Cannabis growing equipment 'disappears' after police raid (From Watford Observer)

Gone, in a puff of smoke...!

We need to stop this stupid and unwinnable war against cannabis. It is causing far more harm to our communities than it prevents. If we had a properly regulated system of production and supply we'd have no more illegal cannabis farms, instead we'd have thousands of new jobs. We'd have no more dealers on the streets. Cannabis would be available to adults only through licensed outlets and we'd have some control over the THC and CBD content.

Doctors would be able to prescribe one of the most effective medicines that has no serious side effects at all. At the moment the government has given GW Pharmaceuticals an illegal monopoly on cannabis so they make millions out of a medicine that you can grow in your greenhouse for virtually nothing.

If we introduced a legally regulated system we would solve nearly all the problems around cannabis. Science proves how much safer it is than tobacco, alcohol, prescription medicines and all other recreational drugs. If anyone does have a problem with it they could get help without having to confess to a crime.

CLEAR published independent, expert research last year which shows that a tax and regulate policy on cannabis would produce a net gain to the UK economy of up to £9.3 billion per annum.

It is a scandal that our government, our judges, our courts, our police and our newspapers keep misleading us about cannabis. Find out the truth for yourself and wake up to the lies you have been told.

There is no such thing as "cannabis growing equipment". Cannabis is a plant just like tomatoes and doesn't need any dedicated special equipment. If you write an article please make it accurate.

Babs Stanley wrote:
We need to stop this stupid and unwinnable war against cannabis. It is causing far more harm to our communities than it prevents. If we had a properly regulated system of production and supply we'd have no more illegal cannabis farms, instead we'd have thousands of new jobs. We'd have no more dealers on the streets. Cannabis would be available to adults only through licensed outlets and we'd have some control over the THC and CBD content.

Doctors would be able to prescribe one of the most effective medicines that has no serious side effects at all. At the moment the government has given GW Pharmaceuticals an illegal monopoly on cannabis so they make millions out of a medicine that you can grow in your greenhouse for virtually nothing.

If we introduced a legally regulated system we would solve nearly all the problems around cannabis. Science proves how much safer it is than tobacco, alcohol, prescription medicines and all other recreational drugs. If anyone does have a problem with it they could get help without having to confess to a crime.

CLEAR published independent, expert research last year which shows that a tax and regulate policy on cannabis would produce a net gain to the UK economy of up to £9.3 billion per annum.

It is a scandal that our government, our judges, our courts, our police and our newspapers keep misleading us about cannabis. Find out the truth for yourself and wake up to the lies you have been told.

"most effective medicines that has no serious side effects at all. You're joking right or are you just plain stupid?

Cannabis can make you feel very anxious and even paranoid. Also been linked, in some people, to serious, long-term mental health problems. And Tobacco and cannabis share some of the same chemical 'nasties' and just like smoking tobacco, smoking cannabis has been linked to lung diseases like tuberculosis and lung cancer - source Frank.

Next you be telling us to legalise cocaine, heroin etc that is also a plant base drug.

Clearly the Home Office has no intention of stopping our (much admired) forces from cleaning up left over gardening equipment and fining loser potheads instead of tackling non-victimless crime.

Tax and regulate this drug, yes I accept consuming cannabis is not risk-free but does the millions and millions of pounds we spend each year really offset the small increase in cost to the NHS that would be incurred if we regulated it?

Legalise it, and regulate it so we can get on with our lives and deprive criminal enterprises from the majority of their black market income.

drunkenduck wrote:

Babs Stanley wrote:
We need to stop this stupid and unwinnable war against cannabis. It is causing far more harm to our communities than it prevents. If we had a properly regulated system of production and supply we'd have no more illegal cannabis farms, instead we'd have thousands of new jobs. We'd have no more dealers on the streets. Cannabis would be available to adults only through licensed outlets and we'd have some control over the THC and CBD content.

Doctors would be able to prescribe one of the most effective medicines that has no serious side effects at all. At the moment the government has given GW Pharmaceuticals an illegal monopoly on cannabis so they make millions out of a medicine that you can grow in your greenhouse for virtually nothing.

If we introduced a legally regulated system we would solve nearly all the problems around cannabis. Science proves how much safer it is than tobacco, alcohol, prescription medicines and all other recreational drugs. If anyone does have a problem with it they could get help without having to confess to a crime.

CLEAR published independent, expert research last year which shows that a tax and regulate policy on cannabis would produce a net gain to the UK economy of up to £9.3 billion per annum.

It is a scandal that our government, our judges, our courts, our police and our newspapers keep misleading us about cannabis. Find out the truth for yourself and wake up to the lies you have been told.

"most effective medicines that has no serious side effects at all. You're joking right or are you just plain stupid?

Cannabis can make you feel very anxious and even paranoid. Also been linked, in some people, to serious, long-term mental health problems. And Tobacco and cannabis share some of the same chemical 'nasties' and just like smoking tobacco, smoking cannabis has been linked to lung diseases like tuberculosis and lung cancer - source Frank.

Next you be telling us to legalise cocaine, heroin etc that is also a plant base drug.

You need to do some research instead of being spoon fed misinformation. Cannabis is medicine, the safest medicine/recreationa
l drug on Earth. Much safer than alcohol, tobacco and pharmaceutical drugs. If it wasnt safe medicine, it would say on GW pharma's website. GW pharma grow thousands of highgrade cannabis plants as....medicine. So wake up please Mr.

You get your info from FRANK lol, Well mine is from Pulmonary Researcher Donald Tashkin who set out to find a link between cannabis and lung cancer, this was the biggest study of its kind. Instead Tashkin found no association with cannabis and cancer what so ever. Because cannabis smoke isn't tobacco smoke, tobacco doesn't contain cannabinoids which have been proven to have a healing effect, and its anti cancer potential is being researched. The fact is cannabis users (who dont use tobacco) have the same chance of getting related cancer as non cannabis users.

You talk of anxiety, and other mental health issues, yet you only have a 0.003% chance of that happening even with heavy long term use. The % is higher with alcohol, even caffeine! If cannabis caused mental health issues then the rate would rise and fall with the cannabis use, but it hasnt, it has remained flat. In countries where its legally regulated, cannabis is being prescribed to people with mental health issues like anxiety, psychosis and schizophrenia. The CBD in cannabis is an anti psychotic, but with prohibition in place cannabis grows are unregulated which allows farmers to harvest early causing a lack in CBD. This is why some people can have a negative side effect. Thats one of the reasons why it needs legal regulation.

You said ''Next you be telling us to legalise cocaine, heroin etc that is also a plant base drug.''

Dont tell me your another one who groups all drugs together? Cant you tell the difference between cannabis and cocaine or heroine? Really? Cannabis isn't a plant BASED drug, its a plant. It doesn't go through an unnatural process like cocaine or heroine. You dont see coke heads chewing coca leaves and you dont see heroine addicts smoking poppy flowers. They all had to be processed to get to that state. But not with cannabis. Its unique. Cannabis isnt harmless, yet neither is McDonalds but we dont prohibit burgers and jail unhealthy eaters. However, Professor Terrie Moffitt, from the Institute of Psychiatry at King’s College London, who took part in the study, said

“It’s such a special study that I’m fairly confident that cannabis is SAFE for over-18 brains, but risky for under-18 brains.”

Prohibition causes more harm and danger than cannabis ever could. Its safer than alcohol tobacco and pharmaceutical drugs yet its illegal. Why? It being illegal has nothing to do with scientific evidence, expert advice or our health and safety. But has a lot to do with Personal prejudice, Cowardly/corrupt politicians, Vested interest, the power of alcohol, tobacco, pharmaceutical companies and the money made from prohibition. This failing policy effects everyone negatively, cannabis user or not. Sorry I dislike drug dealers and children using drugs or becoming enticed by gangsterism, so i say NO to prohibition and NOW to legal regulation.


"The lesson has already been learned with alcohol prohibition. We tried to engineer an alcohol-free society and ended up with huge criminal enterprises, government corruption, children lured into organized crime and random violence that took the lives of countless innocent people."
- Kurt Schmoke, Mayor of Baltimore

@drunkenduck

Yes, you're way, way behind mate. You're spouting Daily Mail propaganda that was known to be false 10 years ago.

Cannabis is now recognised by all experts to be much. much safer than just about any other substance. It's about as harmful as coffee. It's the alcohol companies that keep it illegal.

Catch up mate. The facts are beyond dispute. Only last week the Institute of Psychiatry, Professor Terrie Moffitt said "cannabis is safe for over 18s".

Cocaine is made from the leaves of the coca plant. Heroin is made from the sap of the opium poppy. Cannabis is formed from the resin which is extracted from the buds and flowers from the plant. All comes from a plant "plant base drug". SuperSilverSourDiese
l, your info seems to be all from sites from the USA and not from the UK. Plus you shouldn't always base your claim of facts from websites, many can be misleading or wrong completely. Try reading a medical journal next time.

Babs Stanley, you should hear it correctly: http://soundcloud.co
m/markpalmer-1/canna
bis-use-professor-te
rrie

Remember, they said once tobacco was "save to smoke". Many years later and still is, it's causing deaths worldwide. Though its the user choose to smoke it. But those who're non smokers & children, why should we either breath it in or smell it, because of you who wants to legalise this drug. Plus it sticks far worse then tobacco.

Secondly just like a most drugs can be safe within reason, but as she mention its those you are heavy users or people who misuse are the ones who will have problems not just under or over 18's. So how can you expect to legalise a drug that can cause further harm to the user or harm to someone else.

A mates experiences with the stuff have been shocking - crashing his car....a lot, when under the influence, paranoia and now he just speaks real slow!
Other than that he say it's good **** man! very slowly of course!

And like the weed, that B+O advert is doing my head in!

The Jeremy Kyle Show is packed full of cannabis users, and although it has never come up, I'd wager Mastermind is not.

I suppose it is a case of choosing which camp you are in, or want to be in.
I know a few stoners. Some can handle it; some can't. About the same as alcohol, I agree; but do we really want another alcohol?
I don't know any alcoholics (that I'm aware of) but I know and have met (and interviewed) quite a few cannabis users who are completely unemployable because of it.


"Babs Stanley says...
9:41pm Thu 13 Sep 12

We need to stop this stupid and unwinnable war against cannabis. It is causing far more harm to our communities than it prevents. If we had a properly regulated system of production and supply we'd have no more illegal cannabis farms, instead we'd have thousands of new jobs. We'd have no more dealers on the streets. Cannabis would be available to adults only through licensed outlets and we'd have some control over the THC and CBD content."

Complete rubbish. Utter poppycock. We already have a MASSIVE illegal trade in tobacco and alcohol.
You would still have illegal cannabis farms avoiding VAT and duty. You'd still have dealers selling to the people that the government says should't buy it.

We wouldn't have thousands of jobs. Cannabis factories are only economically viable in this country because they steal the electricity because of our climate.
If that had to be paid for legally, it would be cheaper to import from 3rd world countries using child labour.

Which is what would happen. Still, who cares when you are stoned, right?

drunkenduck wrote:
Cocaine is made from the leaves of the coca plant. Heroin is made from the sap of the opium poppy. Cannabis is formed from the resin which is extracted from the buds and flowers from the plant. All comes from a plant "plant base drug". SuperSilverSourDiese

l, your info seems to be all from sites from the USA and not from the UK. Plus you shouldn't always base your claim of facts from websites, many can be misleading or wrong completely. Try reading a medical journal next time.

Babs Stanley, you should hear it correctly: http://soundcloud.co

m/markpalmer-1/canna

bis-use-professor-te

rrie

Remember, they said once tobacco was "save to smoke". Many years later and still is, it's causing deaths worldwide. Though its the user choose to smoke it. But those who're non smokers & children, why should we either breath it in or smell it, because of you who wants to legalise this drug. Plus it sticks far worse then tobacco.

Secondly just like a most drugs can be safe within reason, but as she mention its those you are heavy users or people who misuse are the ones who will have problems not just under or over 18's. So how can you expect to legalise a drug that can cause further harm to the user or harm to someone else.

Ever heard of the Lancet drunkenduck? It's a medical journal, arguably the most famous one there is. In 1995, after reviewing all the available evidence they ran an editorial decrying the madness of cannabis being illegal which had the following first sentence:

"The smoking of cannabis, even long term, is not harmful to health."

Historically, people have been taking cannabis longer and more widespread than tobacco. Where ancient man went he took cannabis with him.

We've had a 10,000+ year trial therefore thanks. I think we can safely say that the results are in. You can't die from cannabis use. No-one ever has. Not in all that time with millions and millions of users all over the globe. Compare that with any pharmaceutical, even the relatively weak ones like paracetamol; they all have a danger of acute death - some a remarkably easy one. Not cannabis, not at all.

There have been far more studies carried out in the United States than the UK, including some of the biggest ones, so that's why they are quoted.

It sounds like you don't like the smell of criminally produced weed. It stinks doesn't it? In Amsterdam there is a whole range of fruity fragrances to choose from in their deregulated market - from strawberry to lemon to tangerine to melon and beyond. You don't get that if cannabis is illegal - you just get stinky weed from criminals.

It sounds very much like you should be campaigning to have cannabis legalised drunkenduck. That would solve your problems with cannabis, or at least it's smell.

Where are the problem cannabis users as well? Problem drinkers are obviously ten a penny; filling up our hospitals with related illnesses, accidents and violent aftermaths, our town centres with anti-social behaviour, and our parks with tramps.

You only need read the pages of any local paper, anywhere in the country, to find problem drinkers.

Problem cannabis users though. Where are they exactly? I certainly don't see them in the papers like the booze fuelled mayhem. It seems to me that cannabis users aren't causing any problems at all, quite the opposite. Unlike alcohol users, cannabis users clearly keep themselves to themselves, harming no-one.

Problem cannabis users certainly don't go to hospital like problem drinkers. Around 750 people a year are admitted to UK hospital for cannabis related issues. Compare that with 1,000,000+ for alcohol. Scaled up for use, if everyone who drank turned to cannabis instead, statistically hospital admissions would actually drop by around 1,000,000 every year, so little would the cannabis admissions scaled up be.

Imagine the billions and billions this country would save if we all turned form the very harmful drug of alcohol to the far far safer drug of cannabis.

Alcohol cost Chorley in Lancashire, just little Chorley, £43 million last year in mopping up it's various messes. Messes from cannabis use probably cost them 43p, at most.

The last government sacked it's chief scientific advisor for telling the truth about cannabis. In what other area of our life do we ignore science and suppress he truth?

This isn't the dark ages drunkenduck. Reason and truth have held sway in our lives for a long time now. It's clearly time it happened with cannabis too.

Whether you like it or not, the truth is that society would be a far healthier, happier, richer,and more considerate place if cannabis were legalised.

