G W Bush was prone to a puff before he found God and started killing people.
January 14, 2007 at 11:47 PM
Anonymous
said...
There's a big difference between medical and recreational cannabis. Medicinal cannabis does not get you high and is not addictive. This is one of those issues where there is more heat than light, let's make sure we spread light.
January 14, 2007 at 11:55 PM
Anonymous
said...
Give all druggies as much as they can take.
Then give them some more.
It's the only language they understand.
January 15, 2007 at 12:14 AM
Anonymous
said...
SteveStyle said... There's a big difference between medical and recreational cannabis. Medicinal cannabis does not get you high
Makes you wonder why anybody would bother with that medicinal shit doesn't it Steve? It should all be legal, for no other reason than to see respectable gents such as myself queuing up at Boots the chemists for a nice bag of Gak for the weekend maybe washed down with some GHB .
January 15, 2007 at 12:28 AM
Anonymous
said...
I thought all the spiff users were Lib Dems.
January 15, 2007 at 1:51 AM
Anonymous
said...
What a song; I'm afraid it must be too early in the day for me to truly appreciate it.
January 15, 2007 at 7:26 AM
Anonymous
said...
Uh, medicinal cannabis can indeed get you high unless specific measures are taken to prevent that. Why bother? It's far more expensive that way.
The trouble that we've seen in Canada with medical cannabis rights movements is that, quite frankly, they tend to get used as fronts by those who have a lot of money to make from recreational users. Here in BC (proud home of the Bud!) we've seen several medical rights groups get co-opted by people with no real interest in the medical benefits. If you can find a group that's really about the medical benefits, throw your support to them because cannabis is far too useful, affordable, and powerful a medicine to be kept away (for no good reason) from patients. And "so other people can't have fun" is NO GOOD REASON.
It should be legal because it's none of the governments business what people put in their own bodies.
Making drugs illegal increases their cost 100 fold and causes crime.
Making drugs illegal causes the vast majority of drug takers to form criminal connections.
Making drugs illegal gives massive amounts of money and motivation to criminals.
Criminising chemical liberty has been a disaster.
January 15, 2007 at 7:41 AM
Anonymous
said...
I am strongly against the legalisation of Cannabis - the potential to tip vunerable individuals into mental illness is well documented. It's very irresponsible for those people who find out their won't be effected to encourage russian roulette.
If the medical community want to develop theraputic drugs from any herb then the Government does not have the right to prevent ths from happening.
Alot of badly informed, sophistic and misguided people get these two issues confused.
January 15, 2007 at 8:15 AM
Anonymous
said...
Forget New Labour sleaze, crime, immigration, the screwed-up public finances, the forthcoming recession, foreign wars etc and lets concentrate on the real issue: cannabis.
Forget New Labour sleaze, crime, immigration, the screwed-up public finances, the forthcoming recession, foreign wars etc and lets concentrate on the real issue: cannabis.
Lets be honest, if we all smoked copious quantities of the latter, we wouldn't notice the former. Now that would be a really good way of selling the idea to the government.
People who want to smoke weed already do, even though it's illegal. The police don't care, the politicians don't care. It may as well be legal.
Legalisation would only reduce the price, improve its quality increase the efficiency of its distribution.
January 15, 2007 at 9:58 AM
Anonymous
said...
Ed said... People who want to smoke weed already do, even though it's illegal. The police don't care, the politicians don't care. It may as well be legal.
Legalisation would only reduce the price, improve its quality increase the efficiency of its distribution.
You make that sound like a bad thing?
January 15, 2007 at 10:14 AM
Anonymous
said...
Er, actually Guido most people want to know his views on the 911 theories. That got the top votes.. I trust you will make sure he answers that one.
January 15, 2007 at 10:17 AM
Anonymous
said...
What I thought was crazy was charging those people sending out 'cannabis chocolate' to sufferers of MS. My sister is a part-time carer for a man with MS with a poor quality of life. This is a very debilitating disease, and if it was giving them some relief, where is the value in criminalising them ?
It's not as if the amount of cannabis in the choccie bars was enough to make them high.
And the drug [or should that be 'pharmaceutcical'] companies are already experimenting with a version of it called, I think, Sativex. So why not allow people to gain 'therapeutic help' from it.
January 15, 2007 at 10:33 AM
Anonymous
said...
Yeah the 9/11 press for truth film made the top vote in the end. to watch the film go to:
I didn't mean to. I meant that legalisation would have little downside risk.
Weed does seem to have an effect on mental health, but those who are affected keep smoking anyway. If weed was taxed at least the health service would be able to solve the problem.
I am afraid legalising cannabis for medical reasons is a good idea but its a smokescreen to hide the fact that drugs should be legalised full stop. The only thing that keeping cannabis illegal achieves is that it makes money for criminals and turn people who shouldn't be criminal. Of course the police would be bumbed...after all its so easy to catch a stoner...they don't move terribly fast.
January 15, 2007 at 12:20 PM
Anonymous
said...
It stops me going psychotic
January 15, 2007 at 12:25 PM
Anonymous
said...
Forget cannabis. There is only one issue that over-rides all the others......
