Cannabis to be returned to class B status

[Fjool]

A recent study found cannabis contained more toxic substances than tobacco smoke.

You are comparing an unregulated, black-market product against one whose production is carefully regulated. The comparison is obviously going to be biased in favour of the legal product and is exactly why I think cannabis should be properly regulated - to make it as safe as possible. The current situation makes it more dangerous, which is a ridiculous position to be in.

 

I'm not arguing with you that there are risks with cannabis - I said this already; there are risks. We can find all the examples you like and I'll still agree with you. But there are risks with prohibition also. Cherry-picking examples of why cannabis smoke is more carcinogenic than tobacco smoke, or why such-and-such a study showed it to produce ill effects are only looking at a very narrow aspect of the problem.

 

Yes, there are medical reasons not to use cannabis. But these alone are not good reasons to keep it prohibited. They are reasons for educating people against its use.

 

There are medical issues, moral issues and social issues all tied up together here. Focusing on the medical aspect is all well and good, but it's much more complicated than that. As I said previously, the law does not exist to provide medical advice - we have other, much more appropriate channels.

 

the "burdon of proof" is on those who want to legalise a harmfull substance.

Considering that it was banned in the first place without any such proof, and that there are people currently denied a useful medicine because of this, I think that argument is dubious at best.

 

Cannabis is stronger (ie. increased incidence of psychosis) and dirtier (higher levels of contaminants) because it is illegal. Properly regulated and produced to the standards we expect of alcohol and tobacco, it would be a much safer product. Using the dangers of low-quality cannabis as a reason to keep cannabis illegal is a circular argument indeed.

 

(As for the history stuff, which I can't get into just now: it doesn't matter if cannabis was used 'in the west' or not. I'm talking about humanity here, not select parts which suit a particular argument. And, when you view it this way, humans have used cannabis for thousands of years in many societies since prehistoric times (medically, spiritually and, yes, recreationally). Just as for alcohol. The only reason I went here originally is because the old argument that we have alcohol merely because it was around for longer, is wrong and ignores many of the historical events leading up to our present drug policies.)

 

So... to the topic and in light of what we've just discussed: Should it be reclassified back up to B? What do you feel that this achieves that class C does not?

[Ally]

Whilst I've always agreed with the legalization of cannabis (and, indeed, most other drugs), I'm afraid I must reject the common notion that pot/hash/grass (insert trendy moniker here) is utterly harmless and non-addictive.

 

I've personally know people whose lives are effectively controlled by their daily 'bong' intake. In fact, I've lived with people who are more than happy to stay indoors in darkened rooms watching crap daytime TV and getting baked for weeks, even months on end. It's kinda funny at first, but it soon becomes frustrating, watching perfectly healthy young(ish) people embrace a lifestyle akin to some listless OAP in an elderly care home and deluding themselves that it's somehow cool.

 

As absurd as it sounds, I've actually met folk who have become so dependent on marijuana that simple social interactions, such as going to the shops, become daunting missions without their herbal crutches.

 

 

There's an English lad in the backpacker's place I used to stay at who's been there for over a year. He lives in the staff room and, when he's not high (non-communicative and monged out) he's either asleep or working on reception (1 evening a week). He's 23 and this is how he's spent his last year and a half in Australia.

 

There's another girl I know who's quite intolerable before she gets her lunchtime hit. Her mood swings are monstrous, yet she always claims she'll be "okay once she gets her lunchtime bong", and more often or not she's right - meet her in the afternoon and she's charming. She never seems to consider that it's the "medication" she's taking that could be causing the problem.

 

Finally, as if I needed any further confirmation that weed could be addictive, I was there the day the supply at the hostel actually ran out. In hushed tones the 2 characters mentioned above would talk of "The Big Hurt" and were literally manic until they managed to get some more, freely admitting that the thought of being without was genuinely disturbing to them both.

 

I've smoked before and would never judge anyone for doing so - Hell, I actually enjoyed it, but do feel it's massively overrated and that the pushing of it as some heavenly and totally safe elixir is ill-advised at best.

 

I know it sounds faintly hypocritical and reactionary, but if I had a kid who was smoking in his bedroom all day I'd be seriously worried about his mental health - It can definitely mess you up.

 

Still, I'd rather leave the decision to indulge in the hands of a well-informed individual than any government body...

[KOYAANISQATSI]

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.

 

It does not matter what proof is on offer, when the people in office are always born liars, who, while backing corporate monsters, will never allow self control to those who want to choose for themselves what state of mind they care to enjoy.

 

The Misuse of Drugs Advisory Council cited similar results from a British survey and concluded that "it has proved extremely difficult to prove a causal relationship between cannabis use and the subsequent development of psychotic symptoms". However, despite this strong evidence the council suggested that the evidence does in general support a causal relationship between cannabis use in adolescence and later development of schizophrenia. But if there is a link, then it is so weak that to reduce the cases of schizophrenia by just one, it would be necessary to prevent about 5,000 men or 20,000 women ever smoking cannabis.

 

Our second vital question is whether there is any chance that upgrading the classification of cannabis could possibly reduce the use of cannabis at all, let alone by large numbers.

 

The answer is a very clear no.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/nov/25/drugsandalcohol

 

The morons are still in in the driving seat and as long as the sheeple flock to them, I can't see much change for good happen.

