for me to drive, work and parent. The sativa plant actually improves your judgment and awareness which are the key factors for safe driving and there are several articles that show this."
So you are seriously suggesting Airline pilots should fly while stoned?
I'd LOVE to read the articles you refer to that suggest this. (Although I'd never get on a plane again).
I mean seriously? You think that?
Improved judgement and awareness would be an asset to air traffic controllers, paramedics, racing drivers, surgeons, and many other professions. You SERIOUSLY think they would perform better if they were pot-heads?
This is why I am so anti cannabis. The people who argue for it will say ANYTHING, do anything, no matter how ridiculous, to justify a fix.
town.com/2012/04/aut
o_insurance_site_say
s_marijuana_users_ar
e_safer.php People aren't just saying what they want to get a fix, it is fact.
kate_stenberg
says...
2:18am Sat 5 Jan 13
kate_stenberg wrote:Here are a couple more if you are not satisfied: http://www.libertari
LSC wrote:If it didn't impare there judgement I wouldn't have a problem with it. This is just one of a few articles that back up that people are simply over reacting to the use of cannabis: http://www.tokeofthe
"Cannabis has completely made it whole lot easier for me to drive, work and parent. The sativa plant actually improves your judgment and awareness which are the key factors for safe driving and there are several articles that show this."
So you are seriously suggesting Airline pilots should fly while stoned?
I'd LOVE to read the articles you refer to that suggest this. (Although I'd never get on a plane again).
I mean seriously? You think that?
Improved judgement and awareness would be an asset to air traffic controllers, paramedics, racing drivers, surgeons, and many other professions. You SERIOUSLY think they would perform better if they were pot-heads?
This is why I am so anti cannabis. The people who argue for it will say ANYTHING, do anything, no matter how ridiculous, to justify a fix.
town.com/2012/04/aut
o_insurance_site_say
s_marijuana_users_ar
e_safer.php People aren't just saying what they want to get a fix, it is fact.
annews.org/2012/12/1
0/fox-news-creates-f
abricated-test-to-de
monize-cannabis-use-
and-driving/
http://norml.org/lib
rary/item/marijuana-
and-driving-a-review
-of-the-scientific-e
vidence
theturpster
says...
9:26am Sat 5 Jan 13
Need to admit though without the likes of cannabis and LSD, i doubt we would have had some of the best music and bands in the past 40 years lol.
John Dowdle
says...
12:15pm Sat 5 Jan 13
There is an article at http://www.bbc.co.uk
/news/uk-11454671 on the effects of changes in Portuguese drugs laws.
A report on a research paper by the Cato Institute inter alia concluded:-
'The paper, published by Cato in April, found that in the five years after personal possession was decriminalized, illegal drug use among teens in Portugal declined and rates of new HIV infections caused by sharing of dirty needles dropped, while the number of people seeking treatment for drug addiction more than doubled.
"Judging by every metric, decriminalization in Portugal has been a resounding success," said Glenn Greenwald, an attorney, author and fluent Portuguese speaker, who conducted the research. "It has enabled the Portuguese government to manage and control the drug problem far better than virtually every other Western country does." at http://www.time.com/
time/health/article/
0,8599,1893946,00.ht
ml.
The available facts support drugs decriminalization.
/news/uk-11454671 on the effects of changes in Portuguese drugs laws.
A report on a research paper by the Cato Institute inter alia concluded:-
'The paper, published by Cato in April, found that in the five years after personal possession was decriminalized, illegal drug use among teens in Portugal declined and rates of new HIV infections caused by sharing of dirty needles dropped, while the number of people seeking treatment for drug addiction more than doubled.
"Judging by every metric, decriminalization in Portugal has been a resounding success," said Glenn Greenwald, an attorney, author and fluent Portuguese speaker, who conducted the research. "It has enabled the Portuguese government to manage and control the drug problem far better than virtually every other Western country does." at http://www.time.com/
time/health/article/
0,8599,1893946,00.ht
ml.
The available facts support drugs decriminalization.
LSC
says...
1:31pm Sat 5 Jan 13
kate_stenberg wrote:Kate, I'm not dodging the issue, but my policy is to never click links that I'm not sure of, especially when I'm disagreeing with someone! So sorry I have not read the documents you refer too.
LSC wrote:If it didn't impare there judgement I wouldn't have a problem with it. This is just one of a few articles that back up that people are simply over reacting to the use of cannabis: http://www.tokeofthe
"Cannabis has completely made it whole lot easier for me to drive, work and parent. The sativa plant actually improves your judgment and awareness which are the key factors for safe driving and there are several articles that show this."
So you are seriously suggesting Airline pilots should fly while stoned?
I'd LOVE to read the articles you refer to that suggest this. (Although I'd never get on a plane again).
I mean seriously? You think that?
Improved judgement and awareness would be an asset to air traffic controllers, paramedics, racing drivers, surgeons, and many other professions. You SERIOUSLY think they would perform better if they were pot-heads?
This is why I am so anti cannabis. The people who argue for it will say ANYTHING, do anything, no matter how ridiculous, to justify a fix.
town.com/2012/04/aut
o_insurance_site_say
s_marijuana_users_ar
e_safer.php People aren't just saying what they want to get a fix, it is fact.
However, the web addresses alone tell me much of what I need to know.
'Tokeofhetowm.com' suggests their stance right away.
And someone debating Fox news? Really? The most laughed at news site on the planet? Anything Fox News says will be biased and un-researched. So proving Fox News wrong can be done by a 5 year old and proves little.
But I ask again, do YOU believe that a fighter pilot performs better while on cannabis?
LSC
says...
1:37pm Sat 5 Jan 13
John Dowdle wrote:Reported lifetime use of "all illicit drugs" increased from 7.8% to 12%, lifetime use of cannabis increased from 7.6% to 11.7%, cocaine use more than doubled, from 0.9% to 1.9%, ecstasy nearly doubled from 0.7% to 1.3%, and heroin increased from 0.7% to 1.1%
There is an article at http://www.bbc.co.uk
/news/uk-11454671 on the effects of changes in Portuguese drugs laws.
A report on a research paper by the Cato Institute inter alia concluded:-
'The paper, published by Cato in April, found that in the five years after personal possession was decriminalized, illegal drug use among teens in Portugal declined and rates of new HIV infections caused by sharing of dirty needles dropped, while the number of people seeking treatment for drug addiction more than doubled.
"Judging by every metric, decriminalization in Portugal has been a resounding success," said Glenn Greenwald, an attorney, author and fluent Portuguese speaker, who conducted the research. "It has enabled the Portuguese government to manage and control the drug problem far better than virtually every other Western country does." at http://www.time.com/
time/health/article/
0,8599,1893946,00.ht
ml.
The available facts support drugs decriminalization.
Source: British Journal of Criminology. Oxford University Press, 2010.
Depends who you believe I suppose.
LSC
says...
1:53pm Sat 5 Jan 13
"You don't have to be qualified to be knowledgeable. For some reason you are mistaking growing a plant and brewing up paracetamol in the same way meth is prepared. Cannabis was the best option for me as the prescription drugs I was taking were messing up my head. Why are you not arguing that all medicines are harmful and should be banned when they have more harmful side effects than cannabis?"
I confess I do not know how to process drugs of any nature. I'm not ashamed of that fact. And I have already agreed with you; if cannabis is the best medicine for your personal condition, you should have it.
But it should be prescribed by a professional and quality controlled and issued by a pharmacist.
I state again, I have nothing against medicine of any kind, including cannabis and all the opium based ones, if they are the right tools for the job.
But self-medication of drugs, especially those that alter the state of mind, is a really, really bad idea.
One of the problems with drink driving is that the drunk would often never consider doing it while sober, but after a few beers they think they are perfectly in control. We all know they aren't, but because of the chemicals messing about in their head they see the world differently. Cannabis also messes with your head; it is what it is for.
I confess I do not know how to process drugs of any nature. I'm not ashamed of that fact. And I have already agreed with you; if cannabis is the best medicine for your personal condition, you should have it.
But it should be prescribed by a professional and quality controlled and issued by a pharmacist.
I state again, I have nothing against medicine of any kind, including cannabis and all the opium based ones, if they are the right tools for the job.
But self-medication of drugs, especially those that alter the state of mind, is a really, really bad idea.
One of the problems with drink driving is that the drunk would often never consider doing it while sober, but after a few beers they think they are perfectly in control. We all know they aren't, but because of the chemicals messing about in their head they see the world differently. Cannabis also messes with your head; it is what it is for.
kate_stenberg
says...
8:03pm Sat 5 Jan 13
LSC wrote:If you had opened the link you would have seen that it was a British documentary proving fox news wrong and proving that cannabis didn't effect the ability of someone to dive when they were driving under the influence by testing it out in front of a camera.Your argument is useless if you aren't prepared to look at the facts.
kate_stenberg wrote:Kate, I'm not dodging the issue, but my policy is to never click links that I'm not sure of, especially when I'm disagreeing with someone! So sorry I have not read the documents you refer too.
LSC wrote:If it didn't impare there judgement I wouldn't have a problem with it. This is just one of a few articles that back up that people are simply over reacting to the use of cannabis: http://www.tokeofthe
"Cannabis has completely made it whole lot easier for me to drive, work and parent. The sativa plant actually improves your judgment and awareness which are the key factors for safe driving and there are several articles that show this."