I would also add that it was mentioned that some countries have a more relaxed attitude to cannabis.
This is true, some do. Portugal tried an experiment (You know the country that just went bust) and are back-tracking on it rapidly. Holland is also changing the rules to tighten up, which is a shame because we all know Dutchmen famous for improving the world. There was Rip Van Winkle, famous for sleeping, and Van Gogh, famous for painting, poverty and self mutilation.

Not wonderfully convincing so far, but let us look on. There are other countries where the governments at least turn a blind eye to the drug trade. Afghanstan? Perhaps not.
Columbia! Nah.
Jamaica, very sunny, but the Yardies keep killing people.
Mexico! Ah, again the life expectancy thing bothers me, and the same goes for El Salvador and all of those just to the south.
Many African countries do not/cannot enforce drug laws, but I'll give them a miss this holiday season too.

Sorry, I cannot think of a single country that has a relaxed attitude to cannabis that isn't extremely poor or downright dangerous.

LSC wrote:
The Jeremy Kyle Show is packed full of cannabis users, and although it has never come up, I'd wager Mastermind is not.

I suppose it is a case of choosing which camp you are in, or want to be in.
I know a few stoners. Some can handle it; some can't. About the same as alcohol, I agree; but do we really want another alcohol?
I don't know any alcoholics (that I'm aware of) but I know and have met (and interviewed) quite a few cannabis users who are completely unemployable because of it.


"Babs Stanley says...
9:41pm Thu 13 Sep 12

We need to stop this stupid and unwinnable war against cannabis. It is causing far more harm to our communities than it prevents. If we had a properly regulated system of production and supply we'd have no more illegal cannabis farms, instead we'd have thousands of new jobs. We'd have no more dealers on the streets. Cannabis would be available to adults only through licensed outlets and we'd have some control over the THC and CBD content."

Complete rubbish. Utter poppycock. We already have a MASSIVE illegal trade in tobacco and alcohol.
You would still have illegal cannabis farms avoiding VAT and duty. You'd still have dealers selling to the people that the government says should't buy it.

We wouldn't have thousands of jobs. Cannabis factories are only economically viable in this country because they steal the electricity because of our climate.
If that had to be paid for legally, it would be cheaper to import from 3rd world countries using child labour.

Which is what would happen. Still, who cares when you are stoned, right?

You don't know any alcoholics. Jesus, you need to get out more. They are ten a penny.

Cannabis definitely isn't another alcohol. See my post above.

Alcohol kills people and seriously destroys lives. Downplaying it's dangers, when statistically it's clear far more dangerous than cannabis, is a dangerous game to play with the naive. It wrecks lives.

The stats are in. There is no question. Alcohol is far far more dangerous than cannabis.

A MASSIVE illegal trade in alcohol as well? Tesco still seem to do all right considering this "massive" trade which takes away all the legal one. I don't know anyone who buys illegal booze in fact. Why would anyone when it's so dangerous, and the supermarkets sell the non-anti freeze version so cheap?

Alcohol companies employ thousands in this country and their shares prop up private sector pensions. Tobacco companies too unfortunately. Cannabis companies would clearly do the same thing were it legalised.

Your argument that we shouldn't legalise because there might be an illegal market afterwards makes no sense. You are saying it's better that criminals are making billions from a complete monopoly of an illegal market, because it's not worth taking it away unless we can take it all - every single bit.

What about just taking a massive amount away? Surely some, a lot in fact, is far better than none? We should make alcohol and tobacco illegal from your logic because there is still an illegal market from them now, however small.

Do you genuinely think cannabis users would be happy buying cannabis grown using child labour? What century are you in?

Just so that you know, it's alcohol which dulls the guilt not cannabis. It's why the guards at Auschwitz kept themselves constantly drunk. If they'd have smoked weed the guilt would have make them blow their brains out. But they didn't, they drunk instead. Just like child abusers do. Most child abuse occurs when the abuser is drunk, because it dulls the guilt and de-sensitises.

You don't get that with weed. Tell me why cannabis is another alcohol though, because I forget.

Jack, you quote some interesting stats there. No-one has died from cannabis?
Not even the paranoids throwing themselves off bridges?

You quote the Lancet. As I am sure you are aware, anyone can publish in the Lancet, if accepted, and then the debate is opened to peer review.
The Lancet isn't a handbook, it is a magazine.
An article in the Lancet is like an article in OK! magazine telling me the Beckhams have the nicest house on the planet. I might agree or not.

G_Whiz wrote:
A mates experiences with the stuff have been shocking - crashing his car....a lot, when under the influence, paranoia and now he just speaks real slow!
Other than that he say it's good **** man! very slowly of course!

Are you seriously knocking cannabis users for their supposed "shocking" behaviour when you are coming out with drivel like that?

LSC wrote:
Jack, you quote some interesting stats there. No-one has died from cannabis?
Not even the paranoids throwing themselves off bridges?

You quote the Lancet. As I am sure you are aware, anyone can publish in the Lancet, if accepted, and then the debate is opened to peer review.
The Lancet isn't a handbook, it is a magazine.
An article in the Lancet is like an article in OK! magazine telling me the Beckhams have the nicest house on the planet. I might agree or not.

Lol - them "paranoids" throwing themselves off bridges. You can't get to work for them can you! Of course just on mental health problems alone alcohol causes far more issues than cannabis, even scaled up.

You've surely got to admit that things aren't going your way if you are seriously suggesting that the Lancet is, in any way, like OK! magazine. The similarities end with the sentence - They are both published media.

If you no longer have reason on your side, at what point do you just admit you are wrong?

You may not know anyone who knowingly buys illegal booze, but the corner shops are full of it. Check the Trading Standards website.

"Do you genuinely think cannabis users would be happy buying cannabis grown using child labour? What century are you in? "

Very easy to answer. At present, cannabis users buy an illegal product from illegal dealers who we all know are usually involved with other crime, such as harder drugs, prostitution, trafficking, blackmail, smuggling, violence and extortion.
As long as cannabis is illegal, that is always going to be the case.

And yet they still buy it.

So don't try to tell me they have a social conscience.

They can't have. Any illegal cannabis user contributes to the above crimes, knows it and doesn't care because the 'high' is worth it to them.

THAT, counts as a dangerous drug in my book.

LSC wrote:
I would also add that it was mentioned that some countries have a more relaxed attitude to cannabis.
This is true, some do. Portugal tried an experiment (You know the country that just went bust) and are back-tracking on it rapidly. Holland is also changing the rules to tighten up, which is a shame because we all know Dutchmen famous for improving the world. There was Rip Van Winkle, famous for sleeping, and Van Gogh, famous for painting, poverty and self mutilation.

Not wonderfully convincing so far, but let us look on. There are other countries where the governments at least turn a blind eye to the drug trade. Afghanstan? Perhaps not.
Columbia! Nah.
Jamaica, very sunny, but the Yardies keep killing people.
Mexico! Ah, again the life expectancy thing bothers me, and the same goes for El Salvador and all of those just to the south.
Many African countries do not/cannot enforce drug laws, but I'll give them a miss this holiday season too.

Sorry, I cannot think of a single country that has a relaxed attitude to cannabis that isn't extremely poor or downright dangerous.

Since when have Mexico relaxed things?

Last time I looked their hardcore war on drugs had bought over 55,000 murdered, many tortured, corruption endemic, and the drug gangs more powerful then ever.

That's what happens when you crack down harder it seems. The gangs get hardcore, the problem gets far worse.

Portugal haven't backtracked. They can't afford to, they've saved so much money from decriminalising

Germany have fairly relaxed cannabis laws. Some federal states don't even prosecute for possession now. It doesn't appear to have made it poor, quite the opposite in fact. We clearly need to follow their lead. Or are you saying we have more in common with El Salvador or countries in Africa than Germany?

Legalise and we could feasibly see the end of the recession.

LSC wrote:
You may not know anyone who knowingly buys illegal booze, but the corner shops are full of it. Check the Trading Standards website.

"Do you genuinely think cannabis users would be happy buying cannabis grown using child labour? What century are you in? "

Very easy to answer. At present, cannabis users buy an illegal product from illegal dealers who we all know are usually involved with other crime, such as harder drugs, prostitution, trafficking, blackmail, smuggling, violence and extortion.
As long as cannabis is illegal, that is always going to be the case.

And yet they still buy it.

So don't try to tell me they have a social conscience.

They can't have. Any illegal cannabis user contributes to the above crimes, knows it and doesn't care because the 'high' is worth it to them.

THAT, counts as a dangerous drug in my book.

By that rationale someone who grows their own isn't actually doing anything wrong. Not morally certainly.

Why do the courts punish those people more than those who fund criminals therefore?

Reading your comments I'm guessing that you realise that the whole thing just doesn't make sense. When things don't make sense, we clearly need to change them, otherwise we'd be morons.

Corner shops are not full of illegal booze incidentally. Corner shops are mostly Spars or Tesco Expresses for one thing these days.

Cannabis users don't want to buy off criminals as well. There just clearly is no other choice in an illegal market. Legalising would solve that problem in a shot.

All your own arguments are actually coming back to favouring legalisation it seems. Why don't you just admit you are actually in favour of legalisation? It solves all your problems associated with the drug. Certainly your biggest ones.

I don't see that at all, but it is getting late so don't see my going to bed as giving up on an interesting debate!

Your sentence:
"Cannabis users don't want to buy off criminals as well. There just clearly is no other choice in an illegal market"

No other choice? Why? Do they NEED it? If so it suggests dependence. Not good.

Someone who grows their own; not so fussed if that is the way they want to go, as long as they don't steal to get the climate and don't sit around stoned all day on benefits at my expense after taking it. Which so many appear to do.

I don't see legalising would help that type one jot. Or the taxpayer.

Oooh, a firm that is allowed to grow cannabis for medical reasons says its good for you. No vested interest in their statement then! Yes there are some medical uses for it, doesn’t alter the fact that it can also be detrimental to peoples health too. Like a lot of medical drugs if used incorrectly.

Cannabis and other drugs are illegal because they are bad for you. Cigarrettes and alcohol are also bad for you but legal. That point shouldn’t be used to legalise illegal drugs but used to make alcohol and tobacco illegal themselve. I'd vote for that! And just because the way the issue of illegal drugs is being tackled doesn’t appear that affective doesn’t mean the towel should be thrown in and substances made legal.

As to out of date research wasn’t it just a few weeks ago a study was published showing cannabis use, especially if started in teenage years, has a long term effect on learning, concentration, ability to think properly and memory and motivation loss. People who use cannabis are also more likely to have social and family problems and more likely to committ offences and have behavioural problems. I know this from personal experience, I've seen the effect cannabis use has had on a friend I've had since college. The effect on her is quite clear and its quite clearly detrimental.

Most household burglaries are drugs-related (I'm sure ours was) - stolen goods sold to fuel a habit.....legalising cannabis will not change that.

Oh, and there IS a lot of illegal alcohol in our corner shops....and the majority of corner shops are not run by Tesco or Spa.

Re. garston tony...I agree, you only have to see the effects on friends or family to know the truth. I also have personal experience of seeing people change for the worse over the years because of their use of cannabis. And it does have a detrimental affect on the kids taking it in their thousands at the moment: lack of concentration and focus in their studies, and a lack of motivation and self-esteem....it only needs one or two other ingredients to escalate this state of mind like exam pressure, peer pressure, rows with parents and then you have kids who are in danger of doing some serious harm to themselves. This isn't a quoted statistic from research, or an article from a magazine, this is what's I see and hear from my own kids about what's happening in our schools right now and it is much more widespread than ever before....all because the kids think cannabis is safe. Oh, and I'm talking about ALL schools, the good, the bad and those in-between. Is this what we want to encourage by legalising cannabis?

One day, somebody with some common sense will make alcohol illegal too - the amount of misery caused by that is also unnacceptable in what is supposed to be a civilised society.

I meant to add cigarettes as well to my list of things to get rid of in an ideal world.

Why not save millions of pounds of NHS money that's currently spent on smoking-related diseases and conditions?

The amount of wealth that's created by society through the sales of alcohol and cigarettes for the manufactures and sponsors of these products is incredible. Meanwhile, society suffers with any number of smoking-related cancers and conditions that make people's lives a misery; drink-related car accidents and fatalities, abusive and aggressive behaviour, liver disorders and whole of bunch of people that think fighting and puking in the high street on a Friday and Saturday night is fun.

And then are people who want to see cannabis legalised so our kids can learn that instead of studying for that maths test, it's better to say 'sod it, there's no jobs anyway' and numb the senses with a joint, possibly following the example of their parents.

The Mad Max annihilation is creeping ever closer.

"And then are people who want to see cannabis legalised so our kids can learn that instead of studying for that maths test, it's better to say 'sod it, there's no jobs anyway' and numb the senses with a joint, possibly following the example of their parents."

The value of your contribution to this discussion is exemplified by this ludicrous passage. It demonstrates an arrogance, a detachment from reality and an abusive attitude towards others that is breathtaking.

Your earlier comments also show a gullible belief in the Daily Mail narrative about cannabis and an absolute ignorance of the scientific evidence.

Attitudes such as yours with an instinct for repression and prohibition cause far more harm to society than any drugs, even the most dangerous such as alcohol.

The rest of us can breathe a sigh of relief that the whole world is moving in exactly the opposite direction to you.

You are isolated, ignorant, prejudiced, offensive and out of touch.

There is certainly more reason to ban alcohol than cannabis but banning anything only profits criminals and always has.There is evidence that Diesel increases the risk of cancer but ive never seen anyone want that banned. Ive worked with drug users and ive never known anyone on Cannabis die,though i have known dealers lace it with herion to keep their customers. It certainly causes a lot less issues than tobacco and alcohol but as stated these make billions in tax,or should i say billions for smugglers if you believe what it say on the tax cheats top 20 list.

LSC wrote:
I don't see that at all, but it is getting late so don't see my going to bed as giving up on an interesting debate!

Your sentence:
"Cannabis users don't want to buy off criminals as well. There just clearly is no other choice in an illegal market"

No other choice? Why? Do they NEED it? If so it suggests dependence. Not good.

Someone who grows their own; not so fussed if that is the way they want to go, as long as they don't steal to get the climate and don't sit around stoned all day on benefits at my expense after taking it. Which so many appear to do.

I don't see legalising would help that type one jot. Or the taxpayer.

Look you clearly want to blame all the ills of society on cannabis users, who don't actually hassle anyone, don't hit anyone and don't fill our hospitals.

That's alcohol users who are ruining society not cannabis. And heroin users mostly too.

Cannabis use is a victimless crime. The despicable criminal elements you mention are a direct result of prohibition, nothing else.

