Scientists v Politicians: Round 3
"Overall, cannabis use does not lead to major health problems." So says Professor David Nutt, the government's top adviser on drug classification, today describing suggestions that high-strength cannabis or skunk causes schizophrenia as a "scare" story.
Professor Nutt, who heads the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, last year reportedly accused the former Home Secretary Jacqui Smith of being "naive" after her decision to reject scientific advice and re-classify cannabis up from class C to B. She said she had decided to "err on the side of caution", having taken account of "public perception" and "policing priorities".
The two locked horns a second time in February this year after the government again rejected the advice of the advisory council. The scientists had proposed that ecstasy be downgraded from class A with the professor suggesting that the drug caused fewer deaths than horse-riding accidents. The home secretary demanded an apology from Professor Nutt, claiming his remarks trivialised the debate.
Now, Professor Nutt has returned to the fray. In a paper published today, he warns that the decision to put cannabis back into class B may lead to more people taking the drug.
"It may be that if you move a drug up a class it has a greater cachet. People think, 'Oh, it's interesting, maybe we should be trying it because it's a class B or a class A rather than a class C.'"
The professor says the evidence that new high-strength cannabis is causing increased cases of psychosis and mental illness is "difficult to interpret", but that the council's research "estimates that, to prevent one episode of schizophrenia, we would need to stop about 5,000 men aged 20 to 25 years from ever using the drug".
Professor Nutt accepts there is a link between cannabis and mental ill-health. He cites research suggesting that "smokers of cannabis are about 2.6 times more likely to have a psychotic-like experience than non-smokers".
But he points out that "you are 20 times more likely to get lung cancer if you smoke tobacco than if you don't." In other words, he says, "(T)here is a relatively small risk for smoking cannabis and psychotic illness compared with quite a substantial risk for smoking tobacco and lung cancer".
Furthermore, the professor points to what he describes as a paradox.
"Schizophrenia seems to be disappearing (from the general population) even though cannabis use has increased markedly in the last 30 years."
"Research," he argues, "consistently and clearly showed that psychosis and schizophrenia are still on the decline. So, even though skunk has been around now for 10 years, there has been no upswing in schizophrenia."
Nevertheless, the government rejected the ACMD's recommendation that cannabis remain at class C saying that it "believes" there is "growing evidence" of a strong causal link between cannabis and schizophrenia.
The refusal to accept the expert views of a council set up to judge the relative harms of different drugs went down badly with the scientific community in general, and Professor Nutt in particular.
Today, he warns of the negative consequences of what he calls, a "highly politicised" process. It risks causing, he suggests, "great damage to the educational message" on drugs.
"If you think that scaring kids will stop them using, you're probably wrong. They are often quite knowledgeable about drugs and the internet has made access to information extremely simple. We have to tell them the truth."
The government view, though, is that they should adopt a precautionary principle. "Where there is... doubt about the potential harm that will be caused, we must err on the side of caution and protect the public," as Jacqui Smith put it last year.
Professor Nutt attacks the 'safety first' approach arguing that "it starts to distort the value of evidence and therefore I think it could, and probably does, devalue evidence".
He recalls the scare about the MMR vaccine. "People were concerned, on the basis of false science, that the triple vaccine might cause brain damage. This led to a reduction in vaccination uptake and now children are getting lung and brain damage from measles," he states. "The precautionary principle with MMR has been clearly shown to be wrong," he continues. "It has harmed more people than it has helped."
The collision between science and politics over cannabis resulted partly from a government belief that voters thought cannabis was becoming more dangerous and wanted tougher action. However, its own consultation painted a different picture.
Among almost 400 responses from individuals, only 12% thought cannabis should be reclassified as class B. Forty-seven per cent suggested no change and 30% wanted it legalised. Among organisations that responded, only police agencies showed a majority in favour of a tougher stance.
Since the consultation reflected the views of a self-selecting group with a particular interest in the debate, the ACMD commissioned a general opinion poll. That found a majority of people (58%) wanted cannabis reclassified upwards BUT only a quarter (24%) thought the penalty for possession should be increased - the only effect of making the drug class B.
Professor Nutt is not arguing that cannabis is safe - far from it. A report from the ACMD, published last year, spells out that "cannabis is a harmful drug" and that "a concerted public health response is required to drastically reduce its use".
However, he is a passionate believer in the importance of scientific evidence to underpin public policy and seems determined to initiate a serious debate about the relative harms associated with illegal and legal drugs.
I'm 
~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~57~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
"he is a passionate believer in the importance of scientific evidence to underpin public policy and seems determined to initiate a serious debate"
how sad that in 2009 we talk about the founding premises of the great Enlightenment civilisation as if they were merely personal and potentially risky lifestyle choices, like using a sun-bed or having cosmetic surgey.
Complain about this comment
"The home secretary demanded an apology from Professor Nutt, claiming his remarks trivialised the debate."
Yes, Jacqboot, that was a dark-looking kettle. Ignoring scientific evidence in favour of unquantifiable and irrational beliefs is of course a far more reliable method. As we have seen repeatedly over the last twelve years.
Anyway, I'd have thought that policing priorities would be very well addresses by reducing the amount of work needed when someone is caught with a small stash. My guess is that, in common with most of Westminster, they're too scared to do anything that might upset Washington.
Sadly though, I think the odds are stacked against the scientists. The number of people in the UK who understand the scientific arguments will be far outweighed by those who rely on the tabloids for their view of the world. The reduced focus on science teaching in schools over the last thirty years has seen to that.
Complain about this comment
Surly, it is not the use of drugs which causes harm but their purchase and supply.
As with any commodity the supply chain promotes profit at all levels and profit controls the cost. Supply and demand will cause some fluctuations in the cost and profit to be made but as it impossible to simply remove that demand there seems little point in spending huge sums of public money trying to block the supply.
The reasons for drug use in any society are far too complex for the simplistic “Just say No” approach promoted by government and foisted on the Police service by politicians who only wish to be seen as “doing something”.
In the mean time, the brewing industry continues to reap huge profits and cause untold misery by promoting and supplying alcohol at ever cheaper prices, to ever younger consumers. Ensuring the next generation of ‘addicts’ will require their fix.
Complain about this comment
High-strength canabis is a reaction to the high classification. Canabis is one of the most difficult drugs to smuggle because it's so bulky. Strong spirits gained in popularity during alcohol prohibition because beer was difficult to conceal.
Complain about this comment
"Why is marijuana against the law? It grows naturally upon our planet. Doesn't the idea of making nature against the law seem to you a bit... unnatural? You know what I mean? It's nature. How do you make nature against the law?"
The late great Bill Hicks (RIP) sums this up perfectly. Ms Smith is too concerned with placating the Daily Mail readers and shows arrogance beyond belief in dismissing the opinions of experts. Why bother to ask them if you dismiss their evidence at a whim?
Complain about this comment
Sometimes, I wonder about scientists. The pro-cannabis ones always talk about how cannabis is not as dangerous as other drugs like tobacco or alcohol. Have you ever met a cannabis user that doesn't drink or smoke (yes, they mix tobacco with Skunk). What he hasn't mentioned is that some reports put smoked cannabis at levels four times more carcinogenic than tobacco. Yes, cannabis may give you cancer so trust your local scientist. Yep, sure will.
Complain about this comment
"Schizophrenia seems to be disappearing (from the general population) ..."
I'd love to see the evidence base for that one.
(One researcher reports a 6 fold increase in the number of new diagnoses of schizophrenia in a particular area of London, comparing 1960s with now)
Complain about this comment
And once again the government obviously knows best. What is the point of having all these specalist advisors if your just going to ignore the advice that they give you if you don't agree with it? Jacboot proves yet again that she is only interested in her own opinions and if you don't agree with her then she won't listen.
Politicians who seem to be in the job like her to satisfy their ego are dangerous and should be stopped.
Of course their is going to be a risk with cannabis, theres a risk with anything if you over do it, or even do it once. I believe their was a story in the papers yesterday about how one cigarette in your 20s can effect you. What needs to be done is a complete overhaul of the drug legislation.
Personally I'm in favour of almost complete legislation, as with legislation it becomes easier for the government to keep a eye on any possible problems, they get extra tax revenue, and also but a point which I think is largly overlooked, if someone is on ectasy in a club and they start having problems, I have personally seen it when their friends will care for them and possibly make things worse rather than alerting the bar staff and getting professional health. If their was at least more tolerance I'm willing to wager that at least a few deaths and complications from this sort of situation could be avoided.
Complain about this comment
In further surveys perhaps they should ask the question:
You are walking alone, at night, down a dark alley. Would you rather meet someone who is a/ very drunk or b/ very stoned?
I've met lots of abusive violent drunks but never met a abusive violent stoner.
Complain about this comment
Here we go again! I've been amused to watch successive governments pursue their "war against drugs" for more than 40 years. It was and remains doomed to failure. When are these idiots going to realise that prohibition fuels crime and that the only people to benefit from this fruitless strategy are the criminals? Drug use is a health issue. The criminal law should have little or no role to play. The only real solution is to legalise, regulate and tax the industry. You know it makes sense.
Complain about this comment
Who should we trust more for sound advice in these matter?
- Professor Nutt (qualified academic)
- Jacqui Smith (NuLab politician)
The professor is not likely to be influenced by a "political agenda" and is more likely to give well-founded, impartial advice.
Complain about this comment
One could be forgiven for concluding that the most dangerous drug is POLTICS.
It certainly seems to affect the working of the brains of the people involved. They babble incoherently, display signs of megalomania, become paranoid and want to expose their inadeqacies in public...
Complain about this comment
Just as the majority in this country would welcome the return of Capital punishment, genuine Hard Labour and immediate custodial sentences for first offenders for robbery or burglary offences; they also believe that any drug possession outside those currently legal or prescribed should continue to be an offence.
It is not because of the effect of drug use so much as what the disregard for the law as it stands implies.
A zero tolerance approach to littering, public verbal obscenity, failure to tax and insure vehicles, disregard of licence disqualification and even the possession of the smallest amount of drugs for personal use are known by the public to indicate that the person involved is an enemy of the common good.
We know not and care less, what the effects of any particular drug is on the individual, but do know that the occasional cannabis user is almost certainly going to be the occasional binge drinker and performer of anti-social behaviour or an apologist for the same.
It is not the drug or alcohol we wish controlled it is the behaviours that are implicit in the attitudes of the users.
If class A addicts were all heroin users then an argument could be made for "registered" status, but as much if not more damage to society is caused by the less controllable abusers of Crack, Crystal Meth and all their variants.
The nature of the Drug problem is not the product or its scientifically determined effects but the dysfunctionality and socially worthless nature of most of their adherents.
Complain about this comment
#6/
I've got lots of friends that only smoke tobacco when they mix it with cannabis, they never smoke ciggerates on their own, and yes there are reports that show that cannabis is more carcinagenic than tobacco (mainly because you inhale it more deaply into your lungs and keep it there for longer) but I'm yet to find someone that smokes 20 spliffs a day, everyday. so in a single instance it's worse, but as a habit it's better.
I also know lots of people that do drink, but they would rather spend a night on weed than alcohol (cost and lack of hangover being major reasons) and trying to mix the two in large quantities leads to a messy situation so I would say they are subsitutes not compliments, would you rather have an alcoholic or a weed smoker as a son?
7# I saw one report that showed the increase of schiznophrenia (sp?) could be explained by better diagnoses and immigragtion (yes that thing again) of people from countries with a higher natrual tendancy.
Whats interesting is that the UK has a higher rate of schizophrenia than the Netherlands which has decrimanalised weed (which is what led them to look at other factors for the increase)
Complain about this comment
"Sometimes, I wonder about scientists."
Yes, that evil monolithic block. If you say 'I wonder about scientists' you're basically claiming that empirical evidence and fact don't matter compared to your own personal biases. Scientists (or at least the majority opinion of experts in their fields - not every individual one necessarily) are probably the nearest thing to someone you can trust uncritically in this world.
"The pro-cannabis ones always talk about how cannabis is not as dangerous as other drugs like tobacco or alcohol."
It's not a matter of their being 'pro-cannabis' - it's a matter of what their study says. And, yes, their studies suggest that cannabis use (presumably long term) is less dangerous than tobacco or alcohol. In fact, aside from stuff like crystal meth, cocaine or heroine everything is less dangerous than severe alcohol abuse.
"Have you ever met a cannabis user that doesn't drink or smoke (yes, they mix tobacco with Skunk)."
