Comments for en-gb 30 Sun 04 Oct 2015 16:01:46 GMT+1 A feed of user comments from the page found at CORMDOGG 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 Sun 01 Aug 2010 04:23:01 GMT+1 bronzesnorbens 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? Sun 01 Nov 2009 21:11:38 GMT+1 Nickmcn 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. Sun 01 Nov 2009 18:30:44 GMT+1 JohnRowbo #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. Sun 01 Nov 2009 16:31:10 GMT+1 John Ellis 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. Sun 01 Nov 2009 16:27:29 GMT+1 RalphKinch 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. Sun 01 Nov 2009 15:21:27 GMT+1 RalphKinch 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. Sun 01 Nov 2009 15:10:23 GMT+1 JohnRowbo 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. Sun 01 Nov 2009 12:38:25 GMT+1 jopa77 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. Sun 01 Nov 2009 10:19:48 GMT+1 misterhithersay 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. Sun 01 Nov 2009 02:06:12 GMT+1 runatlife 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?. Sat 31 Oct 2009 14:45:51 GMT+1 JoeBloggs_snr 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 Sat 31 Oct 2009 12:45:32 GMT+1 Rob #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? Sat 31 Oct 2009 12:44:27 GMT+1 Rob 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? Sat 31 Oct 2009 12:41:02 GMT+1 jr4412 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. Sat 31 Oct 2009 11:02:06 GMT+1 newtactic 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. Sat 31 Oct 2009 09:33:13 GMT+1 Euforiater 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! Fri 30 Oct 2009 22:50:35 GMT+1 Euforiater 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. Fri 30 Oct 2009 22:41:56 GMT+1 JoeBloggs_snr Well I did a google to find out about the history of this issue - came up with this interesting History 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. Fri 30 Oct 2009 21:54:53 GMT+1 SteveWilliams60 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? Fri 30 Oct 2009 18:38:25 GMT+1 iNotHere 4. At 09:33am on 29 Oct 2009, wikichris wrote:High-strength canabis is a reaction to the high classificationNo 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? Fri 30 Oct 2009 18:30:55 GMT+1 iNotHere 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. Fri 30 Oct 2009 18:24:32 GMT+1 Secratariat When the drugs policies don't work: drugs questions: Portugal treats drug addicts: drug users a break: focus on harm: and coca: Fri 30 Oct 2009 18:04:32 GMT+1 alandavidsheen 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? Fri 30 Oct 2009 17:58:57 GMT+1 writingsonthewall 107. At 7:02pm on 29 Oct 2009, Grey_AnimalThis 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. Fri 30 Oct 2009 16:19:40 GMT+1 terraChrisMin 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. Fri 30 Oct 2009 16:08:47 GMT+1 bushouhige-murph 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? Fri 30 Oct 2009 13:43:08 GMT+1 John Ellis bit older this but another amazing use of cannabis.whats drug resistant :) a lot with canabolic acids.... Fri 30 Oct 2009 12:44:34 GMT+1 grumpynotoldman 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. Smithto 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. 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. Fri 30 Oct 2009 11:58:28 GMT+1 Secratariat The History of Cannabis Prohibition: Uses of Cannabis: more harmful than many illegal drugs: Fri 30 Oct 2009 11:56:44 GMT+1 Novparl This post has been Removed Fri 30 Oct 2009 11:19:42 GMT+1 John Ellis Hmm history of cannabis prohabition starts in about 25ADpage from my blogs on the true history of cannabis.[url]!B0414DA877BBB909!350.entry[/url] interesting read with follow on reading listed. Fri 30 Oct 2009 10:37:52 GMT+1 BobRocket 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. Fri 30 Oct 2009 01:07:43 GMT+1 John Ellis This post has been Removed Fri 30 Oct 2009 00:57:32 GMT+1 jr4412 a number of contributors above state that they stopped (or much reduced) their alcohol intake since they started smoking 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. ;-( Fri 30 Oct 2009 00:29:02 GMT+1 Mike W 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. Thu 29 Oct 2009 23:05:38 GMT+1 tarquin 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 unrelatedThe 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 reasoningIt 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 Thu 29 Oct 2009 22:50:39 GMT+1 BayLooker #102 Finished #112 express yourself. BayLooker Thu 29 Oct 2009 20:42:12 GMT+1 John Ellis Thu 29 Oct 2009 20:20:21 GMT+1 John Ellis Thu 29 Oct 2009 20:14:19 GMT+1 John Ellis public result on this little ballot. Thu 29 Oct 2009 20:13:30 GMT+1 BayLooker How annoying, they moderated what I thought was a perfectly good post. I'll just write my own Discussion Forum. BayLooker Thu 29 Oct 2009 20:10:18 GMT+1 John Ellis 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.?? Thu 29 Oct 2009 19:34:42 GMT+1 Euforiater 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. Thu 29 Oct 2009 19:29:52 GMT+1 John Ellis 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-sideKeeping the U.S. government happyKeeping the tobacco & alcohol industries happyOr (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) Thu 29 Oct 2009 19:10:24 GMT+1 calmandhope 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. Thu 29 Oct 2009 19:05:08 GMT+1 Grey Animal 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? Thu 29 Oct 2009 19:02:23 GMT+1 CountingChickens 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. Thu 29 Oct 2009 18:17:53 GMT+1 DisgustedOfMitcham2 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? Thu 29 Oct 2009 18:17:50 GMT+1 