Cannabis to be returned to class B status

[pert]

its elegal drug no mater what class it is - if you brake the law you take the punishment. its quite black and white to me

 

There was a study done in the Netherlands which showed that occasional use improved both spelling and punctuation.

[Njugle]

Damn right jim-jam!

 

Some people seem to have forgotten that governments are there to serve the interests of a nations people, not the other way round.

 

This is of course the all encompassing fact, but there still remains an area between the two extremes, whereby; just because a majority of people are doing something does not necessarily make it right or good or safe. In our modern omniscient ignorant society the potential is there for those without full knowledge or preparation to engage in activities that will inevitably harm them.eg 100 years ago, only people in close proximity to mountains would dabble with climbing them, now people from the heart of london can endeavour to scale mt snowdon on a day trip, wearing flip-flops and tee-shirts. All fine until something goes wrong, maybe increased fore-knowledge would help the situ.

 

Excuse the depth of my analogy, but you'll get my drift i'm sure.ie availability and prevalence do not make for a justification, but at the same time people should still have a certain freedom to choose.

 

My further point here relates to another comment

elegal drug no mater...

etc.... Dare i point out that in certain circumstances, both alcohol and tobacco are ILLEGAL also, ie driving, and public buildings so to adopt the "elegal"-"eliterate" argument we should ban them also then?

[McFly]

just because a majority of people are doing something does not necessarily make it right or good or safe.

 

Indeed.

And it was never my intention to suggest otherwise.

 

It does seem, however, that some citizens of our glorious democracy are too eager to accept the rule of law as something immutable and inherently good.

 

Governments can be, and frequently are, wrong. The laws of a country can be questioned and changed. And those laws should never be formulated to placate the hysterical, Sun reading mob who apparently form "public opinion".

[Njugle]

And there lies the conundrum.

 

Lets take it into ethics for the sake of politics for a mo.

 

A huge percentage of the voting population perceive cannabis to be illegal and hence bad. Therefore any attempt to legalise or de-criminalize it would be perceived as ethically wrong by, particularly, the older generation and, hence, would lose votes.

 

The younger generation have grown up with far more exposure to it, but because it has been illegal to date it carries a certain psychological negativity, or rebeliousness, with it that would not be there otherwise. So it is impossible to perceive how it should really be perceived in an ethical manner as it has never been neutral to facillitate this.

 

So... even a referendum on the subject would not provide a 'true' answer.

 

The truth probably lies in the hypothesis that; were history to be re-written and cannabis to become widespread chronologically before alcohol, the laws forbidding the use of alcohol would be more stringent than those against cannabis, due to death toll, addiction and general disease! And the nation would be generally sedated in terms of ASB, driving, crime etc., and far more easy to police! A double saving. Ahh the irony.

 

Still, in a truly Utopian society, created by a government entirely serving the people and totally liable for all their statements of intent/manifesto, we'd all be so happy that no forms of sedation or escapism would be required.

 

Vote for me and we can achieve this!!!! Zetland Uber Alles! The space ships arrive in three years, all un-initiated shall perish!

 

what do you mean you're taking me away....hey this jackets a bit restrictive..and white's not my colour....

 

[McFly]

Zetland Uber Alles! The space ships arrive in three years, all un-initiated shall perish!

 

I'm in!

 

Where do I sign up oh great and mystical monocular pyramid?

[Distortio]

just sign an ordinary piece of rectangular paper, for example the kind found in your cheque book, and send it to:

 

Distortio

Shetland Collective for Astral Migration

cyberspace

 

thanks.

 

 

Still, in a truly Utopian society, created by a government entirely serving the people and totally liable for all their statements of intent/manifesto, we'd all be so happy that no forms of sedation or escapism would be required.

 

not so.

 

i would require some to deal with the shock of any of that happening.

[KOYAANISQATSI]

when a law becomes unworkable and ridiculous it is the duty of every citizen to break it.

[Para Handy]

I don’t care about the morons who kill them selves with drugs. Good riddance I say it’s all the other people kids ect knocked down by drug ridding arsholes in cars or motorbikes. drink or drugs? one is just as bad as the other if people were responsible it would not mater but you just have to read the shetland times every week to see they are not cases in the times that has the ‘my client was drinking excuses’ with some Idea that getting pissed every weekend make you some sort of a man but most of the time when people are pissed the become instant arsholes you just have to drive a taxi for a month or so to see that much that was the main reason I stopped taxi driving at weekends

[KOYAANISQATSI]

Para Handy wrote

drug ridding arsholes

YEAH who are these arsholes that are getting rid of all the drugs.

[Styles]

Most people take drugs because the terrible truth is they make you feel good. A lot of people who are against drugs dont want to face the truth.

 

I think people should have the right to take what ever they want, as long as they are not endangering other people by driveing etc.

 

Its like anything, moderation is needed. I know piles of folk who take piles of drugs at the weekend, they are not addicted to anything and its just a recreation thing, they dont do any other criminal activity, work hard all week and contribute positively to society. Why should they be treated as criminals if caught and in some cases lose their jobs etc? This stigma and punishment would do much more harm to them than any of the drugs they take.

 

I would rather the police were out catching thugs, theifs, vandels etc than having to spend so much time dealing with drugs.