Yes. Everyone who I've known who's been very into any illegal drug (usually cannabis or E) basically stop taking other drugs (including tobacco and alcohol) regularly at that stage. And, firstly, care to back up the statement that they put tobacco in skunk. Secondly, if they put tobacco into it then surely that's because it's illegal rather than anything else - the incentive to "pack out" a drug is much higher if getting caught obtaining a supply (smuggling in this case) would have big consequences. This is, also, incidentally, why "super strength" cannabis would be preferred. And it's difficult to say whether it is, unfortunately, as the most commonly cited figures are based off the weakest cannabis 20/30 years ago and the strongest cannabis today - rather than any representative sample.
"What he hasn't mentioned is that some reports put smoked cannabis at levels four times more carcinogenic than tobacco. Yes, cannabis may give you cancer so trust your local scientist. Yep, sure will."
Think of the dose. A relatively mild tobacco smoker will do 10 a day, only the most extreme stoners would do three or more spliffs a day. Most people who I know who smoke tobacco have a lot every day, most people I know who smoke cannabis do it occasionally.
So, yes, trust scientists over politicians. They may have thought of something you didn't and moreover they've gone through the stats properly too.
Complain about this comment
Two Words: The Netherlands.
I may be mistaken but I seem to remember a recent survey whereby Dutch kids were judged to be the happiest, most contented kids on the planet. Cannabis is de-criminalised in the Netherlands. It has not had a detrimental effect on the Dutch population.
Alcohol is a deadly, liver wasting, violence inducing class A drug that should be condemned.
The medical benefits of cannabis (marijuana) are now being recognised by the US government.
It's time that our Politicians started treating us like ADULTS and let us decide what is good or bad for OWN bodies and minds.
Complain about this comment
Only a naive would think for a moment that the use, relative harm and legality of drugs is a scientific debate.
It is political!
Rational discussion based upon sound evidence has no place in the modern world.
Complain about this comment
I agree wholeheartedly with professor nutt. It is now time to step out of the box and realise that a lot of things are not black and white.
Since smoking cigareetes has been made illegal for anyone under the age of 18 to buy......I have noticed an increase in children smoking tobacco. Taboo something and it immidiatley becomes tempting to individuals especially young children,tell them not to do it and what do they usually do. I sugest this is the gateway drug and not cannabis as some people believe.
Regarding the long term effects of cigarettes and alcohol (and remembering the government keep telling us we now have a massive problem with alcohol and young people....they say very young.....
I find it very short sited of them not be listening.
I have many years of experience and knowledge of substance misuse and have come to the conclusion that certain things will not be changed even when an alternative as been offered....as in a chart to let the public know the harm to health....which is exactley what professor nutt has sugested..........I wonder why ???????I have my own thoughts on this and I suspect many of you nice people out there do too...how ever we have to be careful what we say fear we get out hands smacked for daring to challenge.
Keep up the good work professor nutt and thank you to Mark Eaton for seting this forum up.
Complain about this comment
Counting chickens - you don't HAVE TO smoke it with tobacco or smoke it at all. Ingestion works far better.
jon112uk - there has been a six fold increase since the 60's in one area of london you say, where is the evidence that cannabis is the cause? It could easily be a race/genetics issue with a population more predisposed to getting scizophrenia.
Lets deal with the population as a whole and not focussing on minute areas to try and show a tenous link.
Complain about this comment
Andrew Kerr sugested the only people to benefit are fruitless criminals....who in turn keep the criminal justice system in work..Makes you wonder doesnt it.
Complain about this comment
Professor Nutt is aptly named. He does NOT listen to the sciences of perception, social communications and comprehension. Those sciences would show that many people do not comprehend the sorts of nuanced analyses he bandies around. Nor do they comprehend the nature of risk. Why even sophisticated Bankers don't understand risk: especially some of those who've been awarded PhDs from highly skilled Universities.
This Professor also doesn't understand that only a minority who behave badly as a side-effect of drugs still ends up with people killed and/or gravely wounded. Which is where the risk element comes in.
Professor Nutt should study a wider range of academic researches before pronoucing on topics he plainly does not understand.
Complain about this comment
What a boost to the public purse if it was legalised! Tax the heck out of it like tobacco and petrol and bingo! All the country's debt solved!
Not only this, but legalisation will enable more people to get the help they need if it makes them ill.
Sorry if this is contraversial, but I'm a child of the 60's-what can I say?!!!
Complain about this comment
I constantly despair over the "War on Drugs". It has proved singularly ineffective and is one of the biggest wastes of taxpayer money. In an amusing twist of irony, it is the drug laws that "draw people in" to harder drugs, not the act of taking "soft" drugs like cannabis. If you have to go to an illegal back street dealer to get your gear, then what else is that illegal salesman going to have on him? That's right, hard drugs. Talk about a great introductory mechanism!
Amusingly then, legalising cannabis would remove one of the biggest introductory mechanisms for the harder drugs, due to the lack of a need for Joe Public to go to an illegal dealer. Licensed outlets would only sell cannabis, not a whole range of substances.
Of course, scientists regularly point out that, if alcohol and tobacco are legal, there is absolutely no reason for cannabis to not also be allowed. On a sliding scale of harm, cannabis is at least equivalent, if not safer, than the legal ones. This is based on hard data, not whatever the Daily Mail chose to print on its front cover.
However, like the Daily Wail, politicians are often immune to reality and pick and choose what they want from the peer-reviewed scientific literature, whilst ignoring anything that might call their pet policies into question. Jacqui Smith isn't qualified to make any judgements on the data, or the scientific conclusions drawn. Yet, she acts like she is the overlord of all science when she slanders professional scientists in public by implying their hard facts and data are merely personal "opinions".
Pathetic.
PS: I don't smoke cannabis and don't plan on doing it if it were legalised.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
#13
"The nature of the Drug problem is not the product or its scientifically determined effects but the dysfunctionality and socially worthless nature of most of their adherents."
Spoken with the true arrogance of someone who doesn't have a clue what they're talking about. Literally millions of people smoke cannabis everyday and lead perfectly normal, productive lives. I myself am a regular cannabis user and have 11 G.C.S.E's; 4 A-levels; an undergraduate degree and a postgraduate degree. I currently work as a teacher. Most of my friends are professional people - doctors, solicitors, teachers, accountants. Virtually all of them take one illegal drug or another. Does it make them socially worthless? No it does not - they have used their brains and weighed up the pros and cons and decided that the pros (i.e. pleasure) far outweigh the potential harm (which is minimal anyway).
I suspect you're of a certain age and this is the problem with the narcotic debate. There is a huge generation gap when it comes to attitudes to recreational drugs. Younger people are far more savvy and simply don't accept that just because something has been arbitarily deemed illegal then it must be 'bad'. People over the age of 50 have been so brainwashed by a past culture of conformity that many have lost the ability to think for themselves.
Complain about this comment
So let's see - smoking tobacco is harmful, but smoking cannabis is safe. Now I'm not a doctor, but I thought it was the act of inhaling smoke that was the dangerous thing. So surely whether that smoke is accompanied by tobacco fumes, or cannabis fumes, is irrelevant - the smoke will still hurt you. Or does cannabis somehow stop that ? Caledonian Comment
Complain about this comment
the simple fact is that the Government can make no profit from the currently illegal substances, which is why they will not legalise it. The UK government would never have the guts to legalise these substances, as they are commonly perceived as harmful in other countries.
And I'm certain that alcohol and tobacco are more harmful than cannabis or E. like people have said, I've never had bother on a night out from someone on E or someone that was high, but consistently get trouble from those drinking alcohol. And I'm sure that most people have had experience of someone close having an alcohol problem, or having cancer linked to smoking.
The old argument that taking substances like cannabis and E is a gateway to use of "harder" drugs is only true because of the link with a dealer, who may offer someone things like cocaine. If e.g. cannabis was legalised the dealer link would be cut, and people could responsibly obtain what they wanted from a licensed vendor, and with knowledge of exactly what was in the drug, cutting risks from drug use even more.
Complain about this comment
Comment #6 (Counting Chickens)
You are 100% wrong! I know plenty of people that smoke cannabis and DO NOT drink or smoke cigarettes. People who play in a Orchestra, have degrees in Economics, never been in trouble with the police, and generally contribute more in tax to this society then many of the idiots you're attributing them to. How arrogant of you to generalise everybody. Has it occured to you that many of these 'illegal' cannabis smokers do so as they dislike alcohol. Your argument wouldn't last 2 minutes in the company of me and my friends.
Go back to your Daily Mail.......
Complain about this comment
#26
Prof Nutt did not say smoking cannabis is safe - far from it - read the blog. It's about RELATIVE harm i.e. smoking tobacco is more harmful than smoking cannabis.
Complain about this comment
We need to de-mystify all the hype about drugs and alcohol. Take alcohol for example, take the case of US states where alcohol is prohibited even up to 21 years old. 15 and 14 year old kids try to send their 21 years-and-1-day old cousin to the shop to buy whole cases of beer for their parties and get pissed to extreme points. A percentage of them are already alcoholics by the age of 21. My country is the birthplace of wine. Alcohol is no "mystic" experience, it is something on the everyday family lunch-table, not 1 bottle, 1 little glass of wine or now often beer which is seen as more digestive. When I was 9-10 years old I was curius. My father explained to me that alcohol is ok for adults, but bad for the development of children (stops height-growth, he exaggerated but that works well for young boys!) and then gave me a little sip to taste it and satisfy my curiosity. He never needed to lock a bottle, alcohol was always in the fridge and in the cupboards. There was no hype about it. Once I had bought a little can of beer at a school excursion as there was no coke in the shop (and did not like sprite...), no classmate thought of it as particularly cool and a teacher that saw me joked "hey, sailor, I hope you only had this one!" but did not stop me as I explained the shop had run out of coke etc. Did I become an alcoholic? Far from it. Our society has an extremely low percentage of alcoholics despite alcohol omnipresence.
We really need a cool, uncomplexed approach towards alcohol and the same towards drugs right from the very young ages - kids listen to music and get impressed since 8 years old. We need to explain the risks and that injecting chemicals in your body is not exactly the most brilliant idea (perhaps showing the before and after... the after being not "horror scenes" and not any "marginal figures" that may actually attract youngsters but scenes of unhealthy people and unattractive people, thus demystifying completely the use of drugs, making it non-hype, a kind of lousy-kitch thing to do, not a kind of forbidden thing.
Complain about this comment
Am I alone in resenting paying for doubtlessly well paid experts only to see their research ignored by arrogant politicians? If they are going to be ignored why have them in the first place?
Complain about this comment
CountingChickens wrote:
"Have you ever met a cannabis user that doesn't drink or smoke"
Yes.
I am a Cannabis user and I haven't used alcohol for 10 years.
I do smoke cigarettes though.
I also have lots of friends who use Cannabis but don't drink alcohol or smoke tobacco; many of them do not smoke spliffs but instead use pipes, bongs or other methods to smoke Cannabis without mixing it with tobacco.
Most of the Cannabis users I know have stopped drinking alcohol or only drink occasionally.
Moncur's Maraudeluders wrote:
"We know not and care less, what the effects of any particular drug is on the individual, but do know that the occasional cannabis user is almost certainly going to be the occasional binge drinker and performer of anti-social behaviour or an apologist for the same."
Firstly, that's a load of absolute rubbish. As I've already stated, I don't drink alcohol and most of the Cannabis users I know do not drink alcohol, none of us are ever anti-social, binge drinkers or apologists for either.
What your argument basically comes down to is that you don't like our drug of choice and, regardless of the evidence surrounding the case for legalisation; you want it kept illegal because of your own concept of morality.
You're coming at this from a position of absolute ignorance yet you still wish to force your views and opinions onto everyone else even though the evidence from other countries such as Holland and Portugal is overwhelming in showing that prohibition is a major cause of crime, ill-health & social problems.
As ever, I'd recommend people have a look at the Law Enforcement Against Prohibition website, it's very interesting to see what many of those on the front lines in the War on Drugs actually think.
The mission of LEAP is to reduce the multitude of harms resulting from fighting the War on Drugs and to lessen the rates of death, disease, crime, and addiction by ultimately ending drug prohibition.
LEAP has two primary goals:
To educate the public, the media and policymakers about the failure of current drug policy by presenting a true picture of the history, causes and effects of drug use and the elevated crime rates more properly related to drug prohibition than to drug pharmacology.
To restore the public's respect for law enforcement, which has been greatly diminished by its involvement in imposing drug prohibition
Complain about this comment
# 21 "Those sciences would show that many people do not comprehend the sorts of nuanced analyses he bandies around."
Blimey. So you're actually saying factual information should not be published- in case those less intelligent than you can't understand it.
