Re-classification Of Cannabis
 

What are forum members' views on the re-classification of Cannabis as a category C drug? And what implications does it have for society?

Re: Re-classification Of Cannabis
 

I reckon its a good idea

removing the 'forbidden fruit' ststus in Amsterdam has made it so readily available that it's now
not even fashionable to smoke it any more

plus the cops have to waste too much time dealing with kids who can't pay fines anyway

as for it leading on to harder things - that's down to the personality of people
and that's the sort of thing they would have done anyway

Re: Re-classification Of Cannabis
 

personally i think it is a very bad move , i just think it will encourage more ppl to start dabbling in drugs and when the effects of cannabis arent strong enough for them then they may be tempted into stronger drugs , downward spiral time :eek: , my twopennorth anyways :)

Re: Re-classification Of Cannabis
 

I think it's about time. IMO, the success of the Dutch policy is at least partly because you can get your cannabis without having to speak to some ****hole who supplies the harder stuff as well.

Re: Re-classification Of Cannabis
 

i would agree about the ****hole bit , but i cant see it being legalised to the same extent over here somehow , therefore you would still have to speak to the ****hole who also ells the harder stuff so therefore having the possibility of trying something else :(

Re: Re-classification Of Cannabis
 

True, I suppose my point was that by criminalising cannabis, people might be more likely to go on to harder stuff, as they are already into 'illegal drugs'. The ****hole bit comes on top of that and doesn't help either.

Re: Re-classification Of Cannabis
 

How exactly will it encourage them? For all practical purposes cannabis has been a class C drug for years now, the change in legislation merely recognises the current situtation.

As for the argument that they would be tempted to try harder drugs, that relies on the old "cannabis as a gateway drug" argument, which has absolutely no evidence in support of it anyway.

I suspect that this is the only post I`m going to make in this thread as I can already anticipate the way it is going to go, and frankly it's an argument not worth having. People bang on about the harmful effects of cannabis, by smoking a joint or two you are somehow in league with the devil. However, go out into town on a Friday night, get lagered up and turn into an objectional a**ehole and that is acceptable social behaviour.

Re: Re-classification Of Cannabis
 

I don't see the point of doing this.

If they were going to do anything then full legalisation and taxation (with money raised going towards treatment/education of ALL drugs) would have been the best step. By making it class C the only people getting the benefit are the dealers.

Re: Re-classification Of Cannabis
 

but it hasnt been legally a class c drug has it !!!!!!!!!!!!!! , i still say downgrading it will make it more attractive to ppl , especially younger ones who will see it as something they can get away with lightly if caught , my opinion only of course ;)

Re: Re-classification Of Cannabis
 

You already did get away with it lightly if caught. I've known people who out on Clapham Common were merely asked to be a bit more discrete about it. Someone else I know asked a cop for directions, who politely gave him the directions and then told him that next time he might want to leave the smelly skunk at home. I`m not sure how you define getting away with it more lightly, as far as I've seen mere possession you'd get away with perfectly fine as the law currently stands.

But this ties neatly back into my argument about was is an isn`t acceptable in society. Kids can get hold of alcohol easily, so why don`t all people turn into raging alcoholics?

Re: Re-classification Of Cannabis
 

cant answer the alcohol bit , but i have heard of drug dealers giving hard drugs away just to get ppl hooked on it , so in my mind if they are exposed to cannabis by a dealer because it is seen as more socially acceptable then what is to stop them giving out freebies of hard drugs to get them hooked :(

Re: Re-classification Of Cannabis
 

This doesn't really seem to change anything. The problem I have with cannibas is that if you use it you are funding criminals. To be honest if the goverment and police are saying its not such a crime to smoke the stuff anymore I'd prefer them to let people grow some for their own use. I'd rather that than them lining the pockets of the dealers whos money goes into crime and also down the line into terrorism.

I know that sounds like a daily mail melodramatic statement, but surely its true.

Re: Re-classification Of Cannabis
 

not melodramatic at all , spot on the mark i reckon :)

Re: Re-classification Of Cannabis
 

This is where I walk away as my predictions are coming true, as soon as the discussion descends into tabloid rhetoric it isn`t worth having.

Re: Re-classification Of Cannabis
 

so what you are saying is it isnt true or do you just not like someone elses opinion :confused:

Re: Re-classification Of Cannabis
 

I don't think it is just tabloid rhetoric though. If you think about it, without all the melodrama, this is what happens. The cannabis doesn't just appear on the street in the pockets of dealers, there is a long line of people in between the source and him and these people are organised criminals. We also know alot of the terrorist funders use drugs as a means to raise money.