So you are seriously suggesting Airline pilots should fly while stoned?
I'd LOVE to read the articles you refer to that suggest this. (Although I'd never get on a plane again).
I mean seriously? You think that?
Improved judgement and awareness would be an asset to air traffic controllers, paramedics, racing drivers, surgeons, and many other professions. You SERIOUSLY think they would perform better if they were pot-heads?
This is why I am so anti cannabis. The people who argue for it will say ANYTHING, do anything, no matter how ridiculous, to justify a fix.
town.com/2012/04/aut
o_insurance_site_say
s_marijuana_users_ar
e_safer.php People aren't just saying what they want to get a fix, it is fact.
However, the web addresses alone tell me much of what I need to know.
'Tokeofhetowm.com' suggests their stance right away.
And someone debating Fox news? Really? The most laughed at news site on the planet? Anything Fox News says will be biased and un-researched. So proving Fox News wrong can be done by a 5 year old and proves little.
But I ask again, do YOU believe that a fighter pilot performs better while on cannabis?
kate_stenberg
says...
8:22pm Sat 5 Jan 13
LSC wrote:There is nothing wrong with self medicating if you know what you are doing and I have had plenty of experience with both myself and watching others with both the good and bad effects on the human mind. Cannabis doesn't mess with your mind but in fact opens your mind up to a new way of thinking. A lot of people end up needed help because they cant cope with the fact that they are living in a place that promotes existing and consuming rather than living and finding happiness. There are blatant facts from several resources all stating that alcoholic impairs your ability to drive and is completely unrelated to driving while under the influence of cannabis. The only way that would be appropriate in this argument would be if I agreed with drink drivers.
"You don't have to be qualified to be knowledgeable. For some reason you are mistaking growing a plant and brewing up paracetamol in the same way meth is prepared. Cannabis was the best option for me as the prescription drugs I was taking were messing up my head. Why are you not arguing that all medicines are harmful and should be banned when they have more harmful side effects than cannabis?"
I confess I do not know how to process drugs of any nature. I'm not ashamed of that fact. And I have already agreed with you; if cannabis is the best medicine for your personal condition, you should have it.
But it should be prescribed by a professional and quality controlled and issued by a pharmacist.
I state again, I have nothing against medicine of any kind, including cannabis and all the opium based ones, if they are the right tools for the job.
But self-medication of drugs, especially those that alter the state of mind, is a really, really bad idea.
One of the problems with drink driving is that the drunk would often never consider doing it while sober, but after a few beers they think they are perfectly in control. We all know they aren't, but because of the chemicals messing about in their head they see the world differently. Cannabis also messes with your head; it is what it is for.
I wouldn't have any problem with someone else prescribing me medicinal cannabis if 1. they were allowed to and 2. they knew more about it than I do. How can you approve cannabis as a medicine if you truly believe that it is a 'dangerous' drug? It just seems like your another sheep rolling with the false propaganda surrounding cannabis. Debating this issue with you seems a little pointless if your going to be so closed minded about it when you are proven wrong, which simply invalidates your side of the argument. The government have put in place scare tactics to put people off cannabis and give it a bad name. Its a shame that they got to as you seem to me to be a relatively smart person...
kate_stenberg
says...
8:27pm Sat 5 Jan 13
LSC wrote:There is no doubting the fact that drug use has risen but the point being is that the crime around prohibition has decreased significantly. The decriminalization of drugs has obviously improved their lives by producing a safer society and better quality of living.
John Dowdle wrote:Reported lifetime use of "all illicit drugs" increased from 7.8% to 12%, lifetime use of cannabis increased from 7.6% to 11.7%, cocaine use more than doubled, from 0.9% to 1.9%, ecstasy nearly doubled from 0.7% to 1.3%, and heroin increased from 0.7% to 1.1%
There is an article at http://www.bbc.co.uk
/news/uk-11454671 on the effects of changes in Portuguese drugs laws.
A report on a research paper by the Cato Institute inter alia concluded:-
'The paper, published by Cato in April, found that in the five years after personal possession was decriminalized, illegal drug use among teens in Portugal declined and rates of new HIV infections caused by sharing of dirty needles dropped, while the number of people seeking treatment for drug addiction more than doubled.
"Judging by every metric, decriminalization in Portugal has been a resounding success," said Glenn Greenwald, an attorney, author and fluent Portuguese speaker, who conducted the research. "It has enabled the Portuguese government to manage and control the drug problem far better than virtually every other Western country does." at http://www.time.com/
time/health/article/
0,8599,1893946,00.ht
ml.
The available facts support drugs decriminalization.
Source: British Journal of Criminology. Oxford University Press, 2010.
Depends who you believe I suppose.
John Dowdle
says...
9:03pm Sat 5 Jan 13
More up-to-date information is available on the Transform web site http://www.tdpf.org.
uk/ which reveals that marijuana consumption has just been legalized in the US states of Washington and Colorado. I am sure they will have weighed all the arguments very carefully before coming to that conclusion.
Where I will agree with LSC is that people who routinely consume drugs which affect their perception should not be allowed to operate machinery of any kind which could potentially be dangerous.
We do not permit drunken pilots to fly aircraft; neither should there be stoned pilots either, regardless of whether or not they are flying individually or as commercial pilots.
We have laws already which make it an offence to drink and drive; I believe the same law makes it illegal to toke and drive too.
Interestingly, I heard a radio 4 programme in which they stated that some people could almost drink indefinitely and it will not affect them. It is all mainly down to genetic inheritance. The problem is that most of us have no idea as to our genetic inheritance so for the good of the wider public, people who choose to consume mind-altering drugs should also agree not to drive or operate any other kind of machinery which could pose a danger to themselves or others.
I think that is being responsible.
uk/ which reveals that marijuana consumption has just been legalized in the US states of Washington and Colorado. I am sure they will have weighed all the arguments very carefully before coming to that conclusion.
Where I will agree with LSC is that people who routinely consume drugs which affect their perception should not be allowed to operate machinery of any kind which could potentially be dangerous.
We do not permit drunken pilots to fly aircraft; neither should there be stoned pilots either, regardless of whether or not they are flying individually or as commercial pilots.
We have laws already which make it an offence to drink and drive; I believe the same law makes it illegal to toke and drive too.
Interestingly, I heard a radio 4 programme in which they stated that some people could almost drink indefinitely and it will not affect them. It is all mainly down to genetic inheritance. The problem is that most of us have no idea as to our genetic inheritance so for the good of the wider public, people who choose to consume mind-altering drugs should also agree not to drive or operate any other kind of machinery which could pose a danger to themselves or others.
I think that is being responsible.
kate_stenberg
says...
9:47pm Sat 5 Jan 13
John Dowdle wrote:I don't condone toking and then driving straight afterwards but some strains of cannabis do improve your awareness to the safety of other simply because you become very aware that you are high. Unfortunately most people are ignorant to these strains and lack an overall common sense of which strain you should or should drive on. The general public unfortunately need to be watched and treated like children and I agree that there should be a limit to the amount of THC and CBDs in your system while driving.
More up-to-date information is available on the Transform web site http://www.tdpf.org.
uk/ which reveals that marijuana consumption has just been legalized in the US states of Washington and Colorado. I am sure they will have weighed all the arguments very carefully before coming to that conclusion.
Where I will agree with LSC is that people who routinely consume drugs which affect their perception should not be allowed to operate machinery of any kind which could potentially be dangerous.
We do not permit drunken pilots to fly aircraft; neither should there be stoned pilots either, regardless of whether or not they are flying individually or as commercial pilots.
We have laws already which make it an offence to drink and drive; I believe the same law makes it illegal to toke and drive too.
Interestingly, I heard a radio 4 programme in which they stated that some people could almost drink indefinitely and it will not affect them. It is all mainly down to genetic inheritance. The problem is that most of us have no idea as to our genetic inheritance so for the good of the wider public, people who choose to consume mind-altering drugs should also agree not to drive or operate any other kind of machinery which could pose a danger to themselves or others.
I think that is being responsible.
LSC
says...
3:42am Sun 6 Jan 13
"More up-to-date information is available on the Transform web site http://www.tdpf.org.
uk/ which reveals that marijuana consumption has just been legalized in the US states of Washington and Colorado. I am sure they will have weighed all the arguments very carefully before coming to that conclusion."
As I have said before, it is also legal in Colorado to carry a loaded AK47 assault rifle down the High Street. Does that mean they are right and we should legalise assault rifles here? Or could it be they are very, very wrong.
I know what I think.
uk/ which reveals that marijuana consumption has just been legalized in the US states of Washington and Colorado. I am sure they will have weighed all the arguments very carefully before coming to that conclusion."
As I have said before, it is also legal in Colorado to carry a loaded AK47 assault rifle down the High Street. Does that mean they are right and we should legalise assault rifles here? Or could it be they are very, very wrong.
I know what I think.
LSC
says...
4:01am Sun 6 Jan 13
"There is no doubting the fact that drug use has risen but the point being is that the crime around prohibition has decreased significantly. The decriminalization of drugs has obviously improved their lives by producing a safer society and better quality of living."
What? Of course the crime rate has fallen on something that is no longer a crime. What a very silly statement.
