Legalise cannabis?

[lifted*fox]

59 minutes ago, Samilktray said:

Can't believe it's 2018 and I still can't go for a spliff with some friends and grab a can of grape Fanta after 

 

also grape fanta 

 

[Samilktray]

52 minutes ago, lifted*fox said:

 

also grape fanta 

 

I lived on that or strawberry Fanta when I'm in Amsterdam. 2 perfect post smoke beverages 

[Nick]

19 hours ago, MattP said:

If the Labour party health secretary doesn't know anything about it then we have a big problem, he's the next potential cabinet minister and that would pretty much be under his remit. Different debate altogether but I'd dispute that we have ever had a "war on drugs" - I often see it smoked openly in public, that can hardly be described as society having a war on it in my opinion, I'd argue countries that employ a "war on drugs" are ones like the UAE and Saudi Arabia etc.

 

We agree on one thing though, it should be a wide range of doctors and scientists producing the evidence that guides parliament.

We have a big problem. Isn’t Ashworth the Leicester fella who has (like many MP’s) only been in a Health related post for the last year and a bit? Journeypeople politicians have no depth of qualifications, experience or tradecraft in the areas they are appointed to be in charge of. It’s a bit silly quite frankly.

[Bellend Sebastian]

It's not about cannabis, and this is a pretty extreme example, but the poor sod in this talks a lot of sense.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/jun/23/lost-both-sons-drugs-want-to-legalise

 

 

[Buce]

1 hour ago, Swan Lesta said:

We have a big problem. Isn’t Ashworth the Leicester fella who has (like many MP’s) only been in a Health related post for the last year and a bit? Journeypeople politicians have no depth of qualifications, experience or tradecraft in the areas they are appointed to be in charge of. It’s a bit silly quite frankly.

1

 

 

Your dedication to political correctness is admirable, Swanny, but what an ugly word.

Edited 23 June 2018 by Buce

[lifted*fox]

10 minutes ago, Bellend Sebastian said:

It's not about cannabis, and this is a pretty extreme example, but the poor sod in this talks a lot of sense.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/jun/23/lost-both-sons-drugs-want-to-legalise

 

Outstanding example of why legalising and the quality control that will come with it will save even more lives. I took thousands of pills throughout my 20's during my raving years (literally tens of them every weekend) and all we had to go by was trusting the people that sold them to us. Trusting that they'd either tried them themselves or knew someone who had. 

 

In this country they won't even allow drug testing tables to be set up in clubs so that people who are going to do it anyway can give their pills a quick test to check they're not laced with dangerous 'filler'. MDMA itself is actually a very safe chemical. It's the dodgy filler that criminals use to make up the rest of the pill content that causes people to overheat and die. Also because of its illegality the education around ecstacy is lacking and there people think they need to drink more water than they do and end up drowning themselves. 

 

I believe the netherlands allows testing tables in clubs, setup by independent companies who will do a quick test on the pill. It's proven to reduce issues related to the drug. People who want to let loose and dance in clubs always have and will always continue to source and take drugs whether illegal or not. Just because something is legalised doesn't mean people are going to leg it down the pill shop and start munching biscuits. My mum isn't suddenly gonna start taking pills at the weekend. 

 

There is a war on drugs and it's not productive. Legalise, regulate, educate and save lives or carry on down the expensive and ineffective path of prohibition that makes people buy from dealers on the streets where the product is unknown and funds other criminal activity. 

 

It's a no-brainer, really...

[Buce]

 

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/jun/24/durham-police-chief-mike-barton-for-legalisation-cannabis-uk

 

Durham police chief calls for legalisation of cannabis in UK

Mike Barton says ban on drug is damaging public safety and market needs to be regulated

 

A chief constable has called for the ban on cannabis to be scrapped, arguing that it damages public safety, puts users in more danger, and gives millions of pounds to organised criminals.

Mike Barton, who leads the Durham police force, said people growing a couple of plants for personal use would not be subject to raids in his jurisdiction. Durham police are rated as outstanding in their effectiveness by the official police inspectorate.

His comments came after the former Conservative party leader William Hague last week said the war on cannabis had failed and the class-B drug should be legalised.

 

Barton said his experience trying to enforce the ban led him to conclude it was damaging public safety, not protecting it. “Yes, it should be legal. That’s what I think based on my experience,” he said.

“When I joined the police in Blackpool 38 years ago there was one drug squad detective; now everybody is on it. I’ve seen a remarkable deterioration in drugs in society over the last 38 years. What we are doing is not working.

“The status quo is not tenable. It’s getting worse. Drugs are getting cheaper, stronger, more readily available and more dangerous. I have come reluctantly over the years to the conclusion that we need to regulate the market. If you can regulate the market you can make sure it’s old-fashioned cannabis – not skunk or spice.”

 

Hague, a former foreign secretary, last week sparked a debate by saying the legal prohibition on cannabis should be scrapped. The Home Office rejected his suggestion but has ordered a review about the use of cannabis for medical reasons.