 

Peers have voted to support government plans to upgrade cannabis from a class C to a class B drug.

The change is due to come into force in January, reversing Tony Blair's 2004 downgrading, and raising a maximum jail sentence for possession to five years.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7748419.stm

 

What me worry. I'm off for a hot knife anyhow and if Gordon Brown or anyone else dont like it, they can go fork themselves.

[KOYAANISQATSI]

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/about-us/news/cannabis-class-b

 

Up to five years in prison

The decision is based on health concerns

[sheepshagger]

So they are so concerned that smoking a joint will affect your mental health they will bang you up for five years, to come up with this they must have smoked a turd load of dope because thats plain crazy

[Guest willz320]

There probably is some truth in their plans over the reclassification - due to health reasons, but they dont make it clear that Cannabis comes in a huge amount of shapes and forms. The form they have chosen to use for their country-wide enforcement? Skunk. Genetically modified skunk.

 

What they fail to tell the doddling, ever-trusting public, is that ordinary cannabis resin, although higher in 'bad stuff' which makes up the bulk of the resin due to the illegal circumstances its made in - is very very low strength, and therefore extremely unlikely to cause any sort of psychotic effect.

 

Its about time they distinguished between skunk and 'pot' or resin. They are two, completely different drugs. Skunk may well have significant mental issues resulting from heavy use, but for the average smoker (especially in Scotland) low grade pot is what is mainly found.

 

Like someone said earlier in the post, its our choice - and it should be educated. not enforced. Some ill-founded personal opinions within the government should have no judgement whatsoever, especially with result being forced upon 65 million people.

[dtothet]

I must reject the common notion that pot/hash/grass (insert trendy moniker here) is utterly harmless and non-addictive.

 

I really think it's only mentally addictive, rather than physically addictive.

 

For instance, people can become addicted to alcohol and yet the majority of the population drink regularly and don't become "addicted" as such.

[trowie246]

Cannabis is comparatible with any other addictive drug in that you develop a tolerance, so you have to have more to have the same effect. You also suffer withdrawal symtoms which is comparitable to someone stopping smoking.

 

People can develop an absolute "need" to have it and they can become highly irritable and agitated when they can't get it.

[MaxFusion]

Cannabis is comparatible with any other addictive drug

Cannabis is not physically addictive at all so stop spouting pish.

 

People can develop an absolute "need" to have it and they can become highly irritable and agitated when they can't get it.

This is the Mental addiction that Poindextrose was talking about...

 

You also suffer withdrawal symtoms which is comparitable to someone stopping smoking.

don't you think that has anything to do with the tobacco that's mixed with the herb to help smoke it?

 

[Medziotojas]

I know long term cannabis users who lead a relatively normal life, and I know long term alcohol users who do not. There doesn't seem to be any logic behind the government proposal.

 

I'm not denying the fact that some users have a psychological addiction to cannabis, but it would be interesting to compare the statistics with alcohol related problems.

 

I also believe one of the biggest dangers of cannabis use is that it may lead on to nicotine dependency.

[Fjool]

I also believe one of the biggest dangers of cannabis use is that it may lead on to nicotine dependency.

Unlike tobacco, however, cannabis can be eaten.

 

All this talk of making cannabis (and indeed other drugs) illegal because it may cause health problems is missing the point. If there are health implications then we should treat this as a public health issue, not a criminal one. Making cannabis illegal only exacerbates the risk and makes it more likely that a user will have problems of some kind and, if they do, will be less likely to seek help for fear of prosecution.

 

Just look at how much more popular spirits got during the 1920s prohibition. The risk/reward for suppliers means that so-called 'super skunk' is the only crop worth producing. Stronger cannabis is a symptom of the criminal status, not a justification for it.

[MaxFusion]

^totally agree Fjool

 

Cannabis can be smoked on it's own in a pipe or bong too

but a vaporiser is the safest way to use it apparently

(no other chemicals being burnt...)

or use the herb in a tea...again a very clean way to take it.

 

The common misconception is that Cannabis is The gateway drug that leads to the use of other things...but what about Alcohol and tobacco?

more likely that someone who already smokes will try Cannabis than someone who doesn't....

[trowie246]

Sorry MaxFusion if you think I'm talking "pish" but so must the the psychiatrists at the Royal Collage of Psychiatry - they state that tolerance and withdrawal are factors (withdrawal could be nicotine withdrawal but it doesn't say that). In my book that's a physical addiction.

[MaxFusion]

well I'd like to know what they mean by withdrawl then....because it's been medically proven to be non addictive(physically).

Unlike Heroin and nicotine (to name but a couple) which have a physical dependance as well as a psycological(sp) one.

 

And that's another thing, how many heroin addicts are out there who started on "safe" Prescribed drugs? we know there's a lot of prescribed medicine that is derived from opium (which is apparently why we're in Afganistan btw*) and I would expect they all have a similar sideaffect...addiction.

 

*war on terror my ass, look after the poppys boys and don't let the taliban destroy them like they want to....Phfft

[JAStewart]

Let's put the physical addiction side of it to rest:

 

http://www.admin.ox.ac.uk/ouss/drug/cannabis.shtml (that's The University of Oxford)

 

Dependence

 

Cannabis is not physically addictive but as with many other drugs, including alcohol, some cannabis users do develop a psychological dependence on the drug