Hardcore despicable criminals aren't to blame according to you though, it's those villainous cannabis users sat watching telly bothering no-one, including our already overburdened health services. Are those hardcore criminals just misunderstood in your head?

Not good I'm afraid, because you are not only the criminal's apologist, but you are also their best friend too of course. Blaming cannabis users means forever gifting criminals a market worth billions. Do you really think handing billions to hardcore criminals is a good thing for society? It clearly can't be. You don't appear to have a solution for this terrible situation either - the solution you uphold has created it in fact - yet we are supposed to ignore the obvious solution which science and reason is crying out for, which is legalisation?

You are the best friend to paedophiles of course as well. You rabid, skewed demonisation of the drug means the police target it, when it causes no harm. There is only so much resource to go round obviously. Targeting cannabis in this way means other crimes get de-prioritised. You don't see many expensive raids on paedophiles homes do you like you see all the time for cannabis?

I'd rather our bobbies were going for real crimes with real victims. You are encouraging that they go easier on paedophiles, and rapists, and violent thugs. Even metal thieves. Do the police even make arrests for metal theft? It's rampant, damaging to society not to mention hugely expensive - potentially deadly too - but nobody is ever convicted for it. You can't fail to see that the police have de-prioritised metal theft for cannabis use.

The police shouldn't have to de-prioritise anything for cannabis. They should be happily benefiting from it's legal status; in a decrease of their workload, a decrease in crime in general, and huge increase in revenues from legally paid tax.

Where do you get your skewed opinion from LSC. You may as well be writing in a tabloid article, because it's so similar to the guff they print.

Those exact same papers who solemnly tell us that Liverpool fans were completely to blame for their own deaths, never apologising or confessing the truth until the absolute last moment, when there was no question they were lying.

Same with Milly Dowler's phone, and a whole massive raft of other things we now know they lied about.

Do you really believe these people are telling the truth with cannabis as well, when it's in their vested interest to demonise it because scare stories about "killer skunk" sell bucket loads of papers? Why should they tell the truth? It's better for them than lying about a dead girl's phone. Who is going to challenge them about cannabis? Certainly not our weak willed politicians. Instead they sack truth telling scientists at the paper's behest

Parroting the tabloid's lies isn't helping society LSC. You are actually helping hardcore criminals, and paedophiles, and rapists, and violent thugs. All of them love you doing this. You are actively helping them. And at the end of the day they are lies of course. Just like they were lies about Hillsborough and a million other things for the paper's own interests.

Cannabis users don't sit around all day at taxpayers expense incidentally. They are hard working tax payers just like everybody else. The only difference is they don't cost the taxpayer in health costs.

Babs Stanley wrote:
"And then are people who want to see cannabis legalised so our kids can learn that instead of studying for that maths test, it's better to say 'sod it, there's no jobs anyway' and numb the senses with a joint, possibly following the example of their parents."

The value of your contribution to this discussion is exemplified by this ludicrous passage. It demonstrates an arrogance, a detachment from reality and an abusive attitude towards others that is breathtaking.

Your earlier comments also show a gullible belief in the Daily Mail narrative about cannabis and an absolute ignorance of the scientific evidence.

Attitudes such as yours with an instinct for repression and prohibition cause far more harm to society than any drugs, even the most dangerous such as alcohol.

The rest of us can breathe a sigh of relief that the whole world is moving in exactly the opposite direction to you.

You are isolated, ignorant, prejudiced, offensive and out of touch.

Hmm, violent mood swings, hurling insults, disruptive influence....have you just had a puff?

Re. steveherts....you're right, the skunk that is rife among the kids at the moment is dangerous stuff.

And actually, I was't seriously suggesting the banning of anything - in a free society and modern world, we are allowed to hurt ourselves with whatever substances we like...trouble is, with self-regulation of anything in society, including the crutches that people need like drugs, drink and fags, there are always going to be morons who are intent on not only ruining their own lives, but those of others as well.

Should I get started on the issues of parking and traffic in Watford again?

cathbal66 wrote:
Most household burglaries are drugs-related (I'm sure ours was) - stolen goods sold to fuel a habit.....legalising cannabis will not change that.

Oh, and there IS a lot of illegal alcohol in our corner shops....and the majority of corner shops are not run by Tesco or Spa.

Yes most household burglaries are drugs-related, but that drug isn't cannabis.

Drugs are different - you did know that didn't you cathbal66?

Alcohol for instance is bad, very bad. The tramps you see everywhere - that's alcohol. The violence in any town centre you care pick to choose of a weekend - that's alcohol too. Anti-social behaviour - another one for alcohol. Hospitals awash with related issues, police overburdened - all alcohol.

Heroin is bad too, unbelievably bad. The people who broke into your house - those will be heroin addicts. The young girls who sell their bodies on the street to dirty old men - that's heroin. Disgusting creatures who rob old grannies or war heroes. That's heroin addicts again - or smack heads as they are known.

So you are right drugs are bad. But not all drugs are the same. Cannabis is in fact remarkably safe when compared to those other drugs in fact. Cannabis doesn't have those major terrible downsides which those drugs have. No tramps, no smack heads, no anti-social behaviour, no violence, no robbing old grannies. Those are other drugs not cannabis.

You clearly need to stop lumping all drugs together therefore. Ignorance to that level simply isn't good for society.

You need to tell your local trading standards as well if you think someone is selling illegal alcohol. Or Customs and Excise. Both have powers that you'd be amazed by. Both definitely act if you tell them. For trading standards, they act even if someone isn't pricing goods up in their shop - report someone for it and see for yourself.

cathbal66 wrote:

Babs Stanley wrote:
"And then are people who want to see cannabis legalised so our kids can learn that instead of studying for that maths test, it's better to say 'sod it, there's no jobs anyway' and numb the senses with a joint, possibly following the example of their parents."

The value of your contribution to this discussion is exemplified by this ludicrous passage. It demonstrates an arrogance, a detachment from reality and an abusive attitude towards others that is breathtaking.

Your earlier comments also show a gullible belief in the Daily Mail narrative about cannabis and an absolute ignorance of the scientific evidence.

Attitudes such as yours with an instinct for repression and prohibition cause far more harm to society than any drugs, even the most dangerous such as alcohol.

The rest of us can breathe a sigh of relief that the whole world is moving in exactly the opposite direction to you.

You are isolated, ignorant, prejudiced, offensive and out of touch.

Hmm, violent mood swings, hurling insults, disruptive influence....have you just had a puff?

Re. steveherts....you're right, the skunk that is rife among the kids at the moment is dangerous stuff.

And actually, I was't seriously suggesting the banning of anything - in a free society and modern world, we are allowed to hurt ourselves with whatever substances we like...trouble is, with self-regulation of anything in society, including the crutches that people need like drugs, drink and fags, there are always going to be morons who are intent on not only ruining their own lives, but those of others as well.

Should I get started on the issues of parking and traffic in Watford again?

See my post above - those people ruining other people's lives, including their own, aren't cannabis users. So why should that change if it was made legal?

It wouldn't is the clear and obvious answer.

Jack Herer wrote:

LSC wrote:
I don't see that at all, but it is getting late so don't see my going to bed as giving up on an interesting debate!

Your sentence:
"Cannabis users don't want to buy off criminals as well. There just clearly is no other choice in an illegal market"

No other choice? Why? Do they NEED it? If so it suggests dependence. Not good.

Someone who grows their own; not so fussed if that is the way they want to go, as long as they don't steal to get the climate and don't sit around stoned all day on benefits at my expense after taking it. Which so many appear to do.

I don't see legalising would help that type one jot. Or the taxpayer.

Look you clearly want to blame all the ills of society on cannabis users, who don't actually hassle anyone, don't hit anyone and don't fill our hospitals.

That's alcohol users who are ruining society not cannabis. And heroin users mostly too.

Cannabis use is a victimless crime. The despicable criminal elements you mention are a direct result of prohibition, nothing else.

Hardcore despicable criminals aren't to blame according to you though, it's those villainous cannabis users sat watching telly bothering no-one, including our already overburdened health services. Are those hardcore criminals just misunderstood in your head?

Not good I'm afraid, because you are not only the criminal's apologist, but you are also their best friend too of course. Blaming cannabis users means forever gifting criminals a market worth billions. Do you really think handing billions to hardcore criminals is a good thing for society? It clearly can't be. You don't appear to have a solution for this terrible situation either - the solution you uphold has created it in fact - yet we are supposed to ignore the obvious solution which science and reason is crying out for, which is legalisation?

You are the best friend to paedophiles of course as well. You rabid, skewed demonisation of the drug means the police target it, when it causes no harm. There is only so much resource to go round obviously. Targeting cannabis in this way means other crimes get de-prioritised. You don't see many expensive raids on paedophiles homes do you like you see all the time for cannabis?

I'd rather our bobbies were going for real crimes with real victims. You are encouraging that they go easier on paedophiles, and rapists, and violent thugs. Even metal thieves. Do the police even make arrests for metal theft? It's rampant, damaging to society not to mention hugely expensive - potentially deadly too - but nobody is ever convicted for it. You can't fail to see that the police have de-prioritised metal theft for cannabis use.

The police shouldn't have to de-prioritise anything for cannabis. They should be happily benefiting from it's legal status; in a decrease of their workload, a decrease in crime in general, and huge increase in revenues from legally paid tax.

Where do you get your skewed opinion from LSC. You may as well be writing in a tabloid article, because it's so similar to the guff they print.

Those exact same papers who solemnly tell us that Liverpool fans were completely to blame for their own deaths, never apologising or confessing the truth until the absolute last moment, when there was no question they were lying.

Same with Milly Dowler's phone, and a whole massive raft of other things we now know they lied about.

Do you really believe these people are telling the truth with cannabis as well, when it's in their vested interest to demonise it because scare stories about "killer skunk" sell bucket loads of papers? Why should they tell the truth? It's better for them than lying about a dead girl's phone. Who is going to challenge them about cannabis? Certainly not our weak willed politicians. Instead they sack truth telling scientists at the paper's behest

Parroting the tabloid's lies isn't helping society LSC. You are actually helping hardcore criminals, and paedophiles, and rapists, and violent thugs. All of them love you doing this. You are actively helping them. And at the end of the day they are lies of course. Just like they were lies about Hillsborough and a million other things for the paper's own interests.

Cannabis users don't sit around all day at taxpayers expense incidentally. They are hard working tax payers just like everybody else. The only difference is they don't cost the taxpayer in health costs.

Re. Jack Herer

Not true. Lots of crimes are committed, mainly burglary, in order to fuel a drug habit.

There's the grown-up, adult type of stealing, like the burglary that we suffered last year, which the police told us was almost certainly drugs-related - somebody, somewhere, selling off our personal possessions for the cash to buy drugs. I think I'm right in saying that this was a crime and that we were the victims of it....especially as we are still waiting for an insurance pay-out from the Crapifax.

Then there's the kids who need money to buy weed so that they can be cool and party with their mates....stealing money from parents, borrowing from friends, borrowing money from people who aren't really friends at all and when they call in their debts it ends in violence.

"Cannabis use is a victimless crime."

Tell that to the families who are devastated by it and they will show you a side of drug use that may not concern you and your habits, but is a very real problem for others.

cathbal66 wrote:
I meant to add cigarettes as well to my list of things to get rid of in an ideal world.

Why not save millions of pounds of NHS money that's currently spent on smoking-related diseases and conditions?

The amount of wealth that's created by society through the sales of alcohol and cigarettes for the manufactures and sponsors of these products is incredible. Meanwhile, society suffers with any number of smoking-related cancers and conditions that make people's lives a misery; drink-related car accidents and fatalities, abusive and aggressive behaviour, liver disorders and whole of bunch of people that think fighting and puking in the high street on a Friday and Saturday night is fun.

And then are people who want to see cannabis legalised so our kids can learn that instead of studying for that maths test, it's better to say 'sod it, there's no jobs anyway' and numb the senses with a joint, possibly following the example of their parents.

The Mad Max annihilation is creeping ever closer.

We want to see cannabis legalised so it's harder for kids to get hold of. It's the only way to make it happen.

We are currently trusting criminals to act responsibly with our children. How monumentally irresponsible of us.

Under the current laws it's easier for them to buy cannabis than buy alcohol.

"Cannabis is in fact remarkably safe when compared to those other drugs in fact. "

It may be safe in comparison....safer still to not have it at all.



"You need to tell your local trading standards as well if you think someone is selling illegal alcohol. Or Customs and Excise. Both have powers that you'd be amazed by."

Oh I do....and I am....doesn't stop it happening though.

cathbal66 wrote:

Jack Herer wrote:

LSC wrote:
I don't see that at all, but it is getting late so don't see my going to bed as giving up on an interesting debate!

Your sentence:
"Cannabis users don't want to buy off criminals as well. There just clearly is no other choice in an illegal market"

No other choice? Why? Do they NEED it? If so it suggests dependence. Not good.

Someone who grows their own; not so fussed if that is the way they want to go, as long as they don't steal to get the climate and don't sit around stoned all day on benefits at my expense after taking it. Which so many appear to do.

I don't see legalising would help that type one jot. Or the taxpayer.

Look you clearly want to blame all the ills of society on cannabis users, who don't actually hassle anyone, don't hit anyone and don't fill our hospitals.

That's alcohol users who are ruining society not cannabis. And heroin users mostly too.

Cannabis use is a victimless crime. The despicable criminal elements you mention are a direct result of prohibition, nothing else.

Hardcore despicable criminals aren't to blame according to you though, it's those villainous cannabis users sat watching telly bothering no-one, including our already overburdened health services. Are those hardcore criminals just misunderstood in your head?

Not good I'm afraid, because you are not only the criminal's apologist, but you are also their best friend too of course. Blaming cannabis users means forever gifting criminals a market worth billions. Do you really think handing billions to hardcore criminals is a good thing for society? It clearly can't be. You don't appear to have a solution for this terrible situation either - the solution you uphold has created it in fact - yet we are supposed to ignore the obvious solution which science and reason is crying out for, which is legalisation?

You are the best friend to paedophiles of course as well. You rabid, skewed demonisation of the drug means the police target it, when it causes no harm. There is only so much resource to go round obviously. Targeting cannabis in this way means other crimes get de-prioritised. You don't see many expensive raids on paedophiles homes do you like you see all the time for cannabis?

I'd rather our bobbies were going for real crimes with real victims. You are encouraging that they go easier on paedophiles, and rapists, and violent thugs. Even metal thieves. Do the police even make arrests for metal theft? It's rampant, damaging to society not to mention hugely expensive - potentially deadly too - but nobody is ever convicted for it. You can't fail to see that the police have de-prioritised metal theft for cannabis use.