IT'S THE ECONOMY STUPID and that's what New Labour are going to lose the next election on:
I think it's a enlightening that we've got paranoid conspiracy theorists rambling on about 9/11 on a legalise cannabis thread...
Dude, it’s, like, all connected!
January 15, 2007 at 12:46 PM
Anonymous
said...
The educated and gainfully employed smoke dope in their spare time then sit around drinking fine wine, talking rubbish and laughing like drains. The great unwashed smoke dope all day then go robbing, mugging, stabbing and jumping out of windows. A licence for smoking dope should be granted to anyone who could prove they were intellectually capable of handling it without running amok. Anyone who can't think and has nothing to say should continue to be criminalised for their own good.
January 15, 2007 at 12:50 PM
Anonymous
said...
legalising cannabis, Mmmm. There is a snag here, I assume you've all spotted it. The result would be that the shadow cabinet would fully indulge their appetites. We can't get any sense out of the buggers now, what chance would we have of squeezing the odd policy out of them if they were rat-arsed on weed 24/7?
January 15, 2007 at 12:52 PM
Anonymous
said...
It's the only way the Tories will get back in, on a Legalise It ticket. Peter Lilley was right.
January 15, 2007 at 1:05 PM
Anonymous
said...
The great unwashed don't then go robbing, mugging, stabbing etc etc, not if they've just been smoking dope. It'd be far too much effort after a days smoking. (If they've been using other drugs as well then they may, and after all keeping it illegal means that the guy who sells you dope may well be able to sell you something a little stronger.) The only coherent arguement for banning dope is that its a gateway drug to that terribly addictive and deadly drug, nicotine.
January 15, 2007 at 1:05 PM
Anonymous
said...
from that chome link: "The NHS would become a monopoly supplier of illegal drugs and use the power of the market to undercut and drive out the dealers."
wrong on so many counts. the key thing with the legalisation stance is that you decriminalise the current market - not substitute it for a centrally controlled socialist one, which is bound to end up in utter failure.
January 15, 2007 at 1:17 PM
Anonymous
said...
According to Mrs Grieve F.R.H.S writing in 1931 in A Modern Herbal
"The principal use of Hemp in medicine is for easing pain and inducing sleep, and for a soothing influence in nervous disorders. It does not cause constipation nor affect the appetite like opium. It is useful in neuralgia, gout, rheumatism, delirium tremens, insanity, infantile convulsions, insomnia etc.
The tincture helps parturition, and is used in senile catarrh, gonorrhoea, menorrhagia, chonic cystitis and all painful urinary affections.
The following is said to be a certain cure for gonorrhoea. Take equal parts of tops of male and female hemp in blossom. Bruise in a mortar, express the juice, and add an equal portion of alcohol. Take 1 to 3 drops every two to three hours."
January 15, 2007 at 1:38 PM
Anonymous
said...
lilith said... It's the only way the Tories will get back in, on a Legalise It ticket. Peter Lilley was right.
Don't be so feckin ridiculous.
Are you a New Labour troll desperate for the Tories to leak more votes to UKIP and the BNP to save your mangy necks?
January 15, 2007 at 1:52 PM
Anonymous
said...
Guido, you haven't commented at all on recent goings-on in the Home Office... any particular reason why not?
January 15, 2007 at 2:01 PM
Anonymous
said...
"At 11:55 PM, SteveStyle said...
There's a big difference between medical and recreational cannabis. Medicinal cannabis does not get you high and is not addictive. This is one of those issues where there is more heat than light, let's make sure we spread light."
The fact that you think "recreational" cannabis is addictive renders your opinion on the subject null and void. You Twat. Sure it can be moreish but addictive? No more so that sucking your thumb...
January 15, 2007 at 2:25 PM
Anonymous
said...
"At 8:15 AM, javelin said...
I am strongly against the legalisation of Cannabis - the potential to tip vunerable individuals into mental illness is well documented. It's very irresponsible for those people who find out their won't be effected to encourage russian roulette."
So something which is harmless to 99% of users but might tip 'vulnerable individuals' over the edge should be prohibited from those it wouldn't harm?
Come on, if thats the best argument for keeping it illegal we should all spark up a big fat one right now.
Anything can be harmful to 'vulnerable indivuduals'! Should any metal objects also be banned from public use as they could damage these poor vulnerable souls...
I take it that I am the only person who thinks possession should be a hanging offence!
January 15, 2007 at 2:41 PM
Anonymous
said...
"We can't get any sense out of the buggers now, what chance would we have of squeezing the odd policy out of them if they were rat-arsed on weed 24/7?"
If they are in government, no problem. A government with no policies and no interest in them is just what we need. Just stop the legislative and administrative Niagra, and see what a nice place to live Britain might become.
January 15, 2007 at 2:49 PM
Anonymous
said...
Mrs Grieve was clearly a forerunner of the Prince of Wales and Cherie Blair in pioneering evidence based medicine. Perhaps if Ms Hewitt were to read Mrs Grieve's work she would legalise cannabis to enable her to close even more hospitals and cut back on GUM services.
"We can't get any sense out of the buggers now, what chance would we have of squeezing the odd policy out of them if they were rat-arsed on weed 24/7?"