I know it does sound like a Daily Mail leader but nonetheless surely its true ?

Re: Re-classification Of Cannabis
 

just seen this , right near the end of the article sorta backs up what i was saying :(

Re: Re-classification Of Cannabis
 

Bull Acad Natl Med. 1994 Jun; 178(6): 1029-37; discussion 1037-42. Related Articles, Links


[The four stages of drug addiction (based on clinical experience with 5,000 drug addicts)]
[Article in French]

Hovnanian L.

Comite National d'Information sur la Drogue, Saint Gratien.

A medical practitioner has been inquiring on the subject for eighteen years, and confronting the discrepancy between the facts observed and the social and psychiatric approach of the plague. His study of adolescent toxicomania was proceeding from the care of 1000 drug-fiends, plus a dialogue with 3000 schoolers and the interview of about one thousand drug-fiends on their way to recovery. Four stages have been made clear in the evolution of the disease. Stage 1--Contamination of 12 to 18 year-old-individuals, among whom 90% find a safe escape through mere self-defense (contamination from the cannabis "joint" in 95% of cases). Stage 2--Occasional users, one or two "joints", now and then, several times a month, for fun, out of submissiveness to a group or search for adventure or challenge. Stage 3--Regular use of one or several drugs entailing the spiral of dependency resulting in a distorted psyche, a disinterest in studies, marginality delinquency. Recovery is possible provided they give up the use of any drugs whatever thanks to firm ans understanding help from the family or and institution, avoiding any psychiatric response. Stage 4--Drud-fiends hooked to hard drugs such as cocaine, heroin, polytoxicomaniacs they have become the slaves of drugs, undergoing a severe physical and psychic decay, they feel lovely, consider drugs as they only friend, they have a suicidal behaviour. The immuno-deficiency caused by drug-use makes intercurrent diseases likely to strike. Recovery is still possible through drastic weaning treatment, even under constraint since they endanger their own lives, and a 12 to 18 months treatment of remotivation as well as training for social reinsertion. The therapeutic community, well organized and governed, is able to provide low cost solutions to a plague that too often comes to a deadlock. Although we can't say that first and second stage teenagers are real drug-fiends, on the contrary, third and fourth stage patients have necessary gone through stage 1 and 2. It can't be denied that they suffer from the same disease. Stage 1 and 2 teenagers and cured patients don't show the psychic decay and suicidal impulse of stage 3 and 4 patients. Such symptoms are the result of the use of drugs and not its cause. Consequently the role of the narcotic product is prevailing in the evolution of the disease.

Re: Re-classification Of Cannabis
 

very interesting :)

Re: Re-classification Of Cannabis
 

Well said dezzo.

Despite what many may have assumed I did not indulge at all in the 60â₠¬ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢s, so my thoughts on this topic are, I hope, based on a balanced assessment of the arguments for and against rather than any †œhippyâ € � belief that drugs should be free to all.

The only drug I believe should be completely free and unregulated is Love. :romance:

The big advantage of the full legalisation of cannabis is that it also allows regulation and control and I think your added idea of linking any taxation to treatment and education of ALL drugs is excellent btw.

I, like many disabled people, do indulge in the occasional †œsmoke⠀ Â� and would far prefer to obtain my †œmedicationÃƚ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã‚à ‚ÂÂ� legally. One main reason for this is the possibility of †œquality controlââ‚à ‚¬Ã‚ÂÂÂ� as, increasingly over the last year or so, much of the cannabis now available is adulterated with other compounds some of which may well be harder drugs added to give the product an addictive boost.

Taking control of cannabis away from dealers will, as many have already said, also give better protection to those who might be tempted to experiment with harder drugs as a consequence of coming into contact with dealers.

Anyway thatââ‚ ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s this hippyââ‚ƚ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s contribution to the debate other than to add the thoughts of my doctor on the issue as far as it relates to my own situation.

Many times has said he would actually feel far happier prescribing me with cannabis than he is now in prescribing the current cocktail of †œlegalâ € � drugs he is forced to right now. As a doctor he is very frustrated by the limited scope he has to take advantage of the known beneficial efficacy of an herbal remedy already tried and tested over a few thousand years.