The police shouldn't have to de-prioritise anything for cannabis. They should be happily benefiting from it's legal status; in a decrease of their workload, a decrease in crime in general, and huge increase in revenues from legally paid tax.

Where do you get your skewed opinion from LSC. You may as well be writing in a tabloid article, because it's so similar to the guff they print.

Those exact same papers who solemnly tell us that Liverpool fans were completely to blame for their own deaths, never apologising or confessing the truth until the absolute last moment, when there was no question they were lying.

Same with Milly Dowler's phone, and a whole massive raft of other things we now know they lied about.

Do you really believe these people are telling the truth with cannabis as well, when it's in their vested interest to demonise it because scare stories about "killer skunk" sell bucket loads of papers? Why should they tell the truth? It's better for them than lying about a dead girl's phone. Who is going to challenge them about cannabis? Certainly not our weak willed politicians. Instead they sack truth telling scientists at the paper's behest

Parroting the tabloid's lies isn't helping society LSC. You are actually helping hardcore criminals, and paedophiles, and rapists, and violent thugs. All of them love you doing this. You are actively helping them. And at the end of the day they are lies of course. Just like they were lies about Hillsborough and a million other things for the paper's own interests.

Cannabis users don't sit around all day at taxpayers expense incidentally. They are hard working tax payers just like everybody else. The only difference is they don't cost the taxpayer in health costs.

Re. Jack Herer

Not true. Lots of crimes are committed, mainly burglary, in order to fuel a drug habit.

There's the grown-up, adult type of stealing, like the burglary that we suffered last year, which the police told us was almost certainly drugs-related - somebody, somewhere, selling off our personal possessions for the cash to buy drugs. I think I'm right in saying that this was a crime and that we were the victims of it....especially as we are still waiting for an insurance pay-out from the Crapifax.

Then there's the kids who need money to buy weed so that they can be cool and party with their mates....stealing money from parents, borrowing from friends, borrowing money from people who aren't really friends at all and when they call in their debts it ends in violence.

"Cannabis use is a victimless crime."

Tell that to the families who are devastated by it and they will show you a side of drug use that may not concern you and your habits, but is a very real problem for others.

Yes we are all in agreement that your crime was "drugs" related. There are many different drugs however. Ecstasy, LSD, ketamine, cocaine, amphetamine, methadrone etc and so on for instance.

Chances beyond doubt though is that it would have been heroin. That would have been the "drug" habit which caused your break in. That's the drug which has a foul grip on their users to go out and steal.

Blaming cannabis for it is like blaming paracetamol. It was more likely alcohol than cannabis, and it's unlikely to have been alcohol.

Can you literally not get past the fact that "drugs" are hugely different things.

Is ecstasy the same as heroin in your head?

cathbal66 wrote:
"Cannabis is in fact remarkably safe when compared to those other drugs in fact. "

It may be safe in comparison....safer still to not have it at all.



"You need to tell your local trading standards as well if you think someone is selling illegal alcohol. Or Customs and Excise. Both have powers that you'd be amazed by."

Oh I do....and I am....doesn't stop it happening though.

Cannabis is safer than peanuts or junk food amongst a whole host of other things.

Everything has dangers, but we surely shouldn't impose Stalinist style restrictions on things which we simple have to take for granted have dangers, albeit small ones.

Report any illegal booze you see sold and you'll be amazed how quickly it is removed. Try it, otherwise stop pretending it's sale is so widespread. It isn't, it accounts for a tiny proportion of the market. Carling and Carlsberg certainly seem to be doing OK judging by their expensive adverts considering this massive problem with illegal booze you claim there is.

LSC wrote:
You may not know anyone who knowingly buys illegal booze, but the corner shops are full of it. Check the Trading Standards website.

"Do you genuinely think cannabis users would be happy buying cannabis grown using child labour? What century are you in? "

Very easy to answer. At present, cannabis users buy an illegal product from illegal dealers who we all know are usually involved with other crime, such as harder drugs, prostitution, trafficking, blackmail, smuggling, violence and extortion.
As long as cannabis is illegal, that is always going to be the case.

And yet they still buy it.

So don't try to tell me they have a social conscience.

They can't have. Any illegal cannabis user contributes to the above crimes, knows it and doesn't care because the 'high' is worth it to them.

THAT, counts as a dangerous drug in my book.

I don't claim to know anything about cannabis or it's use, but the one question that keeps popping up in my head is, 'Are those of you that support the use of cannabis also users of the stuff?' How does that Shakespeare(?) quote go 'Methinks thou doth protesteth too much'. It's just a thought. Just to make it clear, I have never used the stuff, but I have met an awful lot of people that have, that is where I form my own opinion on this particular subject.

Legalising something does not mean those, kids for instance, who shouldn’t have it cant get it. See alcohol and tobacco.

Just because something is legal does not stop involvement of criminals. Again see alcohol and tobacco.

Just because something is legal doesn’t mean the product you buy is kosher. Oh, see alcohol and tobacco. Dodgy potentially deadly vodka anyone?

Just because something is legal doesn’t mean it cant cause harm. Oh dearie me, lets look at alcohol and tobacco again for an example of that.

Just because something is going to kill you/affect you slightly slower than something else doesn’t make it okay. If you're shot in the head by a large bullet or a small bullet its not going to do you much good either way is it?

"You are the best friend to paedophiles of course as well."

I find that an offensive, personal playground insult and therefore have no desire to continue any debate with you.

I'll let others decide for themselves whether such an outrageous accusation means anything else you say can be taken as serious argument.

Good day.

I do not believe that cannabis is as safe as some people say on here; I have seen a detrimental effect in some people. However, scientific studies have shown (to a 99.5% accuracy level) that cannabis in standard subjects does have a negative effect on brain processing. It is likely that some are effected more than others, but I am also sure that those with mental health problems will have a propensity for the problems, probably have consumed the drug before the age of 18 and will have also tried other drugs too (all of which are detrimental). It is also certain that kids will find it harder to buy once legalised as it will be only sold in specific clinics and checked more ruthlessly than alcohol (prison sentences for those selling to under 18's). It seems blindingly obvious to me that non enhanced cannabis is safer than heroine and even alchohol. However when legal it would have to be tested and manufactured more safely which would also solve the mental health problems associated with skunk. In terms of finances, the benefits of the industry will outweigh the cost of those unemployed, as the government would have full control of it by treating it as a privalidge not a right. They could release an identity card which would be needed for purchase and could stop anyone on benefits who has not made active effort to find a job in the last three months (as well as any underlying mental health issues). They could also further criminalise the illegal selling of cannabis; a lack of demand and the fear of harsher sentences would mean that prices would rise too high for someone living solely on benefits. Finally cannabis would also take the strain off the NHS as certain people would be less likely go out to clubs and drink as much; cannabis users rarely drink and smoke at the same time. This would mean fewer fights, lower levels of damage and vandalism and so it would mean even more money and time for the police to fight other crimes. Nearly all arguments I can think of lead to the legalising of the drug except for it being a gateway drug, but this gateway could be shut off through better education and a later introduction to the drug. I think what most people forget is that there will always be a certain stigma about those using drugs, in the same way there is about general smokers. If you look at the amount of local drug takers in Amsterdam, the vast majority do not consume cannabis and do not like it. But those who do should have the choice to choose.

garston tony wrote:
Legalising something does not mean those, kids for instance, who shouldn’t have it cant get it. See alcohol and tobacco.

Just because something is legal does not stop involvement of criminals. Again see alcohol and tobacco.

Just because something is legal doesn’t mean the product you buy is kosher. Oh, see alcohol and tobacco. Dodgy potentially deadly vodka anyone?

Just because something is legal doesn’t mean it cant cause harm. Oh dearie me, lets look at alcohol and tobacco again for an example of that.

Just because something is going to kill you/affect you slightly slower than something else doesn’t make it okay. If you're shot in the head by a large bullet or a small bullet its not going to do you much good either way is it?

Yes all good.

But if making cannabis legal would make society a far happier, healthier, richer, more considerate place, then we'd be morons not to do it surely, regardless of whether we stop every single illegal sale after legalisation.

We'll cut down on those bad things drastically like kids getting hold of it or illegal sales - that's the all important point. A drastic cut down means a better society. Currently these bad things are rampant. We are currently living the absolute worst case scenario.

Why can't it just be a drastic cut down, why is it all or nothing for you - either no illegal trade whatsoever or complete illegal trade? It makes no sense, especially when that isn't the case already with alcohol and tobacco, and their companies have been doing amazing for decades now even with this supposed illegal trade. Their share prices have propped up pensions since day dot.

If the illegal trade was doing them that much damage they would do something about it. The alcohol companies funded the expensive anti ecstasy Leah Betts campaign when they thought the dance scene was getting too big. Putting aside how morally questionable that is, they certainly know how to act if they are threatened and they clearly don't look unduly threatened by the illegal trade.

I don't know anyone who buys illegal booze. As you say it's potentially deadly. Who would take the risk beyond imbeciles, if the supermarkets are already selling it at ridiculously low prices?

As for second analogy with the bullets - no, "just because something is going to kill you/affect you slightly slower than something else doesn’t make it okay." Fortunately cannabis doesn't affect you slightly slower, it doesn't affect you at all.

No liver disease or lung cancer from cannabis thanks - amongst a whole series of serious issues from alcohol or tobacco which cannabis simply doesn't have. There are actually many scientific papers which show how cannabis fights cancer. Straight up. No hocus pocus - real science.

So if you are thinking about alcohol as a bullet (which in fairness it is), think about cannabis as a nice soft comfy blanket protecting it's users and making them healthy. Certainly when compared to those bullets in the head which are alcohol and tobacco.

Drugs, alcohol, fags.....nothing good about any of them.

Give up the crutches and get a life.

End of.

LSC wrote:
"You are the best friend to paedophiles of course as well."

I find that an offensive, personal playground insult and therefore have no desire to continue any debate with you.

I'll let others decide for themselves whether such an outrageous accusation means anything else you say can be taken as serious argument.

Good day.

Look I'm sorry if I caused offence if I said you were the best friend to paedophiles. I was talking metaphorically not literally.

You definitely do them favours though, there's no denying that. I mean, perhaps you can explain to a child who has been repeatedly raped, that's it's OK that the police didn't catch the monster who did it, because they stopped some dastardly cannabis users instead.

I think we should be explaining to that child what a terrible mistake we've made, and how we should be targeting criminals who cause real harm to real vulnerable people.

I mean, do you really think it's a good thing to demonise cannabis in such a skewed way, when the reality means that police resources are seriously diverted away from major crimes?

cathbal66 wrote:
Drugs, alcohol, fags.....nothing good about any of them.

Give up the crutches and get a life.

End of.

Back in the real world Mother Teresa, people are always going to want to take things.

Those things may as well be the safest things. We'd be stupid for that not to be the case. And cannabis is far far safer than alcohol.

You still can't split up "drugs" either can you? It's weird. Is it literally unbreakable in your mind- all the same, one big thing and it's just called drugs?

Do you genuinely not know that heroin and LSD and ecstasy and cannabis are completely different things that don't even look similar in any way? I'm guessing you have no idea that their effects are completely different as well? Cannabis isn't heroin cathbal66. Just like it isn't ecstasy. Just like it isn't LSD.Just like it isn't alcohol.

Is alcohol safe in your head cathbal66, and cannabis is actually dangerous?

miked2006 wrote:
I do not believe that cannabis is as safe as some people say on here; I have seen a detrimental effect in some people. However, scientific studies have shown (to a 99.5% accuracy level) that cannabis in standard subjects does have a negative effect on brain processing. It is likely that some are effected more than others, but I am also sure that those with mental health problems will have a propensity for the problems, probably have consumed the drug before the age of 18 and will have also tried other drugs too (all of which are detrimental). It is also certain that kids will find it harder to buy once legalised as it will be only sold in specific clinics and checked more ruthlessly than alcohol (prison sentences for those selling to under 18's). It seems blindingly obvious to me that non enhanced cannabis is safer than heroine and even alchohol. However when legal it would have to be tested and manufactured more safely which would also solve the mental health problems associated with skunk. In terms of finances, the benefits of the industry will outweigh the cost of those unemployed, as the government would have full control of it by treating it as a privalidge not a right. They could release an identity card which would be needed for purchase and could stop anyone on benefits who has not made active effort to find a job in the last three months (as well as any underlying mental health issues). They could also further criminalise the illegal selling of cannabis; a lack of demand and the fear of harsher sentences would mean that prices would rise too high for someone living solely on benefits. Finally cannabis would also take the strain off the NHS as certain people would be less likely go out to clubs and drink as much; cannabis users rarely drink and smoke at the same time. This would mean fewer fights, lower levels of damage and vandalism and so it would mean even more money and time for the police to fight other crimes. Nearly all arguments I can think of lead to the legalising of the drug except for it being a gateway drug, but this gateway could be shut off through better education and a later introduction to the drug. I think what most people forget is that there will always be a certain stigma about those using drugs, in the same way there is about general smokers. If you look at the amount of local drug takers in Amsterdam, the vast majority do not consume cannabis and do not like it. But those who do should have the choice to choose.

The only gateway for cannabis is it is lumped in with other illegal "drugs", much like it is in cathbal66's mind.

Dealers generally don't just sell cannabis they sell harder drugs. That's the only gateway, it's a clear one, and it's caused solely by cannabis being illegal, not the drug itself.

There isn't a scientific theory, let alone evidence, to show any "gateway" effect from cannabis as a substance.

Jack Herer wrote:

LSC wrote:
"You are the best friend to paedophiles of course as well."

I find that an offensive, personal playground insult and therefore have no desire to continue any debate with you.

I'll let others decide for themselves whether such an outrageous accusation means anything else you say can be taken as serious argument.

Good day.

Look I'm sorry if I caused offence if I said you were the best friend to paedophiles. I was talking metaphorically not literally.

You definitely do them favours though, there's no denying that. I mean, perhaps you can explain to a child who has been repeatedly raped, that's it's OK that the police didn't catch the monster who did it, because they stopped some dastardly cannabis users instead.

I think we should be explaining to that child what a terrible mistake we've made, and how we should be targeting criminals who cause real harm to real vulnerable people.

I mean, do you really think it's a good thing to demonise cannabis in such a skewed way, when the reality means that police resources are seriously diverted away from major crimes?

I shouldn't even bother to reply, but I will one last time.
You are now resorting to the 'Should be catching real criminals' argument so beloved by people stopped for speeding or having no insurance.

It is quite simple, but I will spell it out.
Cannabis is illegal. If you use it at the present time, which I'm guessing you might, then it is YOU who are contributing actively to other criminal acts.
I'm not going down the peado route; you accused me of being 'tabloid' in my argument, well, take a look in the mirror on that point.