It's spelled "bloggers".
January 15, 2007 at 3:21 PM
Anonymous
said...
You can in Britain produce alcohol and consume it as long as you dont sell it to other people. Is their anyone that thinks cannabis is more dangerous to human beings then alcohol?
The last thing that should ever happen is cannabis becomeing controlled and taxed the same way as alcohol by the state.
Free the weed not Gordon Browns socialist megleomania.
Freedom is much more simple then many now think. Thanks to authoritarian socialist propagandists deliberate long term policy to confuse the public.
Personal responsibility starts and finishes by what harm one does to OTHER PEOPLE, whether high on drugs or alcohol. Get this right in the law and people will controll themselves or have to deal with the consequences of their actions.
The state however must not be allowed to EVER by law controll what people do to themselves whatever the short or long term consequences for sociaty.
OR WE ARE ALL SCREWED FOREVER.
January 15, 2007 at 3:21 PM
Anonymous
said...
No I am Peter Lilley
January 15, 2007 at 3:35 PM
Anonymous
said...
Look taking lots-n-lots of illegal drugs didn't do David Cameron any harm: now did it?
January 15, 2007 at 3:41 PM
Anonymous
said...
There hasn't, as yet, been any comment on the callous, cruel and tyrranical behaviour of the majority denying relieve from suffering to a minority of ill people simply because of some cowardly and primitive believes. Tragic isn't it; having to suffer the tyrrany of democracy and the hijacking of the legislature based upon the mistaken believe that legislation is law.
Nazi medics who caused suffering in a similar manner were hung.
January 15, 2007 at 3:53 PM
Anonymous
said...
"There is only one issue that over-rides all the others......" ... seconded. Anyone around here sitting on a carpet bag?
GC smoked heavily until skunk became the only thing you could buy in the UK. The equivalent of drinking meths,it produces instant psychosis. At least if it was legal then there might be a little more variety on the market. I used to get massively paranoid and became convinced I had chronic degenerative illness because I couldn't speak and had the memory span of whippet. Those toking MS victims must have balls of steel.
January 15, 2007 at 4:05 PM
Anonymous
said...
" IT'S THE ECONOMY STUPID and that's what New Labour are going to lose the next election on:
From the above link, "Asset prices of all sorts have soared because interest rates were very low and credit freely available. But interest rates were low because the economy was softish and inflation subdued."
Bollocks. Housing has not been included in inflation measures. Housing has been and is the largest generator of money supply (fractional reserve and all that). The upcoming storm has been created by the stupidity of: a) us; b)Greenspan; c) Brown; d) George/King ...
January 15, 2007 at 4:10 PM
Anonymous
said...
My only argument against weed is that it affects your judgment badly - why only last month i found myself thinking that G Brown might not make such a bad PM.
Sensibly I have decided to give it up for new year and now realize what a corrupt shitbag he really is.
January 15, 2007 at 4:17 PM
Anonymous
said...
Complementary toke with every ASBO!
January 15, 2007 at 4:38 PM
Anonymous
said...
mister scruff said... from that chome link: "The NHS would become a monopoly supplier of illegal drugs and use the power of the market to undercut and drive out the dealers."
wrong on so many counts. the key thing with the legalisation stance is that you decriminalise the current market - not substitute it for a centrally controlled socialist one, which is bound to end up in utter failure.
Quite right - a legal market of heroin and crack would vastly reduce the price, and provision by the NHS would be free. This would wipe out most drug-related crime at a stroke, as addicts would no longer need to steal to feed their habits.
It's also ludicrous to criminalise people using other drugs whose harmful effects are far less than those of alcohol or tobacco (even assuming that's the state's business).
Assuming you really ARE Mr Scruff, it's nice to see another DJ on here ;¬)
January 15, 2007 at 4:41 PM
Anonymous
said...
It would be a terrible idea for the government/NHS to get involved in distribution and supply. Thomson & Morgan could just add it to their seed catalogue for gardeners and plant pot owners. And it would provide a nice little cash crop for farmers .
January 15, 2007 at 4:56 PM
Anonymous
said...
Hear Hear. Can we have more posts on drugs please Guido as it reaffirms my belief in human nature on the internet, and propels me full of energy to venture into the world and do good, before settling in for Newsnight and a big fat spliff. Good to see Mr Scruff on board - please big up the liberty angle and tell all banning, big brothering, nanny lactating, authoritarian bureaucratizing totalitarianing new labour wankers to fuck off
January 15, 2007 at 5:07 PM
Anonymous
said...
Authoritarian Conservatives are dieing off, judging by the average age of most of them in my constituency party anyway.
For those Tories still not sold on the idear of individual freedom and responsibility believe me there is no point in them joining UKIP as they at least ARE sold on it.
As for the legalisation of cannabis causing defections to the BNP. Thats just fine by me they have been voting for the wrong party anyway, the sooner they piss off the better.
January 15, 2007 at 5:08 PM
Anonymous
said...
we could just speed it up by calling ourselves the dope conservatives... it could do the same for us as new did for labour
i feel a movement coming on - with dave being desperate for cred the word dope could do wonders
January 15, 2007 at 6:01 PM
Anonymous
said...