I'm not even sure where to tear it apart first. I'm aghast.
THEY ARE TAKING MORE HEROIN.
Where does that fit into improved lives and safer society?
But I ask for the third time, (because you avoid the enevitable) do YOU believe that a fighter pilot performs better while on cannabis?
What? Of course the crime rate has fallen on something that is no longer a crime. What a very silly statement.
I'm not even sure where to tear it apart first. I'm aghast.
THEY ARE TAKING MORE HEROIN.
Where does that fit into improved lives and safer society?
But I ask for the third time, (because you avoid the enevitable) do YOU believe that a fighter pilot performs better while on cannabis?
LSC
says...
4:08am Sun 6 Jan 13
"If you had opened the link you would have seen that it was a British documentary proving fox news wrong and proving that cannabis didn't effect the ability of someone to dive when they were driving under the influence by testing it out in front of a camera.Your argument is useless if you aren't prepared to look at the facts."
Didn't you read what I said? Or are you a bit 'out there' tonight? Proving Fox News wrong isn't even a hobby these days. It is fish in a barrel. Which I'm sorry to say, you are rapidly becoming.
Didn't you read what I said? Or are you a bit 'out there' tonight? Proving Fox News wrong isn't even a hobby these days. It is fish in a barrel. Which I'm sorry to say, you are rapidly becoming.
John Dowdle
says...
4:22am Sun 6 Jan 13
LSC: I am surprised to see you conflating marijuana and assault rifles. There is simply no comparison between the two. While we may be able to learn some lessons from the USA on drugs the same can not be said about firearms. If anything, they should be learning lessons from us about gun control.
LSC
says...
4:28am Sun 6 Jan 13
John Dowdle. You are a level headed fella, look at this statement from Kate:
"I don't condone toking and then driving straight afterwards but some strains of cannabis do improve your awareness to the safety of other simply because you become very aware that you are high. Unfortunately most people are ignorant to these strains and lack an overall common sense of which strain you should or should drive on. The general public unfortunately need to be watched and treated like children and I agree that there should be a limit to the amount of THC and CBDs in your system while driving."
That is the pro cannabis voice.
The defence rests.
"I don't condone toking and then driving straight afterwards but some strains of cannabis do improve your awareness to the safety of other simply because you become very aware that you are high. Unfortunately most people are ignorant to these strains and lack an overall common sense of which strain you should or should drive on. The general public unfortunately need to be watched and treated like children and I agree that there should be a limit to the amount of THC and CBDs in your system while driving."
That is the pro cannabis voice.
The defence rests.
LSC
says...
4:36am Sun 6 Jan 13
John Dowdle wrote:I'm confused; we pick and choose what we learn from? Of course there is a comparison.I am being asked to take seriously a decision on drugs by the same people who took a decision on firearms. And these people are obviously morons.
LSC: I am surprised to see you conflating marijuana and assault rifles. There is simply no comparison between the two. While we may be able to learn some lessons from the USA on drugs the same can not be said about firearms. If anything, they should be learning lessons from us about gun control.
kate_stenberg
says...
9:17am Sun 6 Jan 13
LSC wrote:Well its obvious that you do by by being prejudiced about a fox news link, regardless of the fact that fox news is questionable, when actually the clip it is a British documentary.
John Dowdle wrote:I'm confused; we pick and choose what we learn from? Of course there is a comparison.I am being asked to take seriously a decision on drugs by the same people who took a decision on firearms. And these people are obviously morons.
LSC: I am surprised to see you conflating marijuana and assault rifles. There is simply no comparison between the two. While we may be able to learn some lessons from the USA on drugs the same can not be said about firearms. If anything, they should be learning lessons from us about gun control.
kate_stenberg
says...
9:23am Sun 6 Jan 13
LSC wrote:There is no need for abuse, I haven't consumed cannabis for 2 weeks and I am suffering greatly from the pain I am in. It's not about the need to prove them wrong, I would take anything that fox news said with a pinch of salt, it was a link to simply back up my statement.
"If you had opened the link you would have seen that it was a British documentary proving fox news wrong and proving that cannabis didn't effect the ability of someone to dive when they were driving under the influence by testing it out in front of a camera.Your argument is useless if you aren't prepared to look at the facts."
Didn't you read what I said? Or are you a bit 'out there' tonight? Proving Fox News wrong isn't even a hobby these days. It is fish in a barrel. Which I'm sorry to say, you are rapidly becoming.
kate_stenberg
says...
9:31am Sun 6 Jan 13
LSC wrote:People should have the right to make there own choice about what to put in their body, yes I think they should be monitored as most people seem to make simple mistakes such as yourself but should be able to contemplate it with out breaking the law. The decrease in the rate of crime, isn't just because it is no longer a crime, but also includes crimes surrounding drug use such as theft and violence.
"There is no doubting the fact that drug use has risen but the point being is that the crime around prohibition has decreased significantly. The decriminalization of drugs has obviously improved their lives by producing a safer society and better quality of living."
What? Of course the crime rate has fallen on something that is no longer a crime. What a very silly statement.
I'm not even sure where to tear it apart first. I'm aghast.
THEY ARE TAKING MORE HEROIN.
Where does that fit into improved lives and safer society?
But I ask for the third time, (because you avoid the enevitable) do YOU believe that a fighter pilot performs better while on cannabis?
kate_stenberg
says...
9:48am Sun 6 Jan 13
LSC wrote:It is actually against the law to carry a concealed weapon in Colorado. The law states that they can purchase and own a gun but it has to be kept at their home. The weapon must be unloaded during transportation.
"More up-to-date information is available on the Transform web site http://www.tdpf.org.
uk/ which reveals that marijuana consumption has just been legalized in the US states of Washington and Colorado. I am sure they will have weighed all the arguments very carefully before coming to that conclusion."
As I have said before, it is also legal in Colorado to carry a loaded AK47 assault rifle down the High Street. Does that mean they are right and we should legalise assault rifles here? Or could it be they are very, very wrong.
I know what I think.
mummy_1
says...
10:00am Sun 6 Jan 13
A close family member of mine recently died. His death certificate states he had a heart attack but I know 40 years of smoking 'weed' made him acutely paranoid and unable to trust anyone who could help him when his health began to deteriorate. If it were ethical, I would show you the Doctors reports on him over the last 10 years of his life.
I know at least another dozen from my era, all 'mentally' deteriorating. Unable to hold down jobs or maintain relationships and family ties.
To be honest, I wouldn't want them driving my plane, cab, teaching/coaching my children in fact even living next door to me as their behavior is totally affected.
Babs and co, look forward to life of mental health issues. Babs in a previous thread about cannabis (the only time we ever hear from you) you told me you felt sorry for my kids because of my views on cannabis.
Well I feel sorry for your friends, family, employers, NHS workers and the tax- payers because trust me girl, you have a life-time of issues to face. You may be too delusional to admit there may be consequences, but please forewarn your next of kin as they will be the ones picking up the pieces.
I know at least another dozen from my era, all 'mentally' deteriorating. Unable to hold down jobs or maintain relationships and family ties.
To be honest, I wouldn't want them driving my plane, cab, teaching/coaching my children in fact even living next door to me as their behavior is totally affected.
Babs and co, look forward to life of mental health issues. Babs in a previous thread about cannabis (the only time we ever hear from you) you told me you felt sorry for my kids because of my views on cannabis.
Well I feel sorry for your friends, family, employers, NHS workers and the tax- payers because trust me girl, you have a life-time of issues to face. You may be too delusional to admit there may be consequences, but please forewarn your next of kin as they will be the ones picking up the pieces.
LSC
says...
1:14pm Sun 6 Jan 13
kate_stenberg wrote:Read what I said. I did not say a 'concealed' weapon. I said an AK47 down the High Street, although you must not have a round chambered, you can have a full magazine. In full view. Perfectly legal in Colorado, voted in by the population of that State. I know, I have spent time there.
LSC wrote:It is actually against the law to carry a concealed weapon in Colorado. The law states that they can purchase and own a gun but it has to be kept at their home. The weapon must be unloaded during transportation.
"More up-to-date information is available on the Transform web site http://www.tdpf.org.
uk/ which reveals that marijuana consumption has just been legalized in the US states of Washington and Colorado. I am sure they will have weighed all the arguments very carefully before coming to that conclusion."
As I have said before, it is also legal in Colorado to carry a loaded AK47 assault rifle down the High Street. Does that mean they are right and we should legalise assault rifles here? Or could it be they are very, very wrong.
I know what I think.
But you want us to take them as enlightened role models?
LSC
says...
1:22pm Sun 6 Jan 13
kate_stenberg wrote:No, people shouldn't. I know people with mental illness who would cheerfully drink bleach given the chance. I know children who would exist on chocolate. Thankfully, we stop them from doing that because despite having the same human rights and choice as the rest of us, it is a bad thing to do.
LSC wrote:People should have the right to make there own choice about what to put in their body, yes I think they should be monitored as most people seem to make simple mistakes such as yourself but should be able to contemplate it with out breaking the law. The decrease in the rate of crime, isn't just because it is no longer a crime, but also includes crimes surrounding drug use such as theft and violence.
"There is no doubting the fact that drug use has risen but the point being is that the crime around prohibition has decreased significantly. The decriminalization of drugs has obviously improved their lives by producing a safer society and better quality of living."