[KOYAANISQATSI]

THE PRIME minister is to be congratulated for ignoring the advice of The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs and rolling ahead with plans to reclassify cannabis as a class B drug.

 

Having seen its sad effect on so many unfortunate colleagues in his cabinet (even if taken only once many years ago and not inhaled), Mr Brown must be only too well aware that use of this pernicious drug leads inexorably to immorality, psychosis and worse.

http://www.shetland-news.co.uk/letters_04_2008/Government%20health%20warning.htm

 

Lies, damn lies and the liars who lie them.

[Carlos]

when a law becomes unworkable and ridiculous it is the duty of every citizen to break it.

 

I don't know if there is an equivalent here, but in the US (or maybe just some states, I forget) a jury can return a verdict of "not guilty" because they do not recognize the validity of the law.........

[Freyr]

Oh so many conspiracy theories!!! I have heard smoking cannabis might do that to you... I think you have to be very much in love with the stuff to deny that it is harmfull. It is popular to say that alchohol and cigarettes are more harmfull, but I've seen independant health scientists deny that. The bottom line is that if alchohol and cigarettes were to be introduced today they would be banned. Since they were introduced in less enlightened times they managed to become a part of mainstream culture and thus impossible to ban today. We wisened up to cannabis and other drugs in time to ban them and rightfully so.

[Fjool]

We wisened up to cannabis and other drugs in time to ban them and rightfully so.

Your theory falls down at the very first point, that being that cannabis has been used for thousands of years; quite likely long before alcohol was. It is neither a new drug, nor as socially, physically and mentally disruptive as alcohol (1). That it is prohibited today is mainly down to history and opinion of a couple of key people (Anslinger, et al), rather than a sound medical or social reasoning. One thing is clear, the status quo certainly has nothing to do with pharmacology, so comparisons with other drugs in this regard are somewhat moot.

 

That cannabis is potentially harmful is not in question; smoking anything has got to be bad for you. Whether one can argue that it is more or less harmful than alcohol requires something a bit more solid than something one heard once, somewhere... (vague).

 

Irrespective of one's personal opinion on the use of drugs, however, it is important to acknowledge that the law is not here to send public health messages. This is a wholly inappropriate medium and attempting to justify prohibition this way is riddled with problems. It would be much better to educate people about, rather than imprisoning them for, what amount to lifestyle choices.

 

Incidentally, it is also popular to state that 'if alcohol and cigarettes were to be introduced today they would be banned'. I don't believe that this is necessarily the case, nor a desirable state of affairs. Look what happened when alcohol was previously banned. Not exactly a glowing endorsement of the prohibitionist strategy.

 

The irrefutable truth, borne out by history and the weight of evidence, is simply this: banning drugs does not work. It might be desirable, but it is also unrealistic, impractical and naive.

 

(1) http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmsctech/1031/103110.htm

 

(Ahem... anyway I've just noticed that this belongs in another thread entirely.)

 

On topic, the reclassification of cannabis would be against Gordon Brown's own experts' opinions, and throw mud against an already squint and deteriorating ABC classification system.

[Freyr]

We wisened up to cannabis and other drugs in time to ban them and rightfully so.

Your theory falls down at the very first point, that being that cannabis has been used for thousands of years; quite likely long before alcohol was. .

 

That cannabis is potentially harmful is not in question; smoking anything has got to be bad for you. Whether one can argue that it is more or less harmful than alcohol requires something a bit more solid than something one heard once, somewhere... (vague).

 

 

Cannabis has not been used in the west for thousands of years. However it has been used in a religious context in many places of the world and in those instances it has been heavily regulated by the religion in question. It has also been used for medicinal purposes. It has not been free for all in those contexts and has not been used as a recreational drug. So to give those instances as a legitimisation for the recreational and habitual use of today is plain wrong. Wine and beer has been consumed as part of the standard diet since prehistoric times.

 

A recent study found cannabis contained more toxic substances than tobacco smoke. It contained 20 times more ammonia, (a carcinogen), five times more hydrogen cyanide (which can cause heart disease) and nitrous oxides, (which can cause lung damage) than tobacco smoke.

Cannabis use has been linked to exacerbating the effects of psychosis, schizophrenia, bronchitis, and emphysema by several peer-reviewed studies for those who are vulnerable to such illnesses based on personal or family history. In July 2007, British medical journal The Lancet published a study that indicates that cannabis users have, on average, a 41% greater risk of developing psychosis than non-users. The risk was most pronounced in cases with an existing risk of psychotic disorder, and was said to grow up to 200% for the most-frequent users.

While the long term and heavy use of cannabis is not linked to the severe or grossly debilitating cerebral effects associated with chronic heavy alcohol abuse, it has been linked to more subtle impairment associated with memory, attention, and cognitive function.

 

As for being vague I of course concede to that. Its not always easy to remember spesific names you see on TV. I just remeber that the "pro-cannabis" people I have seen or met are alway laymen and give statements such as "people have been smoking cannabis for centuries". While those giving opposing arguments are most often doctors or scientists giving arguments based on health and science. Maybe pro-cannabis scientists are afraid to go on TV, but I think the "burdon of proof" is on those who want to legalise a harmfull substance.