Several states in the US have decriminalised or legalised cannabis use, as have countries such as Portugal.

Barton said the moral argument used against cannabis, that legalisation would be seen as a signal encouraging people to take it up, was bogus. He said: “If someone is an adult and makes a choice to do something that does not harm anyone else, who are we to judge? People have already made that judgment – a third of people have tried it.

“The people who think cannabis should be prohibited have secured the high ground on their moral position. But if it is a plant which is freely available and a third of people have decided they want to take it, the prohibition argument has lost its efficacy. Prohibition does not work. We are creating a latter-day mafia in the UK.”

 

He added the ban benefited criminals, not public safety. “Organised crime is buying land and property to launder their money. That money could be paying for the care of the elderly, education, rehabilitation of drug addicts,” he said.

Barton said in his area of Durham his officers would no longer apply to magistrates for a search warrant to raid the premises of small-time cannabis growers and those caught using for personal use will be offered a place in a rehabilitation programme called Checkpoint.

Barton said: “We will not apply for search warrants for one or two plants. We want to harness our energies and focus on industrial-scale drug dealers who are damaging society.

“If you have a small amount for personal use you will not be prosecuted, you go into Checkpoint. It frees up time to investigate more serious crime – that’s why we have a good detection rate.”

Barton said a debate about cannabis legalisation was needed. “An adult should be able to have cannabis without worrying what the police are doing,” he said. “That happens in many states of the United States and other countries and civilisation does not disappear before their eyes. We need a grown-up debate. Who said in a democracy we can’t discuss things?

 

“Privately I know of other [police] chiefs, not the majority. More and more are saying this is crazy.”

His call for a debate was supported by Simon Kempton, the vice-chair of the Police Federation, which represents 120,000 rank-and-file police officers. “The Police Federation believe that it’s time to have an informed and open public debate on the future of drugs legislation incorporating health, education and enforcement programmes,” he said. “After 100 years of prohibition on the use of drugs, it’s time to ask whether this approach is working to address the issues around drug use.

“The police service must focus efforts in areas that cause the most risk and harm to the public and for some chief constables that means focusing on areas other than cannabis.”

Former Scotland Yard senior officer Brian Paddick, now a Liberal Democrat peer, said: “Legalisation will reduce the harm it causes. You can control the strength and make sure under-18s don’t get hold of it, take it out of the hands of criminals and raise considerable amounts in taxation.”

[lifted*fox]

Whilst it's good that people like him are talking sense on the whole, he's still saying stuff like this:

 

"If you can regulate the market you can make sure it’s old-fashioned cannabis – not skunk or spice" 

 

Which tbh, coming from someone who deals with the drug on what appears to be a daily basis is poor knowledge, imo. 

 

Cannabis and skunk are one and the same. Skunk is a Sativa strain known for it's more 'heady' effects whilst the UK market used to be (back in the day) dominated by Indica strains that were more 'body' high in their effects. 

 

To use the word skunk to describe some sort of super power version of Cannabis is just wrong and misinformed. 

 

Spice is a synthetic version of weed and shouldn't be used by anyone - touted as a 'legal high' it is actually far more harmful and unpredictable in its effects that the legal drug it seeks to replicate. 

 

People using medicinal cannabis in the States, Netherlands etc. are all smoking / vaping modern, highly engineered strains of Cannabis - a single one of which is known as 'skunk'. Skunk has unfortunately become the buzz word used by the uneducated to scaremonger against modern cannabis. 

 

**** going back to smoking weak ass bush-weed from the 70's, it's mostly leaf and trimmings ffs. 

[Buce]

9 minutes ago, lifted*fox said:

Whilst it's good that people like him are talking sense on the whole, he's still saying stuff like this:

 

"If you can regulate the market you can make sure it’s old-fashioned cannabis – not skunk or spice" 

 

Which tbh, coming from someone who deals with the drug on what appears to be a daily basis is poor knowledge, imo. 

 

Cannabis and skunk are one and the same. Skunk is a Sativa strain known for it's more 'heady' effects whilst the UK market used to be (back in the day) dominated by Indica strains that were more 'body' high in their effects. 

 

To use the word skunk to describe some sort of super power version of Cannabis is just wrong and misinformed. 

 

Spice is a synthetic version of weed and shouldn't be used by anyone - touted as a 'legal high' it is actually far more harmful and unpredictable in its effects that the legal drug it seeks to replicate. 

 

People using medicinal cannabis in the States, Netherlands etc. are all smoking / vaping modern, highly engineered strains of Cannabis - a single one of which is known as 'skunk'. Skunk has unfortunately become the buzz word used by the uneducated to scaremonger against modern cannabis. **** going back to smoking weak ass bush-weed from the 70's, it's mostly leaf and trimmings ffs. 

7

 

I can only assume you are too young to comment from experience. While it's true that we rarely saw good weed coming into the UK in the '70s (although, tbf, there was some pretty good Jamaican if you knew the right people), elsewhere in the world there were some beautiful local strains (California, Hawaii, South Africa, in particular) from which a lot of the modern strains were bred.