What? Of course the crime rate has fallen on something that is no longer a crime. What a very silly statement.
I'm not even sure where to tear it apart first. I'm aghast.
THEY ARE TAKING MORE HEROIN.
Where does that fit into improved lives and safer society?
But I ask for the third time, (because you avoid the enevitable) do YOU believe that a fighter pilot performs better while on cannabis?
I ask for the fourth time (and avoiding it is starting to make you look silly) the straight question which requires a yes or no answer.
Do YOU believe that a fighter pilot performs better while on cannabis?
LSC
says...
1:30pm Sun 6 Jan 13
"There is no need for abuse, I haven't consumed cannabis for 2 weeks and I am suffering greatly from the pain I am in."
I apologise. I'm after debate not a slanging match. I am genuinely sorry you are in pain.
But I'm also sorry that your only release from that pain is to manufacture, process, and prescribe your own cure. It means the medical profession has failed us all.
I apologise. I'm after debate not a slanging match. I am genuinely sorry you are in pain.
But I'm also sorry that your only release from that pain is to manufacture, process, and prescribe your own cure. It means the medical profession has failed us all.
kate_stenberg
says...
7:24pm Sun 6 Jan 13
LSC wrote:Yes they are, it is just a cultural difference. There is nothing wrong with owning a gun to protect your home. Farmers in this country quite often carry a shot gun to protect their land.
kate_stenberg wrote:Read what I said. I did not say a 'concealed' weapon. I said an AK47 down the High Street, although you must not have a round chambered, you can have a full magazine. In full view. Perfectly legal in Colorado, voted in by the population of that State. I know, I have spent time there.
LSC wrote:It is actually against the law to carry a concealed weapon in Colorado. The law states that they can purchase and own a gun but it has to be kept at their home. The weapon must be unloaded during transportation.
"More up-to-date information is available on the Transform web site http://www.tdpf.org.
uk/ which reveals that marijuana consumption has just been legalized in the US states of Washington and Colorado. I am sure they will have weighed all the arguments very carefully before coming to that conclusion."
As I have said before, it is also legal in Colorado to carry a loaded AK47 assault rifle down the High Street. Does that mean they are right and we should legalise assault rifles here? Or could it be they are very, very wrong.
I know what I think.
But you want us to take them as enlightened role models?
John Dowdle
says...
7:33pm Sun 6 Jan 13
Sorry, Kate: the idea of junkies with guns in this country is an appalling prospect. The fewer guns there are around, the better I like it. Have we not all seen enough of the craziness in the USA to realise that a country awash in guns is a very dangerous place to be?
kate_stenberg
says...
7:34pm Sun 6 Jan 13
LSC wrote:Yes adults should have the right to make their own decisions. Again, not children and of course those who are unable to make rational decisions and are in someone else's care should be monitored. No I don't condone a fighter pilot to fly straight after consuming cannabis, unless for medical reasons of which a doctor saw them fit for work, the same as driving but I wouldn't have a problem if they did it out of the times of their shift.
kate_stenberg wrote:No, people shouldn't. I know people with mental illness who would cheerfully drink bleach given the chance. I know children who would exist on chocolate. Thankfully, we stop them from doing that because despite having the same human rights and choice as the rest of us, it is a bad thing to do.
LSC wrote:People should have the right to make there own choice about what to put in their body, yes I think they should be monitored as most people seem to make simple mistakes such as yourself but should be able to contemplate it with out breaking the law. The decrease in the rate of crime, isn't just because it is no longer a crime, but also includes crimes surrounding drug use such as theft and violence.
"There is no doubting the fact that drug use has risen but the point being is that the crime around prohibition has decreased significantly. The decriminalization of drugs has obviously improved their lives by producing a safer society and better quality of living."
What? Of course the crime rate has fallen on something that is no longer a crime. What a very silly statement.
I'm not even sure where to tear it apart first. I'm aghast.
THEY ARE TAKING MORE HEROIN.
Where does that fit into improved lives and safer society?
But I ask for the third time, (because you avoid the enevitable) do YOU believe that a fighter pilot performs better while on cannabis?
I ask for the fourth time (and avoiding it is starting to make you look silly) the straight question which requires a yes or no answer.
Do YOU believe that a fighter pilot performs better while on cannabis?
kate_stenberg
says...
7:41pm Sun 6 Jan 13
John Dowdle wrote:I feel a world with guns is a very dangerous place for everyone, including government officials. If I had my way all weapons would be abolished. If government officials can have a gun why cant law abiding rational citizens cant carry them?
Sorry, Kate: the idea of junkies with guns in this country is an appalling prospect. The fewer guns there are around, the better I like it. Have we not all seen enough of the craziness in the USA to realise that a country awash in guns is a very dangerous place to be?
John Dowdle
says...
7:56pm Sun 6 Jan 13
Kate: this is a similar rationale to that employed by the gun lobby in the USA. Their insistence on their so-called "right to bear arms" is what has fuelled the tsunami of school, college, university, shopping mall and cinema shootings - among others.
The constitutional amendment they are all so fond of citing was originally based on the right of members of civil defence militias to carry weapons to defend them against external aggression. They now twist this to claim a right to bear arms against what they wrongly believe is internal federal state aggression.
Also, bear in mind the kind of weapon technology of the day - single-shot pistols and rifles - and you end up in a very different place to today's availability of multiple-shot hand guns and military assault rifles.
In political terms, we recognise the right of the state to have a monopoly of violence in any society. In places like Syria today,this can go horribly wrong but in more enlightened countries like the UK, we can at least hold our government officials to account for the use to which they put their monopoly of violence.
Long may that continue.
The constitutional amendment they are all so fond of citing was originally based on the right of members of civil defence militias to carry weapons to defend them against external aggression. They now twist this to claim a right to bear arms against what they wrongly believe is internal federal state aggression.
Also, bear in mind the kind of weapon technology of the day - single-shot pistols and rifles - and you end up in a very different place to today's availability of multiple-shot hand guns and military assault rifles.
In political terms, we recognise the right of the state to have a monopoly of violence in any society. In places like Syria today,this can go horribly wrong but in more enlightened countries like the UK, we can at least hold our government officials to account for the use to which they put their monopoly of violence.
Long may that continue.
kate_stenberg
says...
9:01pm Sun 6 Jan 13
Again I would be quite happy to get rid all weapons around the world. I guess it is a trust issue for me, why is it okay for a government official to have a gun but not me? Why is okay to have that right taken away? I understand that the times have changed and guns are more of a hobby now than for protection but you can't take one away and not the other. I don't particularly want to have to rely on someone else to protect me, especially if they got it got it wrong. I feel the owners of the guns used in the shootings should have kept a much firmer lock down of their weapons. Especially the most recent incident where the guy had previous mental health issues. Does it no worry you that someone of authority holding a weapon now holds your life in their hands? I agree that the shootings probably wouldn't have happened if those people didn't have accesses to guns but its the principle of the matter. If you don't want gun crime then ALL weapons should be banned not just to the public.. For example, gangs carry weapons to protect them selves from those who have guns such as other gangs and those those of authority who also carry weapons. This also has a knock on effect and because the gangs have guns the public want guns to keep them safe if they were to be burgled.. Surely gun crime would go down if gangs didn't feel threated by gun wielding authority figures. I'm pretty sure if they allowed the police to carry weapons in this country you would see definite increase in gun crime by criminals. I don't believe in weapons but I don't believe in taking weapons away from people when they have been allowed to do so in the first place.
kate_stenberg
says...
9:13pm Sun 6 Jan 13
mummy_1 wrote:I currently use cannabis to treat my mental health and pain. It allows me to provide the very best that I can give to my children. I know there are risks of further mental health problems in the future but what matters is now. If it does happen I wont care as I would have already fulfilled my duty as a parent in the now by being the best I can be in a very crappy situation. If cannabis were regulated and the true dangers of cannabis were known to everyone then people such as your relative, god rest his soul, could make better decisions whether to take it or not. Cannabis is not for everyone, the same goes for prescription drugs but keeping it in the black market isn't going to keep people safe.
A close family member of mine recently died. His death certificate states he had a heart attack but I know 40 years of smoking 'weed' made him acutely paranoid and unable to trust anyone who could help him when his health began to deteriorate. If it were ethical, I would show you the Doctors reports on him over the last 10 years of his life.
I know at least another dozen from my era, all 'mentally' deteriorating. Unable to hold down jobs or maintain relationships and family ties.
To be honest, I wouldn't want them driving my plane, cab, teaching/coaching my children in fact even living next door to me as their behavior is totally affected.
Babs and co, look forward to life of mental health issues. Babs in a previous thread about cannabis (the only time we ever hear from you) you told me you felt sorry for my kids because of my views on cannabis.
Well I feel sorry for your friends, family, employers, NHS workers and the tax- payers because trust me girl, you have a life-time of issues to face. You may be too delusional to admit there may be consequences, but please forewarn your next of kin as they will be the ones picking up the pieces.
kate_stenberg
says...
9:26pm Sun 6 Jan 13
LSC wrote:I very much agree with you, there so many other people out there who suffer so much more than I do simply because the medical profession has failed to recognize the fact that cannabis is a very useful medicine. My GP doesn't have any problem with me self medicating with cannabis he just can legally say its okay for me to do so, which is very sad indeed. Ironically my psychoanalyst doesn't see a problem with me self medicating with cannabis either, she just cant encourage it simply because it is illegal.
