Re: Re-classification Of Cannabis
 

Legalise it, and tax it, put an 18 cert on it

Freedom of choice for adults, down with the nanny state.

Open up "cafes" o/s of all fooball grounds and see the amount of hoolliganism reduce.

It was no suprise that in the last Euro Championships that was held in Belgium and Holland, all the trouble was in Belgium.

Re: Re-classification Of Cannabis
 

I think this is the point others have been trying to make, cannabis should be treated much the same as alcohol and cigarettes, where the illegality is not in the substance but in its abuse as this applies equally to cannabis for the very reasons you state.

Legalise it, but regulate and tax it on the same basis as alcohol and tobacco.

This is what is being advocated for cannabis, not a "free for all" anything goes attitude, a sensible recognition that, in many ways, cannabis is actually far less harmful to the user than either alcohol or tobacco and even less so when one considers its impact on innocent third parties.

The hypocrisy of government is treating alcohol and tobacco differently simply because they raise vast amounts of money for the exchequer. The hypocrisy of many individuals lies in the fact they smoke or drink themselves, but do not see either as †œdrugâà ƒÆ’¢â€šÂ¬Ã‚ � use.

Re: Re-classification Of Cannabis
 

LOL.

OK,perhaps for clarification you could describe the effect that Cannabis would have if the theoretical surgeon,say 14 stone & male took Cannabis 10 seconds before commencing his session in the operating theatre.

The gas masks sound a bit extreme but I accept your point that it would be impossible to be 100% sure that you didn't affect a neighbour, but then our prime focus was about passive smoking of cigarettes.

As for common sense not being being a reason for abstaining from ANY substance, I have to disagree as there is no way you would get me to consume cyanide, arsenic, hemlock, strychnine etc. which are all substances from which I will happily abstain.

As for preferring the company of cannabis smokers to alcohol drinkers that's your choice and your right. Personally, that's not my choice but then that's democracy..freedom under the law. Can't comment about cannabis smokers as I've never knowingly met any but I do agree that some drinkers can be objectional in more ways than one, so at least we agree on that.

Re: Re-classification Of Cannabis
 

I'm assuming you exclude prescription meds from that abstinence as I suspect you will find most if not all on your list have at least one medical application. :)

Here again there is a direct link to cannabis as that too has medical uses as I am happy to testify.

Re: Re-classification Of Cannabis
 

Thanks for that, Sociable. I do accept that under certain conditions the substances I listed could, in the right doses, have their medicinal uses but would only take them if I personally needed them medically as a last resort.

I accept too that for medical reasons Cannabis has its valid uses e.g. pain relief and that's why I would prefer that like all other medications it is available on the NHS on a controlled basis via prescription.I just don't want to see it widely available and see yet another group of otherwise healthy people turn themselves into addicts like those with a dependency on alcohol, tobacco and/or illegal drugs.But I do accept that with all these things, the degree of usage makes a difference.

And I do respect their right to choose so long as it does not adversely affect me or others who share my views.

Re: Re-classification Of Cannabis
 

It would depend entirely on mode of administration and the type of Cannabis taken, but I can tell you, entirely theoretically of course, that a few puffs of some good quality skunk would leave him fairly wasted before the first incision was made.

True, but I was just trying to highlight the fact that such a furore is made about passive smoking but people generally are oblivious to other actions that have the same detrimental effect on health, and potentially to a much larger degree.

I hate to point this out to you, but both apple seeds and almonds contain cyanide, so if you eat almonds, or like me eat apples in their entirety, you are ingesting cyanide. :)

Re: Re-classification Of Cannabis
 

The jury is still out as to whether cannabis is actually addictive. All of the evidence thus far indicates that there is no development of physiogical addiction, it is still a matter of debate whether there is psychological dependence.

Your comment raises an interesting question. I may have misinterpreted what you are saying, but there appears to be a focus on the problem of addiction being a problem in and off itself. I would say it is arguable whether an addiction per se is necessarily a bad thing.