But at the present time, any cannabis user is, by their own free will, helping organised crime. OK, the one in a hundred who grow their own in a flowerpot on the windowsill isn't, but we both know the real truth about where the majority of the drug comes from.

And that shows a complete lack of social concience and completely negates you argument about it being harmless.

You say I am the friend of viscious criminals.

You actually fund them. Which is worse?

That is all I have to say.

To Jack Herer

Yep - they all come under one heading for us non-drug users....'drugs, drugs, and more bad drugs'.

Despite knowing all the different flavours (and yes, Jack, I even know what affects they can have!), a huge dose of common sense (and reference to your one-man, soap-box tirade and verbal abuse) tells me that I'm living in the actual world, with a sharper perception of reality than you right now - for all I know, you're floating in a hazy cloud of make-believe as we speak, surrounded by your own selfish fog of arrogance.

Cannabis use is illegal at present and long may it continue to be so - decent folk thank our lucky stars that people like you are not the law-makers in this land.

This country actively encourages law breaking by taxing everything to death and then being shocked when the black market picks up the profit.Alcohol smugglers and not making vodka at home like they do in russia for instance but buying stuff made here and then exported to the EU which they then buy at half the price and bring back whilst avoiding the tax.If people want to delude themselves that some how the drug war can be won with the way its being fought now thats up to them but there will,at some point ,be tough decisions to be taken that involve seeing the whole picture rather than a small self serving part. And i speak as someone who hasnt and has never wanted to take drugs.

cathbal66 wrote:
To Jack Herer

Yep - they all come under one heading for us non-drug users....'drugs, drugs, and more bad drugs'.

Despite knowing all the different flavours (and yes, Jack, I even know what affects they can have!), a huge dose of common sense (and reference to your one-man, soap-box tirade and verbal abuse) tells me that I'm living in the actual world, with a sharper perception of reality than you right now - for all I know, you're floating in a hazy cloud of make-believe as we speak, surrounded by your own selfish fog of arrogance.

Cannabis use is illegal at present and long may it continue to be so - decent folk thank our lucky stars that people like you are not the law-makers in this land.

That's right, you are definitely living in the real world by genuinely thinking ecstasy is exactly the same thing as heroin, which is exactly the same thing as LSD, which is exactly the same thing as cannabis.

You perception isn't just sharp, it's super duper sharp!

Back in the real world, anyone under the age of 30 must genuinely think you are so out of touch you are from a different era, like Victorian or something.

I mean, how laughably detached from reality are you thinking ecstasy is the same thing as heroin?

If you have any children, then you seriously aren't doing them any favours wallowing in such a sea of ignorance. You could be putting them in danger of genuine harm.

You aren't the majority any more incidentally. Public opinion has changed massively in favour of cannabis legalisation. The people are sick of ignorant policies driven by greedy self interests. Check the latest polls - the public now favour cannabis legalisation. They aren't fools, they can see it's madness to keep the current shoddy state of affairs.

Everyone is sick of the current mess thanks, and it's ignorance like yours which creates and sustains it.

You can't feel proud being on the side of ignorance surely?

all these prohibitionists are supporting a policy which allows drug dealers to become wealthy. The fact is when a country brings cannabis into a regulated market, drug use goes down and age of first use goes up. Dealers slowly go out of business and the economy benefits enormously. These guys are the type to shout 'drugs are bad' as they sip wine, smoke tobacco or drink coffee. The type to group cannabis with heroine because seeing a difference between hard drugs and cannabis is too difficult. The kind of people who dont want to see children smoking cannabis and dealers selling it, yet they support a policy which does nothing to stop that from happening. Remember how well alcohol prohibition went? Criminals becoming rich, taking the lives with violence and moonshine, government corruption and children enticed by gangsterism. Its the same with cannabis now except certain people are brain washed by reefer madness nonsense and no matter how many facts, and scientific evidence we throw at them, they prefer a policy based on wife's tales, misinformation and personal prejudices. For get the expert advice, lets get our info from the Daily Mail!! Well sorry prohibitionists, cannabis will be legally regulated whether you like it or not. Its the ONLY way to control the situation, to prevent children obtaining it and contamination. To see a decline in dealers who pressurize the vulnerable, and to deliver a serious blow to the black market. I think certain people cannot comprehend that only because something is harmful, doesnt mean the control has to be handed to criminals. Even with alcohol and tobacco being so poorly regulated, children still find cannabis easier to obtain. Lets stop pretending there isnt a HUGE demand for cannabis, the demand wont go away by making it illegal, in fact it goes up. The demand has been there for over 10,000 years, but for the last 40 years our lovely government, by disallowing regulation, has handed the market to thugs and criminals. Sorry I dislike drug dealers and children using drugs or becoming enticed by gangsterism, so i say NO to prohibition and NOW to legal regulation.

Oh, and the idiot comparing cannabis to cocaine and heroine needs to wake up. Like I said, no one chews coca leaves and smokes poppy flowers, those drugs have to be processed to become what they are on the street. NOT cannabis, you grow the plant, you harvest it, and thats it. You cannot compare cannabis with hard drugs when its safer to use than ALCOHOL!

Wake up people you have been brainwashed by propaganda.

LSC wrote:

Jack Herer wrote:

LSC wrote:
"You are the best friend to paedophiles of course as well."

I find that an offensive, personal playground insult and therefore have no desire to continue any debate with you.

I'll let others decide for themselves whether such an outrageous accusation means anything else you say can be taken as serious argument.

Good day.

Look I'm sorry if I caused offence if I said you were the best friend to paedophiles. I was talking metaphorically not literally.

You definitely do them favours though, there's no denying that. I mean, perhaps you can explain to a child who has been repeatedly raped, that's it's OK that the police didn't catch the monster who did it, because they stopped some dastardly cannabis users instead.

I think we should be explaining to that child what a terrible mistake we've made, and how we should be targeting criminals who cause real harm to real vulnerable people.

I mean, do you really think it's a good thing to demonise cannabis in such a skewed way, when the reality means that police resources are seriously diverted away from major crimes?

I shouldn't even bother to reply, but I will one last time.
You are now resorting to the 'Should be catching real criminals' argument so beloved by people stopped for speeding or having no insurance.

It is quite simple, but I will spell it out.
Cannabis is illegal. If you use it at the present time, which I'm guessing you might, then it is YOU who are contributing actively to other criminal acts.
I'm not going down the peado route; you accused me of being 'tabloid' in my argument, well, take a look in the mirror on that point.

But at the present time, any cannabis user is, by their own free will, helping organised crime. OK, the one in a hundred who grow their own in a flowerpot on the windowsill isn't, but we both know the real truth about where the majority of the drug comes from.

And that shows a complete lack of social concience and completely negates you argument about it being harmless.

You say I am the friend of viscious criminals.

You actually fund them. Which is worse?

That is all I have to say.

Speeding kills people. Cannabis doesn't, so it's not the same argument thanks.

The truth is that your ignorance creates and sustains the income of hardcore criminals.

The problem exists. It's real. What are we going to do about it? Your solution is nothing, except handing hardcore criminals billions, and having the police de-prioritise serious crimes like paedophilia.

You are the one calling for this bizarre situation to continue forever unabated. It's a crap and broken society till the end of time under your system.

We have a solution which would actually fix things, without question, but it isn't allowed in the face of serious ignorance created by the tabloids, and believed by the naive and out of touch like yourself.

It begs the question; are you a moron if you prefer a sick society, to one which is far happier, healthier, richer and more considerate?

steveherts wrote:
This country actively encourages law breaking by taxing everything to death and then being shocked when the black market picks up the profit.Alcohol smugglers and not making vodka at home like they do in russia for instance but buying stuff made here and then exported to the EU which they then buy at half the price and bring back whilst avoiding the tax.If people want to delude themselves that some how the drug war can be won with the way its being fought now thats up to them but there will,at some point ,be tough decisions to be taken that involve seeing the whole picture rather than a small self serving part. And i speak as someone who hasnt and has never wanted to take drugs.

Nicely said.

Jack Herer wrote:

LSC wrote:

Jack Herer wrote:

LSC wrote:
"You are the best friend to paedophiles of course as well."

I find that an offensive, personal playground insult and therefore have no desire to continue any debate with you.

I'll let others decide for themselves whether such an outrageous accusation means anything else you say can be taken as serious argument.

Good day.

Look I'm sorry if I caused offence if I said you were the best friend to paedophiles. I was talking metaphorically not literally.

You definitely do them favours though, there's no denying that. I mean, perhaps you can explain to a child who has been repeatedly raped, that's it's OK that the police didn't catch the monster who did it, because they stopped some dastardly cannabis users instead.

I think we should be explaining to that child what a terrible mistake we've made, and how we should be targeting criminals who cause real harm to real vulnerable people.

I mean, do you really think it's a good thing to demonise cannabis in such a skewed way, when the reality means that police resources are seriously diverted away from major crimes?

I shouldn't even bother to reply, but I will one last time.
You are now resorting to the 'Should be catching real criminals' argument so beloved by people stopped for speeding or having no insurance.

It is quite simple, but I will spell it out.
Cannabis is illegal. If you use it at the present time, which I'm guessing you might, then it is YOU who are contributing actively to other criminal acts.
I'm not going down the peado route; you accused me of being 'tabloid' in my argument, well, take a look in the mirror on that point.

But at the present time, any cannabis user is, by their own free will, helping organised crime. OK, the one in a hundred who grow their own in a flowerpot on the windowsill isn't, but we both know the real truth about where the majority of the drug comes from.

And that shows a complete lack of social concience and completely negates you argument about it being harmless.

You say I am the friend of viscious criminals.

You actually fund them. Which is worse?

That is all I have to say.

Speeding kills people. Cannabis doesn't, so it's not the same argument thanks.

The truth is that your ignorance creates and sustains the income of hardcore criminals.

The problem exists. It's real. What are we going to do about it? Your solution is nothing, except handing hardcore criminals billions, and having the police de-prioritise serious crimes like paedophilia.

You are the one calling for this bizarre situation to continue forever unabated. It's a crap and broken society till the end of time under your system.

We have a solution which would actually fix things, without question, but it isn't allowed in the face of serious ignorance created by the tabloids, and believed by the naive and out of touch like yourself.

It begs the question; are you a moron if you prefer a sick society, to one which is far happier, healthier, richer and more considerate?

jack these people are brainwashed by reefer madness, there is no point. Even when legally regulated, and drug use and associated crimes drop dramatically, along with the amount of kinds buying it, these kinds of people will still be brainwashed by propaganda with a misguided sense of morals. Yet im sure these are the types to shout 'drugs are bad' as they eat McDolands after a pint round the pub, before having a cigarette with a coffee or Tea.

along with the amount of KIDS* buying it.

Typo.

I think the sensible amongst us have now decided to leave you lot to it as you are clearly not in any fit state to reason rationally or keep a civil tongue. Go form a commune and solve the problem with even measures of love and peace.

I shall return to a sane and happy existence where people, like myself, do not have to rely on drugs, alcohol or smoking in order to enjoy life.

I don't even eat fast food! Contrary to your accusation and assumptions, I'm not doing anything INSTEAD of drugs!

Boring? Not at all. Just fulfilled in ways that do not rely on dependency of any of the above.

You should try it.

cathbal66 wrote:
I think the sensible amongst us have now decided to leave you lot to it as you are clearly not in any fit state to reason rationally or keep a civil tongue. Go form a commune and solve the problem with even measures of love and peace.

I shall return to a sane and happy existence where people, like myself, do not have to rely on drugs, alcohol or smoking in order to enjoy life.

I don't even eat fast food! Contrary to your accusation and assumptions, I'm not doing anything INSTEAD of drugs!

Boring? Not at all. Just fulfilled in ways that do not rely on dependency of any of the above.

You should try it.

I think you need to understand the dangers of prohibition to be honest.

cathbal66 wrote:
I think the sensible amongst us have now decided to leave you lot to it as you are clearly not in any fit state to reason rationally or keep a civil tongue. Go form a commune and solve the problem with even measures of love and peace.

I shall return to a sane and happy existence where people, like myself, do not have to rely on drugs, alcohol or smoking in order to enjoy life.

I don't even eat fast food! Contrary to your accusation and assumptions, I'm not doing anything INSTEAD of drugs!

Boring? Not at all. Just fulfilled in ways that do not rely on dependency of any of the above.

You should try it.

How many people do you know who don't drink or even eat fast food? I certainly don't know many.

The vast majority of people drink alcohol to a greater or lesser degree. Your abstinence lifestyle exists only for a tiny percentage.

Are you seriously suggesting that the vast majority are just going to suddenly stop drinking and then everything will be sunshine and roses. It's never going to happen in a million years. Should we bury our heads in the sand regardless, awaiting something which will never come?

How is society going to improve with a complete denial of reality attitude?

SuperSilverSourDiese
l wrote:

cathbal66 wrote:
I think the sensible amongst us have now decided to leave you lot to it as you are clearly not in any fit state to reason rationally or keep a civil tongue. Go form a commune and solve the problem with even measures of love and peace.

I shall return to a sane and happy existence where people, like myself, do not have to rely on drugs, alcohol or smoking in order to enjoy life.

I don't even eat fast food! Contrary to your accusation and assumptions, I'm not doing anything INSTEAD of drugs!

Boring? Not at all. Just fulfilled in ways that do not rely on dependency of any of the above.

You should try it.

I think you need to understand the dangers of prohibition to be honest.

Lol, lovin' the name SuperSilverSourDiese
l!

"The problem exists. It's real. What are we going to do about it? Your solution is nothing, except handing hardcore criminals billions, and having the police de-prioritise serious crimes like paedophilia."

I said I had enough of this, but if you keep bringing up peados in context with me then I'm not going to let it slide.

My solution is not to do nothing. Cannabis is illegal. My solution is to punish people for using it unless that law changes.
If you break the law, ANY law, you get punished for it.
Please show your sources that prove the police spend less time on other cases because they also uphold the law on drugs.
You can't, because they don't.

Please show me a country that is happy and successful because they legalised cannabis.
You can't, because there isn't one.

Your friend is using the arguement about regulation stopping the kids from buying cannabis.

Well hang on a minute; If cannabis is as harmless as you claim, why shouldn't the kids use it too?
I can only conclude from that statement that you admit it DOES have dangers, but it takes an adult mature mind to decide on the risk; like we do with smoking or alcohol.

So which is it? Simple question that requires a simple answer. Is cannabis as dangerous as those, hence you would not like children to be involved; or is it a safe, happy drug doing no harm whatsoever in which case who cares if an 11 year old uses it?

You can't have it both ways.

Also: you accuse people of a Daily Mail attitude on here. Your last two arguments boil down to
'Why don't the police concentrate on REAL criminals'

and

'Won't somebody think of the children?'