"There is no need for abuse, I haven't consumed cannabis for 2 weeks and I am suffering greatly from the pain I am in."
I apologise. I'm after debate not a slanging match. I am genuinely sorry you are in pain.
But I'm also sorry that your only release from that pain is to manufacture, process, and prescribe your own cure. It means the medical profession has failed us all.
John Dowdle
says...
9:33pm Sun 6 Jan 13
Kate: you cannot be serious when you say 'Surely gun crime would go down if gangs didn't feel threated by gun wielding authority figures.'.
Gangs don't care about authority figures - gun wielding or otherwise. Gangs are made up of criminals, who do not care who they hurt to get what they want. It is they who breach the state's monopoly of violence and in the process endanger their own lives and many others.
In my time, I have met a number of professional armed service officers and it is they who are probably the biggest supporters of pacifism. Unlike most of the rest of us, they see with their own eyes the carnage that war can bring about and the vast majority of them are horrified by the effects of war. It is "amateurs" like the professional gun lobbyists who glamourise war - not professional people who see all too vivdly the real consequences of unrestricted weapons.
Kate: we agree - though for different reasons - on the need to decriminalise drugs but when you start in with irrational arguments to support the unrestricted distribution of guns in our society you lose not only me but a vast number of others in our society.
Phrases like "Quit while you are ahead" and "stop digging" come to my mind when I read your comments about anyone being allowed to carry guns. Try learning from some of the comments here and stop rushing into comment before properly thinking through the consequences of what you are about to say.
Gangs don't care about authority figures - gun wielding or otherwise. Gangs are made up of criminals, who do not care who they hurt to get what they want. It is they who breach the state's monopoly of violence and in the process endanger their own lives and many others.
In my time, I have met a number of professional armed service officers and it is they who are probably the biggest supporters of pacifism. Unlike most of the rest of us, they see with their own eyes the carnage that war can bring about and the vast majority of them are horrified by the effects of war. It is "amateurs" like the professional gun lobbyists who glamourise war - not professional people who see all too vivdly the real consequences of unrestricted weapons.
Kate: we agree - though for different reasons - on the need to decriminalise drugs but when you start in with irrational arguments to support the unrestricted distribution of guns in our society you lose not only me but a vast number of others in our society.
Phrases like "Quit while you are ahead" and "stop digging" come to my mind when I read your comments about anyone being allowed to carry guns. Try learning from some of the comments here and stop rushing into comment before properly thinking through the consequences of what you are about to say.
kate_stenberg
says...
11:41pm Sun 6 Jan 13
John Dowdle wrote:When do I mention unrestricted distribution of guns in our society? I grew up in California and have grown up with the presence of guns. It really doesn't bother me, it just seems very one sided to take guns away from the people. If they were really worried about people dying from the use of guns they would ends the wars that are going on and destroy all types of weapons. Unfortunately we don't see eye to eye and I am sure that is just a cultural difference but there is no need to belittle me because of my opinion about gun control. No, gangs do give a flying toe nail about who they do and do hurt the point I was trying to make was that if you took guns completely out of the picture you wouldn't need armed forces. My thinking is completely rational as there are hundreds of cases where cops behaving badly, not so much in this country but in America, where I would expect to have the right to own a fire arm.
Kate: you cannot be serious when you say 'Surely gun crime would go down if gangs didn't feel threated by gun wielding authority figures.'.
Gangs don't care about authority figures - gun wielding or otherwise. Gangs are made up of criminals, who do not care who they hurt to get what they want. It is they who breach the state's monopoly of violence and in the process endanger their own lives and many others.
In my time, I have met a number of professional armed service officers and it is they who are probably the biggest supporters of pacifism. Unlike most of the rest of us, they see with their own eyes the carnage that war can bring about and the vast majority of them are horrified by the effects of war. It is "amateurs" like the professional gun lobbyists who glamourise war - not professional people who see all too vivdly the real consequences of unrestricted weapons.
Kate: we agree - though for different reasons - on the need to decriminalise drugs but when you start in with irrational arguments to support the unrestricted distribution of guns in our society you lose not only me but a vast number of others in our society.
Phrases like "Quit while you are ahead" and "stop digging" come to my mind when I read your comments about anyone being allowed to carry guns. Try learning from some of the comments here and stop rushing into comment before properly thinking through the consequences of what you are about to say.
LSC
says...
3:03am Mon 7 Jan 13
Now I see it. We just get rid of guns, and armies, and wars, and we are all free to take drugs as we wish and the world would be great. 1968 is-------------> that way.
LSC
says...
3:11am Mon 7 Jan 13
"My GP doesn't have any problem with me self medicating with cannabis he just can legally say its okay for me to do so, which is very sad indeed. Ironically my psychoanalyst doesn't see a problem with me self medicating with cannabis either, she just cant encourage it simply because it is illegal."
You have to see two medical professionals on a regular basis, and you take illegal drugs on a regular basis.... The mischief side of me is asking the chicken or egg question.
You have to see two medical professionals on a regular basis, and you take illegal drugs on a regular basis.... The mischief side of me is asking the chicken or egg question.
John Dowdle
says...
6:57am Mon 7 Jan 13
Kate: I lived in California for a while and found out that one of the local junkies was carrying out "hits" at 50 bucks a pop. And you think it is OK for people like him - and his wife - to be allowed to carry weapons?
When I asked why this sort of behaviour appeared to be so prevalent in California the response was that all the nuts in America travel West; once they reach California, they have no further to go.
I only stayed there for a short while.
When I asked why this sort of behaviour appeared to be so prevalent in California the response was that all the nuts in America travel West; once they reach California, they have no further to go.
I only stayed there for a short while.
mummy_1
says...
8:29am Mon 7 Jan 13
I feel your pain and see that you do acknowledge there are risks for further mental health issues in the future. I can also feel that you 'think' you are doing the right thing by your children. Of course you are not.
As far as I can see we have a chicken/egg situation. Very similar to my experiences with a user. I was also told that their GP was ‘happy’ for relative to smoke weed. Although when pressed on it of course it was never said or even intimated. It was just accepted.
The result is I an now the primary carer of a child orphaned at 11 years because her parent ended up too paranoid to seek alternative medical help for mental heath issues (and subsequently other health problems) because they were so paranoid of anyone who would have helped them.
As far as I can see we have a chicken/egg situation. Very similar to my experiences with a user. I was also told that their GP was ‘happy’ for relative to smoke weed. Although when pressed on it of course it was never said or even intimated. It was just accepted.
The result is I an now the primary carer of a child orphaned at 11 years because her parent ended up too paranoid to seek alternative medical help for mental heath issues (and subsequently other health problems) because they were so paranoid of anyone who would have helped them.
garston tony
says...
9:59am Mon 7 Jan 13
Sorry to backtrack a little bit but… Kate, there is regulation of the alcohol industry, yet people die from drinking alcohol that has been made illegally and either sold to the purchaser with them knowing that or sold to them as a genuine product. And this in the age of discount booze in supermarkets etc.
You're spining a yarn if you don’t think that’s not going to happen with drugs if they are made legal, more so as there is a ready made criminal network who'd be more than happy to carry on what they are doing now. So people would still die from taking stuff that has been cut from rat poison, and legalising it wont stop overdoses either will it.
The fact that you advocate weening people off drugs or getting them onto smaller doses is admittance that you know there are harmful, and they will remain harmful even if legalised and two wrongs also don’t make a right, just because something else may be more damaging does mean something 'less' damaging should be allowed.
I don’t think sending people to jail is the be all and end all, that is the punishment part for breaking the law. That should be combined with getting them onto rehabilitation programs. The problem is that these drugs are so addictive that many people just don’t want or cant give up. Therefore it is quite right that a) they be illegal and b) that every effort is made to restrict their availability by stopping the supply where ever possible to stop people getting hooked in the first place.
You're spining a yarn if you don’t think that’s not going to happen with drugs if they are made legal, more so as there is a ready made criminal network who'd be more than happy to carry on what they are doing now. So people would still die from taking stuff that has been cut from rat poison, and legalising it wont stop overdoses either will it.
The fact that you advocate weening people off drugs or getting them onto smaller doses is admittance that you know there are harmful, and they will remain harmful even if legalised and two wrongs also don’t make a right, just because something else may be more damaging does mean something 'less' damaging should be allowed.
I don’t think sending people to jail is the be all and end all, that is the punishment part for breaking the law. That should be combined with getting them onto rehabilitation programs. The problem is that these drugs are so addictive that many people just don’t want or cant give up. Therefore it is quite right that a) they be illegal and b) that every effort is made to restrict their availability by stopping the supply where ever possible to stop people getting hooked in the first place.
garston tony
says...
9:59am Mon 7 Jan 13
Babs, the clue is in one of the the words you use. Just because something is 'relatively' less harmful than something else does not mean it should be legalised. I am tea total because I am well aware of the adverse affects of drink, and I am also aware by having seen with my own eyes the effects that 'harmless' drugs like cannabis have on people such as a friend from college days who is now a mental and physical wreck through using this drug over the years, let alone the effect it has had on his family and close friends.