The good news is that the initial trials of cannabis for use in a limited range of conditions is going well and there is a realistic expectation that it will be available as a presription drug eventually.

Re: Re-classification Of Cannabis
 

But that does not say anything about the relative numbers of people going on to use hard drugs, and implies that those who do do so because they started off with cannabis without giving any reasons...

Fact is that the levels of Heroin addiction in Holland compare favourably to those in the rest of the West.

http://www.chrisdaviesmep.org.uk/new..._law_delay.htm

Re: Re-classification Of Cannabis
 

There is one serious flaw in that research Ramrod and that is that it is based on a retrospective study of those ending up in full dependency on hard drugs rather than tracing the end result for a sample of 5000 starting out by having a few joints at some stage in their life.

Take a group of alcoholics and you would be able to place the blame for their dependence and addiction on alcohol on the very first glass of lemonade shandy or sip of communion wine they indulged in at some point in their past.

With cannabis it is fairer to look at the extremely high proportion of the population that have indulged at some point in their life and just how few of those have ended up moving on to harder drugs.

Re: Re-classification Of Cannabis
 

Re: Re-classification Of Cannabis
 

Again an interesting study Ramrod.

In fact this one backs up the contention we are making that divorcing the connection between cannabis and dealers probably provides the best hope of breaking the connection with the "drug culture" linked to its current illegality.

The phrase, "May as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb", springs to mind and by making a clear distinction between the legality of cannabis and the harder drugs this prompt can not be used by dealers when trying to coerce their users to take harder drugs.

Re: Re-classification Of Cannabis
 

I thought the first line was very interesting:

The key word is lifestyle I think. I think this has more to do with social issues (such as the person supplying cannabis supplying harder stuff as well). I think the Dutch example shows, that if you separate hard and soft drugs, many people may experiment with cannabis, and take it as a recreational drug without going on to harder drugs. The relatively low levels of Heroine addiction in Holland may not directly prove this, but I would say it disproves the theory that the use of Cannabis inevitable leads to the use of hard drugs. Sure, those who end up on Heroin will most likely have started with a joint, but you need to take the relative numbers into account. Not everybody that drinks ends up an alcoholic either.

Re: Re-classification Of Cannabis
 

I'm in favor of the legalization of all drugs. Let people decide what they want to do with their own lives. It isn't my job to tell them. And lets get rid of this stupid War on Drugs.

Oh and, for the record, I've never taken weed or any other drug, nor do I intend to [it is legal in Canada].

Re: Re-classification Of Cannabis
 

Would heroine be cheap if it was supplied by the government ? Isn't something like 50% of crime drug related in Britain ? Most crime affecting people I'd say would be the druggies needing money to feed their habit.

Re: Re-classification Of Cannabis
 

sorry but i think that is not the way to go , for one thng the extra burden on healthcare that i would in effect have to pay for :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

Re: Re-classification Of Cannabis
 

I have to agree with you there, but just as a thought: Heroin in its pure form, is actually not very harmful. Apart from it being mind altering and addictive, it does not do your body much harm. The stuff that is available on the street however, is very bad due to all the stuff it is mixed with...


Edit: just thought I'd add that you have to be a complete nutter to even consider taking it.

Re: Re-classification Of Cannabis
 

Au contraire, Blackadder ... plenty of evidence to be found here:

http://www.newscientist.com/hottopic...oharddrugs.jsp

"the research shows that the gateway is real, so what implications does this have for drug laws?"

The article is in no doubt that the 'gateway' effect is real, but points out that exactly why the gateway effect exists is as yet unknown.

Re: Re-classification Of Cannabis
 

I do not agree with the conclusions that have been drawn from that experiment, all it does is illustrate that any causative effects are not genetic in nature. As it does not fully account for all nuture effects, as the article itself highlights, it cannot be considered to have demonstrated its argument clearly.

It does not cover the issues of cause and effect adequately either. It does not examine whether it is likely if these people would have gone on to harder drugs if they hadn`t been taking cannabis. It is difficult to draw accurate conclusions without reading the original paper, but all that precis does is highlight an "interesting" statistical correlation, but doesn`t actually provide clear evidence one way or the other for the overall argument.

Re: Re-classification Of Cannabis
 

I'm with the Dr Wadd here. Interestingly, I've also seen some suggestion that the real gateway drug is nicotine...

Re: Re-classification Of Cannabis
 

Well said towny.

My instinctive reaction is a belief the answer will be a combination of factors depending on the specific individual.