Re: Re-classification Of Cannabis
 

This study indicates that there does appear to be a physical component to cannabis addiction:

Re: Re-classification Of Cannabis
 

By mentioning the action upon reward-related structures it would push the research more in the direction of a psychological effect. That may be mediated by a physical structure in the brain, ie. the receptors upon which THC acts (as are all emotions), but the end result is still psychological dependence.

By physical addiction I am using the definition that you need increasing dose levels of the substance or compound in question to achieve the same effect, and also that the absence of such a compound can impair the normal operation of the biological mechanisms involved.

But those comments are obviously based on just reading the abstract, I`ll need to read the paper in full.

Re: Re-classification Of Cannabis
 

Most research so far indicates there may be a small physiological dependence but for most the tobacco in a spliff is far more addictive than the cannabis. This is one reason much of the medical research is about finding less harmful forms of delivery.

At the same time distributors and dealers are now starting to adulterate cannabis with more addictive substances much the same way as the tobacco industry once did with additives to enhance the addictive power of cigarettes.

As always the answer lies mostly in the "Why" it is being taken.

The sad fact is though that some take various substances to replace something missing in their lives so breaking the dependency is largely about understanding that aspect of the problem rather than the specific substance being abused.

This again applies equally to alcohol, if not even more so, because of its more direct long-term physiological dependency links when compared to cannabis.

Re: Re-classification Of Cannabis
 

Do you have any links to some of this research that I could read? I'm curious as to whether the obvious research has been done to differentiate between whether the test subjects were becoming addicted to the cannabis or the tobacco contained within the spliff. I imagine that due to ethical concerns the test subjects were already cannabis users, so I would imagine that it might make it trickier to separate these two factors.

Re: Re-classification Of Cannabis
 

The point I was making was that there are people in occupations, where the recreational use of drugs including Cannabis could be detrimental to their clients. Though I do accept that Cannabis is a very powerful drug the capacity to feel its effects varies from user to user i.e some will resist its effects longer than others. If its effect is to leave the user feeling 'wasted', it also leaves the user vulnerable to physical assault by others.

I agree that some people are oblivious to things that are more hazardous to their health but death or harm by ignorance has historically been the source of much distress.

As for the apple seeds and almonds, I did know that they do contain minute amounts of cynanide as do a number of other things in nature so as a consequence I don't eat them.

Re: Re-classification Of Cannabis
 

The problem is even more complicated than that as psychological factors also have physiological effects too so it is almost impossible to seperate the two in any research.

I will (if I get time) try to read through the various books I have on the subject and see if I can find appropriate refs though.

Re: Re-classification Of Cannabis
 

The snag with investigations into addiction is that until the report confirming the addictive power of a substance comes out people will continue to use the substance until they discover that they are addicted by which time it is too late and the damage is done.

In my view addiction per se is a bad thing in that there is something that you cannot do without, which abnormally becomes the focus of your mind. People addicted to tobacco, alcohol and drugs will tell you how hard it is to stop using them and for some people it is impossible to stop with or without outside help.

Re: Re-classification Of Cannabis
 

Still doesn`t necessarily make it a bad thing. I do, and have for as long as I can remember and even as a child, suffered from terrible insomnia. Unless I`m exhausted to the point of dropping I`m lucky if I get 3 or 4 hours sleep a night.

About 18 months back I was prescribed sleeping pills, but no longer as the doctor is concerned that I will become "addicted" to them. As far as I am concerned, the insomnia is a result of a chemical imbalance in my brain, the sleeping pills help deal with that. I personally have no qualms about taking them for life, even if the official label put upon it is "addiction". I see no difference between this situation and someone taking insulin to deal with diabetes, both are chemical imbalances dealt with the administration of drugs.

I feel that addiction is an easy label to slap upon things which automatically gives it negative connotations.