Oh, the Irony. Bring up Nazi Germany next and you've pretty much covered every angle of someone losing a debate.

LSC wrote:
"The problem exists. It's real. What are we going to do about it? Your solution is nothing, except handing hardcore criminals billions, and having the police de-prioritise serious crimes like paedophilia."

I said I had enough of this, but if you keep bringing up peados in context with me then I'm not going to let it slide.

My solution is not to do nothing. Cannabis is illegal. My solution is to punish people for using it unless that law changes.
If you break the law, ANY law, you get punished for it.
Please show your sources that prove the police spend less time on other cases because they also uphold the law on drugs.
You can't, because they don't.

Please show me a country that is happy and successful because they legalised cannabis.
You can't, because there isn't one.

Your friend is using the arguement about regulation stopping the kids from buying cannabis.

Well hang on a minute; If cannabis is as harmless as you claim, why shouldn't the kids use it too?
I can only conclude from that statement that you admit it DOES have dangers, but it takes an adult mature mind to decide on the risk; like we do with smoking or alcohol.

So which is it? Simple question that requires a simple answer. Is cannabis as dangerous as those, hence you would not like children to be involved; or is it a safe, happy drug doing no harm whatsoever in which case who cares if an 11 year old uses it?

You can't have it both ways.

''Please show me a country that is happy and successful because they legalised cannabis.
You can't, because there isn't one.''

Are you serious? Holland - where cannabis is openly available to adults only and is somewhat regulated, have the lowest hard drug use in Europe, age of first use is around 20, less teens are interested as cannabis is mundane as beer. Less people use cannabis in Holland, less cannabis dealers to pressurize the young. Holland has the lowest hard drug use in Europe, because of cannabis. Because of a lack of dealers selling cannabis with other harder stuff.

Portugal decriminalized - 10 years later we see a whopping 50% drop in drug use and most associated crimes and declined. It was a success.

Israel - Regulated and sold in dispensaries, the sky hasnt fallen in, in fact many people can smoke the herb in peace and heal naturally. Putting aside the threat of terrorism, Israel is a safer place now they have regulated cannabis. Children find it harder to obtain and the attitude has changed from EVIL HERB, to medicine for sick people or a recreation for stressed people, or for people who want a recreational drug safer than alcohol.

17 states in America and Canada. -Drug dealers find it hard to hold on to their cannabusiness and less young people use now its regulated. Lower suicide rate in states that legalised, and this is without me mentioning the tax that enriches the economy.

You seem to not understand that prohibition does nothing to reduce cannabis use, and in fact by disallowing regulation we are in the worst case scenario. Cannabis isnt harmless for kids, but it has been proven to be safer for adults than tobacco and alcohol. Yet, you seem to think just because something has the potential for harm, it should remain illegal and gifted to criminals. Prohibition is a fail.

"The lesson has already been learned with alcohol prohibition. We tried to engineer an alcohol-free society and ended up with huge criminal enterprises, government corruption, children lured into organized crime and random violence that took the lives of countless innocent people."
- Kurt Schmoke, Mayor of Baltimore

The war on drugs is surprisingly similar to the war on terror. Invading poor countries to get terrorists, Invading poor estates to get dealers. Destroy homes, confiscate property and jail families of terror suspects. Destroy homes, confiscate property and jail families of Drug suspects. Both accidentally kill and imprison thousands of innocent people. Both ignore underlining causes, both waste billions of pounds, both are a fail

That'll be the Holland I'm thinking of yes? The one next to Belgium with the thriving trade in people-trafficking for the sex industry?
The one with a prison population per capita higher than Germany or Sweden?

Portugal has more people in prison per capita than France.

So we can safely conclude it does not reduce crime.
Portugal is also financially bust, so we can safely prove it does not save the economy.

Isreal? Where to start. Do you REALLY want to put that country forward as a role model for the world?
That is clutching at straws at best.

The USA; you use it as an example twice- first to say how good, and then how bad. Picking and choosing your arguments and not doing it very well.

The USA is a good place, they allow drugs!
The USA is a bad place, they invade poor countries.

Make your mind up and come back with a coherent argument.

And quoting the Mayor of Baltimore is a bit meaningless to me. I don't know him, he might be an idiot. The USA elected George Bush, so an obscure low-level American politician no-one has even heard of lends little weight to your case, in fact it suggests you are a bit desperate to find some-one, anyone, in a posistion of power who agrees with you.

LSC wrote:
That'll be the Holland I'm thinking of yes? The one next to Belgium with the thriving trade in people-trafficking for the sex industry?
The one with a prison population per capita higher than Germany or Sweden?

Portugal has more people in prison per capita than France.

So we can safely conclude it does not reduce crime.
Portugal is also financially bust, so we can safely prove it does not save the economy.

Isreal? Where to start. Do you REALLY want to put that country forward as a role model for the world?
That is clutching at straws at best.

The USA; you use it as an example twice- first to say how good, and then how bad. Picking and choosing your arguments and not doing it very well.

The USA is a good place, they allow drugs!
The USA is a bad place, they invade poor countries.

Make your mind up and come back with a coherent argument.

And quoting the Mayor of Baltimore is a bit meaningless to me. I don't know him, he might be an idiot. The USA elected George Bush, so an obscure low-level American politician no-one has even heard of lends little weight to your case, in fact it suggests you are a bit desperate to find some-one, anyone, in a posistion of power who agrees with you.

Sorry, expects and scientist agree that cannabis needs to be legally regulated, and i would prefer to listen to scientists as opposed to journalists and politicians.

This link shows how drug use has declined since decriminalization in Portugal.

http://www.businessi
nsider.com/portugal-
drug-policy-decrimin
alization-works-2012
-7

More links

http://www.eurekaler
t.org/pub_releases/2
012-06/uocd-ssn06181
2.php

http://www.thesun.co
.uk/sol/homepage/new
s/4423226/Decriminal
isation-does-not-mea
n-more-drug-users.ht
ml

http://www.youtube.c
om/watch?v=fEc3_-NCz
jw&feature=player_em
bedded#!

http://www.youtube.c
om/watch?v=2ioPMo8Vg
vI&feature=youtu.be

http://www.medicalda
ily.com/articles/107
71/20120711/alcohol-
addiction-marijuana-
drugs.htm

It seems the experts understand prohibition isnt working and bringing cannabis into a regulated system is a win win situation for everyone.

"Narcotics police are an enormous, corrupt international bureaucracy... and now fund a coterie of researchers who provide them with 'scientific support'... fanatics who distort the legitimate research of others... The anti-marijuana campaign is a cancerous tissue of lies, undermining law enforcement, aggravating the drug problem, depriving the sick of needed help, and suckering well-intentioned conservatives and countless frightened parents."
- William F. Buckley

"Complete prohibition of all chemical mind changers can be decreed, but cannot be enforced, and tends to create more evils than it cures."
- Aldous Huxley "Drugs That Shape Men's Minds," Saturday Evening Post 1958

"By any of the major criteria of harm - mortality, morbidity, toxicity, addictiveness and relationship with crime - cannabis is less harmful than any of the other major illicit drugs, or than alcohol or tobacco."
- Report of the British Police Foundation March 2000

Prohibition is not just ineffective, it creates more problems and dangers than the cannabis itself. Cannabis being illegal has nothing to do with how 'harmful' it is, as its safer than alcohol and tobacco by FAR.

Thank you for not answering any of my points.
Your links include The Sun and You Tube, those famous bastions of truth that your own side was discrediting in this very thread.
Have you ever had a debate before or are you new to this?

Or perhaps your judgement is a little...impaired?

No doubt neutrals reading this thread will decide for themselves.

LSC wrote:
Thank you for not answering any of my points.
Your links include The Sun and You Tube, those famous bastions of truth that your own side was discrediting in this very thread.
Have you ever had a debate before or are you new to this?

Or perhaps your judgement is a little...impaired?

No doubt neutrals reading this thread will decide for themselves.

''Or perhaps your judgement is a little...impaired?''


idiot i done use cannabis so you cannot use that nonsense with me

Keep living in denial makes no difference to me

Dont*

For the record, William F Buckley was pro McCarthy (the 'red under the bed' nutter), was in certain societies called 'Knights of Malta' and the CIA and a proven racist.

So you'll forgive me for ignoring his comments on anything.

Huxley asked for LSD on his death bed, he was that drug-addled.

The Police Foundation exist to 'promote debate' and were thus doing so. It was an opinion, not a conclusion.

You really aren't very good at this.

SuperSilverSourDiese
l wrote:

LSC wrote:
Thank you for not answering any of my points.
Your links include The Sun and You Tube, those famous bastions of truth that your own side was discrediting in this very thread.
Have you ever had a debate before or are you new to this?

Or perhaps your judgement is a little...impaired?

No doubt neutrals reading this thread will decide for themselves.

''Or perhaps your judgement is a little...impaired?''



idiot i done use cannabis so you cannot use that nonsense with me

Keep living in denial makes no difference to me

Denial of what?

You have yet to prove anything.

LSC wrote:

SuperSilverSourDiese

l wrote:

LSC wrote:
Thank you for not answering any of my points.
Your links include The Sun and You Tube, those famous bastions of truth that your own side was discrediting in this very thread.
Have you ever had a debate before or are you new to this?

Or perhaps your judgement is a little...impaired?

No doubt neutrals reading this thread will decide for themselves.

''Or perhaps your judgement is a little...impaired?''




idiot i done use cannabis so you cannot use that nonsense with me

Keep living in denial makes no difference to me

Denial of what?

You have yet to prove anything.

Your happier with cannabis being controlled by criminals than informed professionals. The demand wont go away, after all its been there for over 10,000 years. And i love the way you cannot comment on any of the links i sent you, apart from the fact you dont like youtube and The Sun LOL, what about the rest? Conveniently ignored by a misguided prohibitionist who supports a policy that keeps criminals rich. Well done.

SuperSilverSourDiese
l wrote:

LSC wrote:

SuperSilverSourDiese


l wrote:

LSC wrote:
Thank you for not answering any of my points.
Your links include The Sun and You Tube, those famous bastions of truth that your own side was discrediting in this very thread.
Have you ever had a debate before or are you new to this?

Or perhaps your judgement is a little...impaired?

No doubt neutrals reading this thread will decide for themselves.

''Or perhaps your judgement is a little...impaired?''





idiot i done use cannabis so you cannot use that nonsense with me

Keep living in denial makes no difference to me

Denial of what?

You have yet to prove anything.

Your happier with cannabis being controlled by criminals than informed professionals. The demand wont go away, after all its been there for over 10,000 years. And i love the way you cannot comment on any of the links i sent you, apart from the fact you dont like youtube and The Sun LOL, what about the rest? Conveniently ignored by a misguided prohibitionist who supports a policy that keeps criminals rich. Well done.

Nice try, but no Cigar. Cannabis is currently controlled by the police, medical services and government (who we vote in). It is RUN by criminals paid for by people who use cannabis and don't care about killing people and ruining lives as long as they get their fix. Like I'm going to take their opinions seriously.
No I did not click on your links; nothing personal but I never click links from strangers, it was not a denial of enlightenment. I just saw some were from You Tube and The Sun, so I assumed your reading matter is either poor or just a desperate Google to support your case.

LSC wrote:

SuperSilverSourDiese

l wrote:

LSC wrote:

SuperSilverSourDiese



l wrote:

LSC wrote:
Thank you for not answering any of my points.
Your links include The Sun and You Tube, those famous bastions of truth that your own side was discrediting in this very thread.
Have you ever had a debate before or are you new to this?

Or perhaps your judgement is a little...impaired?

No doubt neutrals reading this thread will decide for themselves.

''Or perhaps your judgement is a little...impaired?''






idiot i done use cannabis so you cannot use that nonsense with me

Keep living in denial makes no difference to me

Denial of what?

You have yet to prove anything.

Your happier with cannabis being controlled by criminals than informed professionals. The demand wont go away, after all its been there for over 10,000 years. And i love the way you cannot comment on any of the links i sent you, apart from the fact you dont like youtube and The Sun LOL, what about the rest? Conveniently ignored by a misguided prohibitionist who supports a policy that keeps criminals rich. Well done.

Nice try, but no Cigar. Cannabis is currently controlled by the police, medical services and government (who we vote in). It is RUN by criminals paid for by people who use cannabis and don't care about killing people and ruining lives as long as they get their fix. Like I'm going to take their opinions seriously.
No I did not click on your links; nothing personal but I never click links from strangers, it was not a denial of enlightenment. I just saw some were from You Tube and The Sun, so I assumed your reading matter is either poor or just a desperate Google to support your case.

I would respond to everything you said, but that would be falling into a mindless trap.

''dont argue with idiots as they drag you down to their level and beat you with experience''

No matter what nonsense you come up with, you wont click on the links, apart from youtube and The Sun even though you dislike those sites. Which goes to show you dont want statistical/scientif
ic evidence and expert advice to completely turn your views of cannabis upside down. You dont have to like cannabis, you can even have a misplaced hatred for it lol, but you are truly living in a state of denial if you think prohibition works.

Ah, now we resort to insults and paranoia.
I am not trying to trap you, I have no agenda. I was merely asking you to state your case.
Regular readers of this site will know that is what I often do.

I did not click ANY of your links, even the You Tube and The Sun ones; I have no idea who you are or whether you wish me, or my computer, ill, and I know plenty of people who can disguise links to malware or virus sites.

I discredited the people you quote, but your answer to that is just that i'm an idiot?

I believe the standard answer to your level of argument is to say 'Yeah? Well you smell', but that isn't really my style.

I also find it sad that you keep using the word 'prohibition' in the hope people will equate it with some Bugsy Malone fantasy of the attempt in the USA to ban alcohol.

Prohibition has a dictionary definition which is not exclusive to narcotics or alcohol. It applies to murder and robbery too. In fact, it simply applies to anything prohibited. And yet you use it instead of the word 'illegal', which means about the same.

Funny that; almost like you were choosing words carefully to make your case rather than just sticking to facts.

Answer my previous questions, I've asked often enough. You are confident enough to call me names, so why not totally humiliate me with proof?
And I don't count links to The Sun as proof of anything, and nor will any non-stoned person reading this thread.

Oh, and you STILL haven't mentioned the Nazis yet, or are you saving that up as a last resort?

Don't let me down.

LSC wrote:
Ah, now we resort to insults and paranoia.
I am not trying to trap you, I have no agenda. I was merely asking you to state your case.
Regular readers of this site will know that is what I often do.

I did not click ANY of your links, even the You Tube and The Sun ones; I have no idea who you are or whether you wish me, or my computer, ill, and I know plenty of people who can disguise links to malware or virus sites.

I discredited the people you quote, but your answer to that is just that i'm an idiot?