Asset prices(property, shares etc) have become 'inflated' because interest rates are based on an unrepresentative basket(CPI) of prices 'fixed' by Brown. CPI does not reflect COL for majority of population. Asset prices will fall because either wage demands or interest rates rise. Interest rates will continue to rise. Highly geared home owners and Johnny Come Lately 'buy to rent' investors are in for a pasting. Brown Balls and others of their ilk are OK on nice salaries and index linked pensions.
January 15, 2007 at 6:07 PM
Anonymous
said...
Cannabis damages the brain & causes personality deterioration
January 15, 2007 at 6:09 PM
Anonymous
said...
If Dave Cameron is Fat Freddy, who on the Tory front bench is going to be Phineas and Freewheel'in Franklin?
It is Friday night. The streets are full of violent, brawling youths. Car windows are being smashed. Girls lie face down, unconsciuos on the pavement. Piles of vomit line the street. Amsterdam? Birmingham! Caused by Cannabis? Alcohol I fear... Ask the A&E ward which they think causes most harm. So from a logic point of view, we either ban alcohol, and I don't want to lose out on a pint at my local, or...
January 15, 2007 at 6:14 PM
Anonymous
said...
How times change. I got some very serious looks as a Tory councillor when I proposed legalisation of cannabis about eight years ago.
I am interested by the medicinal cannabis idea though because I think that goes to the heart of the matter. You can use cannabis provided you don't enjoy it. You can have sex, provided you don't enjoy it. You can go to a pub, provided you don't light up.
I am sure I am a libertarian, I have always thought of myself as a Tory, well since I was seven. For fuck's sake, legalise dope, legalise nicotine - I won't use either, but let me get pissed once in a while. If you won't let people enjoy themselves in ways which are harmless to others then is it any wonder that they do rather nasty small minded things which cause real harm to real people.
January 15, 2007 at 7:01 PM
Anonymous
said...
The THC4MS 3 were doing for free what the pharmaceutical companies will make millions from!
Perhaps David Cameron could discuss this issue with Multiple Sclerosis sufferer David MacLean Penrith and the Border?
Dear, oh dear. If the bedsit revolutionaries did get the drug legalised, we would have to construct a huge industry to sell it. You would need to grow it in a controlled way, turning it fags or whatever would require it to be clearly marked by strength (like booze), the police would have to be equipped with road-side tests to make sure people aren't driving under the influence etc, etc
Truth is, you sados are attracted by the 'underground' nature of this pastime, aren't you?
Any anybody well-fed, well-housed and sound of mind who recommends drugs to everybody, even the badly-fed, badly housed and troubled should be fucking ashamed of themselves.
January 15, 2007 at 8:04 PM
Anonymous
said...
"Authoritarian Conservatives are dieing off, judging by the average age of most of them in my constituency party anyway.
This is a fallacy. Most people who die are old, but the elderly as a group are becoming more numerous compared to the rest. They remember what Britain was like before it was undermined by libertarians of every hue.
January 15, 2007 at 8:20 PM
Anonymous
said...
Comstock,
I am the same. I used to like a bit of reefer but I won't smoke skunk. Anyone who knows how much I drink and how much curry I eat (see my blog) will be able to tell that I am not a health paranoiac, but I am not interested in becoming schizophrenic.
Fortunately, my coke dealer gets some nice grass in every now and again :)
Scoffer.
January 15, 2007 at 9:01 PM
Anonymous
said...
For the sake of the evolution of humanity we should legalise all drugs. Then all the idiots will kill themselves.
January 15, 2007 at 9:25 PM
Anonymous
said...
Surely with the 'wonders of modern technology' couldn't Cadbury's add to their plethora of choccie bars [including Dairy Milk bar containing Turkish Delight ] and 'brand extensions' into putting bits of mashed up 'Creme Eggs' into Mc Flurries, sort something out ??
After all they 'invented' the Flake by discovering they could re-use the wafer which was a by-product of the production of their other bars.
They could just drop a bit of weed into the 'Fruit and Nut' bar and re-brand it as 'Organic Fruit and Nut' - who would know the difference ? If someone did complain they could just use the same excuse when they found some salmonella in one of their bars, that some water had leaked onto the production line.
January 15, 2007 at 9:47 PM
Anonymous
said...
Hmm...what would be the legal standpoint if the THC4MS operation were to start up again from, say, the Isle of Man ?
Or Jersey ? Or Guernsey ?
Also in these days of Jamie/Nigella/Delia persuading the masses that everyone can cook like a professional, perhaps if they did a feature about cooking 'cannabis chocolate', they could democratise the whole process. I'm sure the BBC/ Channel4 would think this was one of their less controversial efforts.
January 15, 2007 at 9:51 PM
Anonymous
said...
This idea about new superstrong varieties of cannabis with new psychotic effects has been demonstrated to be a myth.
The main active ingredient in any form of cannabis is THC.
Hashish is made by removing the resinous glands from the leaves.
Grass, weed or skunk is the leaves with the resinous glands still in place.
Hashish is therefore the more concentrated form.