# 26
All drugs have their risks. People have a right to know how dangerous each drug really is. And it was nice of the BBC to find out for us:
from http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/broadband/tx/drugs/
"Recent research has analysed the link between the harmful effects of drugs relative to their current classification by law with some startling conclusions. Perhaps most startling of all is that alcohol, solvents and tobacco (all unclassified drugs) are rated more dangerous than ecstasy, 4-MTA and LSD (all class A drugs). If the current ABC system is retained, alcohol would be rated a class A drug and tobacco class B.
The scientists involved, including members of the government's top advisory committee on drug classification, have produced a rigorous assessment of the social and individual harm caused by 20 of the UK's most dangerous drugs and believe this should form the basis of future ranking. They think the current ABC system is arbitrary and not based on any scientific evidence."
Complain about this comment
It is really important scientists stand up for the truth, not easy when sleazy politicians are putting immense pressure on you to toe the line. Labour are extremely bad at accepting the truth about situations. Let's hope the Conservatives will be more evidence-based in their decisions, though I won't be holding my breath!
Complain about this comment
Message 21 leftilkley
"This Professor also doesn't understand that only a minority who behave badly as a side-effect of drugs still ends up with people killed and/or gravely wounded. Which is where the risk element comes in."
To misquote Orson Welles for a moment - it comes down to how many dots you can afford to spare. The size of the minority, in other words.
Just about every human activity carries a risk. Crown-green bowling is a lot safer than free-fall parachuting, but it isn't 100% safe.
Making something illegal doesn't stamp it out. We've seen that so often that it's blatantly obvious. Alcohol. Pornography. Prostitution. Drugs. Handgun possession. Video nasties. Dangerous dogs. Weapons for self-defence. In every case, use and possession has carried on regardless. It may have been curbed, but it's never been eradicated.
The fear people have is that if something is legalised, there will be a huge uptake in its use. Except that when this has happened, there has been no big uptake at all. A small blip, and then a return to normal levels.
Remember when CB radio was legalised in the early 80s? There were scores of objections about interference with the emergency services. The picture painted was of people dying in burning buildings because the fire services couldn't get through, or ambulances getting lost, or the police being unable to respond to their controls.
Except that it didn't happen. There was a short-lived craze, and then the junk shops filled up with unwanted rigs as people lost interest.
Look at the banning of the video nasties. The idea that about half of all schoolchildren had seen them was very well debunked at the time as being mostly playground bragging. When you looked at them, they were crude and boring. The special effects of the horror videos were often little more than bad acting overlaid with semolina and food colouring.
In the same way, politicians are scared that legalising drugs will turn the country into an island of 60 million potheads. They lack the courage to try it and are unwilling to face down the Daily Mail, in spite of the evidence that legalising something generally makes no difference at all to the usage levels in the long term.
So to come back to your original point, there will indeed be a minority of people who would be injured or die from drugs, legal or not. I suggest that the total would be so small as to justify the move. We cannot ban everyone from doing something just because of the actions - often foolhardy actions - of a minority. New Labour has certainly tried though, and created a regime so repressive that it compares badly with Stalin's USSR. I think it's time for a different approach, if only because I hate dictators, particularly ignorant ones.
Complain about this comment
Once again public perception wins out over reality.
I wouldn't mind them going against the scientific advice - if they could state their qualifications and evidence for so doing.
Uninformed opinion is worthless - yet we seem to prefer it to evidence and research based opinion - Why is that? (see how many think creationism should be taught alongside evolution: Only one is evidence based!)
:O) x
Complain about this comment
"Professor Nutt accepts there is a link between cannabis and mental ill-health. He cites research suggesting that "smokers of cannabis are about 2.6 times more likely to have a psychotic-like experience than non-smokers"." So that's alright then! Professor Nutt's evidence is not as conclusive as his supporters would have us believe.
His remarks about horse riding and ecstacy use are decidedly unscientific. They may well have the same death rate but he knows full well these are not the only deciding factors in the safety of a drug. What about addiction, long term health problems, inability to work and the high number of drug abusers involved in crime.
Complain about this comment
Where does this myth of the peaceful cannabis users come from?
Just as the vast majority of alcohol drinkers manage to do so and continue to behave in a civilised manner, I am sure the same distribution applies to cannabis users, though the amount of active chemical ingested by the cannabis user is less easily self-controlled.
However I would suggest to the Cannabis apologist/myth maintainers they should undertake their recreational drug use on some of the council estates of Oxford, South Shields or the Glasgow projects. A little "trucking on" around Railton road, Stockwell Park, Hoxton or the Sprawl of White City, Roehampton Estate or Toxteth,Croxted or similar may open their eyes to the "pacifying magic" of Skunk.
If that fails I can introduce them to a few thousand motorcycle gang members who wary of the dreaded breathalyser and its consequences also prefer "skinning up" to sinking a few, while planning their next gun running, drug running extravaganza.
Cannabis may always be associated with the "Summer of Love", but you ask any Jamaican non-yardie what they think the life expectancy of a young man back in the yard is and I think you get a sub-30 answer.
Drug use is simply indicative of dysfunction, whether caused by social exclusion or personal inadequacy.
Its the People not the Product, Stupid!
Complain about this comment
It was just because some of the grown up children of middle class parents were diagnosed schizophrenic that they, and other Daily Mail pseudo-intellectual losers, started blaming cannabis instead of looking at the real reasons why their children went schizophrenic. Schizophrenia is a genetic condition - you don't catch it by smoking weed!
Alas, I can't see the Tories upsetting their Daily Mail friends either. The day we push those silly middle Englanders off a pier the better.
Complain about this comment
leftilkley wrote:
Professor Nutt is aptly named. He does NOT listen to the sciences of perception, social communications and comprehension..... Professor Nutt should study a wider range of academic researches before pronoucing on topics he plainly does not understand.
Can't remember Perceptionology or comprehensionology in the Science block at University. Are these really sciences? If you Google the Prof, you will find him to be an expert in neurological disorders (including addiction). I think he is well qualified to talk about the potential problems of cannabis.
Complain about this comment
It is not surprising the politicians and scientists disagree. But, unfortunately for the ministers, the scientists have the unfair advantage of being intelligent.
Complain about this comment
If ""It may be that if you move a drug up a class it has a greater cachet. People think, 'Oh, it's interesting, maybe we should be trying it because it's a class B or a class A rather than a class C.'"
Were true then surely we'd have little cannabis use and everyone going straight to crack, crystal meth & PCP?
Personally I'd keep illegally cultivated cannabis of unknown quality as a class B and sell legally grown, quality controlled, moderate strength cannabis over the counter at off-licences and tax the hell out of it! I've no problem with people getting high and at least if they're paying tax on their habit (as I have to do with my single malt whisky consumption) then they'll be paying for the cost of treating any health problems and we should have a reduction in crime too.
Complain about this comment
I would usually leap at the chance to support a scientist criticising the Government, but this one doesn't look too promising. If Mark Easton's article is an accurate reflection of Prof Nutt's view, then the professor has succumbed to playing politics with his own statistics. The comparison of the proportional effect of lung cancer versus schizophrenia is a complete irrelevance - the difference in occurrence rates for these conditions ensures that - ditto the comparison with horse-riding accidents. These are exactly the kind of remarks politicians like to make: spurious comparisons that superficially back up the course of action they've already decided upon.
Mind you, in the final analysis, it's still tempting to blame the Government; if they hadn't so sweepingly dismissed the findings of their experts in the first place, said experts wouldn't desperately be trying to defend themselves, and could concentrate on the process of actual scientific enquiry.
Complain about this comment
Good morning :)
First you have to ask GW share price of cannabis then street price of cannabis.
Since Feb this year both have risen steadily in price with GW's share price hovering around the one pound mark from 26pence a share. Also since Feb this year a rise in the price of street cannabis from average £90 per ounce of one of what are called the white strains(medical cannabis) to an awe inspiring £230 an ounce for the same white strains. who is profiting from this move?
seems Obama's made a dent with his new stature on medical cannabis see the charts and prices then map cannabis law decisions to it :). http://www.google.co.uk/finance/historical?q=LON:GWP
In the USA Obama has reversed federal laws making medical cannabis legal under licence saying its not worth the government's time or resource's going after personal growers and medical supplies of cannabis, however he has said that those that operate to abuse the system as defined by law will have the full weight of the Federal legal system thrown at them.
http://www.safeaccessnow.org/article.php?id=5612
However this country operates a forced monopoly under MODA71 on what is called legal medical cannabis with only the share holder able to profit from medical cannabis whilst the everyday medical user that grows the same strains of cannabis is still actively pursued by the government even though cannabis is supplied on the NHS at great cost.
Secondly as a few people have pointed out here that cannabis users are also drinkers of alcohol so very untrue. Ive smoked cannabis for many years and have totally turned of alcohol using it only at Christmas and Birthdays, this effect is not really surprising when you actually look at the brain's protection system from alcohol and find its run on endocannabinoids :) All my friends who use cannabis also abstain from alcohol, infact all the people I know apart from one have given up most drugs of youth in favour of just cannabis and tobacco.
Also as a cannabis smoker my lungs have the same capacity as a NONE smoker on force volume alone let along lung capacity.
I wonder how this government justifies these practices as all the studies they commision get buried or come out years after the decisions have been made. It would seems the government does not have a leg to stand on anymore whilst the cannabis user has two :)
Complain about this comment
There is a bit of a thread about legalising some drugs and overall this discussion has, so far, not been taken up by government or doctors or even the police.
I see the points as.....
1 The quality of the drug to those who use it would be better and should be reliable.
2 A huge amount of criminal behaviour within communities would possibly disappear.
3 The people who use drugs their health could be measured in a more accurate way as the quality of drugs consumed is monitored.
4 There is always a tax stream to be had.
There was a report around, maybe a internet fact but if the Afghan farmers sold their crop to the American government then they would have a better price, less illegality in the area, the Taliban would have no cash and the drug problems within American society would drop significantly.
Maybe this is not the way forward but it might just work out for us all
Complain about this comment
The essential problem here is one of "non-overlapping magisteria", in Stephen Jay Gould's phrase.
David Nutt is a scientist, and scientists concern themselves with understanding how the world actually is; Jacqui Smith is a politician, and politicians concern themselves with making the world into what they think it should be. These spheres of activity are rarely good bedfellows, and it is hardly rational to expect them to be so.
If politicians think it worth their while to retain scientific advisors, they must then accept that from time to time they, and their electors, will be presented with an inconvenient truth or two. Science that tells you only that which you are willing to hear is no science at all.
Complain about this comment
To the weed lovers above.
Oh what a wonderful world we live in. All cannabis users are tea-total, non-smoking angels. Give me a break. If you smoke cannabis with tobacco you ARE a smoker. I can see why a common name for cannabis is dope. All I see are people using long words trying to sound clever. Remember, the argument from Professor Nutt is that cannabis is NOT dangerous and that smoking and drinking are.
The other fact is that you can only really buy Skunk from criminals (rightly or wrongly) That makes you a contributer to the rape and murder of the many people destroyed by the criminal classes as they exploit people to make the cannabis resin (yes it would not happen if it was legal but it isn't) This is not Nazi-Germany, you can't look away from your actions in contributing to crime with your money without people pointing it out. Yes, smoke your weed but don't forget what you are and where your money goes.....and please, don't pretend that the resin you smoke is fair trade and ethically produced.
Complain about this comment
Afghan farmers grow opium for the EU that's why we are still there.... Duh
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/7075389.stm
http://www.afghanistanwatch.org/newsletterarchive/listserv8-04-05.htm
The Taliban originally killed of the opium harvests just before we invaded... and the NWO took over.
see opium http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban
they are at least going back to old school stuff now I used to love the afghan herbs.
http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2007/11/06/afghan_farmers_say_no_to_opium_yes_to_pot
Complain about this comment
dceilar. Schizophrenias cause still isnt fully explained, it affects different people different ways. If you believe that faulty neuro-chemicals (from a genetic "disorder") are responsible then taking drugs that also alter it wont help it.
Complain about this comment
If the reasoning for banning cannabis is sound, then why is alcohol still legal? There are at least a hundred more alcoholics for every single psycotic stoner yet the weed is banned and booze is still good. What sort of message does that send to young people? It tells them to ignore good sense and do what the Daily Mail tells them to. What a fantastic lesson being taught by our spineless, media hungry politicians. Educate the public first then ask them which drugs should be legal. Don't treat us all like idiots because the politicians (regardless of party, they are all the same) haven't chosen to be totally honest with us.