I believe the standard answer to your level of argument is to say 'Yeah? Well you smell', but that isn't really my style.

I also find it sad that you keep using the word 'prohibition' in the hope people will equate it with some Bugsy Malone fantasy of the attempt in the USA to ban alcohol.

Prohibition has a dictionary definition which is not exclusive to narcotics or alcohol. It applies to murder and robbery too. In fact, it simply applies to anything prohibited. And yet you use it instead of the word 'illegal', which means about the same.

Funny that; almost like you were choosing words carefully to make your case rather than just sticking to facts.

Answer my previous questions, I've asked often enough. You are confident enough to call me names, so why not totally humiliate me with proof?
And I don't count links to The Sun as proof of anything, and nor will any non-stoned person reading this thread.

So your argument comes down to the use of the word "prohibited" or "illegal"?

And when alcohol was prohibited in America, it wasn't really prohibition. And the gangsters that existed then were fluffy or something? Prohibition means murder and robbery not alcohol prohibition, even though it was called a prohibition, and was exactly like a prohibition.

No offence, but it definitely sounds like you have nothing of substance to add to the debate when you are coming out with muddled bluster; either that or you'd just argue in an empty room if no-one else was around!

Out of interest, what were your "previous questions" that you've asked often enough?

I have a question for you as well - do you think cannabis is more harmful than alcohol?

When it comes to real cannabis information, rather than greedily licking the spoon which the tabloids are feeding you, I'd suggest you look up Dr Lester Grinspoon. His wiki-page is enough - no Youtube, no Sun, not even direct links. Just a 10 second search on wiki.

That's if you are genuinely interested in the truth. Who knows? You may genuinely enjoy getting wound up by the targeted scaremongering in the tabloids and don't care whether it's the truth of not.

Did you slurp greedily on the Millie Dowler stories out of interest? What about Hillsborough - did the fans get you angry then?

I'm just wondering why you place some unbreakable trust in the tabloids, when they are clearly some of the least trust-able people in society?

Go LSC - I, for one, find your 'muddled bluster' more valid than their J Kyle-inspired rantings! I gave up when they showed their true colours and resorted to insulting me (who they don't know from Adam) and worse still, my children.

Ok, I looked up the Doctor, and on more than just one link. He appears to be campaigning for the use of cannabis as a medicine. I have no problem with that.
I don't want morphine banned as a medicine either, but I don't want my taxi driver taking it for fun.
I don't get your point.

Also you seem obsessed that I'm influenced by the tabloids. Wrong, I don't read them, which is EXACTLY why I laughed at your friend for trying to link me to The Sun to back his argument.
He, clearly, is a Sun reader; I am not.

You asked a direct question, I will answer it (I wish you'd do the same)
Do I think alcohol is worse than cannabis?

Well, yes I do. I think alcohol is far more harmful. But the question is like asking whether I think a tank is more harmful than a machine gun. Yes it is, but I don't want to bump into either on the High Street thanks.

Hope that helps.

Oh, my previous questions.

1. What countries are better places with legalised cannabis?

You cannot use Holland or Portugal we have already proved they are not.
(As well as one of the highest prison populations, I have also learned Portugal has the highest rate of HIV from drug use in the entire EU. Source: United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (2009) And of course, Portugal is financially bust as well.

2. Show me proof the police spend less time on murders etc because they are too busy with drug cases.

3. If cannabis is harmless, why do even you object to the idea of an 11 year old using it?

4. If cannabis is harmless, why do you state it should be regulated? Why can't any market stall sell the stuff?


Those are just a few that have been unanswered.

cathbal66 wrote:
Go LSC - I, for one, find your 'muddled bluster' more valid than their J Kyle-inspired rantings! I gave up when they showed their true colours and resorted to insulting me (who they don't know from Adam) and worse still, my children.

I know I'm wasting my time with them cathbal, the only reason I'm bothering is because I know anyone reading this who was undecided on the issue will probably have a better idea where they stand now.

To summarise: I have stated facts and they have called me a 'friend of peadophiles' and accused me of reading the Daily Mail. (I'm not sure which is the worst insult to be honest!)

LSC wrote:
Ok, I looked up the Doctor, and on more than just one link. He appears to be campaigning for the use of cannabis as a medicine. I have no problem with that.
I don't want morphine banned as a medicine either, but I don't want my taxi driver taking it for fun.
I don't get your point.

Also you seem obsessed that I'm influenced by the tabloids. Wrong, I don't read them, which is EXACTLY why I laughed at your friend for trying to link me to The Sun to back his argument.
He, clearly, is a Sun reader; I am not.

You asked a direct question, I will answer it (I wish you'd do the same)
Do I think alcohol is worse than cannabis?

Well, yes I do. I think alcohol is far more harmful. But the question is like asking whether I think a tank is more harmful than a machine gun. Yes it is, but I don't want to bump into either on the High Street thanks.

Hope that helps.

Look I wish I had more time to debate with you but I don't.

You have admitted yourself alcohol is "far more harmful" than cannabis. Brilliant, it shows you are a reasoned mind. The evidence is indeed overwhelming - exactly like you say, alcohol is far more harmful than cannabis. Not just "more harmful" but "far more harmful."

But then you go on with some silly analogy of a tank or a machine gun. That really is when your argument leaves reason and science.

Alcohol kills millions, cannabis kills no-one. Therefore if alcohol is a tank, then surely cannabis should actually be a catapult? A tank isn't necessarily "far more harmful" than a machine gun, but it is far more harmful than a catapult.

The other way of looking at your analogy is that peanuts kill far more in this country than cannabis ever does. Tragic cases of choking and allergies with devastated families up and down the UK. If the tabloids wanted to, they could shock us every single day with different front page tragedies regarding peanuts. They could use it in a campaign to ban peanuts if they wanted to; they'd have the ammunition.

So where do peanuts fit in your analogy? They are more harmful than cannabis but, just like cannabis, they are far less harmful than alcohol. In your world, if alcohol is a tank and cannabis a machine gun, what are peanuts, a flame thrower?

And what about caffeine, that's dangerous too, that kills people - what's that, a high powered sniper rifle?

My point is that there are these deadly weapons everywhere - you bump into them already all over your high street (and you certainly bump into alcohol on your high street!). We don't ban everything which is potentially dangerous. We don't go round in cotton wool, all still suckling breast milk. We allow alcohol for god's sake!

Society would be far better off with cannabis legalised, and that simply follows from the fact that cannabis is far less harmful than alcohol.

But far better off isn't good enough for you unless it's perfect somehow? Why, it doesn't follow logic and it doesn't happen in pretty much area other area of our lives.

If something can be improved, we improve it, regardless of perfection. Striving for perfection is striving for a fantasy.

Whether it's cannabis or not, surely any improvement to society is a good improvement? If it's a far better improvement then we'd be morons to ignore it, instead holding out for some utopian which can never happen, and meanwhile society burns.

Society can never be perfect, so why hold out for a solution with cannabis that would be? Improvements of any kind are needed - the current system is the worst case for society; from our children upwards.

LSC wrote:
Oh, my previous questions.

1. What countries are better places with legalised cannabis?

You cannot use Holland or Portugal we have already proved they are not.
(As well as one of the highest prison populations, I have also learned Portugal has the highest rate of HIV from drug use in the entire EU. Source: United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (2009) And of course, Portugal is financially bust as well.

2. Show me proof the police spend less time on murders etc because they are too busy with drug cases.

3. If cannabis is harmless, why do even you object to the idea of an 11 year old using it?

4. If cannabis is harmless, why do you state it should be regulated? Why can't any market stall sell the stuff?


Those are just a few that have been unanswered.

No where has legalised it as far as I know, so there is no comparison. The state of Colorado has it on their ballot in 2 months, alongside the votes for everything else then, including for their country's president.

We can maybe make a judge on it then.

As for the police figures. The police only have a certain budget - that's no secret. It's no secret that they prioritise different crimes either. You don't need to see the figures to see than metal theft for instance been seriously de-prioritised for cannabis, you only need read this paper. I'm not too sure than grooming has had quite the priority it needed either, when they've been spending a fortune going for cannabis.

It's not harmless, nothing is. Someone was killed by a tea cosy the other year.

It should be regulated like any other mind altering substance. I don't see why cannabis shouldn't be the gold standard for that either - licensing for everyone with screening, proper penalties for breaking the rules. That way we stop kids getting hold of it, currently we leave that responsibility to criminals - d'oh!

Well, it is nice to return to rational debate without name-calling, and I respect you for that.
I don't agree with you though!

My tank analogy wasn't brilliant but I was trying to avoid the usual cliches.
Alcohol is FAR more dangerous than cannabis, but in different ways. Very few people on cannabis start a fight. A&E departments are often full of drunks, but not stoned people. Long term alcohol abuse WILL kill you.

However, while less directly lethal, cannabis also has serious drawbacks.
The main one being that most of us know users who are simply unable to work. People whose brains appear to have turned to mush. They don't die, it is true. But they don't really live either.
I find that pretty serious.
And of course there are the dangers of users driving or operating machinery.
I doubt you'd want your pilot or air traffic controller to be a user. Or your doctor or local policeman.
In fact it goes for every profession you might come into contact with. You want these people keen and switched on, from carpet salesmen to surgeons.

Before you say it, yes, the same goes for alcohol but in a different way. If my doctor got drunk at a party on Saturday night, I'd be ok seeing him Monday morning. But if he was a stoner and one of those people who doesn't cope with it, and there are a lot, his concerntration and judgement might still be impaired after a Saturday session.

I have to go to work now but will come back to your other points later.

LSC wrote:
Well, it is nice to return to rational debate without name-calling, and I respect you for that.
I don't agree with you though!

My tank analogy wasn't brilliant but I was trying to avoid the usual cliches.
Alcohol is FAR more dangerous than cannabis, but in different ways. Very few people on cannabis start a fight. A&E departments are often full of drunks, but not stoned people. Long term alcohol abuse WILL kill you.

However, while less directly lethal, cannabis also has serious drawbacks.
The main one being that most of us know users who are simply unable to work. People whose brains appear to have turned to mush. They don't die, it is true. But they don't really live either.
I find that pretty serious.
And of course there are the dangers of users driving or operating machinery.
I doubt you'd want your pilot or air traffic controller to be a user. Or your doctor or local policeman.
In fact it goes for every profession you might come into contact with. You want these people keen and switched on, from carpet salesmen to surgeons.

Before you say it, yes, the same goes for alcohol but in a different way. If my doctor got drunk at a party on Saturday night, I'd be ok seeing him Monday morning. But if he was a stoner and one of those people who doesn't cope with it, and there are a lot, his concerntration and judgement might still be impaired after a Saturday session.

I have to go to work now but will come back to your other points later.

This is the crux of the issue for most people; they have some dystopian vision in their heads, that if cannabis were legalised you've have stoned pilots or stoned doctors or so on.

But this vision relies on everyone suddenly loosing their current responsibilities and that needs to explain why we don't currently have more drunk pilots or doctors or so on already?

Alcohol is far more addictive and powerful than cannabis, so why are these currently responsible people waiting for a less addictive substance to come along before acting irresponsibly? Why would a weaker and less addictive substance sudden make responsible people act irresponsibly?

You have an awfully low opinion of people to think they would act this way for no apparent reason.

Basically there is no reason why this dystopia would happen. The overwhelming logic dictates that things will only improve. We are morons therefore to dictate policy on skewed tabloid scaremongering. We need to dictate policy on reason, like we have for everything else in our lives since the enlightenment. Why policy remains in the Dark Ages for cannabis is because of tabloid driven hate. Nothing else.

A policy based on reason with cannabis would see society immeasurably improved. Not to mention the billions in tax revenue we'd see, and which we are desperate for at the moment.

"Why would a weaker and less addictive substance sudden make responsible people act irresponsibly?"

For me, this is the point that matters more than most. I'm at work so can't delve too deep into the other stuff.

As I am sure you would agree, lots of people currently use cannabis.
It is, as we know, illegal.

We know cannabis supply is currently in the hands of organised crime who also supply harder drugs, prostitution, people trafficking, extortion, smuggling and murder.

Anyone who buys cannabis today is actively supporting those people, and they know it. It's no secret.

So there you have it. Your responsible people acting irresponsibly. Today. Right now.

Checkmate.

Its an easy dig, but those advocating the use of cannabis are obviously on something!

Its telling that many of the countries that softened their stance on 'soft' drugs like cannabis are now hardening their position again as being soft has not actually improved things. Someone wonderfully claimed there was less crime in Holland as some drugs were legal, well actually whilst they don’t arrest people for taking cannabis they do still arrest plenty of people who turn to crime to pay for their cannabis habit. Possibly one of the reasons, the effect on mental health being another, that they are looking at making the stupid drug illegal again.

But okay, lets make cannabis legal but all users have to waive their right to any health care from the NHS and support from the state. That way at least my tax pounds wont be going towards dealing with the associated health issues nor towards supporting people who are too off it to work.

In principal I've nothing against people doing whatever they like to themselves, the line they cross is when the rest of us are expected to pick up the pieces in health care, tackling crime, social suport and so on. That’s even before you get onto the issue of the impact your use has on those around you seeing you smoke your life away.

As to speeding kills, cannabis doesn’t. Well it does if you use and drive!

Also at the moment drug dealers may be making a fortune from the trade, well guess what make it legal and it'll be large companies making the profits. Its still going to be there

Well said Tony, there you have it. Some countries have 'softened' the law, and as you say are now back-tracking-fast, but not one country has made it legal.

Not one. Ever.

South Africa allowed Apartheid. But not cannabis.

North Korea allows a total dictatorship, but not cannabis.

Switzerland allows total anonymous banking, but not cannabis.

The list is endless. Whole countries do all sorts of crazy things. But they ALL agree not to allow cannabis.

There might just be a reason for that.

garston tony wrote:
Its an easy dig, but those advocating the use of cannabis are obviously on something!

Its telling that many of the countries that softened their stance on 'soft' drugs like cannabis are now hardening their position again as being soft has not actually improved things. Someone wonderfully claimed there was less crime in Holland as some drugs were legal, well actually whilst they don’t arrest people for taking cannabis they do still arrest plenty of people who turn to crime to pay for their cannabis habit. Possibly one of the reasons, the effect on mental health being another, that they are looking at making the stupid drug illegal again.

But okay, lets make cannabis legal but all users have to waive their right to any health care from the NHS and support from the state. That way at least my tax pounds wont be going towards dealing with the associated health issues nor towards supporting people who are too off it to work.

In principal I've nothing against people doing whatever they like to themselves, the line they cross is when the rest of us are expected to pick up the pieces in health care, tackling crime, social suport and so on. That’s even before you get onto the issue of the impact your use has on those around you seeing you smoke your life away.

As to speeding kills, cannabis doesn’t. Well it does if you use and drive!

Also at the moment drug dealers may be making a fortune from the trade, well guess what make it legal and it'll be large companies making the profits. Its still going to be there

What complete hogwash.

People don't turn to crime for cannabis. Those are hard drugs. You appear to think all drugs are the same - which begs the question; are you very very stupid?

Read my posts above re the NHS - it's strange when you don't and they cover the exact guff you are coming out with.

We know for a scientific fact that hospital admissions would be cut drastically by legalising cannabis. Alcohol is far worse than cannabis for mental health issues alone, and obviously cannabis doesn't have all the liver diseases, associated violence, even child abuse has alcohol as a major factor.

Why aren't alcohol users made to waive their right to any health care incidentally? They currently cost the country billions.

Why do you push such ignorance Tony? Why are you happy to see society far worse than it needs to be.

Society would be a happier, healthier, richer, more considerate place if cannabis were legalised. By far. That's just the truth.

And you are saying that large companies making profits is the same as hardcore criminals making profits? I don't how much you know about economics but large companies making profits is pretty much the entire basis of our capitalist system.

And what about the billions the government will receive in tax revenue? Does that get ignored in your world where drug dealers and big companies are one and the same thing?

People don't take off time for cannabis incidentally, that's alcohol again.

There is no hangover from cannabis. You feel the same the next morning as if you'd not had anything.

LSC wrote:
Well said Tony, there you have it. Some countries have 'softened' the law, and as you say are now back-tracking-fast, but not one country has made it legal.

Not one. Ever.

South Africa allowed Apartheid. But not cannabis.

North Korea allows a total dictatorship, but not cannabis.

Switzerland allows total anonymous banking, but not cannabis.

The list is endless. Whole countries do all sorts of crazy things. But they ALL agree not to allow cannabis.

There might just be a reason for that.

All countries follow the US lead unfortunately. The war on drugs initiated by Nixon is still being fought now.

However we are closer now than ever to full legalisation in some countries.

The state of Colorado go to the polls in 2 months and will vote for full legalisation (it's already legal there for medical users).

Spain recently santioned one of their councils to grow huge amounts of cannabis for cannabis clubs over there. It will bring much needed jobs, and ridiculously needed money.If all goes well, I'm guessing you'll see many more of these popping up. Spanish citizens are already allowed to grow their own plants.

Uruguay is voting for legalisation soon too. Part of the proposal is that the profits will pay for drug rehabilitation, not cannabis drug rehabilitation, but hard drugs. Amazing eh? Alcohol can't even pay for it's own mess; it would bankrupt their companies to do so. Yet cannabis is so safe it can pay for the rehabilitation of other drug's users. That is one safe drug eh?

South Africa is an amazing case regarding cannabis. When the United States banned cannabis in the 1930's because "it made black's insolent" they still had their own Apartheid going on - full segregation, no votes for blacks. South Africa, a similarly Apartheid country, was one of the first to follow suite. Apartheid therefore leading to cannabis being banned.

In the awful conditions of the gold and diamond mines however they found that the natives didn't work as hard as when they had their traditional "dagga" (the local name for cannabis), so the ban was repealed for those locales.

Now conditions have improved of course, and the blacks don't get treated as terribly as they did they.

Total dictatorships, and oppression like Apartheid all favour harsh prohibition. If you think they are a bad thing, then know that their antithesis is legalisation.

Switzerland have extremely liberal laws when it comes cannabis. It's decriminalised there.

You need to look up Jack Herer if you are completely ignorant as to why cannabis is illegal, which, no disrespect, definitely seems to be the case. He's another one you only need look up on wiki, his book has an enlightening entry there too, it's called The Emperor Wears No Clothes. The whole book is available free on-line too.

Jack Herer, I don’t know if you recall me mentioning my college friend whose life has been totally affected and ruined by cannabis? Well they attended a group at one time to try and get them off this disease and I went a few times to support them and there were PLENTY of people in that group who HAD turned to crime to pay for their habit. Mostly because they were totally incapable of holding down work they were so screwed in the head. All bar none were on state benefits and most of them received some sort of treatment from the NHS for drug related illnesses.

So please you may have convinced yourself that your habit is not doing you or anyone else any harm but I've seen it form myself that it does. Stop pulling the wool over your own eyes, or are you too out of it to understand reality anymore?

I was throwing that waiver in as an alternative, which people were asking for, to the current way drugs are tackled. But if you read my post I've said it here and many times before I put alcohol and tobacco on par with illegal drugs as far as their negative impact on individuals health and society as a whole goes.

Illegal drug supplier make billions out of the trade, do you really think if the drugs were made legal large organisation would pass up the opportunity to get as large a slice of that pie? Not withstanding that the currently illegal suppliers wont want to give up on their income that easily, how would you feel if the new legal suppliers 'Drug inc.' is just the new name for a mass murdering Mexican drug cartel going legit? Or even worse are you idiotic enough to think that if drugs were made legal that there wouldn’t be any money in it anymore, that the suppliers would give it away for free?!?!?

Maybe governments would receive billions in extra tax revenue (doesn’t that just mean your habit will cost you more by the way as you'll be paying the tax?) but all that will do is offset the cost at the other end to the NHS, social services, welfare and police. Because those costs aint going to go away

Well said garston tony.

And to Jack Herer:

It's doesn't do any good to keep comparing this drug to alcohol - I think most of us would agree that alcohol abuse is not a good thing either - but the fact remains that alcohol is legal, and cannabis is not.

You don't have to quote any more stats either, plenty of us here have our own experiences with the suffering that cannabis has caused for family members and friends, so no amount of posturing and references to other countries and the law will make the slightest bit of difference. The fact remains that people I know have lives that have been ruined as a direct result of cannabis use....not heroin, cocaine, LSD, ecstasy, nor alcohol even...but cannabis...

...and that is why you will never win this argument.

LSC wrote:
"Why would a weaker and less addictive substance sudden make responsible people act irresponsibly?"

For me, this is the point that matters more than most. I'm at work so can't delve too deep into the other stuff.

As I am sure you would agree, lots of people currently use cannabis.
It is, as we know, illegal.

We know cannabis supply is currently in the hands of organised crime who also supply harder drugs, prostitution, people trafficking, extortion, smuggling and murder.

Anyone who buys cannabis today is actively supporting those people, and they know it. It's no secret.

So there you have it. Your responsible people acting irresponsibly. Today. Right now.

Checkmate.

I repeat this post as you appear to have missed it.
Perhaps I should simplify it a little.

If you are a user of cannabis, you actively are taking part in a mire of human misery.

If you are not a user of cannabis, I find it strange you would argue so hard for it; you might not even like it.

So I'm going to assume you use it, or have used it, because any other conclusion doesn't make sense.

Therefore, you have actively and with free will contributed to organised crime to fund your 'little harmless hobby'.
People died, but you think it is worth it for your fix.

By definition, that makes it a dangerous drug, and I say again, Checkmate, mate.

garston tony wrote:
Jack Herer, I don’t know if you recall me mentioning my college friend whose life has been totally affected and ruined by cannabis? Well they attended a group at one time to try and get them off this disease and I went a few times to support them and there were PLENTY of people in that group who HAD turned to crime to pay for their habit. Mostly because they were totally incapable of holding down work they were so screwed in the head. All bar none were on state benefits and most of them received some sort of treatment from the NHS for drug related illnesses.

So please you may have convinced yourself that your habit is not doing you or anyone else any harm but I've seen it form myself that it does. Stop pulling the wool over your own eyes, or are you too out of it to understand reality anymore?

I was throwing that waiver in as an alternative, which people were asking for, to the current way drugs are tackled. But if you read my post I've said it here and many times before I put alcohol and tobacco on par with illegal drugs as far as their negative impact on individuals health and society as a whole goes.

Illegal drug supplier make billions out of the trade, do you really think if the drugs were made legal large organisation would pass up the opportunity to get as large a slice of that pie? Not withstanding that the currently illegal suppliers wont want to give up on their income that easily, how would you feel if the new legal suppliers 'Drug inc.' is just the new name for a mass murdering Mexican drug cartel going legit? Or even worse are you idiotic enough to think that if drugs were made legal that there wouldn’t be any money in it anymore, that the suppliers would give it away for free?!?!?

Maybe governments would receive billions in extra tax revenue (doesn’t that just mean your habit will cost you more by the way as you'll be paying the tax?) but all that will do is offset the cost at the other end to the NHS, social services, welfare and police. Because those costs aint going to go away

Ah,one of those who has "friends" who are affected. Those "friends" certainly aren't indicative of the rest of society - they are the complete opposite to what's actually happening in fact.

There are currently millions of cannabis users in the UK - they cost our NHS, social services, welfare and police essentially nothing with any adverse effects from the drug (for every penny spent on the adverse effects from cannabis, well over £1,000 is spent on alcohol - that really is how safe cannabis is compared to alcohol).

Why would these millions of current cannabis suddenly turn ill if a safer version of their drug becomes available with legalisation?

Why? What's so safe with the cannabis supplied from criminals that cannabis users don't bother our social or health services? Your argument clearly doesn't follow any logic.

Look, you clearly have a closed mind and always will - no matter how overwhelming the evidence against you.

I'm guessing your forefathers were the ones who staunchly wanted to keep votes away from women, homosexuality illegal, and to keep burning witches.

Shame, in your world we'd still be in the dark ages. The rest of us prefer science and reason leading our lives thanks.

LSC wrote:

LSC wrote:
"Why would a weaker and less addictive substance sudden make responsible people act irresponsibly?"

For me, this is the point that matters more than most. I'm at work so can't delve too deep into the other stuff.

As I am sure you would agree, lots of people currently use cannabis.
It is, as we know, illegal.

We know cannabis supply is currently in the hands of organised crime who also supply harder drugs, prostitution, people trafficking, extortion, smuggling and murder.

Anyone who buys cannabis today is actively supporting those people, and they know it. It's no secret.

So there you have it. Your responsible people acting irresponsibly. Today. Right now.

Checkmate.

I repeat this post as you appear to have missed it.
Perhaps I should simplify it a little.

If you are a user of cannabis, you actively are taking part in a mire of human misery.

If you are not a user of cannabis, I find it strange you would argue so hard for it; you might not even like it.

So I'm going to assume you use it, or have used it, because any other conclusion doesn't make sense.

Therefore, you have actively and with free will contributed to organised crime to fund your 'little harmless hobby'.
People died, but you think it is worth it for your fix.

By definition, that makes it a dangerous drug, and I say again, Checkmate, mate.

Lol, no two ways about it, you are definitely the best friend to hardcore despicable criminals, coming on here campaigning for them to keeping their monopoly and apologising for them by blaming cannabis users instead.

They literally couldn't ask for a better campaign from you - literally. They must love you.

I'll also just repeat my post from above, as you all seem to just keep repeating and repeating the same nonsense, and then ignoring my response when I debunk it. Anyway, here it is from last time:

Look you clearly want to blame all the ills of society on cannabis users, who don't actually hassle anyone, don't hit anyone and don't fill our hospitals.

That's alcohol users who are ruining society not cannabis. And heroin users mostly too.

Cannabis use is a victimless crime. The despicable criminal elements you mention are a direct result of prohibition, nothing else.

Hardcore despicable criminals aren't to blame according to you though, it's those villainous cannabis users sat watching telly bothering no-one, including our already overburdened health services. Are those hardcore criminals just misunderstood in your head?

Not good I'm afraid, because you are not only the criminal's apologist, but you are also their best friend too of course. Blaming cannabis users means forever gifting criminals a market worth billions. Do you really think handing billions to hardcore criminals is a good thing for society? It clearly can't be. You don't appear to have a solution for this terrible situation either - the solution you uphold has created it in fact - yet we are supposed to ignore the obvious solution which science and reason is crying out for, which is legalisation?

You are the best friend to paedophiles of course as well. You rabid, skewed demonisation of the drug means the police target it, when it causes no harm. There is only so much resource to go round obviously. Targeting cannabis in this way means other crimes get de-prioritised. You don't see many expensive raids on paedophiles homes do you like you see all the time for cannabis?

I'd rather our bobbies were going for real crimes with real victims. You are encouraging that they go easier on paedophiles, and rapists, and violent thugs. Even metal thieves. Do the police even make arrests for metal theft? It's rampant, damaging to society not to mention hugely expensive - potentially deadly too - but nobody is ever convicted for it. You can't fail to see that the police have de-prioritised metal theft for cannabis use.

The police shouldn't have to de-prioritise anything for cannabis. They should be happily benefiting from it's legal status; in a decrease of their workload, a decrease in crime in general, and huge increase in revenues from legally paid tax.

Where do you get your skewed opinion from LSC. You may as well be writing in a tabloid article, because it's so similar to the guff they print.

Those exact same papers who solemnly tell us that Liverpool fans were completely to blame for their own deaths, never apologising or confessing the truth until the absolute last moment, when there was no question they were lying.

Same with Milly Dowler's phone, and a whole massive raft of other things we now know they lied about.

Do you really believe these people are telling the truth with cannabis as well, when it's in their vested interest to demonise it because scare stories about "killer skunk" sell bucket loads of papers? Why should they tell the truth? It's better for them than lying about a dead girl's phone. Who is going to challenge them about cannabis? Certainly not our weak willed politicians. Instead they sack truth telling scientists at the paper's behest

Parroting the tabloid's lies isn't helping society LSC. You are actually helping hardcore criminals, and paedophiles, and rapists, and violent thugs. All of them love you doing this. You are actively helping them. And at the end of the day they are lies of course. Just like they were lies about Hillsborough and a million other things for the paper's own interests.

Ah right someone I've know for 30 years (and seen how cannabis has affected them over that time) is irrelevant is it? I'm sure there are people who can take this drug who wont be affected, there are plenty more who are affected rather badly. Just like some people will drink or smoke and never get liver or lung cancer but plenty of others do.

Don’t try and make out it’s a victimless habit either, it ruins peoples lives the victims being those that take it, their families, partners and for those that turn to crime to fund it their victims. You can add to that the tax payer who has to pay to support people who have become mentally befuddled due to this habit.

Just because you may not have seen it, and you're lucky, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. I don’t know how old you are but I'm old enough to have seen the effect of taking this drug over many decades. Get real before its too late

Jack
You make no sense I'm afraid. I am not a friend to the major criminals, cannabis users are.
Stop using cannabis and they will go bust overnight.
The police won't have to raid houses if you stop using cannabis.
The courts will not be full of cannabis users if you stop using cannabis.
The papers won't be able to print 'lies' about cannabis if you stop using cannabis.

Cannabis is illegal and users are the reason for everything you list.
So stop using it.

Or perhaps you can't?