Hash of perfectly acceptable quality has been freely available in the UK for the last 30 years. The effects haven't changed at all, and the effects of herbal cannabis are exactly the same as those of the resinous form. There is no reason for the effects to be any different, because the active ingredients are completely unchanged.
Most users don't enjoy the feeling of having had too much cannabis, and users often warn one another if a particular sample is particularly potent.
The stronger it is, the less you need to use to get the same effect.
The former Home Secretary Charles Clarke was very keen to see cannabis reclassified as being more dangerous, and he asked the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs to re-examine this issue. Clarke specifically asked them to look at the evidence on new super-strong varieties of weed. He was clearly taken in by the myth, but the ACMD considered the facts, like those I have set out above, which are actually pretty-well self evident to experienced, thoughtful and scientifically literate users.
The ACMD did not back Clarke in his desire to reclassify cannabis, because they found that it is as relatively harmless as had previously been found.
If you have a sample of unknown strength, treat it cautiously and use a little at first. If it is strong, use less. How difficult is that to grasp?
B29
January 16, 2007 at 2:03 PM
Anonymous
said...
Oh yes, just another quick point. No sensible government would want to get involved in licensing, quality control, pricing, trades descriptions, etc etc.
It is easy for people to grow plenty for their own needs. You can do it in a small cupboard. A relative grows his year's supply each year on his balcony in Amsterdam, a single plant produces all he can use, with minimal care or expertise.
A great deal of the trouble comes from buying and selling the stuff. I would suggest that growing it for personal use should be decriminalised, and sale should continue to be illegal.
65 comments:
G W Bush was prone to a puff before he found God and started killing people.
There's a big difference between medical and recreational cannabis. Medicinal cannabis does not get you high and is not addictive. This is one of those issues where there is more heat than light, let's make sure we spread light.
Give all druggies as much as they can take.
Then give them some more.
It's the only language they understand.
SteveStyle said...
There's a big difference between medical and recreational cannabis. Medicinal cannabis does not get you high
Makes you wonder why anybody would bother with that medicinal shit doesn't it Steve?
It should all be legal, for no other reason than to see respectable gents such as myself queuing up at Boots the chemists for a nice bag of Gak for the weekend maybe washed down with some GHB .
I thought all the spiff users were Lib Dems.
What a song; I'm afraid it must be too early in the day for me to truly appreciate it.
Uh, medicinal cannabis can indeed get you high unless specific measures are taken to prevent that. Why bother? It's far more expensive that way.
The trouble that we've seen in Canada with medical cannabis rights movements is that, quite frankly, they tend to get used as fronts by those who have a lot of money to make from recreational users. Here in BC (proud home of the Bud!) we've seen several medical rights groups get co-opted by people with no real interest in the medical benefits. If you can find a group that's really about the medical benefits, throw your support to them because cannabis is far too useful, affordable, and powerful a medicine to be kept away (for no good reason) from patients. And "so other people can't have fun" is NO GOOD REASON.
It should be legal because it's none of the governments business what people put in their own bodies.
Making drugs illegal increases their cost 100 fold and causes crime.
Making drugs illegal causes the vast majority of drug takers to form criminal connections.
Making drugs illegal gives massive amounts of money and motivation to criminals.
Criminising chemical liberty has been a disaster.
I am strongly against the legalisation of Cannabis - the potential to tip vunerable individuals into mental illness is well documented. It's very irresponsible for those people who find out their won't be effected to encourage russian roulette.
If the medical community want to develop theraputic drugs from any herb then the Government does not have the right to prevent ths from happening.
Alot of badly informed, sophistic and misguided people get these two issues confused.
Forget New Labour sleaze, crime, immigration, the screwed-up public finances, the forthcoming recession, foreign wars etc and lets concentrate on the real issue: cannabis.
Forget New Labour sleaze, crime, immigration, the screwed-up public finances, the forthcoming recession, foreign wars etc and lets concentrate on the real issue: cannabis.
Lets be honest, if we all smoked copious quantities of the latter, we wouldn't notice the former. Now that would be a really good way of selling the idea to the government.
People who want to smoke weed already do, even though it's illegal. The police don't care, the politicians don't care. It may as well be legal.
Legalisation would only reduce the price, improve its quality increase the efficiency of its distribution.
Ed said...
People who want to smoke weed already do, even though it's illegal. The police don't care, the politicians don't care. It may as well be legal.
Legalisation would only reduce the price, improve its quality increase the efficiency of its distribution.
You make that sound like a bad thing?
Er, actually Guido most people want to know his views on the 911 theories. That got the top votes.. I trust you will make sure he answers that one.
What I thought was crazy was charging those people sending out 'cannabis chocolate' to sufferers of MS. My sister is a part-time carer for a man with MS with a poor quality of life. This is a very debilitating disease, and if it was giving them some relief, where is the value in criminalising them ?
It's not as if the amount of cannabis in the choccie bars was enough to make them high.
And the drug [or should that be 'pharmaceutcical'] companies are already experimenting with a version of it called, I think, Sativex. So why not allow people to gain 'therapeutic help' from it.
Yeah the 9/11 press for truth film made the top vote in the end. to watch the film go to:
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=5589099104255077250&q=press+for+truth
10:14 AM
You make that sound like a bad thing?