Just as some who visit a pub will turn to drink to solve problems those exposing themselves to cannabis through whatever route are equally likely to use "drugs" in much the same way.

My take on this is that the safest way, at least until the issue is fully understood, may be to make it available as a prescription drug available only after consultation with a specialist GP.

The bit that seems beyond doubt is that forcing people to go via "dealers" must be playing a major role in the links between cannabis and harder drugs and therefore legalisation is the most likely way to break that specific link.

Re: Re-classification Of Cannabis
 

I think the biggest factor of addiction (To any drug) is the personality of the individual.
For example, all the way through Highschool I was asked many times To try alcohol, Cigerettes, and Canibis.
My Parents had always made it clear that while they did not really want me drinking as long as I was sensible It didnt matter, they also didnt seem to have any qualms with drugs even though they dont take them (To my Knowledge), My Mum smokes so it would be extremeley two faced for her to object IMO but she never did.
The result, Both Me and my sister only drink when We go out (Social Drinkers) Dont smoke and dont use canibis (OR anything harder), I tried canibis once for the experience and it really didnt do anything for me so I never bothered taking it again, My sister experimented a lot more than me but the end result is the same.
Oddly enough I dont even drink much now when I go out, this is mostly because I normally need to drive (well ride actually but basicly the same) to wherever im going so I just make do on Diet Coke :beer:

My Friend on the other hand, he was (To my knowledge) never really asked through highschool to try Alcohol or any of the others mentioned, and his parents where very strict against them.
He first got asked during his second year of college and I guess you could say addiction hit him hard since now he drinks on an extremeley regular basis (Will buy a six pack Just to play on his PC, is that normal?) chain Smokes (on about 40 a day I would say) Seems to blow his monthly wages buying weed and I heard from another friend that he does harder things now.
Though he has always had an addictive personality, basicly anything you could get addicted to when we where younger he did.
Myself & My sister dont really have addictive personalities, I'd say the only thing im addicted to is my PC and even then I dont think im addicted I could take it or leave it (dont most addicts say that though? wich makes me wonder :eek: ) the only thing I would say my sister is addicted to is Bitching (But I think that applies to a lot of women I know anyway :p )

What does reclassifiying Cannibis as Class 'C' imply anyway?

Re: Re-classification Of Cannabis
 

Maybe, maybe not - but what I was responding to in quoting it was your rather bold claim that there is 'absolutely no evidence' in support of the 'gateway effect'. Now you say this report 'doesn`t actually provide clear evidence.' The quality and interpretation of the evidence may well be up for grabs but I maintain that your earlier comment, that there is 'no' evidence, does not stand up.

Re: Re-classification Of Cannabis
 

I still don`t agree that the article does provide any evidence. It provides evidence that goes against a genetic hypothesis, it highlights an interesting statistical correlation, but as the article currently stands I do not believe that it provides scientific evidence in support of the gateway hypothesis, and for the same problems that I have seen in other research into this topic. It proposes a cause and effect relationship that the data cannot legitimately support.

The article in itself has worth in that it suggests interesting further avenues for research, but that research must be done to put the article in context.

Re: Re-classification Of Cannabis
 

Yes, it will be a bigger strain on the health care system, but then, I'm opposed to nationalized healthcare.

Re: Re-classification Of Cannabis
 

i assume aimed at my comment , do you have such a thing in canada or not ??????????? , the problem here is that we get taxed to death , supposedly to support the nhs , i must admit i wonder at times about that to be honest , having said that i think it would be tragic if we followed somewhere like america where you had to pay for everything , or am i rambling now :confused:

Re: Re-classification Of Cannabis
 

I think you're mincing words a little here ... surely calling this evidence an 'interesting statistical correlation' is not dissimilar to a newspaper printing a 'clarification' because it doesn't like to use the word 'correction'?

Evidence is evidence. Some evidence is deeply impressive and conclusive all by itself, other evidence is effective as part of a greater body of information. Perhaps the subject does call for further study, but I don't see any justification for attempting to call a spade an earth-moving implement, except to draw attention away from information that contradicts your own point of view.

Re: Re-classification Of Cannabis
 

I would have to agree with Dr Wadd analysis. The article has shown a correlation between cannabis use and use of other drugs which does not seem to be caused by genetics. It does not pose any mechanism, and does not take any account of nurture or social circumstances. It that is to be evidence for cannabis playing a role in the subsequent use of hard drugs, than that evidence is to very poor by scientific standards as the mechanism is not understood.