BTW I smoke without tobacco these days. Why would I smoke an illegal non-addictive drug with a legal one that will ruin my life and take all my money?
Complain about this comment
CountingChickens:
The other fact is that you can only really buy Skunk from criminals (rightly or wrongly) That makes you a contributer to the rape and murder of the many people destroyed by the criminal classes as they exploit people to make the cannabis resin.
More and more people are growing marijuana in their bedrooms now, or even renting out houses for this exact purpose. It's then given to a dealer who may pass it on to other dealers or sell it straight on. I know my marijuana comes from Crawley (most likely from someone's greenhouse). Where are these supposed criminals raping and murdering?
We are always going to have people dealing illegal drugs. Always. So why give them the money?
Hey I love weed, its really helped me out when I was underweight plus my drinking has dropped to a pinhead so not only am I feeling great in the morning, but I had a great time last night as well.
How many people have died from marijuana abuse? 0.
Complain about this comment
4. wikichris wrote:
"High-strength canabis is a reaction to the high classification. Canabis is one of the most difficult drugs to smuggle because it's so bulky. Strong spirits gained in popularity during alcohol prohibition because beer was difficult to conceal."
This poses an interesting question - if cannabis were to be legalised would users return to smoking low-strength old fashionned "pot", thus removing alot of the problems caused (potentially or allegedly) by skunk.
Hmmmmm.
Complain about this comment
#47 Your ill thought out comments are lamentable.
Are people who are medically prescribed cannabis contributing to the criminal underworld? What about people who grow their own? Why are you so judgemental of people who make their own decisions as to what they put in their body? I smoke weed infrequently but have no criminal record, hold down a full time job, pay my taxes and contribute to the improvement of my local community. What has it got to do with you whether I smoke dope or not?
You also appear unable to read Professor Nutt's findings and absorb its content without making your own irrational judgements.
Complain about this comment
Countingchickens your so funny.
Skunk is a strain of cannabis that has an average of 15-17 % THC and in the cannabis world is nothing special sort of like your cheap Lambrusco down the local supermarket.
You know nothing at all about cannabis production let alone resin production. which for the most part is just the THC from the bud rolled between the hands. In most parts of India this is still common place to see and to watch at the road side with a nice cup of bhang.
Then you have your solids produced by sieving via various methods the dust from the flowers and leaves and compressing it.
At no point in either process is rape or murder required.
Now we get to smuggling then you raise the stakes but as most cannabis is produced in the UK mostly around the Yorkshire way and a fair bit in wales there is no need for large scale smuggling and trafficking of people in order to supply the good people of the UK.
Complain about this comment
"Where there is... doubt about the potential harm that will be caused, we must err on the side of caution and protect the public," as Jacqui Smith put it last year.
As ever Jacqui "Nanny" Smith cannot see the idiocy of her own arguments. She leaves no answer to the call that both tobacco and alcohol should be banned for exactly her reasons stated above.
When science is so easily ignored for politcal or social reasons then it seems as if all the advances mankind has made over the centuries is for nought.
Complain about this comment
Dear CountingChickens,
You wrote: 'Remember, the argument from Professor Nutt is that cannabis is NOT dangerous and that smoking and drinking are.'
The penultimate - I'm so sorry, I used a 'long word': the 'last but one' - paragraph reads:
'Professor Nutt is not arguing that cannabis is safe - far from it. A report from the ACMD, published last year, spells out that "cannabis is a harmful drug" and that "a concerted public health response is required to drastically reduce its use".'
If you're going to be rhetorical, do please get your facts straight.
Complain about this comment
#47 CountingChickens:
Ridiculous post. As others have said, people DO smoke it in pipes or bongs without tobacco, or mixed with herbs other than tobacco.
And people buying cannabis on the black market are contributing to crime only because there's NO other way to get it! What you've raised is an argument for legalisation, more than anything else.
Complain about this comment
#51 "How many people have died from marijuana abuse? 0."
Rather more than that.
There is an epidemic of extremely nasty upper throat and tongue cancers being seen in those in their early 20's who smoke cannabis. My father lost a 21 year patient to the disease last week. Cannabis burns hotter than tobacco (heat causes inflammation which is a causitive factor in tumour formation), is rarely smoked with a filter and contains far greater concentration of carcinogens than tobacco.
I'd be interested to hear you argue that no-one has ever been killed because someone drove stoned or wandered into the traffic will stoned too.
Regarding the criminal aspect of it: the cannabis farms in my town (Nottingham) are operated by Chinese gangsters using illegal immigrants. They rent houses from private landlords, illegally bypass the electric meter and grow thousands of plants. Several have burnt down in the past year. The idea that cannabis is just grown by hippies for their mates is a bad joke.
I'd quite happily see cannabis legalised (I smoked a little when I was younger but didn't really like the 'smoking' aspect of the drug), not least because if it was state controlled it could be quality tested, taxed, and the illegal growers put of business. I drink like a fish and know full well it doesn't do my liver any favour. When people falsely claim is 'harmless' they're actually doing harm to the 'legalise' lobby as it gives the 'ban' side the argument that users don't recognise the risk and need to be saved from themselves.
Complain about this comment
Once again the Government, whoever is in power, get it wrong. It's alcahol that should be upgraded to a catagory B or even A drug for all the violence, vandalism, loss of working hours and cost to the health service it causes, but no, they earn to much revenue from the taxes it brings in. I guarantee that if you took all the alcahol from people in any given town or city centre any night of the week and replaced them with spliff's all of the above problems would be so minimal they wouldn't make a dent in the relevant tables. Typical Ostrich approach from MP's they always bury thier heads and take the easy way out and confuse issues to suit thier rhetoric. e.g. apart from this subject they tell us we have a problem with racial tension and abuse, yes we do but no more that any other major Democratic nation they confuse race problems to cover for thier shambolic immigration policies When will we have a leader like Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd who is not afraid to tell it like it is without being Racisist or a bleeding heart liberal. This country is being driven into a quagmire by MP's who are not capable of making sensible decisions or running the proverbial party in a brewery, no wonder marginal political parties are gaining more votes.
Complain about this comment
People have to stop thinking with their gut and start using their heads. Ten fold more people die from tobacco than from narcotics yet tobacco is perfectly legal and the use of cannabis will make you a criminal. How many cannabis users kill people in cars compared to those using alcohol? Not a lot. This Victorian attitude of punishing addicts, who are basically sick not criminal, is what I would expect from a government in its death throes desperately trying to secure votes.
Complain about this comment
Jacqui Smith never listened to either academic advice or the public she "served". Served? Ah well. Reclassifying cannabis was another of her well-known mistakes like HIPs, Police Community Support officers, ID cards - ad naus... (ad naus = until it makes you sick).
As a bystander though, I'm curious. The most damaging drugs are Heroin/Opium, Tobacco and Alcohol. They SHOULD be class A... but the government loves to tax people's addictions so takes a huge tax from their sales. So why not legalise cannabis, control the quality like any other OFT exercise, then tax it to the hilt?
No use claiming that mental health issues may arise from cannabis - do NO mental or physcal health issues arise from alcohol?
Complain about this comment
To all the users above.
The nice guy who does you your eighth or quarter may be just like you, a non-aggressive, useful member of society, the guy that he gets his ounce or two from may just seem like a "spacey" dude who is good for a laugh and knows where all the good squat parties are. The guy with the pit bulls who can get a bit sharp if he isn't paid quick enough for the half a bar trippy Trev bought is not such a sweetie and the people he gets his from you really do not want to know.
The weed/blow/skunk in your little bag does not on average come from a "good life" greenhouse, its from a wrecked rental house cultivated by Vietnamese slaves who have had their passports retained by the people smugglers that import them to do the job.
"AH, WAIT!" you say, "IF IT WAS LEGALISED ALL THIS HORROR WOULD GO AWAY!" and then follow up with an argument already posted on here that its only because Cannabis dealers usually also hawk class A's that people move onto them.
Well listen up!
I don't care about ANY of your arguments because for 40 years you have been not only breaking the law but supporting a pyramid of extortion, slavery, prostitution, murder and ruined lives.
You can not deny it, you are all guilty as charged, the argument over legalising is no excuse for the fact that by contributing to the illegal drugs empire you have slaughtered the beheaded of the Mexican borders, turned areas of Jamaica into charnel houses, South Central L.A into a scene from a Terminator movie and in the UK turned the grotesqueries of "Trainspotting" into an every estate idyll.
Legal or Illegal is an argument, what you do and have done is conspiracy to commit murder and that is a fact.
Complain about this comment
See....people are pretending that their cannabis is ethically produced. Some will be produced in a greenhouse in Crawley but the vast majority is produced by organized crime. You can not produce the amount of cannabis used in this country in people's greenhouses. There is not a day goes past without our local police discovering a cannabis farm where criminals rent a house,connect illegally to the electricity supply and use tens of thousands of Pounds of stolen electricity to produce cannabis. The plant needs warmth. Yes it does grow easily on the roadside in India but this is not India. The odd person may buy cannabis from a friend, fair enough, but please I say again, stop pretending that cannabis is grown ethically and that nobody suffers at the hands of organized criminals who make their money from the drug trade.
Complain about this comment
Peter Sym interesting but thats an enviromental cause and more likley assosiated with just the heat damage through poor equiptment, cannabis has an active THC that is being used to treat throaat and mouth cancers as well as prostrate cancer.
http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2009/08/19/cannabinoids-for-treating-cancer/
GW pharma have just anounced a new partnership with 9 THC/THCV mixes for treatment of cancer along with a whole host of other modern illness.
http://www.gwpharm.com/news_press_releases.asp
can we have some documentaion from your DAD supporting these claims ??
Complain about this comment
CountingChickens stop complaining about the effects of this government and its outdated policies. all your posts are about the effects of MODA71 with nothing to contribute to a policy that would remove all the grow ops you talk about.
Complain about this comment
31. stirling222 wrote:
"Am I alone in resenting paying for doubtlessly well paid experts only to see their research ignored by arrogant politicians? If they are going to be ignored why have them in the first place?"
You are certainly not alone in your resentment.
I see at work a sort of political activity lifted straight from the ideas of Humphrey Appleby .... you have to continue having research done until you get the result you want. I'm sure there will be some later research from an eminent tame scientist "proving" any number of terrible things to allow nanny more power.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
CountingChickens wrote:
"To the weed lovers above.
Oh what a wonderful world we live in. All cannabis users are tea-total, non-smoking angels. Give me a break. If you smoke cannabis with tobacco you ARE a smoker."
As I've already mentioned above, there are various methods for smoking Cannabis that do not require tobacco, they include using pipes, bongs, hot knives, vaporisers and using Cannabis as an ingredient for things like space cakes (cup-cakes with Cannabis in them), and there are many other ways of using it without using tobacco too.
"I can see why a common name for cannabis is dope."
Just as we can see why a common name for pro-prohibitionists is "The Ostriches".
"All I see are people using long words trying to sound clever."
Yes, it's called an evidence based argument; you may want to try it sometime.
"Remember, the argument from Professor Nutt is that cannabis is NOT dangerous and that smoking and drinking are."
No, the argument from Professor Nutt is that Cannabis is not as harmful as the government are making it out to be. The evidence from around the world will tell you that Cannabis is not as dangerous as Alcohol or Tobacco; a recent study found that tobacco was the world's number-one killer in 2000, causing 4.9 million deaths.
The study also found that 1.8 million deaths worldwide were a result of alcohol use, while illegal drugs caused 223,000 deaths.
So, alcohol contributed to the early death of 1.8 million people, tobacco contributed another 4.9 million deaths while all other illegal drugs combined caused 223,000 deaths in 2000. Last time I checked 6.7 million was a more than 223,000, in fact it is about 30 times more and that is for all illegal drugs, not just Cannabis.
No matter how you look at it, Cannabis is safer than Alcohol and Tobacco.
The fact that you are misrepresenting what the Professor is saying and the conclusions he has come to only show how weak your argument actually is.
"The other fact is that you can only really buy Skunk from criminals (rightly or wrongly) That makes you a contributer to the rape and murder of the many people destroyed by the criminal classes as they exploit people to make the cannabis resin"
Not so, I get my Cannabis from people who are growing it themselves. This is very common these days and is becoming more popular due to the various nasty things that criminal gangs are adding to their Cannabis. I’ve also grown my own in the past.
Either way though this is a very tired argument and could easily be countered with the argument that you are forcing people to buy from criminal gangs by the very act of criminalising Cannabis and other recreational drugs, this is a cyclical argument and gets us no-where while also diverting us from the more important argument regarding the legalisation, regulation and taxation of recreational drugs.