I have a very open mind and I keep my eyes open too and the reason I am against drugs is because they are harmful, unfortunately it seems your own usage makes you the one incapable of accepting that.
I have a very open mind and I keep my eyes open too and the reason I am against drugs is because they are harmful, unfortunately it seems your own usage makes you the one incapable of accepting that.
kate_stenberg
says...
10:02am Mon 7 Jan 13
LSC wrote:I went to my GP for my mental health 2 years prior to taking cannabis and I was given Prozac. I had visit him several times after and complained that it wasn't working and they just increased my dose. After those meetings I found that it still wasn't working and I had asked them to change it and they said, 'give it time' in which at that point someone had enlightened me of the benefit of cannabis. I feel the medical services failed me greatly.
"My GP doesn't have any problem with me self medicating with cannabis he just can legally say its okay for me to do so, which is very sad indeed. Ironically my psychoanalyst doesn't see a problem with me self medicating with cannabis either, she just cant encourage it simply because it is illegal."
You have to see two medical professionals on a regular basis, and you take illegal drugs on a regular basis.... The mischief side of me is asking the chicken or egg question.
garston tony
says...
10:10am Mon 7 Jan 13
Do people have the right to make their own decisions? That mantra when it comes to drugs relies on the blatant lie that taking illegal drugs is a victimless crime. It isnt a victimles crime, and people don’t actually have the right to make their own decisions when that decision leads to a drastic adverse affect on someone else be it directly or indirectly.
kate_stenberg
says...
10:13am Mon 7 Jan 13
mummy_1 wrote:I understand that cannabis doesn't help everyone but there are thousands of people who don't see or suffer any of those side effects such as my self. I'll repeat what I said to LCS I went to my GP for my mental health 2 years prior to taking cannabis and I was given Prozac. I had visit him several times after and complained that it wasn't working and they just increased my dose. After those meetings I found that it still wasn't working and I had asked them to change it and they said, 'give it time' in which at that point someone had enlightened me of the benefit of cannabis. I feel the medical services failed me greatly. After being on cannabis I was advised by another GP that the cannabis was making me worse, so I went back on to take stronger prescription drugs that just intensified mt symptoms and made them worse rather than helped me. After the medical system failing me yet again I went back to cannabis only to see a positive result. Not only has it help but I'm not needing it as much as I use to as I have been able to battle through my mental illness with the aid off cannabis and I predict to be completely off it by next your once my therapy has commenced. Maybe making it legal for recreational use is silly but I firmly stand next to cannabis as a very useful medicine.
I feel your pain and see that you do acknowledge there are risks for further mental health issues in the future. I can also feel that you 'think' you are doing the right thing by your children. Of course you are not.
As far as I can see we have a chicken/egg situation. Very similar to my experiences with a user. I was also told that their GP was ‘happy’ for relative to smoke weed. Although when pressed on it of course it was never said or even intimated. It was just accepted.
The result is I an now the primary carer of a child orphaned at 11 years because her parent ended up too paranoid to seek alternative medical help for mental heath issues (and subsequently other health problems) because they were so paranoid of anyone who would have helped them.
kate_stenberg
says...
10:22am Mon 7 Jan 13
garston tony wrote:I'm a bit on the fence with all drugs being decriminalized and agree with what you have said. Although I agree that you would see a drop in the crime rate if it were to ever happen. I fail to understand why people allow the abuse of alcohol and turn a blind eye to the damaging effects. Why not give alcohol a bad name? Alcohol is commonly know as the first drug that people take, then quite often people move on to cannabis. Why isn't alcohol condemned as a gateway drug when it blatantly is? I'm not 100% for recreational use of cannabis but as a medicine it has helped me greatly.
Sorry to backtrack a little bit but… Kate, there is regulation of the alcohol industry, yet people die from drinking alcohol that has been made illegally and either sold to the purchaser with them knowing that or sold to them as a genuine product. And this in the age of discount booze in supermarkets etc.
You're spining a yarn if you don’t think that’s not going to happen with drugs if they are made legal, more so as there is a ready made criminal network who'd be more than happy to carry on what they are doing now. So people would still die from taking stuff that has been cut from rat poison, and legalising it wont stop overdoses either will it.
The fact that you advocate weening people off drugs or getting them onto smaller doses is admittance that you know there are harmful, and they will remain harmful even if legalised and two wrongs also don’t make a right, just because something else may be more damaging does mean something 'less' damaging should be allowed.
I don’t think sending people to jail is the be all and end all, that is the punishment part for breaking the law. That should be combined with getting them onto rehabilitation programs. The problem is that these drugs are so addictive that many people just don’t want or cant give up. Therefore it is quite right that a) they be illegal and b) that every effort is made to restrict their availability by stopping the supply where ever possible to stop people getting hooked in the first place.
kate_stenberg
says...
10:25am Mon 7 Jan 13
garston tony wrote:How do you feel about the mental and physical damage of prescription drug?
Babs, the clue is in one of the the words you use. Just because something is 'relatively' less harmful than something else does not mean it should be legalised. I am tea total because I am well aware of the adverse affects of drink, and I am also aware by having seen with my own eyes the effects that 'harmless' drugs like cannabis have on people such as a friend from college days who is now a mental and physical wreck through using this drug over the years, let alone the effect it has had on his family and close friends.
I have a very open mind and I keep my eyes open too and the reason I am against drugs is because they are harmful, unfortunately it seems your own usage makes you the one incapable of accepting that.
kate_stenberg
says...
10:29am Mon 7 Jan 13
garston tony wrote:I feel an adult would out crippling mental health problems should have a right to do as they please with with their bodies as long as it isn't hurting or effecting anyone else.
Do people have the right to make their own decisions? That mantra when it comes to drugs relies on the blatant lie that taking illegal drugs is a victimless crime. It isnt a victimles crime, and people don’t actually have the right to make their own decisions when that decision leads to a drastic adverse affect on someone else be it directly or indirectly.
kate_stenberg
says...
11:12am Mon 7 Jan 13
John Dowdle wrote:No I don't agree with that obviously but those who are law abiding citizens shouldn't have that right taken from them. I also firmly agree that the gun laws should be stricter, including background checks, licensed serial numbers, a limit of the amount ammo purchased and the reason for their purchase. I think having an over the counter gun market isn't very wise and gun purchases should 'take time' but those who don't break the law shouldn't have to suffer by those who do wrong.
Kate: I lived in California for a while and found out that one of the local junkies was carrying out "hits" at 50 bucks a pop. And you think it is OK for people like him - and his wife - to be allowed to carry weapons?
When I asked why this sort of behaviour appeared to be so prevalent in California the response was that all the nuts in America travel West; once they reach California, they have no further to go.
I only stayed there for a short while.
LSC
says...
11:44am Mon 7 Jan 13
Kate, I feel for you and have tremendous respect for you being frank about mental health issues. Far too many people shy away but isn't it something like 1 in 5 will suffer during their lifetime?
You may feel the system has let you down, and perhaps it has. You have the right to change doctors, of course.
But you will never convince me that self medicating a mind altering drug to counter poor mental health is a good idea.
For all the conspiracy theories out there, about drugs companies and booze companies calling the shots, I personally believe if cannabis had PROVEN effects, it would be available as a medicine.
I don't know you of course, but I suspect cannabis isn't curing you; it is just masking the symptoms of whatever problem you have. Like taking morphine after being stabbed. You might not feel a thing, no pain at all, but sooner or later you have to address the stab wound itself.
You may feel the system has let you down, and perhaps it has. You have the right to change doctors, of course.
But you will never convince me that self medicating a mind altering drug to counter poor mental health is a good idea.
For all the conspiracy theories out there, about drugs companies and booze companies calling the shots, I personally believe if cannabis had PROVEN effects, it would be available as a medicine.
I don't know you of course, but I suspect cannabis isn't curing you; it is just masking the symptoms of whatever problem you have. Like taking morphine after being stabbed. You might not feel a thing, no pain at all, but sooner or later you have to address the stab wound itself.
garston tony
says...
1:35pm Mon 7 Jan 13
kate, you might see a drop in the number of people arrested for possession if possession was made legal. As LSC has already pointed out, if you make something legal then the stats are going to look good arent they!
What you wouldn’t see is a drop in crimes committed by people to fund their habit. If they cant afford it now (quite possibly because they are unable to work due to their habit) then they are not going to be able to afford it if legal (because they are still going to be unfit for work due to their habit).
The criminals currently active in the supply of illegal drugs are not going to just walk away and there is still going to be the associated 'business' of smuggling, production, distribution of the drugs (just as there is an under the counter trade in alcohol) along with the associated conflict over control of various geographical areas.
Ditto health issues, taking the whole criminal element away people are suffering mentally and physically due to their drug habit. Yes some are lucky and it doesn’t affect them as much, for many they are not that lucky. Making their habit legal isnt going to change that so you're still going to have the associated cost to the health service and your still going to have families and friends see people close to them change and not in a good way.
Whilst there is debate obviously over the current way illegal drugs are managed by law and law enforcers that does not mean the 'war' on them should just be given up. There is no argument for making drugs legal for recreational use, there is a small argument for them to be allowed within strict boundaries for medicinal use but that is all.