So, if you want to call it evidence, go ahead, but realise that it does not bring us much closer, and as the article suggests, very different policies could be based on it, from stricter to more lenient policies.

Re: Re-classification Of Cannabis
 

I still say it should be used for medicinal purposes only and certainly not recreationally.

Re: Re-classification Of Cannabis
 

Perhaps your comment about "mincing words" does have some truth to it, but the article is from New Scientist so I am therefore looking at the article from the viewpoint of scientific rigour. I can use the term 'interesting statistical correlation', but that only describes the numerical outcome of the results, not the results when taken in context. You can demonstrate many correlations, that even with a strong statistical result do not have any cause and effect.

In this instance, they have merely demonstrated that the twin who smoked cannabis was more likely to go on to taking harder drugs. Without knowing the complete social background for each twin as an individual, nor the incidence of hard drug use in twins as a whole, the results have no meaning.

Consider this example, which I appreciate may be a tad extreme, but serves for illustration. Imagine a situation where 100% of cannabis users then went on to take heroin. Even here you could not argue that it was a gateway drug as you would have no data on how many of those people would have taken heroin even if they hadn`t taken cannabis.

Re: Re-classification Of Cannabis
 

Further to Dr Wadd's comments: If two things are correlated, it does not mean they are causally related. As an example, there is a huge correlation between the number of churches and pubs in cities. That does not mean that churchgoers are heavy drinkers, but rather that you get more of both in bigger cities.

In the cannabis example it may well be that there are mediating (social) variables, such as getting both drugs from the same source (as the article acknowledges).

From a scientific point of view the article has only shown that the already established correlation between cannabis use and hard drug use does not appear to have a genetic basis. What the cause for the correlation is remains unclear.

Re: Re-classification Of Cannabis
 

We will never win the war against drugs.We will just pay more and more to try and stop it and the dealers will just get richer and richer and the criminal associations and degredation(prostitution,stealing,mugging,gun crime) will continue.

How about just legalising it all(yes all drugs).At one swoop take all criminality out of the whole process.On top of that let the government tax the product thus earning lots of lovely revenue for the state coffers(and the NHS).Also if it's sold under licence then the product will become purer and less adulterated with substances like rat poison.

Anyone caught selling it to children should face immediate incarceration and a heavy fine.
Armed forces and police,fireman,doctors,drivers etc to face mandetory testing and instant dismissal for any abuse whilst working.

Will it work?Maybe.It has worked to a certain extent with tobacco and alcohol.All I know is that the system we presently have isn't working. :(

Incog.

Re: Re-classification Of Cannabis
 

"Plague"? "Drug fiends"?! I wonder which side *this* article is going to come down on...!!! :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

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.

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.

Re: Re-classification Of Cannabis
 

Thanks for the offer, the books I have on the subject are from my degree so will all now be about 10 years out of date.

Re: Re-classification Of Cannabis
 

I'll go with that but a psychological dependance instigated by a primary physical dependance.
[/QUOTE]

Re: Re-classification Of Cannabis
 

As I mentioned previously, this is only the abstract, but going from what you've posted, and I assume you are mainly referring to the bit you've put in bold, it does not to me suggest a physical dependence. I`m reading it that the cannabis activates the reward centres of the brain, and it is the desire to get that reward that is stimulating continued use, not a change in the underlying physical mechanisms.

Strictly speaking this really low level stuff isn`t my field of expertise within psychology, so if I`ve obviously misinterpreted something let me know.

Re: Re-classification Of Cannabis
 

I think I'd go back to Sociable's question "Why?"

You say that you have insomnia. You say that you feel that it is caused by a chemical imbalance of the brain, but is that what the doctor has actually confirmed.

For example, many of my family take thyroxine to combat a failure of their thyroids to produce enough of the hormone. This was confirmed by tests undertaken by the doctor and his/her staff.The treatment was to be put on thyroxine for life at a level that compensates for the loss i.e. to restore the natural level of a hormone.The same is true when a diabetic takes insulin.

If your doctor has established that there is a chemical imbalance and that for some reason it's not possible to adjust the chemical imbalance of the brain back to its natural state, then it's possible that sleeping tablets are the doctor's workaround to get you the sleep you need as prolonged sleep-deprivation is harmful to health sometimes fatally. Given that I don't know your medical circumstances, that would be my perception of the situation.

