Portugal's radical drug policy is working...

[Rogstanley]

6 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

Surely any Tory worth their salt would want unregulated free market competition in the drugs industry?

 

Not when it involves people having a good time they don’t. Heaven forbid anyone should enjoy themselves. And the daily mail don’t like drugs either so what do you expect.

[Carl the Llama]

Tell you what though it could solve the Brexit problem: Not only would the tax income and jobs growth save the economy but we'd all be too chill to complain about quisling remoaners and voting turkeys.

[Strokes]

2 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

Tell you what though it could solve the Brexit problem: Not only would the tax income and jobs growth save the economy but we'd all be too chill to complain about quisling remoaners and voting turkeys.

Yeah but you spend a lot of time stoned and you are still an argumentative sod.

[Carl the Llama]

Just now, Strokes said:

Yeah but you spend a lot of time stoned and you are still an argumentative sod.

...No I ain't. 

[Carl the Llama]

Besides I don't argue I correct.  

[Bryn]

44 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

It's not hubris to say there are 0 deaths directly linked to the consumption of cannabis.  If you want to look up research on indirect deaths and compare it with other drugs I won't stop you.

 

These are two separate things.

[Buce]

24 minutes ago, Strokes said:

Yeah but you spend a lot of time stoned and you are still an argumentative sod.

 

Which only goes to show he ain't smoking enough...

[srbfox]

2 hours ago, toddybad said:

Personally I'd take a tougher line than we currently do as I fundamentally disagree with the idea cannabis does no damage. Life sentence for supplying, minimum 5 years for dealing, significant money into enforcement.

I'd also completely ban tobacco.

Don't worry, I'll allow you alcohol though!

Alcohol kills more then any drug. Why allow that?

 

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, srbfox said:

Alcohol kills more then any drug. Why allow that?

 

Everybody knows alcohol kills. It doesn't have a growing army of users trying to pretend all is well.

[Webbo]

5 minutes ago, toddybad said:

Everybody knows alcohol kills. It doesn't have a growing army of users trying to pretend all is well.

Did you read that in the Daily Mail?

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Webbo said:

Did you read that in the Daily Mail?

This is what diversity of research has done to me!

[srbfox]

Cannabis usage has fallen significant for 16-59 year olds in the last decade. Down from 8.7% a decade ago to 6.5% of last year. 

[Carl the Llama]

23 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

Which only goes to show he ain't smoking enough...

Not untrue, I'm smoking far less these days.

[Carl the Llama]

32 minutes ago, Bryn said:

 

These are two separate things.

I'm sorry but arguing that the death toll from legalised cannabis would be in any way comparable to that of alcohol is ludicrous.  Just look at Holland.

[Strokes]

25 minutes ago, srbfox said:

Cannabis usage has fallen significant for 16-59 year olds in the last decade. Down from 8.7% a decade ago to 6.5% of last year. 

I’d love to know how that’s measured accurately.

[Buce]

1 minute ago, Strokes said:

I’d love to know how that’s measured accurately.

 

Electronic scales.

[Bryn]

1 hour ago, Carl the Llama said:

I'm sorry but arguing that the death toll from legalised cannabis would be in any way comparable to that of alcohol is ludicrous.  Just look at Holland.

 

Where did I argue that?

 

[Bryn]

The only point I'm trying to make here is that it's bold and frankly quite ridiculous to claim cannabis has "zero" deaths associated with it. No-one with a brain cell would dispute that the evidence that alcohol is harmful is overwhelming.

 

if you're after demonstration of a causal link you'll never get it. You would never get ethical approval for a randomised controlled trial demonstrating mortality in a population given cannabis compared to population not given cannabis anymore than you will for tobacco or alcohol. That is the major argument of lawyers making arguments for tobacco companies, that you can't demonstrate to the highest scientific standard that their product is harmful.

 

As I've said, the epidemiological and cohort data for the effect of cannabis on all-cause mortality is poor and conflicting, there are studies arguing in both directions. On three points, there is some evidence. Cannabis use leading to use of more harmful substances, cannabis use and psychosis, and cannabis legality and paediatric overdose, none of which I would consider trifling matters.

 

Edit: Appalling errors everywhere, I find it really hard to type on an iPad.

 

Edit2: Some evidence for cannabis use and RTA fatality as well, although it's not clear from what I've read if that means more accidents, or accidents more likely to be fatal.

[lifted*fox]

Some people chatting some right breeze in here. 