I didn't mean to. I meant that legalisation would have little downside risk.
Weed does seem to have an effect on mental health, but those who are affected keep smoking anyway. If weed was taxed at least the health service would be able to solve the problem.
Cannabis makes everything funny. Is this what we, as a nation, need? Don't answer that.
I am afraid legalising cannabis for medical reasons is a good idea but its a smokescreen to hide the fact that drugs should be legalised full stop. The only thing that keeping cannabis illegal achieves is that it makes money for criminals and turn people who shouldn't be criminal. Of course the police would be bumbed...after all its so easy to catch a stoner...they don't move terribly fast.
It stops me going psychotic
Forget cannabis. There is only one issue that over-rides all the others......
IT'S THE ECONOMY STUPID and that's what New Labour are going to lose the next election on:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2007/01/15/ccom15.xml
I think it's a enlightening that we've got paranoid conspiracy theorists rambling on about 9/11 on a legalise cannabis thread...
Dude, it’s, like, all connected!
The educated and gainfully employed smoke dope in their spare time then sit around drinking fine wine, talking rubbish and laughing like drains. The great unwashed smoke dope all day then go robbing, mugging, stabbing and jumping out of windows. A licence for smoking dope should be granted to anyone who could prove they were intellectually capable of handling it without running amok. Anyone who can't think and has nothing to say should continue to be criminalised for their own good.
legalising cannabis, Mmmm. There is a snag here, I assume you've all spotted it. The result would be that the shadow cabinet would fully indulge their appetites. We can't get any sense out of the buggers now, what chance would we have of squeezing the odd policy out of them if they were rat-arsed on weed 24/7?
It's the only way the Tories will get back in, on a Legalise It ticket. Peter Lilley was right.
The great unwashed don't then go robbing, mugging, stabbing etc etc, not if they've just been smoking dope. It'd be far too much effort after a days smoking. (If they've been using other drugs as well then they may, and after all keeping it illegal means that the guy who sells you dope may well be able to sell you something a little stronger.) The only coherent arguement for banning dope is that its a gateway drug to that terribly addictive and deadly drug, nicotine.
from that chome link:
"The NHS would become a monopoly supplier of illegal drugs and use the power of the market to undercut and drive out the dealers."
wrong on so many counts. the key thing with the legalisation stance is that you decriminalise the current market - not substitute it for a centrally controlled socialist one, which is bound to end up in utter failure.
According to Mrs Grieve F.R.H.S writing in 1931 in A Modern Herbal
"The principal use of Hemp in medicine is for easing pain and inducing sleep, and for a soothing influence in nervous disorders. It does not cause constipation nor affect the appetite like opium. It is useful in neuralgia, gout, rheumatism, delirium tremens, insanity, infantile convulsions, insomnia etc.
The tincture helps parturition, and is used in senile catarrh, gonorrhoea, menorrhagia, chonic cystitis and all painful urinary affections.
The following is said to be a certain cure for gonorrhoea. Take equal parts of tops of male and female hemp in blossom. Bruise in a mortar, express the juice, and add an equal portion of alcohol. Take 1 to 3 drops every two to three hours."
lilith said...
It's the only way the Tories will get back in, on a Legalise It ticket. Peter Lilley was right.
Don't be so feckin ridiculous.
Are you a New Labour troll desperate for the Tories to leak more votes to UKIP and the BNP to save your mangy necks?
Guido, you haven't commented at all on recent goings-on in the Home Office... any particular reason why not?
"At 11:55 PM, SteveStyle said...
There's a big difference between medical and recreational cannabis. Medicinal cannabis does not get you high and is not addictive. This is one of those issues where there is more heat than light, let's make sure we spread light."
The fact that you think "recreational" cannabis is addictive renders your opinion on the subject null and void. You Twat. Sure it can be moreish but addictive? No more so that sucking your thumb...
"At 8:15 AM, javelin said...
I am strongly against the legalisation of Cannabis - the potential to tip vunerable individuals into mental illness is well documented. It's very irresponsible for those people who find out their won't be effected to encourage russian roulette."
So something which is harmless to 99% of users but might tip 'vulnerable individuals' over the edge should be prohibited from those it wouldn't harm?
Come on, if thats the best argument for keeping it illegal we should all spark up a big fat one right now.
Anything can be harmful to 'vulnerable indivuduals'! Should any metal objects also be banned from public use as they could damage these poor vulnerable souls...
I take it that I am the only person who thinks possession should be a hanging offence!
"We can't get any sense out of the buggers now, what chance would we have of squeezing the odd policy out of them if they were rat-arsed on weed 24/7?"
If they are in government, no problem. A government with no policies and no interest in them is just what we need. Just stop the legislative and administrative Niagra, and see what a nice place to live Britain might become.
Mrs Grieve was clearly a forerunner of the Prince of Wales and Cherie Blair in pioneering evidence based medicine. Perhaps if Ms Hewitt were to read Mrs Grieve's work she would legalise cannabis to enable her to close even more hospitals and cut back on GUM services.
"We can't get any sense out of the buggers now, what chance would we have of squeezing the odd policy out of them if they were rat-arsed on weed 24/7?"