The sad thing about sleeping tablets is that unlike normal sleep hormones they are not natural and have side effects and sadly addiction is one of them.It's not an enviable position to be placed in and I sympathise greatly.

Re: Re-classification Of Cannabis
 

Why can't you extend that argument to class A drugs though?

As for canibis being less harmful than alcohol or tobacco, you're more likely to get lung cancer from smoking canibis than drinking alcohol or smoking tobacco.
And don't most people smoke canibis with tobacco rather than instead of?

Re: Re-classification Of Cannabis
 

To extend the argument to class "A" drugs shows a total lack of understanding of the nature of class "A" drugs and the completely different nature of them. Would you class a child's pea-shooter in the same classification as an AK47?

The link between cancer and spliffs is not due to cannabis, but rather the nature of the way they are smoked with more nicotine being inhaled and more deeply than when smoking a "Normal" cigarette and in addition the lack of any filter also increasing the tar intake too. These same links to cancer are therefore not shown when cannabis is not used in conjunction with tobacco AFAIK, unless you are aware of conclusive research that disproves this.

Notwithstanding this, the key point I was making was that the tobacco content is known to be more harmful but that element of a spliff is actually legal, whereas the less harmful element, cannabis, is illegal and thereby pointing out the irony of that situation.

Re: Re-classification Of Cannabis
 

I think that's to help the drug burn at an 'acceptable' level. Allegedly

Re: Re-classification Of Cannabis
 

Not my area either, I could be wrong.
...and this one::

Re: Re-classification Of Cannabis
 

afaik it's mainly for convenience - e.g. roll a couple before you go out - lots of people use methods of smoking it 'neat' such as pipes, chillums, 'hot knives', bongs etc (depending on whether bush or resin), but it's not usually convenient to carry the paraphanalia around.:erm:

I don't know if any research has been done on the effect on the lungs of smoking 'neat' cannabis in this way?

Re: Re-classification Of Cannabis
 

Actually for most I think itâ₠¬ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢s more a case of the alternatives being somewhat less than pleasant to smoke and the overriding need to maintain nicotine levels at the same time too.

To my shame I have even been known to have a cigarette on the go same time as a J for that very reason. :blush:

Re: Re-classification Of Cannabis
 

Many thanks for posting those abstracts, I`ll have to see if I can get the full articles through work.

Re: Re-classification Of Cannabis
 

Class A drugs still enable to you escape from the world.
They still get you high.
It's only if you take too much that they kill.
Isn't that the same as drink?

Isn't part of the problem with the gov bringing in a law banning tobacco, that they get plenty of funds from taxing it, but more so, it would be political suicide?
Tobacco was introduced before it's harm was known, as such people have grown up thinking it isn't that bad. I know several people who run risks of strokes, or have lost limbs due to smoking, but still keep doing it. Like opium it was considered a taxable comodoty, heck we even went to war to keep the opium flowing, but people eventually realised the harm and dangers of it, and so it was banned, but unlike tobacco, there were fewer users of opium, so much less of a backlash.

Re: Re-classification Of Cannabis
 

:confused:

I get the feeling from your earlier posts you are opposed to the legalisation of cannabis yes?

As I said before, there are clear distinctions between class "A" drugs and the other categories and I stand by what I said earlier in this respect.

But you seem to be arguing for ALL drugs to be treated identically presumably on the basis that would invalidate any arguments linked to comparisons with other "legal" substances providing a case for the legalisation of cannabis.

Or are you perhaps arguing tobacco, alcohol and any other substance capable of being abused should also be banned and their use or possession be made a criminal offence?

Re: Re-classification Of Cannabis
 

Yes, but this does *not* mean there's a logical connection between the usage of cannabis and harder drugs.

The dealer is only interested in keeping their market going and getting a bigger profit, so it's in their interest to push harder/ more addictive drugs.

However were cannabis to be decriminalised and available as in Holland *AND* that hard drug usage be treated as a *medical* rather than a *criminal* matter with detox programmes available to hard drug users, also as in Holland, I think the number of people who subsequently get hooked on hard drugs would drop.

Re: Re-classification Of Cannabis
 

I'm just trying to show that the argument to legalise canibis by comparing it to the legality of tobacco and alcohol may be logical, but that doesn't mean it should be legalised. Logically that argument can be extended to all drugs, in that alcohol and tobacco are legal harmful drugs.