Although we know that you secretly don’t want to have that argument because it is one you are destined to lose.
Complain about this comment
Interesting that despite all the warnings from experts & scientists, Mr Blair went ahead with the 24h drinking law.
Now how abour making alcohol a class C drug, as far as I am concerned it causes far more damages to public health than any other drugs, excepting tobacco another drug turned into a legalised "fiscal" drug.
Complain about this comment
Just another example of the mixing of class centered religion and their politicians. The drugs of the wealthy have either been acceptable or prescribed. The unevenness of the law by class and ruining of lives for simple possession is one of the more backward concepts in law. Because the government decided that this was a crime they have painted the picture that follows horror stories format. Truth has never been the strength of governments. It is behavior that should be addressed. If someone is high and breaks into a home, they should be arrested and being high is no excuse. If someone is sitting in their own home, leave them alone. As the governments have so messed up the economy with their scheming with the bankers maybe they are so desperate for cash that they may actually do the right thing and decriminalize and tax the sale. Would reduce crimes, reduce prisons and generate revenues. Most studies clearly show that the rate of addictions in any population remains about the same no matter what the legal status of drugs. It is like alcohol in that sense. As we have seen, the drug of money has proven to be much more harmful to society, yet we don't seem to be able to pass any regulations regarding banking and financial services that might assist in responsbile use of money.
Complain about this comment
47
Blimey thats going to make me look carefully at my mates if they're raping people while growing some in their loft.
The vast majority of weed nowadays (at least in my experience over numerous years) comes from a few people who grow their own and then sell it to a few people.
Yes there are people as peter pointed out in 59 that come to our country and abuse illegal immigrants to grow house full of the stuff, but that is because it is illegal and they can make a profit from it. If cannabis or at least a few strains of it were legal would they be able to do this? No. They may move into production of a different drug but there are always going to be people who operate outside of the law.
My preferred method of dealing with the problem is everything except the worst, such as Crack, Meth and Heroin which are in a class of their own for destructiveness, should be legalized or semi legalized so that it is easier to get support and it is also more revenue for the government.
Complain about this comment
@CountingChickens, #63:
And this behaviour is happening precisely because it is illegal.Factories producing legal goods have to pay for their electricity, and are subject to annual inspections to ensure they are not likely to catch on fire or give anybody an electric shock. If anything, you seem to be arguing in favour of legalisation and regulation.
Complain about this comment
One last word.
I live in the centre of Manchester. If you would like to meet the people who sell cannabis then come up here, I'll introduce them to you. We can wait until its a little dark then we can go walkies in Moss Side. Most of the people who sell the drugs are just normal people, daft kids really. I have no problem with them, after all, its a job. The trouble starts when someone else wants their patch. The result is often a turf-war with young kids dying. As I have said, because it is illegal your money goes to organized crime (it is another argument about legalization) People do die in this country and abroad because of cannabis (and other drugs, look at Columbia and Cocaine) and your money, unfortunately, is the cause.
Complain about this comment
@62
Maybe you should get high to become a little less angry?
Complain about this comment
If i grow my own plants who have I harmed? (all power is paid for etc)
Why should i be punished for causing this 'harm' if no one else is involved?
answers on a post card to.
General Secretary of the Labour party
39 victoria Street
London
SW1H 0HA
No Victim No Crime
Complain about this comment
ALL DRUGS SHOULD BE LEGALLY CONTROLLED just like ALCOHOL AND TOBACCO.
The current Western (USA) led position on drugs is a tool to keep the third world in it's place while we happily sell whisky and woodbines.
Crack Cocaine is 'harmless'... and is not addictive - yet our population is so indoctrinated, I'd probably be strung up for saying such a thing.
The only addictive substance is nicotine - the rest is make beleive.
ITS ALL LIES PEOPLE - ALL OF IT
Complain about this comment
#69 TaxPower
Don't you mean: "Interesting that despite all the warnings from experts & scientists, Mr Blair went ahead" and invaded Iraq?
Complain about this comment
I completely fail to see how reclassifying cannabis is going to make much difference to how many people use it. Does anyone seriously think that there are regular cannabis users who will say "Oh heck, this has just been reclassified to class B, I'd better stop using it."
I won't claim any great expertise on the matter of whether cannabis causes mental health problems, but I've read some of the research, and it's extraordinarily difficult to disentangle cause and effect, which makes most of the research hard to interpret. However, it seems to me that, even if the jury is still out, there is certainly a reasonable prima facie case to suggest that cannabis may increase the risk of schizophrenia.
But I understand that there is a reasonably respectable theory that it's modern, high-strength strains that are associated with the greatest risk, and more traditional forms of cannabis are considerably safer.
Now, if that's true, surely the obvious solution is to legalise cannabis, and make sure the cannabis that's on sale legally is the safe stuff, produced to pharmaceutical quality standards. Yes, people could still buy the dangerous stuff illegally, but why on earth would they bother? That would not only reduce the health risks from cannabis, but would also take the distribution out the hands of criminals, thus cutting crime, and no doubt provide a great opportunity to plug some of the holes in the public finances through cannabis duty.
Seriously, what's the downside? Why does the government persist with prohibition, when everyone knows it simply doesn't work?
Complain about this comment
Counting Chickens make some excellent points about the impact of drugs being in the control of organized criminals. I agree that since 100 years of prohibition and 40 years of the war on drugs have done nothing to reduce drug consumption in the population as a whole - in fact we have seen the opposite - we need to look for an alternative solution. I agree that to decriminalize drugs would reduce the profits, bloated by prohibition, and would go some way to remove the production, supply and control from underground criminal organisations, and reduce the criminality that surrounds the production and trafficking process. Well said CC!
Complain about this comment
CountingChickens wrote:
"People do die in this country and abroad because of cannabis (and other drugs, look at Columbia and Cocaine) and your money, unfortunately, is the cause."
No, Prohibition is the cause.
Just like it was in 1920s U.S.A. and everywhere else a government has tried to prohibit the activities of a significant proportion of the population.
Complain about this comment
# 64. THC is one of 400-odd chemicals in the cannabis. It has perfectly valid medical uses which is why it is purified for these trials. They don't give people with MS skunk and some papers precisely because of the carcinogens and unreliable strength of the 'herb'. If you have an infection you take medically produced penicillin. You don't eat blue mould.
My father is a clinical oncologist with nearly 40 years experience. I have two degrees in clinical biochemistry and genetics and have spent nearly 15 years making cancer vaccines and studying how tumours develop.
As we're posting links how about this one: I took the pretty picture.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/nottinghamshire/3151984.stm
The heat from the smoke is one strike- it causes inflamation and tissue damage but its not enough in itself to cause cancer. That requires chemical carcinogens to enter the cell and damage the DNA. As with smoking (tobacco) and cancer its a well studied and understood process.
Doubtless you will claim its totally coincidence that heavy cannabis smokers get aggressive tongue and mouth cancers. My father in law (a heavy smoker) claims that tobacco doesn't cause cancer and its all down to traffic fumes yet ignores the fact that 90-odd percent of lung cancer patients smoke. I suspect you won't claim that its coincidence that asbestos workers get mesothelioma or that heavy drinkers get liver disease though. Whys that I wonder?
Complain about this comment
13. At 10:18am on 29 Oct 2009, Moncur's Maraudeluders wrote:
Just as the majority in this country would welcome the return of Capital
punishment, genuine Hard Labour and immediate custodial sentences for first offenders for robbery or burglary offences; they also believe that any drug possession outside those currently legal or prescribed should continue to be an offence.
- the last part of the sentence does NOT follow the rest.
It is not because of the effect of drug use so much as what the disregard for the law as it stands implies.
- Are you saying that the only point of the cannabis ban is a "test" to see if the law is being followed?
It is not the drug or alcohol we wish controlled it is the behaviours that are implicit in the attitudes of the users.
- Then why "control" it?
Now in my 40s, there is only one law in this country that I have ever broken, and that is this one. Purely because I know that me taking cannabis sensibly is doing nobody any harm. I do not steal, am about as polite as they come and do not park on double yellow lines because I know they are there for a good reason; to keep the traffic moving and to do so would be selfish. I'm convinced that the vast majority of cannabis users (not addicts, cannabis is not addictive) think and act like me and it's time to LEGALISE. Note I say legalise, not de-criminalise, that's a watered-down policy that gives drug barons an opening to keep making big money and the chance to sell their customers something genuinely harmful. LEGALISE!
Complain about this comment
#82 Cannabis is rarely physically addictive like heroin or booze (ie you don't go cold turkey when its taken away) but it can very easily be mentally addictive in the same way that people become addicted to sex, pornography, on-line gaming etc. People will do these things to the detriment of all else and ruin careers, relationships etc.
Other than that I'm in agreement with you as long as there are strict laws to protect others from cannabis users behaviour (mainly to make dope-driving as unacceptable as drink driving, making sure its only sold to over 18's etc) and that there's a proper public education campaign to make sure people are aware of the risks (like alcohol and tobacco)
Complain about this comment
I'm 39 and I've smoked pot pretty much every day for the last 20 odd years. In that time I've met and/or known hundreds of smokers, many of which are still friends of mine. In all of that time not one of them has demonstrated psychotic or schizophrenic tendencies to a friend or partner within the circle.
I've never been unemployed or claimed any state benefits of any sort and I've paid taxes all my life. I've never been arrested or in any trouble and not one of my friends has a criminal record.
Like many people I grow my own marijuana, I don't supply anyone else and I smoke in the comfort of my own or a friends home. Do you think we care that the paranoid, daily mail reading do-gooders don't approve? Do we REALLY give a fig that the classification has been changed from C to B...? Jaqboot can change it to "Platinum Triple AAA+" if she really wants to - makes little difference to us.
So you can argue amongst yourselves as to exactly which side fo the fence you're on but those of us that actually use the stuff could tell you how it really is - if we could be bothered...!
Complain about this comment
Bit of confusion. People think that appear to to be promoting the legalization of cannabis. I'm not saying that. What I am saying is that I live in the now. Various drugs are illegal now and what happens if they are made legal is unknown. It would be nice if cannabis was harmless and nobody was harmed in its sale. Living in the now unfortunately they are. You have to take responsibility for your own actions. If people die because of you smoking dope, then you have to take responsibility. There is no point saying the Government are at fault. You have to live with the real world in which we live and the real world is that many people die and are exploited to supply your drug habits.
The same applies to me if I buy clothes that are just too cheap on the high street. I know that some child somewhere is being exploited to make a cheap pair of trainers just for me. If I pretend otherwise, I am not fooling anyone but myself. It is hard to change the way you think and it is hard to admit responsibility. I have no idea if legalizing cannabis will reduce crime and save lives but knowing the English , as with 24 hour boozing ( oh and how that has reduced), I rather doubt it.
Complain about this comment
Cannabis cannot be related to a single death ever. There is no such thing as dangerous or safe cannabis - it's all the same - harmless. My God, as usual this forum/blog or whatever you want to call it is full of comments from people that know nothing on the subject... apart from what they've seen on telly.
I have smoked Cannabis, smoked Crack, snorted Cocaine, swallowed E's taken Acid etc etc FOR 25 YEARS!
I'm a successful company director who is widely respected as a hard working expert in my field.
NONE of the illegal substances I have used on a regular basis are either harmful or addictive. In fact the most addictive substance is WITHOUT DOUBT Nicotine and the most harmful is WITHOUT DOUBT Alcohol.
Regarding Cannabis and mental health... there is no evidence AT ALL!!! The only evidence available to our sad government is tests on week old mice who have been repeatedly injected with PURE THC until their tiny minds are so messed up that their performance is impaired - this is a disgrace.
THE ONLY FACT ON DRUGS THAT IS WITHOUT DOUBT IS: THE GOVERNMENT ARE NOT TO BE TRUSTED ON ANYTHING.
So, I ask you all - why do you believe that Crack is dangerous... who told you... where are the facts... and as for Cannabis, this is a commodity that has far more positive potential than a majority of Pharmaceutical drugs peddled by some of the most callous drug dealers in the world.
Complain about this comment
@81. Genuinely interesting comment. I presume you can provide references to back this up?
Complain about this comment
I grow my own, never sell any and only smoke in my own - or a friends home.
Is there a problem with that?
Complain about this comment
81. At 2:37pm on 29 Oct 2009, Peter_Sym wrote: the fact that 90-odd percent of lung cancer patients smoke.
Peter - I'm not sure where you get your facts from my friend but this is pure nonsense.