[lifted*fox]

Hey mate, yeah obviously before my time - was generally alluding to the general quality most people were getting their hands on. I just meant that type of low quality doesn't exist anywhere any more, even if you get ripped off you're getting what people would wrongly refer to as 'skunk'.

 

I get the impression that police guy seems to think we will be going back to 'weed' from the 70's if we regulate which for the majority was obviously just shite and nobody would even bother lol. 

[Buce]

27 minutes ago, lifted*fox said:

Hey mate, yeah obviously before my time - was generally alluding to the general quality most people were getting their hands on. I just meant that type of low quality doesn't exist anywhere any more, even if you get ripped off you're getting what people would wrongly refer to as 'skunk'.

 

I get the impression that police guy seems to think we will be going back to 'weed' from the 70's if we regulate which for the majority was obviously just shite and nobody would even bother lol. 

 

Tbh, unless you were connected with the West Indians, weed was something of a rarity here in the seventies - it was mainly hash on the streets, most of which didn't even begin to compare to a good bud.

 

That said, I was in Israel in the early eighties, and there were good quantities of Lebanese Gold coming back with the IDF (Lebanon was under Israeli occupation at the time) the quality of which was comparable to the finest weed. Happy daze.

[Strokes]

58 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

Tbh, unless you were connected with the West Indians, weed was something of a rarity here in the seventies - it was mainly hash on the streets, most of which didn't even begin to compare to a good bud.

 

That said, I was in Israel in the early eighties, and there were good quantities of Lebanese Gold coming back with the IDF (Lebanon was under Israeli occupation at the time) the quality of which was comparable to the finest weed. Happy daze.

Hash is excellent, can’t beat a bit of 90s soap bar or red seal. 

[Buce]

 

The 'news' this morning sums up perfectly the hypocrisy surrounding this debate.

 

A man being feted as some kind of national hero because he's on the piss at breakfast time. Imagine the reaction if he'd stood with a spliff in his hand instead.

[simFox]

22 hours ago, Buce said:

 

The 'news' this morning sums up perfectly the hypocrisy surrounding this debate.

 

A man being feted as some kind of national hero because he's on the piss at breakfast time. Imagine the reaction if he'd stood with a spliff in his hand instead.

I was also watching the news the other morning and they were solemnly discussing the revenues from drugs, all serious stuff and long faces. The next topic was about alcohol and the mood sung to open laughter and boasts about how much they drank, almost as if the downsides or dangers from drinking didn't exist.

[AlloverthefloorYesNdidi]

36 minutes ago, simFox said:

I was also watching the news the other morning and they were solemnly discussing the revenues from drugs, all serious stuff and long faces. The next topic was about alcohol and the mood sung to open laughter and boasts about how much they drank, almost as if the downsides or dangers from drinking didn't exist.

My god I have the capacity to get myself in so much trouble when drunk.

Its not even funny anymore.

Weed is not even part of the conversation with behavioural issues like that

[lifted*fox]

 

as true now as it was in 2002 when it released.

[Steven]

I lost both my sons to drugs – that's why I want to legalise them

 

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/jun/23/lost-both-sons-drugs-want-to-legalise

 

"But there are no age limits in a black market. Neither is there any other form of control. Prohibition is not control, and should not be equated as such. It is the abrogation of control leading to the unregulated peddling of adulterated substances outside the reach of the law. Apart from not beginning to achieve its aims, prohibition makes drugs artificially expensive and spawns an avalanche of acquisitive criminal behaviour."

[lifted*fox]

If ecstacy was legalised and manufactured under lab conditions with no killer filler then his sons would be alive, without a doubt. 

 

If ecstacy wasn't legalised but clubs and festivals were allowed testing tables for those who wished to persevere anyway then his sons would be alive, without a doubt. 

 

Prohibition is the real killer here. 

[Dr Marco]

 

[Wymsey]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-44699393

[Buce]

 

Canada brews first cannabis beer:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jul/22/it-hits-you-very-quickly-canada-brews-first-cannabis-beer

[Innovindil]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-44968386

 

Step one complete. 

[whoareyaaa]

2 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-44968386

 

Step one complete. 

keyword > exceptional 

[ajthefox]

5 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-44968386

 

Step one complete. 

Quote

 

Cannabis is classed as a Schedule 1 drug, meaning it is judged to have no therapeutic value but can be used for the purposes of research with a Home Office licence.

 

The decision by the Home Office will put certain cannabis-derived products into Schedule 2 - those that have a potential medical use - and will place them in the same category as cocaine and heroin, among other drugs.

 

Shows how out of date our policy is...

[lifted*fox]

Unfortunately this isn't too much of a win. They've made it very clear only extreme circumstances will be considered. 

 

I think the Government has caved in on this one very extreme instance and will think that's enough to keep the wolves from the door for another few years.