Re: Re-classification Of Cannabis
 

Yes, just taking canibis doesn't mean you will wake up one day and think "oo I think I'll try some crack", it is the dealers of the canibis and the mixing with people who use canibis and other drugs that leads to the progression onto harder things.

Holland's drug use experiment went seriously wrong though in that park didn't it?

Re: Re-classification Of Cannabis
 

Drink does not get most people "high" (or drunk) with one dose. Drugs can do.
While both kill, A person taking one pill (in their life) of certain drugs can die (particularly Ecstacy). Drink usually takes more than one to do that (apparently Absynthe is strong enough to kill though, but that is banned).

Drugs (even if used correctly) can trigger mental illness. For instance, Cannabis can trigger Schizophrenia if used to excess or mixed with other chemicals. I know someone who will the rest of his life on medication because he smoked a joint and it triggered Schizophrenia.
I think, if they were discovered today, Alcohol and Tobacco would treated as drugs and banned, but as you say, the government gets too much money in tax.

Re: Re-classification Of Cannabis
 

Que?

Re: Re-classification Of Cannabis
 

They came up with a fantastic idea which on paper looked good, but neglected to take into account what people are like when they've just injected heroine into their viens.

I don't think it was Amsterdam, but one of the other dams, they declared a park a drug decriminalised zone, giving out free needles, and supplying biohazard waste buckets for used ones, and giving advice on how to get off the stuff if people wanted to.

The idea was, drug users could go to the park, get safe needles, and be good citizens and put the used needles in the buckets, and generally just lie about chilling.

If memory serves, and this was several years ago, they were going to try it for 3 months and if successful roll it out across the country.

What happened?
Well your average heroine user doesn't give a flying watsit as to what happens to the needle once they're high.
So the park was flooded with used needles.
This was a park that kids would play in during the day.
The area became a magnet for drug users, and it all got out of control.
People still took overdoses, so they had bodies to clear up along with the drug waste.


On a different note, how do you test someone at the side of the road if you suspect they've been driving while under the influence of drugs?
If you get pulled over for wandering all over the road (dodging the manhole covers going up the A3 through cosham), and the PC suspects you have been drinking, he can just breathalise you, see that your story about the manhole covers is correct, and see that you haven't been drinking alcohol and send you on your way.
But lets say someone gets pulled over for wandering all over the road. There's no manhole covers, but the diver has been smoking canabis.
He's breathalised, it shows clear, and maybe he's able to convince the PC he's ok, so drives off as a danger.
The PC could take the driver down to the police station for a blood test, but lets say the driver hasn't been smoking pot, how would the driver feel about having his time wasted like that?
You have the current problem of people drinking just below the limit, then smoking pot to feel more drunk. The police have no way of checking if that person is too intoxicated to drive, as the breathaliser will say they are ok.

Re: Re-classification Of Cannabis
 

I thought that park was in Switzerland, or Austria (not sure which one). By all accounts, the experiment failed big time.

Re: Re-classification Of Cannabis
 

Absynthe isn`t banned in the UK. One peanut can kill, one bee sting can kill. Should we ban peanuts and bees? Are you aware that the leading piece of research into the lethality of MDMA has now been revealed to have been totally flawed, and the results no longer indicative of the danger levels of E?

Re: Re-classification Of Cannabis
 

There is currently a device undergoing trial for that very purpose. It's a PocketPC loaded with a variety of cognitive tests, and by analysing the difference in performance across a range of tests the aim is to be able to identify if the user has been taking any drugs, and what sort of drugs they are.

Re: Re-classification Of Cannabis
 

Interesting, a high tech version of 'walk in a straight line' & 'touch your nose with your eyes closed'.

I imagine that such methods would be essential if the assessment of Cannabis 'intoxication' was to be made on drivers. The problem at the moment is that Cannabis persists in the bloodstream long after the effects have worn off, so blood testing is impractical.

Re: Re-classification Of Cannabis
 

...but adding wormwood to absinthe is. The absinthe we get these days is a pale imitation of the (banned) original.

Re: Re-classification Of Cannabis
 

Not strictly true, there are regulations but they only stipulate the amount of thujone that can be present in the absinthe. But since the bottles never state the amount of thujone that isn`t normally a hard problem for suppliers to tackle. I've seen plenty of companies based in the UK selling absinthe with thujone in it that is at a higher level than is permitted. I suspect that this is because thujone is still not regulated as a drug, it is regulated as a toxic substance so comes under a whole different raft of legislation.