 

The war on drugs and prohibition does not work. Making sentences / policing harsher will not work. Progressive countries are starting to legalise, educate and manufacture substances safely; taking drug production and distribution away from illegal gangs / labs, etc. and making it available in safe, measured amounts from viable sources therefore reducing risk and taking money away from crime syndicates involved in serious crime. 

 

Some people will never wake up to it though so it's pointless arguing it. UK miles behind and stories like this one from Portugal are proof that this approach is much more likely to work. 

 

Still, ignore the proof, new research and recommendations from doctors, scientists the world over and keep pushing the Daily Mail war on drugs will work rhetoric, bla bla bla. 

 

[Samilktray]

3 hours ago, srbfox said:

Cannabis usage has fallen significant for 16-59 year olds in the last decade. Down from 8.7% a decade ago to 6.5% of last year. 

Everyone's on the bugle now

[Carl the Llama]

2 hours ago, Bryn said:

The only point I'm trying to make here is that it's bold and frankly quite ridiculous to claim cannabis has "zero" deaths associated with it. No-one with a brain cell would dispute that the evidence that alcohol is harmful is overwhelming.

 

if you're after demonstration of a causal link you'll never get it. You would never get ethical approval for a randomised controlled trial demonstrating mortality in a population given cannabis compared to population not given cannabis anymore than you will for tobacco or alcohol. That is the major argument of lawyers making arguments for tobacco companies, that you can't demonstrate to the highest scientific standard that their product is harmful.

 

As I've said, the epidemiological and cohort data for the effect of cannabis on all-cause mortality is poor and conflicting, there are studies arguing in both directions. On three points, there is some evidence. Cannabis use leading to use of more harmful substances, cannabis use and psychosis, and cannabis legality and paediatric overdose, none of which I would consider trifling matters.

 

Edit: Appalling errors everywhere, I find it really hard to type on an iPad.

 

Edit2: Some evidence for cannabis use and RTA fatality as well, although it's not clear from what I've read if that means more accidents, or accidents more likely to be fatal.

What evidence are you talking about? 

 

The gateway dug theory is a myth: There's a correlation between the kind of person who takes hard drugs and cannabis use but there's no causal link.  Besides, when looking for a 'gateway' drug why do most people always ignore the 2 drugs most people come into contact with before they ever have a whiff of pot and move on to harder things?  The same logic that gets thrown at cannabis on this matter works just as well when used on tobacco or alcohol.

 

For psychosis I think it's widely accepted by now that cannabis will often exacerbate the problem but again I'm unaware of anybody finding evidence to suggest it causes it, certainly not with significant enough risk to merit preventing everyone from ever using it... much like with alcohol and its psychosis risk factor.

 

The third point I'm not sure I understand... legalising cannabis will cause children to overdose on it?

[ozleicester]

If the  failure of the whole "prohibition" concept wasn't proved clearly enough by America in the 20s...surely the past 30 years of drug war failure are clear.

 

All it has successfully achieved is unnecessary deaths, obscene incarceration rates and Billions of $ to criminals.

 

Another example of the so called liberals restricting personal liberties.

[Vardinio'sCat]

 

 Did you see Gone to Pot?

 

Quite hard to watch Fash the Bash crying, when he realised a more liberal approach to research on medical uses might have helped his disabled child. Must be hard watching your kid fitting constantly, I really felt for him.

 

Still, we do like a bit of moral outrage don't we, pointing the finger at folks who are different. A proper sanctimonious moral panic helps distract us from the everyday rip-off that is modern Britain.

 

 

[Vlad the Fox]

Whether cannabis is legalised or decriminalised, for me their still needs to be controls. I don't want to be going parks and other public places with my kids that are stinking of weed, the other week at my kids football training the people waiting to use the pitch after us were smoking, god knows how much, but the smell blowing across the football pitch was that strong that the kids were moaning, asking what the smell was and complaining that it was making them feel sick. Whatever they decide in the future there needs to be consideration to social responsibility. 

 

Many years ago when I used to smoke it a lot we used to discuss this, and I think decriminalisation would be better, which would allow it to be policed sensibly, and would encourage respectful usage by the users.

[Lovejoy]

Inappropriate response to what is a quite intriguing and challenging subject, but I've just got this image of people sat in the pub, pint on the table watching the football with lines of marching powder racked up next to their John Smiths beer mat .

 

In all seriousness though, the Prohibition era America argument is a good one.