Re: Re-classification Of Cannabis
 

Quoting from Ramrod's "Australian" link:

'A spokesman for National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, Paul Dillon, said: "The problem with a piece of research like this is it can be hijacked by people who would say one puff of cannabis will lead you straight to other drugs."'

And that, I think, says a lot...

Re: Re-classification Of Cannabis
 

He would say that, he is anti-the research (for some reason or other), and it's hardly a rebuttal of the research is it? It's a bit like saying that the problem about this photo of the blue sky is that some people will say that it proves the sky is blue :D.
Interesting that you jumped on that bit rather than anything else in the piece. :D




....on a lighter note, this is the tories response to the legislation ;) :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Re: Re-classification Of Cannabis
 

I "jumped on" that bit because, frankly, it's all that needs to be said.

And I've commented elsewhere on "biased" research.

Re: Re-classification Of Cannabis
 

How is it biased?

Re: Re-classification Of Cannabis
 

It's probably been translated loosly.

Re: Re-classification Of Cannabis
 

Pardon me, I meant to say "biased" reporting, not "reserach", viz the headline "Teen marijuana use leads to hard drugs" which is *not* what the report says.

Re: Re-classification Of Cannabis
 

If someone used those words "accidentally" then it was an *incredibly loose* translation!!!

Re: Re-classification Of Cannabis
 

I know several people who have gone from canabis and speed to heroine.
Normally by it being offered to them by their dealers as either free or extremely cheap.
Then once addicted they get a discount if they bring any new customers, so they'll get their younger family members hooked on the stuff.

Re: Re-classification Of Cannabis
 

How many others have never gone onto the harder drugs after using cannabis?

Incog. :wavey:

Re: Re-classification Of Cannabis
 

[QUOTE=Xaccers]I know several people who have gone from canabis and speed to heroine.[QUOTE]

Same here (well not heroin but other class A's), I also know a lot more people who have not moved on and still more who have tried cannabis and didn't try it again.

At the end of the day it all comes down to choice. Some people are going to try different drugs and become addicted, some won't. I still think cannabis is no more harmful than tobacco and alcohol.

Re: Re-classification Of Cannabis
 

[QUOTE=dezzo]I think the problem is that their choice can have an effect on the lives of others.

Imagine for example if just before starting work a brain surgeon samples a large dose of Cannabis to see him/her through the day. Would you like to be a patient undergoing operation while he/she was in that state given that two of the side-effects of Cannibis are impaired judgement and loss of motor control?

Imagine too if the same thing happened with the driver of a school bus, who daily drives children to school.

As for alcohol,look how many innocent people are killed by drunk drivers.By saying that Cannibis is no more harmful than alcohol, you're actually saying that it's OK for hundreds or maybe thousands of people to die as a side-effect of the use of Cannibis by others.

Tobacco is no better as we now know that non-smokers can be the victims of passive smoking, without ever touching a cigarette themselves. The warning on the packet ought to tell you something.

It seems crazy to me that anyone would want to put their health and the health of others at risk simply to satisfy an addiction. By taking these things you not only pose a risk to others, but also leave yourself vulnerable to the more predatory members of our society who are quite happy to rob, rape or kill you in order to satisfy their needs.

Re: Re-classification Of Cannabis
 

I think there should be mandatory drugs tests for certain professions myself.
As it stands at the moment though the area around driving under the influence of cannabis is a very grey area.There isn't as far as I know any kind of on the spot testing available for drivers under the influence of cannabis.

Incog. :)

Re: Re-classification Of Cannabis
 

[QUOTE=ntluser]I think the problem is that their choice can have an effect on the lives of others.

You're actually being serious, aren't you? Do you honestly think that after a large dose your theoretical brain surgeon is actually going to make it into the operating theatre in the first instance? Of course, there is never the possibility that a person in a position of responsibility could get tanked up on alcohol before going to perform their job.

So I expect you'll be out campaigning for the introduction of a prohibition on alcohol then, because if you drink another single drop in your life now you'll be a hypocrite.

I guess you won`t be cooking any BBQs again either, as the amount of toxic fumes you inhale in 10 minutes of cooking at a BBQ makes passive smoking seem like a trivial concern.

As I've outlined above, you're perfectly happy to accept these risks when they are sanctioned by the law. I think that flaw in your argument says it all.

Re: Re-classification Of Cannabis
 

Thanks for that. To answer your points, let me say this.

The point you make about the surgeon does depend on when it is actually taken and how long it takes to come into effect, which varies from person to person. The point you make about alcohol simply re-inforces my point that being under the influence of anything that affects your control creates risks for yourself and others.

The point I made about alcohol didn't advocate not drinking as drinking in moderation can have health benefits e.g. lowering cholesterol as I've already found. It did say that drinking and driving or indeed taking drugs and driving causes the deaths of innocent people because alcohol & drugs impair judgement and interfere with motor control etc. I do drink but if I do I don't drive.

As for BBQ's, if I choose not to have a BBQ, that's my choice. As it happens I do but take sensible precautions. The point I was making about smoking is that everyone has the human right not to have their health and life damaged by the lack of consideration of others. I have no objection to people smoking as that's their choice so long as their choice does not have a detrimental effect on my life or the lives of those I love.

And as for it being sanctioned by the law or not, I prefer to use the law of common sense. I've seen too many people die from alcohol abuse, drugs and smoking to last me a lifetime.

You can have a lot of fun in life without an excess of alcohol and without a smoke.

You can also have a lot of fun WITH an excess of alcohol and with a smoke, however in that instance there's more chance of it adversely affecting those around you.

People do have the right of choice to drink,smoke, etc just so long as it doesn't impinge of the rights of others not to be affected by them.

I'll quite happily campaign for people's RIGHT to drink, smoke etc but not to the degree that in exercising their rights other innocent people get hurt, injured or killed.

Re: Re-classification Of Cannabis
 

I also fail to understand your comment about helping them to get through the day, anyone will know that isn`t going to have the effect you describe.

You always supply your guests with gas masks and ensure that the wind never blows any of the smoke to somewhere, a neighbours garden for example, where other people could be?

But common sense doesn`t necessarily mean abstinence from any substance, it could also be considered that common sense means sensible use.

I find it very hard to have any fun around people who drink, excessively or not, even the smallest amount of alcohol appears to turn people into objectional bores. I'd much rather be with cannabis smokers than drinkers.