Please remember that ALL facts and figures are manipulated by the government.
THIS IS ALSO A FACT: 99.9% of non smokers do not get lung cancer... 99.8% of smokers do not get lung cancer.
Complain about this comment
Counting Chickens - you are very sad indeed. In fact, people like you are the reason our country is unbearable.
How on earth can a plant be responsible for the loss of life. Even a gun has to have someone to operate the trigger.
Lastly.... IT'S ALL THE GOVERNMENTS FAULT - EVERYTHING.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Peter sym vegtable oil in our diets accounts for a cancer rate of 1 in 5 before modern veg oil it was 1 in 30.
Complain about this comment
#89:
I don't know why you should doubt Peter's figures. They are pretty well established.
I don't know where Peter got his specific figures from, as there are so many reliable source you could choose from, but how about this one for a start:
http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/cancerstats/types/lung/smoking/index.htm
More to the point, where do you get your figure from about the number of smokers who don't get lung cancer? Granted, most smokers don't get lung cancer, but I somehow doubt the figure is as high as 99.8%.
Complain about this comment
To add to my point #91 the wikipedia article on carcinogenisis: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carcinogenesis is very good. It explains why you need multiple hits on several genes for cancer to develop.
Complain about this comment
CountingChickens
Just to clarify, are you stating that;
A - Cannabis is bad and people shouldn't use it, or
B - Cannabis is against the law so people shouldn't use it.
I know this may seem like nit-picking here but I think it is an important point, do you think it's the drugs that are bad or the breaking of the law ?
DisgustedOfMitcham2 wrote:
"Seriously, what's the downside? Why does the government persist with prohibition, when everyone knows it simply doesn't work?"
I hate to sound like some raving conspiracy theorist but the only conclusion I can come to is that they continue with prohibition for the following reasons;
Keeping the tabloids on-side
Keeping the U.S. government happy
Keeping the tobacco & alcohol industries happy
Or (and this is a real conspiracy here) they actually want to keep supplying organised criminals with billions of pounds worth of turn-over each year.
I honestly can't think of any other logical reasons to keep the charade going, everyone who wants to get hold of recreational drugs in the UK can do and nothing the Police or any other government agency do seems to stop the supply.
Legalisation, regulation and taxation seems to be the only sensible solution to me, maybe one day we'll get a government that is able to deliver just that.
Complain about this comment
Cannabis, cocaine, LSD then it's usually Heroin and some of us don't get addicted. Classify and debate. Journalists and Politicians. Focusing on the wrong "waste of time" If we put as much energy into catching the drug dealers as we do trying to pigeonhole a futile agenda with futile penalties then we might begin to make progress. Cannabis induces "schizophrenia" in the teenage years as does "cultural shock" and trauma such as rape or the loss of a relative or even persecution. If you want to see the evidence then make cannabis legal, in the land of the bastard, you'll have to build more mental asylums and prisons. Family, self esteem, drugs, cannabis, self abuse, the bastard, criminality, to understand that they are intertwined that is what is required to get to the root of the problem that we have in our society of the white/black hooligan from the poor underclass. What is essential in all of this debate is that drug dealers need to be caught, I can go out tonight and come back with bags of drugs, it's that easy, catching drug dealers must be relatively simple. But getting Politicians and Journalists to see the light of this effectiveness is about as difficult as classifying drugs, we'll spend millions trying to pigeonhole futility and write about the wrong subject.
Complain about this comment
I've had enough of the BBC's moderation madness. I don't think I'll bother trying to submit anything from this point as I seem to be wasting my time.
Thanks for nothing BBC.
Goodbye
Complain about this comment
Another fact for you fact lovers:
85% of smoking related deaths could be attributed to bad diet.
Remember, if I die at 95 years old - I will be marked down as a smoking related death... THIS IS RUBBISH.
EVERYTHING IS A LIE - and the root is money.
Complain about this comment
DON'T BELIEVE A THING....
Just got these 'FACTS' from a government site....
There were 509,090 deaths registered in England and Wales in 2008.
Aparently there were 161,000 UK deaths in 2008 from lung cancer....
SO THAT MEANS EVERY 4th PERSON YOU KNOW WILL DIE FROM LUNG CANCER!!!!!!!!!!!!
What complete and utter rubbish... and it's tax payers money that is funding these idiots
Complain about this comment
Just for the record before I head home...
I LOVE MY DRUG DEALER - HE'S A VERY NICE CHAP.
Honest and reliable, I'd defend his integrity every time... unlike some of the sly, cheating, underhand businessmen I have to deal with. They'd ripp me off everytime if they could.
Complain about this comment
Cannabis smoking = illegal
Allowing your husband to watch porn with public money and lying about where you live to extract expenses = within the rules.
What makes me laugh is the Government showing how out of touch they are - do you really think the average stoner gives a monkeys if you classify it A, B, C or Z?
The average smoker is unaware there have been changes to the classification, the only change they will notice is when it's legalised and they no longer have to go to dodgy estates to buy their blow.
The arrogance of Government is unsurpassed - we stopped listening to them a very long time ago - that's why so many ordinary people are in prison right now and why the prison population has doubled in recent years.
The laws they produce are no longer relevant to society which is why more and more people ignore them.
Complain about this comment
97. At 4:38pm on 29 Oct 2009, RagJunkie69
I agree - whenever the subject is about drugs the blog suddenly isn't the opinions of real people but only those acceptable to the Government's policy.
I spent a long time writing about my experiences with the weed and it was removed by moderators because it apparently 'encouraged others to act in an illegal manner'
So recounting your experiences is now encouraging others is it?
So when the BBC report on Robert Mugabe's behaviour they are clearly encouraging us to all become dictators.
Freedom of speech my blue backside.
Complain about this comment
As a long term smoker of cannabis I would like to enlighten some of the non-users as to what all the fuss is about.
Skunk or similar (the green stuff) – has been around for as long as I can remember, I have been an “abuser” for over 25 years, in fact in the 1970’s there used to be some hashish (the hard brown stuff) called “Highball”, it was mixed with small pieces of opium, this one would be worthy of a ban.
As for skunk, it’s all over in about an hour, the more often you smoke it, the less effect it has, if you smoke too much, you’ll end up being sick long before there is any danger of psychosis. I have had much stronger grass in Jamaica.
There is little or no after effect by the morning and there is no down “period”, unlike a few beers with the boys and unlike Ecstasy which from personal experience can give me a “downer” 3 days later.
I am currently working near Holland, in the evenings I prefer to relax with a “joint” rather than a beer, its normal here, you’re not allowed to drink alcohol or smoke tobacco in the coffee shops. All of the coffee shops have enclosed ventilated areas where you smoke your gear. These coffee shops are quiet and relaxed places and usually serve very good coffee and mint tea with little biscuits, very civilised.
It may interest you to note that cannabis is more expensive in Holland than the UK by about 25%. I prefer to pay the extra than find a dealer.
The difference between cannabis and any other drug including alcohol is that it wouldn’t prevent me from taking part in sporting activity; I enjoy windsurfing, diving, waterskiing, paragliding, walking and many other “healthy” activities whilst under the influence of cannabis. I excel at table tennis because I get so zoned in on the ball.
I have not had a day off sick from work in the last 25 years and pay my taxes to the penny.
I am happily married and am already a proud grandfather.
I’m not saying smoking cannabis good for you because smoking anything is obviously not, I just think that the politicians and the press have a tendency to blow things out of proportion in order to justify their existence; cannabis is an easy target because so many people do it.
As with any habit, moderation is the key.
Would someone remind me why I am criminal?
Complain about this comment
#95 Secretariat:
No, you don't sound like a raving conspiracy theorist. OK, the last of your theories may stray into that territory just a tad, but the first 3 sound depressingly plausible.
It is actually quite hard to think of sensible reasons, isn't it?
Complain about this comment
tedmuller:
You might like to know that 72.83% of statistics are made up on the spot, although in your case I suspect the figure might be a little closer to 99%.
If you'd like anyone to take your statistics seriously, how about quoting a source for them? Why do you think there were 161,000 UK deaths in 2008 from lung cancer?
Complain about this comment
95*
I think cannabis is harmful but that is only my opinion. My wife used to do a soup-kitchen run in Manchester in the 80's for the homeless and the street girls. They could cope with the drunks but people who really scared them were the ones on cannabis. This appears the opposite to what most people believe.
What I am also saying is that because the only available way, for most people, to get drugs is through a dealer and because it is through a dealer, many people will have paid a heavy price for that supply. Dealing in drugs, as most people know, is very much an industry of greed. It doesn't really matter why there are drug dealers about. All that matters is that if you take drugs like cannabis and cocaine, someone somewhere will have suffered for your little bit of pleasure.
Complain about this comment
Writingsonthewall wrote:
'whenever the subject is about drugs the blog suddenly isn't the opinions of real people but only those acceptable to the Government's policy.'
Obviously, then, I must be hallucinating the rather sizeable number of posts here so far which disagree either partly or wholly with this particular government policy. Or do you perhaps think that they aren't the opinions of real people?
Complain about this comment
106
I don't think anyone would deny that there are bad dealers who do behave like **********
The point that most people on here have been trying to get along is that we are all upstanding members of the community who pay our taxes, work and generally do everything that you'd expect us to do. we do however go to one of our friends, (who in my case also works in a full time job and pays his taxes) and have cannabis in the comfort of our own home rather than sitting in a pub and getting blind drunk.
Complain about this comment
I hate to sound like some raving conspiracy theorist but the only conclusion I can come to is that they continue with prohibition for the following reasons;
Keeping the tabloids on-side
Keeping the U.S. government happy
Keeping the tobacco & alcohol industries happy
Or (and this is a real conspiracy here) they actually want to keep supplying organised criminals with billions of pounds worth of turn-over each year.
The last part is actually a truth the cannabis market doubled in value with the move to class B...
Keeping the USA happy hm-mm I wish they would as state after state in the USA move to legalize cannabis why they consider it a waste of money to pursue such pointless goals and its far better to make a tax dollar for the public coffer than it is to make a dollar for a criminals pocket.
Some of the tabloids are becoming cannabis friendly and starting to question the rights and wrongs in the system.
Tobacco and alcohol both monopolies of intoxication and relaxation so they will object to a drug that does both with very few harms(under the same controls)
Complain about this comment
106 "They could cope with the drunks but people who really scared them were the ones on cannabis. "
- Correction, the ones that TOLD HER they were on cannabis. Much more likely they were on something less acceptible so they didn't get "taken in".
"All that matters is that if you take drugs like cannabis and cocaine, someone somewhere will have suffered for your little bit of pleasure."
- Not if you grow your own (and risk prison)!
The only statistic politicians appear to be interested is the one that goes against their name every election to give them five more years on the gravy-train. (Apologies to the growing few who currently find the integrity to speak out against the tabloids' propaganda). Nobody mentions the benefits of cannabis (the bbc recently had a "Beatles night" where Ringo admitted a lot of their most original work - in the middle albums - was "down to the influence of the grass"). I daren't say more because of the moderation police.
Speaking of Police, isn't it time people thought of the plight of the Police having to arrest stoners? Most of them must by now realise it's both futile and wrong. Imagine joining the police ready to protect the nation and finding that instead you have to break somebody's door down because someone was growing a few plants for his wife's athritis!
It really is a no-brainer. The very fact that it is less harmless than both cigarettes and alcohol ought to be enough to instantly legalise. Incidentally if you ever get a government politician on a phone-in and want to see them squirm, ask them which is the more harmful, cannabis or alcohol. You will not get an answer.
On a scientific note I'd like David Nutt to expand on how, with cannabis usage having gone up so much over the years and schizophrenia levels going down he can still think there is a slight risk of cannabis causing schizophrenia. Is he absolutely sure this isn't just schizophrenics self-medicating? If he is sure then we need to find out what's caused the drop because that's clearly more significant than what's happening with cannabis.
Complain about this comment
LOL chicken you really are amusing 'drugs like cannabis and cocaine'
People suffer because drugs are illegal plain and simple.
Everyone that calls to keep drugs illegal and maintain the current drug lords in seats of power support child prostitution -rape - murder - ASBO generations - slavery both chemical and physical list is endless.
They advocate human sufferance because they are to cowardly to make change.
As I and many others have lost close family in this 'war on drugs' are our families entitled to compensation from the government for allowing there deaths at the hands of drug dealers and poor products.? it is after all a war and civilian death is compenstated in war.??