And I agree with you about alcohol, as I said in another post I am tea total because I know that alcohol is bad for you. But Ive said this a number of times two wrongs don’t make a right and its nonsense to point to alcohol and say because that is legal so should currently illegal drugs be.
What you wouldn’t see is a drop in crimes committed by people to fund their habit. If they cant afford it now (quite possibly because they are unable to work due to their habit) then they are not going to be able to afford it if legal (because they are still going to be unfit for work due to their habit).
The criminals currently active in the supply of illegal drugs are not going to just walk away and there is still going to be the associated 'business' of smuggling, production, distribution of the drugs (just as there is an under the counter trade in alcohol) along with the associated conflict over control of various geographical areas.
Ditto health issues, taking the whole criminal element away people are suffering mentally and physically due to their drug habit. Yes some are lucky and it doesn’t affect them as much, for many they are not that lucky. Making their habit legal isnt going to change that so you're still going to have the associated cost to the health service and your still going to have families and friends see people close to them change and not in a good way.
Whilst there is debate obviously over the current way illegal drugs are managed by law and law enforcers that does not mean the 'war' on them should just be given up. There is no argument for making drugs legal for recreational use, there is a small argument for them to be allowed within strict boundaries for medicinal use but that is all.
And I agree with you about alcohol, as I said in another post I am tea total because I know that alcohol is bad for you. But Ive said this a number of times two wrongs don’t make a right and its nonsense to point to alcohol and say because that is legal so should currently illegal drugs be.
garston tony
says...
1:36pm Mon 7 Jan 13
I agree that prescription drugs can cause damage, but again either a) the side effects are on the whole 'better' than the illness that they are meant to be curing and the side effects are also being properly monitored and managed or b) if someone has become addicted to a certain drug the system has failed in allowing them continued access to it. In either case the point is that they are meant to be controlled, used under supervision and not taken recreationally precisely because they are dangerous if abused. As per my last post if cannabis for instance could be prescribed I don’t have a problem with that as long as it is under a controlled environment and to assist with a medical need.
As to doing things with your own body as long as it isnt affecting or hurting anyone else if that were the case then you might have a point, the problem is that it rarely doesn’t affect someone else in some way. Be it family or in the wider context if the use is leading to the need for medical assistance then it’s a cost to me the tax payer. Again, if used as a precription drug I don’t have a problem with it but if its someone using it recreationally then no I don’t want my tax pennies being spent on not just treating associated illnessess that come along but possibly also supporting the individual via the various benefits as they are not working or the effects of criminal activity (which isnt just tax money but a premium put on insurance etc). And that’s before you even get to the supply of the stuff and the effect on the people there
It is rarely a victimless crime
As to doing things with your own body as long as it isnt affecting or hurting anyone else if that were the case then you might have a point, the problem is that it rarely doesn’t affect someone else in some way. Be it family or in the wider context if the use is leading to the need for medical assistance then it’s a cost to me the tax payer. Again, if used as a precription drug I don’t have a problem with it but if its someone using it recreationally then no I don’t want my tax pennies being spent on not just treating associated illnessess that come along but possibly also supporting the individual via the various benefits as they are not working or the effects of criminal activity (which isnt just tax money but a premium put on insurance etc). And that’s before you even get to the supply of the stuff and the effect on the people there
It is rarely a victimless crime
kate_stenberg
says...
8:45pm Mon 7 Jan 13
No one is a victim if a couple of plants are just sat on your windowsill. The side effects of the meptazinol that was prescribed for my pain was a high fever every time I menstruated. Of which your tax money was paying for. I had the choice of being in severe pain or unable to function due to my temperature as the GP wouldn't prescribe the next available drug as it was more addictive than cannabis. Cannabis doesn't do that to my system and I don't experience the negatives sides effects that some people get. Which shows that the negatives of cannabis dont out way symptoms of my pain and abuse and thats why I have chose to use it. It is the drug that treats my symptoms with the least amount of harmful side effects. Unfortunately only time will tell if I will need addition help from the uncertain negative effects of its use. The only law I have every broken is this one, I have no intension of abusing this drug I use it in a very precise and strict manner. I think 8 years of experience is enough time to make a knowledgeable decision on the amount to take. This drug has helped me greatly and could definitely help others if used correctly under the watchful eye of a licensed medical professional. I save the tax payer £459 a years by self medicating. I may be a rare case but I still exist and deserve to be medicated without the guilt of breaking the law.
kate_stenberg
says...
8:48pm Mon 7 Jan 13
garston tony wrote:I agree but at the very least cannabis should be made available to those who's illness will benefit.
kate, you might see a drop in the number of people arrested for possession if possession was made legal. As LSC has already pointed out, if you make something legal then the stats are going to look good arent they!
What you wouldn’t see is a drop in crimes committed by people to fund their habit. If they cant afford it now (quite possibly because they are unable to work due to their habit) then they are not going to be able to afford it if legal (because they are still going to be unfit for work due to their habit).
The criminals currently active in the supply of illegal drugs are not going to just walk away and there is still going to be the associated 'business' of smuggling, production, distribution of the drugs (just as there is an under the counter trade in alcohol) along with the associated conflict over control of various geographical areas.
Ditto health issues, taking the whole criminal element away people are suffering mentally and physically due to their drug habit. Yes some are lucky and it doesn’t affect them as much, for many they are not that lucky. Making their habit legal isnt going to change that so you're still going to have the associated cost to the health service and your still going to have families and friends see people close to them change and not in a good way.
Whilst there is debate obviously over the current way illegal drugs are managed by law and law enforcers that does not mean the 'war' on them should just be given up. There is no argument for making drugs legal for recreational use, there is a small argument for them to be allowed within strict boundaries for medicinal use but that is all.
And I agree with you about alcohol, as I said in another post I am tea total because I know that alcohol is bad for you. But Ive said this a number of times two wrongs don’t make a right and its nonsense to point to alcohol and say because that is legal so should currently illegal drugs be.
kate_stenberg
says...
9:05pm Mon 7 Jan 13
LSC wrote:You are very correct in saying it is merely masking my symptoms, it's the same with prescribed antidepressants, they mask how you are felling so you can get on with normal daily activities. Strengthening mental health takes time and sometimes when you feel like your going out of your mind 2 minutes can feel like two hours. Cannabis treats my symptoms so I can live everyday life in an as normal way as possible while I learn to deal with the distress of my flashbacks from being abused. There are over 21 diseases and conditions that have proven by scientists that the law keeps ignoring. I wrote a letter to my local MP and they stated that it is illegal because it doesn't have any medicinal properties which is completely false. What is a person do to other than to self medicate when the law prevents a medical professional to prescribe it legally?
Kate, I feel for you and have tremendous respect for you being frank about mental health issues. Far too many people shy away but isn't it something like 1 in 5 will suffer during their lifetime?
You may feel the system has let you down, and perhaps it has. You have the right to change doctors, of course.
But you will never convince me that self medicating a mind altering drug to counter poor mental health is a good idea.
For all the conspiracy theories out there, about drugs companies and booze companies calling the shots, I personally believe if cannabis had PROVEN effects, it would be available as a medicine.
I don't know you of course, but I suspect cannabis isn't curing you; it is just masking the symptoms of whatever problem you have. Like taking morphine after being stabbed. You might not feel a thing, no pain at all, but sooner or later you have to address the stab wound itself.
Enoch Powell
says...
10:45pm Mon 7 Jan 13
Another shambolic example of our incontinent border controls.
The reason why this happened is because of Labour's thirst quenching desire for Mass Immigration.
Treat the cause and not the affect in this instance, which is make the UK a closed shop for entry.
The reason why this happened is because of Labour's thirst quenching desire for Mass Immigration.
Treat the cause and not the affect in this instance, which is make the UK a closed shop for entry.
garston tony
says...
10:13am Tue 8 Jan 13
Kate, you may possibly be one of the very small number of people who can claim taking this drug does not impact on anyone else and is a genuine benefit to you. And you yourself admit that in the future that may change, but I agree that if done properly it should be available on the NHS.
However the point is that for the vast majority of illegal drug users their habit does adversely affect others and it isnt a victimless crime and it isnt for medicinal purposes. Make it legal for prescription use but like any other prescription drug it shouldnt be used willy nilly and certainly not recreationally and it should remain illegal to use other then if prescribed by a doctor (as is the case I believe for any prescription drug)
However the point is that for the vast majority of illegal drug users their habit does adversely affect others and it isnt a victimless crime and it isnt for medicinal purposes. Make it legal for prescription use but like any other prescription drug it shouldnt be used willy nilly and certainly not recreationally and it should remain illegal to use other then if prescribed by a doctor (as is the case I believe for any prescription drug)
garston tony
says...
10:14am Tue 8 Jan 13
Enoch Powell wrote:I think you may have meant this post for another story
Another shambolic example of our incontinent border controls. The reason why this happened is because of Labour's thirst quenching desire for Mass Immigration. Treat the cause and not the affect in this instance, which is make the UK a closed shop for entry.
gloryhornet4
says...
4:37pm Tue 8 Jan 13
kate_stenberg wrote:Someone is in denial. We had the same over tobacco that nothing was proved etc for 30 years until the litigation got too expensive to "trip" out the falsehoods anymore.