It's spelled "bloggers".
You can in Britain produce alcohol and consume it as long as you dont sell it to other people. Is their anyone that thinks cannabis is more dangerous to human beings then alcohol?
The last thing that should ever happen is cannabis becomeing controlled and taxed the same way as alcohol by the state.
Free the weed not Gordon Browns socialist megleomania.
Freedom is much more simple then many now think. Thanks to authoritarian socialist propagandists deliberate long term policy to confuse the public.
Personal responsibility starts and finishes by what harm one does to OTHER PEOPLE, whether high on drugs or alcohol. Get this right in the law and people will controll themselves or have to deal with the consequences of their actions.
The state however must not be allowed to EVER by law controll what people do to themselves whatever the short or long term consequences for sociaty.
OR WE ARE ALL SCREWED FOREVER.
No I am Peter Lilley
Look taking lots-n-lots of illegal drugs didn't do David Cameron any harm: now did it?
There hasn't, as yet, been any comment on the callous, cruel and tyrranical behaviour of the majority denying relieve from suffering to a minority of ill people simply because of some cowardly and primitive believes. Tragic isn't it; having to suffer the tyrrany of democracy and the hijacking of the legislature based upon the mistaken believe that legislation is law.
Nazi medics who caused suffering in a similar manner were hung.
"There is only one issue that over-rides all the others......" ... seconded. Anyone around here sitting on a carpet bag?
GC smoked heavily until skunk became the only thing you could buy in the UK. The equivalent of drinking meths,it produces instant psychosis. At least if it was legal then there might be a little more variety on the market.
I used to get massively paranoid and became convinced I had chronic degenerative illness because I couldn't speak and had the memory span of whippet. Those toking MS victims must have balls of steel.
"
IT'S THE ECONOMY STUPID and that's what New Labour are going to lose the next election on:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2007/01/15/ccom15.xml"
From the above link, "Asset prices of all sorts have soared because interest rates were very low and credit freely available. But interest rates were low because the economy was softish and inflation subdued."
Bollocks. Housing has not been included in inflation measures. Housing has been and is the largest generator of money supply (fractional reserve and all that). The upcoming storm has been created by the stupidity of: a) us; b)Greenspan; c) Brown; d) George/King ...
My only argument against weed is that it affects your judgment badly - why only last month i found myself thinking that G Brown might not make such a bad PM.
Sensibly I have decided to give it up for new year and now realize what a corrupt shitbag he really is.
Complementary toke with every ASBO!
mister scruff said...
from that chome link:
"The NHS would become a monopoly supplier of illegal drugs and use the power of the market to undercut and drive out the dealers."
wrong on so many counts. the key thing with the legalisation stance is that you decriminalise the current market - not substitute it for a centrally controlled socialist one, which is bound to end up in utter failure.
Quite right - a legal market of heroin and crack would vastly reduce the price, and provision by the NHS would be free. This would wipe out most drug-related crime at a stroke, as addicts would no longer need to steal to feed their habits.
It's also ludicrous to criminalise people using other drugs whose harmful effects are far less than those of alcohol or tobacco (even assuming that's the state's business).
Assuming you really ARE Mr Scruff, it's nice to see another DJ on here ;¬)
It would be a terrible idea for the government/NHS to get involved in distribution and supply. Thomson & Morgan could just add it to their seed catalogue for gardeners and plant pot owners. And it would provide a nice little cash crop for farmers .
Hear Hear. Can we have more posts on drugs please Guido as it reaffirms my belief in human nature on the internet, and propels me full of energy to venture into the world and do good, before settling in for Newsnight and a big fat spliff. Good to see Mr Scruff on board - please big up the liberty angle and tell all banning, big brothering, nanny lactating, authoritarian bureaucratizing totalitarianing new labour wankers to fuck off
Authoritarian Conservatives are dieing off, judging by the average age of most of them in my constituency party anyway.
For those Tories still not sold on the idear of individual freedom and responsibility believe me there is no point in them joining UKIP as they at least ARE sold on it.
As for the legalisation of cannabis causing defections to the BNP. Thats just fine by me they have been voting for the wrong party anyway, the sooner they piss off the better.
we could just speed it up by calling ourselves the dope conservatives... it could do the same for us as new did for labour
i feel a movement coming on - with dave being desperate for cred the word dope could do wonders
Asset prices(property, shares etc) have become 'inflated' because interest rates are based on an unrepresentative basket(CPI) of prices 'fixed' by Brown. CPI does not reflect COL for majority of population. Asset prices will fall because either wage demands or interest rates rise. Interest rates will continue to rise. Highly geared home owners and Johnny Come Lately 'buy to rent' investors are in for a pasting. Brown Balls and others of their ilk are OK on nice salaries and index linked pensions.
Cannabis damages the brain & causes personality deterioration
If Dave Cameron is Fat Freddy, who on the Tory front bench is going to be Phineas and Freewheel'in Franklin?
"Turn on, Tune in, Vote Conservative!"
It is Friday night. The streets are full of violent, brawling youths. Car windows are being smashed. Girls lie face down, unconsciuos on the pavement. Piles of vomit line the street.
Amsterdam? Birmingham!