DisgustedOfMitcham2 #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? Thu 29 Oct 2009 18:10:12 GMT+1 BayLooker 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? Thu 29 Oct 2009 17:38:35 GMT+1 writingsonthewall 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. Thu 29 Oct 2009 17:33:59 GMT+1 writingsonthewall Cannabis smoking = illegalAllowing 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. Thu 29 Oct 2009 17:30:43 GMT+1 Ted 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. Thu 29 Oct 2009 17:30:30 GMT+1 Ted 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 Thu 29 Oct 2009 17:20:53 GMT+1 Ted 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. Thu 29 Oct 2009 17:07:48 GMT+1 RagJunkie69 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 Thu 29 Oct 2009 16:38:09 GMT+1 goonergetit 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. Thu 29 Oct 2009 16:34:44 GMT+1 Secratariat CountingChickensJust to clarify, are you stating that;A - Cannabis is bad and people shouldn't use it, orB - 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-sideKeeping the U.S. government happyKeeping the tobacco & alcohol industries happyOr (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. Thu 29 Oct 2009 16:25:37 GMT+1 Peter_Sym To add to my point #91 the wikipedia article on carcinogenisis: is very good. It explains why you need multiple hits on several genes for cancer to develop. Thu 29 Oct 2009 16:17:26 GMT+1 DisgustedOfMitcham2 #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: 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%. Thu 29 Oct 2009 16:14:49 GMT+1 John Ellis 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. Thu 29 Oct 2009 16:12:48 GMT+1 Peter_Sym This post has been Removed Thu 29 Oct 2009 16:12:40 GMT+1 Ted 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. Thu 29 Oct 2009 15:55:52 GMT+1 Ted 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. Thu 29 Oct 2009 15:44:11 GMT+1 RagJunkie69 I grow my own, never sell any and only smoke in my own - or a friends home.Is there a problem with that? Thu 29 Oct 2009 15:31:21 GMT+1 KMBayes @81. Genuinely interesting comment. I presume you can provide references to back this up? Thu 29 Oct 2009 15:20:16 GMT+1 Ted 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. Thu 29 Oct 2009 15:18:51 GMT+1 CountingChickens 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. Thu 29 Oct 2009 15:16:55 GMT+1 RagJunkie69 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...! Thu 29 Oct 2009 15:06:42 GMT+1 Peter_Sym #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) Thu 29 Oct 2009 15:05:28 GMT+1 Euforiater 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! Thu 29 Oct 2009 14:42:29 GMT+1 Peter_Sym # 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. 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? Thu 29 Oct 2009 14:37:14 GMT+1 Secratariat 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. Thu 29 Oct 2009 14:26:58 GMT+1 MichaelBolton 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! Thu 29 Oct 2009 14:21:38 GMT+1 DisgustedOfMitcham2 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? Thu 29 Oct 2009 14:19:25 GMT+1 dceilar #69 TaxPowerDon't you mean: "Interesting that despite all the warnings from experts & scientists, Mr Blair went ahead" and invaded Iraq? Thu 29 Oct 2009 14:12:05 GMT+1 Ted 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 Thu 29 Oct 2009 14:07:32 GMT+1 John Ellis 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 party39 victoria StreetLondonSW1H 0HANo Victim No Crime Thu 29 Oct 2009 14:00:08 GMT+1 calmandhope @62 Maybe you should get high to become a little less angry? Thu 29 Oct 2009 13:59:05 GMT+1 CountingChickens 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. Thu 29 Oct 2009 13:50:23 GMT+1 AJS @CountingChickens, #63: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.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. Thu 29 Oct 2009 13:47:42 GMT+1 calmandhope 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. Thu 29 Oct 2009 13:46:05 GMT+1 ghostofsichuan 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. Thu 29 Oct 2009 13:40:07 GMT+1 taxpower2006 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. Thu 29 Oct 2009 13:38:57 GMT+1 Secratariat 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. Thu 29 Oct 2009 13:38:38 GMT+1 JusticeIsMight This post has been Removed Thu 29 Oct 2009 13:37:58 GMT+1 RomeStu 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. Thu 29 Oct 2009 13:37:28 GMT+1 John Ellis 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. Thu 29 Oct 2009 13:36:26 GMT+1 John Ellis 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. 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. we have some documentaion from your DAD supporting these claims ?? Thu 29 Oct 2009 13:27:07 GMT+1 CountingChickens 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. Thu 29 Oct 2009 13:24:02 GMT+1 U9388581 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. Thu 29 Oct 2009 13:21:15 GMT+1 Doctor Bob 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? Thu 29 Oct 2009 13:20:07 GMT+1 smartritameter 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. Thu 29 Oct 2009 13:19:21 GMT+1 Frilly 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. Thu 29 Oct 2009 13:17:21 GMT+1 Peter_Sym #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. Thu 29 Oct 2009 13:07:43 GMT+1 xcolx09 #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. Thu 29 Oct 2009 13:06:29 GMT+1 Grey Animal 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. Thu 29 Oct 2009 13:02:35 GMT+1 RomeStu "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. Thu 29 Oct 2009 12:58:07 GMT+1 John Ellis 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. Thu 29 Oct 2009 12:57:44 GMT+1