Cannabis is NOT a dangerous drug, heroine, cocaine, methotrexate, warfarin, prozac, alcohol, and nicotine are dangerous drugs. Cannabis is a very valuable medicine that has improved the quality of life dramatically. There is such a large criminal base around cannabis simply because cannabis can be shifted very quickly as it doesn't have life threatening side effects. It is our moral responsibility to get drugs off the street. All a drug dealer needs for ID is a twenty pound note. We need to regulate cannabis to keep our children safe. Our children need to be educated with the truth and that its not okay for them to consume but that it benefits the ill and disabled. It's time to change the drugs policy. It's time to compromise something that works.
Kate Stenberg
Cear Media Team
Cannabis Law Reform
Cannabis does expose to potential life changing damage from one usage.
gloryhornet4
says...
4:45pm Tue 8 Jan 13
Babs Stanley wrote:Having been the victim of theft to fund drug habits of junkies, care to tell me how it is victimless?
LSC wrote:LSC, I really don't believe that you're quite as stupid as you pretend to be. Murder, rape and child abuse are crimes with victims committed with a motive to cause harm. Drug 'crimes' are mostly victimless or the victims are created by prohibition, not drugs.
I couldn't find the first but found the second and watched about 5 minutes. It was mainly going on about how we have failed to win the war against heroin use.
I knew that.
We have also failed to win the war against murder, rape and child abuse, and they have been going on a lot longer than drug use. But they happen every day, all over the world.
Do you suggest we should just accept them because we can't seem to stop them? It would save a LOT of police time.
The only purpose of drugs policy must be to reduce harm and present policy cause more harm than it prevents.
If you steal to fund a habit you are a criminal. To steal is against the law and to put up the defence that there is no victim as I need the fix is bonkers.
Like Nick Leeson saying he was only adjusting the markets.
gloryhornet4
says...
4:55pm Tue 8 Jan 13
garston tony wrote:Well said Tony, I have never taken drugs but having been a victim of the theft to fund drugs - I cannot see how the thieving junkies should be able to plead not guilty - "I stole for my fix as the price my dealer was charging was extortionate."
Babs Stanley wrote:Tell the 60,000 people killed by drugs gangs in Mexico that drug taking is a mostly victimless crime.
LSC wrote: I couldn't find the first but found the second and watched about 5 minutes. It was mainly going on about how we have failed to win the war against heroin use. I knew that. We have also failed to win the war against murder, rape and child abuse, and they have been going on a lot longer than drug use. But they happen every day, all over the world. Do you suggest we should just accept them because we can't seem to stop them? It would save a LOT of police time.LSC, I really don't believe that you're quite as stupid as you pretend to be. Murder, rape and child abuse are crimes with victims committed with a motive to cause harm. Drug 'crimes' are mostly victimless or the victims are created by prohibition, not drugs. The only purpose of drugs policy must be to reduce harm and present policy cause more harm than it prevents.
Tell the victim of a burglary, mugging or car theft that drug taking is a victimless crime.
Tell the tax payer who has to foot the cost of looking after 'space cadets' who have taken too much funny stuff that this is a victimless crime.
Tell the family and friends of said space cadets or people who have changed into gollum like creatures due to drug taking that this is a victimles crime.
Tell the people who have been hit by a car driven by someone on drugs that this is a victimless crime.
kate_stenberg
says...
5:10pm Tue 8 Jan 13
gloryhornet4 wrote:I'm not in denial at all.Cannabis simply doesn't have the 'damaging' side effects that most prescribed medicines have. It does less damaged than the side effects of most alternative medicines of which I was prescribed. I agree that it is not for everyone and can have a negative effect on minds, potentially triggering mental health problems that a person may have. I wouldn't class cannabis as a dangerous drug, but a drug that can be used for medicinal purposes if monitored correctly.
kate_stenberg wrote:Someone is in denial. We had the same over tobacco that nothing was proved etc for 30 years until the litigation got too expensive to "trip" out the falsehoods anymore.
Cannabis is NOT a dangerous drug, heroine, cocaine, methotrexate, warfarin, prozac, alcohol, and nicotine are dangerous drugs. Cannabis is a very valuable medicine that has improved the quality of life dramatically. There is such a large criminal base around cannabis simply because cannabis can be shifted very quickly as it doesn't have life threatening side effects. It is our moral responsibility to get drugs off the street. All a drug dealer needs for ID is a twenty pound note. We need to regulate cannabis to keep our children safe. Our children need to be educated with the truth and that its not okay for them to consume but that it benefits the ill and disabled. It's time to change the drugs policy. It's time to compromise something that works.
Kate Stenberg
Cear Media Team
Cannabis Law Reform
Cannabis does expose to potential life changing damage from one usage.
John Dowdle
says...
7:35pm Tue 8 Jan 13
What many have probably not noticed is that marijuana today is far greater strength than it was in the past, which is why it is affecting the intelligence and mental health of young people today much more detrimentally than it did in the past. I think it should be decriminalised but I also think young people should be given adequate warnings over the harmful effects these higher strength drugs can have.
LSC
says...
7:58pm Tue 8 Jan 13
John Dowdle wrote:That approach has had VERY limited effect with tobacco and alcohol on the young. If anything, alcohol abuse amoung the young is worse than ever, but education about it is at an all time high.
What many have probably not noticed is that marijuana today is far greater strength than it was in the past, which is why it is affecting the intelligence and mental health of young people today much more detrimentally than it did in the past. I think it should be decriminalised but I also think young people should be given adequate warnings over the harmful effects these higher strength drugs can have.
Everyone seems to agree that the young should not have access to cannabis no matter what, but some on this site also argue cannabis is completely harmless. This is why I mistrust their arguments. You can give asprin to a child. Even alcohol will perhaps make them sick and have a sore head (I sneaked some wine at a family party once while very young, so I know) but EVERYONE on here agrees cannabis WILL effect developement in children FOR LIFE.
That makes it dangerous, and that is why it is banned. If you decriminalise it, the gangs will target those not allowed it. Children.
kate_stenberg
says...
8:21pm Tue 8 Jan 13
You are correct about keeping it away from children, I don't even approve giving asprin or paracetamol to young kids but sometimes they are suffering so much you wouldn't be a good parent if you didn't. The idea of cannabis regulation revolves around taking the cannabis market out of the hands of criminals. The demand would be lowered due to retail sale, as long as it is cheaper than the underground prices. In doing so you would eliminate the illegal supply of cannabis to adults from drug dealers and that would decrease the likely hood of it falling into the hands of children. If it were regulated then you could keep a close eye on who was it consuming it.
kate_stenberg
says...
8:25pm Tue 8 Jan 13
John Dowdle wrote:I have been medicating with the higher strength for the past 8 years. I, like many others are still not negatively effected.
What many have probably not noticed is that marijuana today is far greater strength than it was in the past, which is why it is affecting the intelligence and mental health of young people today much more detrimentally than it did in the past. I think it should be decriminalised but I also think young people should be given adequate warnings over the harmful effects these higher strength drugs can have.
LSC
says...
9:59pm Wed 9 Jan 13
kate_stenberg wrote:You don't know that. You might have been cured by now for all you know.
John Dowdle wrote:I have been medicating with the higher strength for the past 8 years. I, like many others are still not negatively effected.
What many have probably not noticed is that marijuana today is far greater strength than it was in the past, which is why it is affecting the intelligence and mental health of young people today much more detrimentally than it did in the past. I think it should be decriminalised but I also think young people should be given adequate warnings over the harmful effects these higher strength drugs can have.
The last person to comment on the effect of mind altering drugs is the person taking them under uncontrolled conditions.
John Dowdle
says...
2:32am Thu 10 Jan 13
On Newsnight, they reported that the war on drugs in the USA has cost US tax payers in excess of $1 Trillion and that the war has been lost. The same money could have been used to far better effect, educating people as to the dangers of drug taking and how it buttresses criminal gangs in the USA and elsewhere around the world.
kate_stenberg
says...
7:54pm Mon 14 Jan 13
LSC wrote:Regardless of whether I have been cured of my mental health or not cannabis still helps me cope with sciatic nerve pain. Despite the fact that I am coming to the end of the dependence on cannabis for my mental health, it still aids my pain and doesn't effect my mental health in a negative way. It is very possible that some people can have negative effects from this medicine but you will get that with any medication and that is why you have trial and error. This is more reason to get the true negative effects of this medicine out in the open and teach people that it isn't a lethal drug. A lot of GP's don't continue to learn once they have gained their qualification and lag in up to date knowledge. A GP I used to go to still had to use a reference books to prescribe me medication. Surely they get paid to have this general knowledge?
kate_stenberg wrote:You don't know that. You might have been cured by now for all you know.
John Dowdle wrote:I have been medicating with the higher strength for the past 8 years. I, like many others are still not negatively effected.
What many have probably not noticed is that marijuana today is far greater strength than it was in the past, which is why it is affecting the intelligence and mental health of young people today much more detrimentally than it did in the past. I think it should be decriminalised but I also think young people should be given adequate warnings over the harmful effects these higher strength drugs can have.
The last person to comment on the effect of mind altering drugs is the person taking them under uncontrolled conditions.
Mohandas says...
4:17pm Thu 3 Jan 13
Is there a reason why the government can't ask for Vietnam to place him in their own cells and save us some money given the cost of keeping him in an over stretched UK prison which is near £50,000 per annum?