Caused by Cannabis? Alcohol I fear...
Ask the A&E ward which they think causes most harm.
So from a logic point of view, we either ban alcohol, and I don't want to lose out on a pint at my local, or...
How times change. I got some very serious looks as a Tory councillor when I proposed legalisation of cannabis about eight years ago.
I am interested by the medicinal cannabis idea though because I think that goes to the heart of the matter. You can use cannabis provided you don't enjoy it. You can have sex, provided you don't enjoy it. You can go to a pub, provided you don't light up.
I am sure I am a libertarian, I have always thought of myself as a Tory, well since I was seven. For fuck's sake, legalise dope, legalise nicotine - I won't use either, but let me get pissed once in a while. If you won't let people enjoy themselves in ways which are harmless to others then is it any wonder that they do rather nasty small minded things which cause real harm to real people.
The THC4MS 3 were doing for free what the pharmaceutical companies will make millions from!
Perhaps David Cameron could discuss this issue with Multiple Sclerosis sufferer David MacLean Penrith and the Border?
Dear, oh dear. If the bedsit revolutionaries did get the drug legalised, we would have to construct a huge industry to sell it. You would need to grow it in a controlled way, turning it fags or whatever would require it to be clearly marked by strength (like booze), the police would have to be equipped with road-side tests to make sure people aren't driving under the influence etc, etc
Truth is, you sados are attracted by the 'underground' nature of this pastime, aren't you?
Any anybody well-fed, well-housed and sound of mind who recommends drugs to everybody, even the badly-fed, badly housed and troubled should be fucking ashamed of themselves.
"Authoritarian Conservatives are dieing off, judging by the average age of most of them in my constituency party anyway.
This is a fallacy. Most people who die are old, but the elderly as a group are becoming more numerous compared to the rest. They remember what Britain was like before it was undermined by libertarians of every hue.
Comstock,
I am the same. I used to like a bit of reefer but I won't smoke skunk. Anyone who knows how much I drink and how much curry I eat (see my blog) will be able to tell that I am not a health paranoiac, but I am not interested in becoming schizophrenic.
Fortunately, my coke dealer gets some nice grass in every now and again :)
Scoffer.
For the sake of the evolution of humanity we should legalise all drugs. Then all the idiots will kill themselves.
Surely with the 'wonders of modern technology' couldn't Cadbury's add to their plethora of choccie bars [including Dairy Milk bar containing Turkish Delight ] and 'brand extensions' into putting bits of mashed up 'Creme Eggs' into Mc Flurries, sort something out ??
After all they 'invented' the Flake by discovering they could re-use the wafer which was a by-product of the production of their other bars.
They could just drop a bit of weed into the 'Fruit and Nut' bar and re-brand it as 'Organic Fruit and Nut' - who would know the difference ? If someone did complain they could just use the same excuse when they found some salmonella in one of their bars, that some water had leaked onto the production line.
Hmm...what would be the legal standpoint if the THC4MS operation were to start up again from, say, the Isle of Man ?
Or Jersey ? Or Guernsey ?
Also in these days of Jamie/Nigella/Delia persuading the masses that everyone can cook like a professional, perhaps if they did a feature about cooking 'cannabis chocolate', they could democratise the whole process. I'm sure the BBC/ Channel4 would think this was one of their less controversial efforts.
This idea about new superstrong varieties of cannabis with new psychotic effects has been demonstrated to be a myth.
The main active ingredient in any form of cannabis is THC.
Hashish is made by removing the resinous glands from the leaves.
Grass, weed or skunk is the leaves with the resinous glands still in place.
Hashish is therefore the more concentrated form.
Hash of perfectly acceptable quality has been freely available in the UK for the last 30 years. The effects haven't changed at all, and the effects of herbal cannabis are exactly the same as those of the resinous form. There is no reason for the effects to be any different, because the active ingredients are completely unchanged.
Most users don't enjoy the feeling of having had too much cannabis, and users often warn one another if a particular sample is particularly potent.
The stronger it is, the less you need to use to get the same effect.
The former Home Secretary Charles Clarke was very keen to see cannabis reclassified as being more dangerous, and he asked the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs to re-examine this issue. Clarke specifically asked them to look at the evidence on new super-strong varieties of weed. He was clearly taken in by the myth, but the ACMD considered the facts, like those I have set out above, which are actually pretty-well self evident to experienced, thoughtful and scientifically literate users.
The ACMD did not back Clarke in his desire to reclassify cannabis, because they found that it is as relatively harmless as had previously been found.
If you have a sample of unknown strength, treat it cautiously and use a little at first. If it is strong, use less. How difficult is that to grasp?
B29
Oh yes, just another quick point. No sensible government would want to get involved in licensing, quality control, pricing, trades descriptions, etc etc.
It is easy for people to grow plenty for their own needs. You can do it in a small cupboard. A relative grows his year's supply each year on his balcony in Amsterdam, a single plant produces all he can use, with minimal care or expertise.
A great deal of the trouble comes from buying and selling the stuff. I would suggest that growing it for personal use should be decriminalised, and sale should continue to be illegal.
What would Dopey Dave think of that?
B29
B29 - you're boring aren't you.