Complain about this comment
How annoying, they moderated what I thought was a perfectly good post. I'll just write my own Discussion Forum. BayLooker
Complain about this comment
http://www.worcesternews.co.uk/news/4709492.Ballot__Cannabis_classification/
interesting public result on this little ballot.
Complain about this comment
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23762192-drugs-chief-under-fire-for-saying-cannabis-is-safer-than-alcohol.do
Complain about this comment
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/oct/29/nutt-drugs-policy-reform-call
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8331038.stm
Complain about this comment
#102 Finished #112 express yourself. BayLooker
Complain about this comment
6. CountingChickens wrote:
Sometimes, I wonder about scientists. The pro-cannabis ones always talk about how cannabis is not as dangerous as other drugs like tobacco or alcohol. Have you ever met a cannabis user that doesn't drink or smoke (yes, they mix tobacco with Skunk). What he hasn't mentioned is that some reports put smoked cannabis at levels four times more carcinogenic than tobacco. Yes, cannabis may give you cancer so trust your local scientist. Yep, sure will.
---
I know many cannabis smokers that don't smoke tobacco - can't say I know any who don't drink, but most people drink, and that's rather unrelated
The point is the illogical nature of the political decision here, not the actual science involved, and no-one is saying that cannabis is completely safe - the point is that tobacco and alcohol are much more harmful, they also have a far worse affect on society (particularly alcohol), when cannabis' harm is to the individual - so there's little public interest argument (why prosecute someone for using something that can only hurt themselves..)
It is illogical to say a drug like cannabis, which is less harmful than booze and cigs (debate the health affects within that all you want), is bad, when we allow aforementioned products - simple reasoning
It is also foolish and illogical to completely ignore scientific advice, which should form the basis of our political decisions as it is in the best interests of the public to listen to cold hard facts, rather than the biased media and the politicians who know nothing other than how to placate them
Complain about this comment
Moncur's Maraudeluders wrote:
I don't care about ANY of your arguments because for 40 years you have been not only breaking the law but supporting a pyramid of extortion, slavery, prostitution, murder and ruined lives.
- - - - - -
Like most people in the west you can't see the wood for the trees I'm afraid.
Decades of tabloid style propaganda have left most people believing the complete opposite of truth/reality.
The purpose of criminalization of drugs in the west has never been about the minimization of harm or reduction of crime. And for the most part the result of drug criminalization is exactly the opposite of the 'stated' intents. Of course the politicians actually know this full well (just as with prohibition of alcohol). But it gives lawmakers and lawgivers an enemy against which they demand ever increasing funds and manpower - which politicians have found irresistible.
Drugs policy has always been about making/keeping certain groups which have a loud lobbying voice in society rich and powerful - police, lawyers and to some extent criminals. Go read the history of how cannabis first came to be criminalised.
Unfortunately there are no politicians with both the integrity and courage required to change things. Pandering to the tabloids and the 'criminal justice industry' is so much easier.
Complain about this comment
a number of contributors above state that they stopped (or much reduced) their alcohol intake since they started smoking cannabis.
it seems clear therefore that the government (of the day) will not legalise or de-criminalise cannabis partly because the alcohol lobby is very powerful and donates funds to the parties (having twenty-three bars in the Palace of Westminster but no smoking dens probably doesn't help either).
many contributors also point to the fact that the criminal fraternity earns big money in the current situation; the English, a proud nation of shop-keepers (said Thatcher) won't give up easy profits willingly, and it is "the establishment" what profits, anyone remember songs like "Dope for Guns" (by the Ruts)?
what depresses me most is that so many (young) people are needlessly exposed to criminality, and often wind up with a criminal record which jeopardises their future lives/careers, simply because they smoked a bit of weed.
not everyone is lucky enough to smoke at university and become Home Secretary later in life. ;-(
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
I am amazed that it took 118 posts to tget to the nitty-gritty of the problem
'Go read the history of how cannabis first came to be criminalised.'
research and learn.
Complain about this comment
Hmm history of cannabis prohabition starts in about 25AD
page from my blogs on the true history of cannabis.
[url]http://b0bsd3n.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!B0414DA877BBB909!350.entry[/url]
interesting read with follow on reading listed.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
The History of Cannabis Prohibition:
http://www.legalize.org/history-of-cannabis-prohibition/
Medical Uses of Cannabis:
http://www.schmoo.co.uk/thclub/thcuses.htm
Alcohol more harmful than many illegal drugs:
http://www.kcl.ac.uk/news/news_details.php?news_id=1205&year=2009
Complain about this comment
We should hold scientists with the integrity of the likes of Prof Nutt in high regard!
Why?
To become a professor and chair of the ACMD takes a peer-reviewed lifetime.
Compared to the self-serving, self-regulating politicians, like Ms. Smith
to become Home Secretary takes......................?
Answers on a stamp please!
Harms from all behaviours should be linked to the risks.
Then you (we) can start writing some rational knowledge-based legislation.
That might then limit the need for lawyers (politicians), police of all persuasions, prison systems, and Blogs like Mark's which get everyone going.(Well done again, Mark)
When describing personal experience commentators should take their heuristic experience into account, and remember that, while valid, it isn't very specific.
http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:FzD5LJE-lDoJ:heuristics.behaviouralfinance.net/availability/availability1.ppt+heuristics+personal+experience&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk
That's the trouble with mass communication.
We get what they want us to get.
They:
Politicians(Knife crime springs to mind!)
Journalists, (PR companies, lobbyists, newspaper tycoons, media owners)
Religious nutters with lots of money and influence.(Bilderberg)
The Scots attempt to get a public-health influenced price per unit alcohol policy in place is a graphic description of the power and influence of the "they" in action "spoiling" the rational approach.
Declaration: I used to work in the "addiciton" Industry, helping people to stop and stay stopped from drinking dependently. Now retired I am happy to be divorced from the nonsense that is International and National policy on all sorts of substances and behaviours.
Complain about this comment
bit older this but another amazing use of cannabis.
whats drug resistant :)
http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2008/08/killing-bacteria-with-cannabis.ars
not a lot with canabolic acids....
Complain about this comment
8. At 09:46am on 29 Oct 2009, calmandhope wrote: "What is the point of having all these specalist advisors if your just going to ignore the advice that they give you if you don't agree with it?"
Can't tell you how heartening it is to read all the support for science on this thread. What a refreshing change from some of the other threads round here.
Now, I'm curious to know, how many of you willing to defer to Professor Nutt's considered opinion regarding marijuana are likewise willing to defer to the IPCC and their conclusions regarding global warming?
Complain about this comment
I find it very sad that the Government choose to threaten people with a prison sentence similar to that served by somebody who has committed a serious sexual assualt, for growing dope. I'm glad that somebody has pointed out that 99% of skunk 'facts' trotted out by the Home Office are, in fact, lies.
Cannabis should be legalised now, and we need a SERIOUS debate on drug policy, which clearly hasn't kept pace with the science. I want a properly considered drug policy based on facts, not political rhetoric.
Complain about this comment
107. At 7:02pm on 29 Oct 2009, Grey_Animal
This isn't the first post about drugs - and the censorship on these blogs is unusually high.
Like I said, I tried to recount my story and it was censored by the BBC because 'successful people should not be associated with drugs'.
The opinions here are very moderate for real drug users.
Complain about this comment
This is what happens when poorly educated fools rise to a position of power. Couldn't he better spend his efforts sorting his old mates in the Royal Mail?
Complain about this comment
When the drugs policies don't work:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2009/07/when_the_drugs_policies_dont_w.html
The drugs questions:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2009/07/the_drugs_questions.html
How Portugal treats drug addicts:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2009/07/how_portugal_treats_drug_addic.html
Give drug users a break:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2009/06/give_drug_users_a_break.html
A focus on harm:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2009/05/a_focus_on_harm.html
Soca and coca:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2009/05/soca_and_coca.html
Complain about this comment
I find all this dismaying, the US are forging ahead with their laws for medical marijuana, California is debating legalization...80% of Americans have used Cannabis and scores use it every day for medicinal purposes. Their instances of schizophrenia have not increased (being around 1% of the population)and yet in California alone they've had medical use of cannabis since 1996 (medical users use cannabis every day, which over here would be classed as chronic use). You'd think if the rates were going to go up they would've done so after such prolonged heavy use.
From the National Institute of Mental Health (USA): "Some people who abuse drugs show symptoms similar to those of schizophrenia. Therefore, people with schizophrenia may be mistaken for people who are affected by drugs. Most researchers do not believe that substance abuse causes schizophrenia."
There is good research coming out of the US regarding cannabis but our government shuts their eyes and ears to it. Preferring to perpetuate this wholly irrational reefer madness attitude towards the subject. Do perhaps their business interests (Alchohol and tobacco companies etc) rely on this plant being illegal by any chance?
The whole prohibitionist argument falls down when confronted with statistics and facts, but they still cling to the lies. Meanwhile people are criminalised for choosing this plant as a medicine, drug dealing goes relatively unchallenged and users safety is put at risk because A)To use this plant it has to be obtained illegally from criminals. B)The substance is invariably tampered with to increase weight thereby increasing profits. C)The attitude towards authority degrades with every passing year due to the lies that are told by said authority under the bull___ of keeping us safe.
One more thing, when are the authorities going to get their terminology correct? Skunk is NOT cannabis per se, it has NOT been around for 10 years, it is NOT super strength. It is a STRAIN, a HYBRID, and it was first inbred in 1978 having been crossed with 25% Afghani, 25% Mexican Acapulco Gold and 50% Columbian Gold strains of cannabis. It is NOT a potent strain, having a THC content of 16.5%. What people need to understand is although th THC is a psychoactive, CBD is an anti-psychotic, which balances the effect of the plant.
Look at any seed website to see the wide array of strains available.
Maybe one day our population will be treated like adults and not the children they so patronisingly think we are.
Complain about this comment
4. At 09:33am on 29 Oct 2009, wikichris wrote:
High-strength canabis is a reaction to the high classification
No it's not, high strength bud was originally developed in the Netherlands in the 70's and 80's as a possible substance to help heroin addicts kick their habit.
Thai stick has always been high in THC content being between 15 and 20%, squidgy black and the original Afghan resin was pretty potent too, having a possible THC content of 70 to 80%, knda puts the governments line of thinking up the spout doesn't it?
Complain about this comment
Despite being somewhat jaded with politicians and politics I am dismayed by the sacking of Professor Nutt. It seems to demonstrate that politicians are not capable of allowing a challenge to their own or societies preconceptions, however illusory those preconceptions might be or however well supported by evidence is the challenge.
I am dismayed by this because it demonstrates another face of the process which led us into Iraq and Afghanistan. If the political class is not led by impartial evidence how can they be trusted to make rational decision on our behalf. How can we trust that any argument they present is not merely deception to suit an undisclosed purpose?
Complain about this comment
Well I did a google to find out about the history of this issue - came up with this interesting History
http://www.idmu.co.uk/cannabis/historical.html
rather long. Two points that stick in my mind - that there were no domestic reasons why it should have ever started off down the illegal route in the 1925's & that India controled its use through taxation!
ps never have used it , never will. I dont like being manipulated, which is what the present Labour Govt keeps on trying to do.
Complain about this comment
Wow! What news! Now the sacking of David Nutt has brought this into clear perspective. The conspiracy theorists ARE right.
This PM's three cannabis prohibition mistakes:
Mistake 1: Ask ACMD for scientific research to allow raising the classification of Cannabis to B and expect them to tow the official line.
Mistake 2: Ignore scientific advice and raise classification to B anyway.
Mistake 3: Sack Chief Drugs adviser when he speaks openly and takes away their excuses. Really the government would have been so much better off just letting things lie and having a red face for a bit.
Come on Mark, this saga has all the hallmarks of a classic "Panorama"!
As for Professor Daivd Nutt, I am so admiring of that man.
Complain about this comment
Sorry, have to mention this one, from the story on this site:
But Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman Chris Huhne said if the government did not want to take expert scientific advice, it might as well have "a committee of tabloid newspaper editors to advise on drugs policy".
I think you've hit the nail on the head there, Chris, that's exactly what the government HAS got!
Complain about this comment
Professor Nutt is out of touch. Typical academic, he has looked at statistics, made an analysis of various substances and compared the damage that drug use and cigarette and alcohol use has had on the health and life span of the majority of the population. He has found that the drug related problems are less, probably because excessive drug use is statistically less than excessive nicotine and alcohol use.
I can only go by personal experience with close family. From my point of view, the damage cannabis illegal trading and use can do is devastating and can destroy the hopes of young people. I have seen the damage heroin, and cocaine use can do as well and the way in which a circle of friends which shares the addiction can drag each other down into a vortex of no hope.
The government making it seem less problematic to use cannabis a few years ago gave the wrong message about drug use. Ordinary people like myself only need to look at the effects of general anesthetics on the average person to realise how dangerous it is to take anything, including alcohol and nicotine, which is not essentially needed by the body. I can't understand the media attitude to this at all. Unless illegal drug taking is so rife among media people that they find Nutt's ideas more acceptable than the Government attitude to it! Drug, nicotine and alcohol use merely add to life's problems. By all means lump them together, but to try to suggest that some are worse than others, is, from my own life experiences, misleading and sending completely the wrong message to the inexperienced and uniformed. A Government must consider all people in all walks of life. I find it is perfectly acceptable for it to reject the findings of a single "expert", who in my opinion, has merely considered the chemical effects of the use of various substances and ignored all the potential social and economic implications of his opinions. I would prefer to back a Government which will have a proper debate about this, than a "mad professor" who, in my opinion is out of touch with reality.
Complain about this comment
newtactic #138.
"From my point of view, the damage cannabis illegal trading and use can do is devastating and can destroy the hopes of young people."
absolutely, reason then to emulate the experiences of the Portuguese, Dutch, Swiss, etc. where more enlightened approaches to regulating these substances have brought about real improvements in public health and crime statistics.
Complain about this comment
I think it is very disturbing that the government is choosing to ignore the advice of its scientific advisors. Does this mean they may choose to ignore advice on climate change? Science is the best we have in evaluating our world, a government that thinks it knows better is a very dangerous government. How much other advice do they ignore after using taxpayers money to pay for the advice?
Complain about this comment
#106 - somebody somewhere suffers because we like to fill our cars up with petrol, or heat our homes, or drink cans of cola, or buy cheap food. Exactly who suffers because people smoke cannabis?
Complain about this comment
Well I hope more experts in future challenge the government. We have all seen from the expences fiasco that the judgement of our MPs has been very poor & self serving to say the least. No more deference to them please! Help us to see what is realy going on in their minds so we can assess their quality or otherwise
Complain about this comment
Scientists v Polititians=will always be contentious,as Drugs/Narcotics are an emotional issue.Like Prohibition,it will never be solved as long,as they (drugs) are illegal.(sad to say)you have got to take Drugs, out of the hands of the underworld.The amount of Police and Customs time spent must be enormous,+ Armed services & the Intelligence Services.are Drugs being diminished?.
Complain about this comment
A longer and more considered perspective on Alan Johnson's decision and Cameron's endorsement of it may be gained from looking at their erroneous but possibly well-intentioned motives.First and foremost,there is the geopolitical fact that neither man wants to queer the UK's pitch with Washington (by whom we have been vicariously ruled since the end of WW2 despite the pretence of sovereignty and membership of the EU)for fear of financial reprisals on our delicate economy.Secondly,the moralistic fact that both parties regard Cannabis as evil because of it's detrimental effects upon the underclass.I believe that their motives are borne of a condescending but protective attitude towards the ignorant and vulnerable, though the ideologies behind that condescension differ between Labour and Tory thinking, the upshot is the same.Keep the weed illegal and punish the users and dealers harshly.This, of course, accords with tabloid populism to which both parties seek to pander.The relative harm of alcohol and tobacco are irrelevant in their equations.The "moral" core of their approach is simply in regard to how the drug is corrosive of the "wretched proles" who abuse it and allow it to demoralise their already treacherous lives.If all the population were well educated and wealthy,Cannabis would not be a problem for either politicians or society.It is the fact that so many people in this country are ignorant, self-destructive morons that makes it necessary for Governments of any hue to try to prevent them from getting their hands on it.From the Tory perspective it is probably acceptable for nice middle and upper class chaps to puff away, so long as they don't get caught, because they can be trusted to use it sensibly.However it is most unwise to let the rabble think they can have it too because they lack the self restraint required to use it without it ruining their miserable little lives.Labour Party prejudice in favour of the prohibition of Cannabis comes from an historical sense of compassion towards the low-life unfortunates who need protection from themselves and from heinous drugs.This is consistent with the "we know best" attitude that has characterised British socialism from it's inception.While this is also an elitist attitude,it is nonetheless driven by a kind of Nanny State compassion in the minds of such men as Brown, Johnson et al.However,both these underpinnings are completely false and the policies which they generate are more destructive than the drugs themselves or the perceived unworthiness of the brutal masses to have access to them.Over generations, these perceptions and policies have reinforced ignorance, increased confusion and obscured the true nature of Cannabis and distorted the reasons for it's use.In addition, they have contributed to an uneducated increase in it's abuse while depriving the individual and society in general of respect for it's sacred properties.It is a powerful psychoactive chemical compound which should be treated with caution and respect so that it's benefits may be understood and enjoyed by those who wish to advance their consciousness.
I now despair of us ever reaching that level of maturity in our relationship with this magnificent plant.Finally, the political morass into which we have sunk, of which the sacking of Mr.Nutt is final damning evidence, poses a far greater threat to the country than any amount of Cannabis ever will.
Complain about this comment
One of the main points that seems to me to be overlooked by the so called medical experts is that cannabis can have a devestating effect on young people by destroying their ambition, those that get hooked on cannabis, besides running the risk of mental illness and possibly escalating to harder drugs, seem to lose their drive to concentrate on their future. I get realy annoyed when I hear from professional people like Mr. Nutt who have already achieved their ambition and carved out a career for themselves, what would have happened to his career if he had been tempted to smoke cannabis in his early years of education, being told it was less harmful than riding a horse.
His comments of late are frightening for the future of our young people.
Complain about this comment
jopa - you seem trapped in the drug delusion that prohibition is doing anything but making matters worse than they would otherwise be.
It's paradoxical that arbitrary crime and punishment are imposed as a way to "protect" people. The whole drug war crusade bases the entirity of it's argument on an almost medieval superstition of how only some drugs are "evil"
When scientific and statistical facts conflict with that superstitious "message" they are silenced.
Cannabis use was declining in the UK during it's time as a Class C drug. This is a fact, as Professor Nutt explained it now has a chance to regain some of it's cachet as a Class B drug and we are more than likely going to see it's use rising again.
In countries like Holland where almost no criminality and punishment are arbitrarily imposed by the authorities on cannabis use there is also a lower usage rate among young people than the european average and a much, much lower usage rate than there is in the UK.
Complain about this comment
After cannabis was downgraded to class C in 2004, judges, police, parents and mental health experts called for the move to be reversed because of the damage it caused. The availability of skunk – the strongest form of cannabis – soared when the law was weakened. Cannabis-related admissions to mental hospitals have risen by 85 per cent since Labour came to power, according to Government figures. There are now more than 22,000 people a year, almost half under the age of 18, being treated for cannabis addiction. In 1997 the number was 1,600.
Professor Nutt's claim that scientific true is being put behind political expediency is obviously ridiculous to anyone who known anything about the history of science. What he is proposing is the opinion of a group of scientists, who cannot be considering all the evidence, and are therefore making a subjective judgement based on the limited evidence they have considered.
Complain about this comment
Even if Professor Nutt is right in his assesment that Canabis and Ecstasy are less harmful than alcohol or smoking tabaco, it is still no reason to legalise them. Prohibition of both alcohol and tobaco would be to the benefit of everybody if it could be enforced, except for the obvious fact that it would not work in practise, as was proved when alcohol prohibition was tried in the US. The reason it would not work is because they are both so commonly available now, several people enjoy using them, and so there is huge economic pressure for people to break any freshly enforced prohibition. Canabis and ecstacy use, although significantly higher than we would like, is nowhere near the same scale, and therefore prohibition is still workable.
Complain about this comment
you cant prohibit something that occurs naturally in nature all you can do is control it.
Alcohol is caused by a natural yeast firstly in plants to protect reproduction from pests we took it and adapted the yeast to our own needs.
Cannabis is just the same its part of our evolution, not to mention a very good bit of natural design given the variety of uses the plant has compared to any other on the planet most certainly a plant of renown.
Complain about this comment
#147 I don't know where you invented those numbers. The British Crime Survey showed a marked drop in usage rates amongst young adults prior to class B reclassification.
#148 Flawed logic and hypocrisy, you make a good drug warrior.
So despite all the overwhelming facts and statistics from around the world that clearly demonstrate the total failure of prohibition over the last 100 years and all the data on relative dangers of ALL drugs, we still have to continue supporting the superstitious righteous crusade against SOME drugs because we have to "imagine" how bad things might be if we don't...
Unfortunately for you drug war liars we don't have to imagine anything. Countries who have pursued an enlightened drug policy formed from factual and statistical harm reduction data, despite much pressure from the drug war zealots to cease, are showing the kind of positive results experts in the field predicted.
In the UK we now have a policy being formed by vote chasers based on nothing more than hypocrisy, ridiculous emotive twaddle, vindictive persecution and criminal punishment. All opposition must be silenced.
Complain about this comment
118/400 people say legalise it. 188/400 say leave it as as class c. If China was blatantly disregarding scientific evidence and ignoring a vote of 306/400 in favour of something, we would most definitely criticise the government and its leaders! Am I wrong? Jacqui, Gordon, Alan please listen to public opinion.
Complain about this comment
Has any of this messing around with class B vs class C changed actual sentencing and cautioning for cannabis? There too much talk about 'sending signals' rather than facing reality. Who is going to sentence someone to 5 years for cannabis possession?
Complain about this comment
Certain posts, in fact a great majority of posts on here i have to laugh at, they are the same posts you see from both sides all these years that are getting us nowhere.
Cannabis has bad side effects if smoked the same as if you smoked a box of cornflakes a day, it does not have to be smoked, What is your point there? tobacco is legal so what if i smoke it with tobacco, hell i could put vodka in my bong and fill it with weed and tobacco if i want its alcohol it's legal too.
The truth of the matter is cannabis is a safe recreational drug much safer than alcohol and tobacco, but if used recklessly the same as alcohol and tobacco bad things will happen, the point is cannabis is a waste of police time and tax payers money as it has and will be around forever and like it or lump it that's a truth.
I am sure most people on this thread have heard the saying "there are 3 types of lie! white lies! black lies! and statistics! where do these statistics come from because i have never partaken in any statistical survey, neither has anyone i know! It is all made up figures on what the government thinks they should be.
There are a lot of things that kill! did you see that word KILL!!! heights for example i am afraid of heights and for good reason, i get shaky and dizzy when up high and if there are no barriers i hold a chance of falling and dying! Is it illegal to climb to a high place NO! there are no side affects from falling 500 feet, your dead end of!
What we as a country need to do is get our priorities right, there are a lot worse crimes than smoking, selling or growing weed and they are the ones that should have the full book of the law thrown at them, this is a tedious and long going argument that really needs to be ended.
Asian growers over here are slaves is a joke there are a few here and there but the majority just grow here because in their own country death or life jail sentences are the consequences they face. In fact the asian weed is of such poor quality on average that people will only smoke it when desperate where i am from. Growers all over the UK grow for personal and friends supply more as a hobby and so that they have peace of mind that it hasn't had glass in it to add weight or sprayed with chemicals to give you the impression of strong weed.
I myself would spend a fortune on the right organic nutrients electricity etc... and do a lot of research to ensure the best safest quality i can get, these so called gangs are out for money and will add and spray anything onto the weed to make it heavier or stronger to make more money, it's the money they are addicted to not the drugs, therefore we have to cut out the dodgy dealers and gangs and allow people to grow their own, i am sure the electricity companies would love it more money for them!
As for (a certain few people's) IMAGINARY HUGE NETWORK of "murdering", "raping" weed dealers, on the whole in comparison to regular weed dealers are not that many, the UK grows so much weed it gets exported not imported, yes there are bad guys out there i wont deny it but by making cannabis illegal we are producing criminals, if it wasn't illegal there wouldn't be dodgy cannabis dealers as we would all go to the nice guys who only grow weed to a high standard and therefore put the dodgy guys out of business, they would then go to higher class drugs for black market profit and the police could concentrate on them.
It's like the knife crime hype more people die from falling down the stairs than from knife crime, i have no full blown proof of that as i wouldn't trust a statistic but my gut instinct tells me it is true.
People have to remember that all the things in media is a product, we wont pay to watch and read boring television and papers so it all has to be hulked up to make it interesting.
I am in no way interested in getting into this repetitive back and forth argument with any of you i am simply telling it as it is and hope you reflect on these words and change your opinion for the greater of our country.
thank you all for taking time to read my post
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS