THE NEWSDESK: The argument for cannabis legalisation can no longer be ignored

Workers process marijuana in the trimming room at the Medicine Man dispensary and grow operation in Denver, Colorado

Workers process marijuana in the trimming room at the Medicine Man dispensary and grow operation in Denver, Colorado

First published in News
Last updated
South Wales Argus: Photograph of the Author by

IN JANUARY, the state of Colorado made $2m dollars in tax revenue from the sale of cannabis.

That's £1.5m in a month, the first month of legalised commercial cannabis sales, almost the same level of tax it took in from the sale of alcohol, at £1.6m.

The tax total reported by the state Department of Revenue indicates $14.02m (£8.4m) of recreational cannabis was sold from 59 businesses.

The taxes come from 12.9% sales taxes and 15% excise taxes. Including licensing fees and taxes from Colorado's pre-existing medical marijuana industry, the state collected about $3.5m dollars (£2.1 million) from the marijuana industry in January.

Colorado is the first US state to legalise the licensed sale of cannabis for recreational use provided it is grown by the seller - it has allowed its medicinal use for the past three years.

In Colorado, it is illegal to advertise cannabis where children might see it.

Now, the debate is on as to where this tax revenue should be spent - state police have put a bid in for extra funding, there are many who argue it should be spent on health projects.

Other US states are now looking at potential legalisation.

And it got me thinking. Anyone who believes cannabis is not freely available in every town in Britain has been walking around with their eyes closed and their fingers in their ears for decades.

We've seen, here in Newport, the consequences with which our police officers have to deal.

Organised gangs - one of which was involved in the killing of a Vietnamese man dumped at the Royal Gwent Hospital in 2006.

The trade in people trafficked from south east Asia to become slaves taking care of illegal cannabis farms.

And few dealers will stick to selling one drug. This week, the Wales Green Party has put legalisation of cannabis back on the political agenda.

It says that in March 1961, the UN Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs was signed. This convention obliges all UN member states to prohibit the production and distribution of a number of psychoactive substances that are considered dangerous for public health.

But its leader Pippa Bartolotti, says now: “It is time to separate out the use of cannabis from hard drugs such as heroin and cocaine. No one has yet died from using cannabis, in fact the health benefits of cannabis in the treatment of epilepsy and cancer are already well documented.

"Commercial organisations in the UK are already allowed to patent and sell cannabis extracts, whilst the population as a whole is criminalised for using it...This simply has to be changed.

“Cannabis has been wrongly labelled as a gateway drug. It is not. It is the criminalisation of it which is the gateway to harder drugs. If we remove cannabis from the black market there will be many benefits for society – not least in taxation." The argument about taking it out of criminal hands and raising taxes is a powerful one for me.

Although the Greens say a comparison with alcohol is wrong as that is responsible for thousands of deaths every year, I think we should make that comparison for that very reason - do we believe legalised cannabis would lead to the sort of social problems alcohol causes?

If it did lead to them, cannabis use is already so widespread they would have been far more evident by now than they are.

Let's not be naïve about it, though.

Some people will always abuse cannabis or alcohol or another drug - and abuses should be dealt with in the same way.

If cannabis is legalised, it would be no more legal to drug-drive under the influence of cannabis than drink-drive, no more acceptable to turn up to your workplace stoned than drunk.

As it is unacceptable right now.

And we could target precious police resources away from cannabis possession cases to where they are more sorely needed.

The argument that a legalised cannabis trade would vastly increase consumption in the long term also doesn't wash with me. Are those espousing it telling me that drug dealers currently don't try to saturate their marketplaces in the most aggressively capitalistic way? They're in it for the money - and Lord knows what else that dirty money chain is funding. Terrorism? Human trafficking?

The Wales Green Party leader says decriminalisation will "add taxable income to the Treasury where it should rightfully be spent on public health.”

Here's something else to think about: Forbes magazine reports that 1,200 people attended the first ever jobs fair for the legalised Colorado cannabis industry last week - an industry which has created growing, processing, retail and clerical jobs.

For me, the sheer weight of the arguments for legalisation can no longer be ignored.

Comments (102)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

2:04pm Sun 16 Mar 14

st juliano says...

Whatever your stance is on drugs it's obvious that the current drug policy isn't fit for purpose .
Whatever your stance is on drugs it's obvious that the current drug policy isn't fit for purpose . st juliano
  • Score: 58

2:15pm Sun 16 Mar 14

Practicalmickey says...

Legalise it all, tax it, monitor it, quality control it and use the money to fund assistance for people who want to stop.
Legalise it all, tax it, monitor it, quality control it and use the money to fund assistance for people who want to stop. Practicalmickey
  • Score: 53

2:23pm Sun 16 Mar 14

Sheep'n'wellies says...

I have smoked it for the past 14 years after an accident in the steelworks I worked at on the advice of my surgeon who said it was the best painkiller u can get. Some people will say crime will go up which is utter rubbish,after iv had a spliff the last thing I think about is going out and robbing someone.
I have smoked it for the past 14 years after an accident in the steelworks I worked at on the advice of my surgeon who said it was the best painkiller u can get. Some people will say crime will go up which is utter rubbish,after iv had a spliff the last thing I think about is going out and robbing someone. Sheep'n'wellies
  • Score: 50

3:13pm Sun 16 Mar 14

gathin says...

All the global propaganda that has gone on vilifying a natural plant is proven to be a corporate-run sham as it'll probably be legalised in the not-too-distant future, the same as in many (US)states and a few countries.
The question is- can the British public be trusted not to kick the arse out of it?
In Holland where smokers could smoke what they likes hardly any of the Dutch partook because it wasn't a taboo.
There'll be big problems in the UK, mark my words, as the minority of smokers are kids who've never added to society and will just be a bigger burden on the public purse.
There's nothing wrong with smoking but you have to know your limitations.
All the global propaganda that has gone on vilifying a natural plant is proven to be a corporate-run sham as it'll probably be legalised in the not-too-distant future, the same as in many (US)states and a few countries. The question is- can the British public be trusted not to kick the arse out of it? In Holland where smokers could smoke what they likes hardly any of the Dutch partook because it wasn't a taboo. There'll be big problems in the UK, mark my words, as the minority of smokers are kids who've never added to society and will just be a bigger burden on the public purse. There's nothing wrong with smoking but you have to know your limitations. gathin
  • Score: 2

3:18pm Sun 16 Mar 14

PJ Reynolds says...

We need to stop this stupid and unwinnable war against cannabis. It is causing far more harm to our communities than it prevents. The British people have been systematically misled and deceived about cannabis for nearly 100 years.

If we had a properly regulated system of production and supply we'd have no more illegal and dangerous cannabis farms causing fires, blighting communities and involved in human trafficking. Instead we'd have thousands of new jobs. We'd have no more dealers on the streets. Cannabis would be available to adults only through licensed outlets and we'd have some control over its content and who it is sold to.

Doctors would be able to prescribe one of the most effective medicines that has no serious side effects at all. At the moment the government has given GW Pharmaceuticals an unlawful monopoly on cannabis so they export Sativex all over the world at a vastly inflated price when anyone can grow the equivalent at home for pennies.

The popular myth that cannabis is a major cause of mental health problems is entirely false. That's not to say it is harmless but peanut allergy causes more health harms. The facts of hospital admissions and the numbers in treatment show that cannabis is a minor cause of problems and irrelevant in public health terms. Science proves how much safer it is than tobacco, alcohol, all prescription and OTC medicines. More than that, experts now recognise that for most adults, in moderation, cannabis is actually good for you. It acts as a supplement to the endocannabinoid system and helps to protect against autoimmune conditions such as diabetes and cancer. It is also neuroprotective and helpful in the treatment of neurodegenerative conditions such as Alzheimer's and Parkinson's.

CLEAR Cannabis Law Reform published independent, expert research in 2011 which shows that a tax and regulate policy on cannabis would produce a net gain to the UK economy of up to £9.3 billion per annum.

The rest of the word is leaving Britain behind and taking advantage of the huge financial and health benefits of cannabis. It is a scandal that our government, our judges, our courts, our police and our newspapers keep misleading us. Well done to the Argus for this intelligent and well researched article.
We need to stop this stupid and unwinnable war against cannabis. It is causing far more harm to our communities than it prevents. The British people have been systematically misled and deceived about cannabis for nearly 100 years. If we had a properly regulated system of production and supply we'd have no more illegal and dangerous cannabis farms causing fires, blighting communities and involved in human trafficking. Instead we'd have thousands of new jobs. We'd have no more dealers on the streets. Cannabis would be available to adults only through licensed outlets and we'd have some control over its content and who it is sold to. Doctors would be able to prescribe one of the most effective medicines that has no serious side effects at all. At the moment the government has given GW Pharmaceuticals an unlawful monopoly on cannabis so they export Sativex all over the world at a vastly inflated price when anyone can grow the equivalent at home for pennies. The popular myth that cannabis is a major cause of mental health problems is entirely false. That's not to say it is harmless but peanut allergy causes more health harms. The facts of hospital admissions and the numbers in treatment show that cannabis is a minor cause of problems and irrelevant in public health terms. Science proves how much safer it is than tobacco, alcohol, all prescription and OTC medicines. More than that, experts now recognise that for most adults, in moderation, cannabis is actually good for you. It acts as a supplement to the endocannabinoid system and helps to protect against autoimmune conditions such as diabetes and cancer. It is also neuroprotective and helpful in the treatment of neurodegenerative conditions such as Alzheimer's and Parkinson's. CLEAR Cannabis Law Reform published independent, expert research in 2011 which shows that a tax and regulate policy on cannabis would produce a net gain to the UK economy of up to £9.3 billion per annum. The rest of the word is leaving Britain behind and taking advantage of the huge financial and health benefits of cannabis. It is a scandal that our government, our judges, our courts, our police and our newspapers keep misleading us. Well done to the Argus for this intelligent and well researched article. PJ Reynolds
  • Score: -5

3:41pm Sun 16 Mar 14

Dai Rear says...

Give the Colorado experiment 20 years and see what's happening then. I like the idea that the criminal gangs around cultivation of the stuff would say "Ah well, nice while it lasted. Best turn our hands to landscape gardening and selling milkshakes now" Kidnapping , folks, extortion? No, I'm sure that'd never cross their little minds.
"The popular myth that cannabis is a major cause of mental health problems is entirely false." yes I'm sure the vested interests like that one. As I've said before consumption of the stuff MAY be self-medication by those with psychoses. It may be causal. Who knows? After all the revolver has 6 chambers and apparently only one or two of them have live rounds in them.
Give the Colorado experiment 20 years and see what's happening then. I like the idea that the criminal gangs around cultivation of the stuff would say "Ah well, nice while it lasted. Best turn our hands to landscape gardening and selling milkshakes now" Kidnapping , folks, extortion? No, I'm sure that'd never cross their little minds. "The popular myth that cannabis is a major cause of mental health problems is entirely false." yes I'm sure the vested interests like that one. As I've said before consumption of the stuff MAY be self-medication by those with psychoses. It may be causal. Who knows? After all the revolver has 6 chambers and apparently only one or two of them have live rounds in them. Dai Rear
  • Score: 0

4:15pm Sun 16 Mar 14

Bobevans says...

Dai Rear wrote:
Give the Colorado experiment 20 years and see what's happening then. I like the idea that the criminal gangs around cultivation of the stuff would say "Ah well, nice while it lasted. Best turn our hands to landscape gardening and selling milkshakes now" Kidnapping , folks, extortion? No, I'm sure that'd never cross their little minds.
"The popular myth that cannabis is a major cause of mental health problems is entirely false." yes I'm sure the vested interests like that one. As I've said before consumption of the stuff MAY be self-medication by those with psychoses. It may be causal. Who knows? After all the revolver has 6 chambers and apparently only one or two of them have live rounds in them.
What the dealers will do is move on to more dangerous drugs and peddle them
Any drug has long term affects it continually taken. There is no such thing as a save drug

If the do make Cannabis legally it needs to be tightly controlled. To buy it they should need to go to a GP for a full medical assessment for which a charge should be made. They will then be given a licence to purchases a defined weekly amount for 6 months. After 6 months they will need to go back to the GP
[quote][p][bold]Dai Rear[/bold] wrote: Give the Colorado experiment 20 years and see what's happening then. I like the idea that the criminal gangs around cultivation of the stuff would say "Ah well, nice while it lasted. Best turn our hands to landscape gardening and selling milkshakes now" Kidnapping , folks, extortion? No, I'm sure that'd never cross their little minds. "The popular myth that cannabis is a major cause of mental health problems is entirely false." yes I'm sure the vested interests like that one. As I've said before consumption of the stuff MAY be self-medication by those with psychoses. It may be causal. Who knows? After all the revolver has 6 chambers and apparently only one or two of them have live rounds in them.[/p][/quote]What the dealers will do is move on to more dangerous drugs and peddle them Any drug has long term affects it continually taken. There is no such thing as a save drug If the do make Cannabis legally it needs to be tightly controlled. To buy it they should need to go to a GP for a full medical assessment for which a charge should be made. They will then be given a licence to purchases a defined weekly amount for 6 months. After 6 months they will need to go back to the GP Bobevans
  • Score: -27

5:03pm Sun 16 Mar 14

Sheep'n'wellies says...

Bobevans wrote:
Dai Rear wrote:
Give the Colorado experiment 20 years and see what's happening then. I like the idea that the criminal gangs around cultivation of the stuff would say "Ah well, nice while it lasted. Best turn our hands to landscape gardening and selling milkshakes now" Kidnapping , folks, extortion? No, I'm sure that'd never cross their little minds.
"The popular myth that cannabis is a major cause of mental health problems is entirely false." yes I'm sure the vested interests like that one. As I've said before consumption of the stuff MAY be self-medication by those with psychoses. It may be causal. Who knows? After all the revolver has 6 chambers and apparently only one or two of them have live rounds in them.
What the dealers will do is move on to more dangerous drugs and peddle them
Any drug has long term affects it continually taken. There is no such thing as a save drug

If the do make Cannabis legally it needs to be tightly controlled. To buy it they should need to go to a GP for a full medical assessment for which a charge should be made. They will then be given a licence to purchases a defined weekly amount for 6 months. After 6 months they will need to go back to the GP
So it's okay for the government to make billions a year from the sale of alcohol and fags which are also drugs as they are addictive and also kill you,but because it's cannabis which had no recorded fatalities it's a different story. If that's the case anybody who smokes fags or drinks alcohol should also need an assessment and pay for it. Unfortunately your argument is very flawed my friend
[quote][p][bold]Bobevans[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dai Rear[/bold] wrote: Give the Colorado experiment 20 years and see what's happening then. I like the idea that the criminal gangs around cultivation of the stuff would say "Ah well, nice while it lasted. Best turn our hands to landscape gardening and selling milkshakes now" Kidnapping , folks, extortion? No, I'm sure that'd never cross their little minds. "The popular myth that cannabis is a major cause of mental health problems is entirely false." yes I'm sure the vested interests like that one. As I've said before consumption of the stuff MAY be self-medication by those with psychoses. It may be causal. Who knows? After all the revolver has 6 chambers and apparently only one or two of them have live rounds in them.[/p][/quote]What the dealers will do is move on to more dangerous drugs and peddle them Any drug has long term affects it continually taken. There is no such thing as a save drug If the do make Cannabis legally it needs to be tightly controlled. To buy it they should need to go to a GP for a full medical assessment for which a charge should be made. They will then be given a licence to purchases a defined weekly amount for 6 months. After 6 months they will need to go back to the GP[/p][/quote]So it's okay for the government to make billions a year from the sale of alcohol and fags which are also drugs as they are addictive and also kill you,but because it's cannabis which had no recorded fatalities it's a different story. If that's the case anybody who smokes fags or drinks alcohol should also need an assessment and pay for it. Unfortunately your argument is very flawed my friend Sheep'n'wellies
  • Score: 36

5:45pm Sun 16 Mar 14

Dai Rear says...

"So it's okay for the government to make billions a year from the sale of alcohol and fags which are also drugs as they are addictive and also kill you,but because it's cannabis which had no recorded fatalities it's a different story. If that's the case anybody who smokes fags or drinks alcohol should also need an assessment and pay for it. Unfortunately your argument is very flawed my friend"
I think the government is actually trying to remove tobacco altogether (unless bought abroad) by pricing it out of reach. They are also being taken to task for the sale of "cheap" alcohol though I've been on the planet for many decades and never found such a thing in UK.
Rather more to the point cannabis potentiates the effect of alcohol and criminals do rather nasty things under the combined effect. So to be consistent I take it you want booze banned? Well, mine's a pint, and you're very welcome to put that in your "bong" or whatever childish name your lot now use, and smoke it.
"So it's okay for the government to make billions a year from the sale of alcohol and fags which are also drugs as they are addictive and also kill you,but because it's cannabis which had no recorded fatalities it's a different story. If that's the case anybody who smokes fags or drinks alcohol should also need an assessment and pay for it. Unfortunately your argument is very flawed my friend" I think the government is actually trying to remove tobacco altogether (unless bought abroad) by pricing it out of reach. They are also being taken to task for the sale of "cheap" alcohol though I've been on the planet for many decades and never found such a thing in UK. Rather more to the point cannabis potentiates the effect of alcohol and criminals do rather nasty things under the combined effect. So to be consistent I take it you want booze banned? Well, mine's a pint, and you're very welcome to put that in your "bong" or whatever childish name your lot now use, and smoke it. Dai Rear
  • Score: -27

6:41pm Sun 16 Mar 14

Sheep'n'wellies says...

Dai Rear wrote:
"So it's okay for the government to make billions a year from the sale of alcohol and fags which are also drugs as they are addictive and also kill you,but because it's cannabis which had no recorded fatalities it's a different story. If that's the case anybody who smokes fags or drinks alcohol should also need an assessment and pay for it. Unfortunately your argument is very flawed my friend"
I think the government is actually trying to remove tobacco altogether (unless bought abroad) by pricing it out of reach. They are also being taken to task for the sale of "cheap" alcohol though I've been on the planet for many decades and never found such a thing in UK.
Rather more to the point cannabis potentiates the effect of alcohol and criminals do rather nasty things under the combined effect. So to be consistent I take it you want booze banned? Well, mine's a pint, and you're very welcome to put that in your "bong" or whatever childish name your lot now use, and smoke it.
As said in my first post I smoke a spliff for reasons as stated. I also smoke fags and drink and I'm not a nasty criminal but a hard working family man so I really don't get ur point
[quote][p][bold]Dai Rear[/bold] wrote: "So it's okay for the government to make billions a year from the sale of alcohol and fags which are also drugs as they are addictive and also kill you,but because it's cannabis which had no recorded fatalities it's a different story. If that's the case anybody who smokes fags or drinks alcohol should also need an assessment and pay for it. Unfortunately your argument is very flawed my friend" I think the government is actually trying to remove tobacco altogether (unless bought abroad) by pricing it out of reach. They are also being taken to task for the sale of "cheap" alcohol though I've been on the planet for many decades and never found such a thing in UK. Rather more to the point cannabis potentiates the effect of alcohol and criminals do rather nasty things under the combined effect. So to be consistent I take it you want booze banned? Well, mine's a pint, and you're very welcome to put that in your "bong" or whatever childish name your lot now use, and smoke it.[/p][/quote]As said in my first post I smoke a spliff for reasons as stated. I also smoke fags and drink and I'm not a nasty criminal but a hard working family man so I really don't get ur point Sheep'n'wellies
  • Score: 15

7:27pm Sun 16 Mar 14

billy boy 2 says...

Because they have made a profit that makes it ok to legalise? never mind the side effects on health - paranoia etc the Vietnamese will keep selling it they will just undercut the government get a life you sad people and live a bit longer
Because they have made a profit that makes it ok to legalise? never mind the side effects on health - paranoia etc the Vietnamese will keep selling it they will just undercut the government get a life you sad people and live a bit longer billy boy 2
  • Score: -22

7:33pm Sun 16 Mar 14

PJ Reynolds says...

billy boy 2 wrote:
Because they have made a profit that makes it ok to legalise? never mind the side effects on health - paranoia etc the Vietnamese will keep selling it they will just undercut the government get a life you sad people and live a bit longer
The side effects are nothing compared to alcohol, tobacco and all prescription and over the counter medicines. Cannabis is also a powerful anti oxidant and neuroprotectant. It extends life. Where do you get your strange ideas from?
[quote][p][bold]billy boy 2[/bold] wrote: Because they have made a profit that makes it ok to legalise? never mind the side effects on health - paranoia etc the Vietnamese will keep selling it they will just undercut the government get a life you sad people and live a bit longer[/p][/quote]The side effects are nothing compared to alcohol, tobacco and all prescription and over the counter medicines. Cannabis is also a powerful anti oxidant and neuroprotectant. It extends life. Where do you get your strange ideas from? PJ Reynolds
  • Score: 20

8:57pm Sun 16 Mar 14

kyledavies0510 says...

people who vote to keep marijuana illegal should also vote for alcohol and nicotine to be illegal you can't have two substances that do more damage to people as well as being more addictive being sold and not the other plus the legalization of cannabis in Uruguay, Washington and Colorado have also brought down crime and made a lot of money in taxes, which can be put to good use for example the NHS for people with drug and alcohol addiction. Plus the war on drugs is costing millions a year and its a losing battle if people want to do something they will do it. plus helps pain from various ailments and injuries, arthritis, bursitis, migraines, multiple sclerosis, hepatitis C, insomnia, nausea, low appetite, HIV/AIDS, cancer, chemotherapy, crohn's, muscular dystrophy, epilepsy, parkinson's, asthma, emphysema, glaucoma, psoriasis, etc, etc.
people who vote to keep marijuana illegal should also vote for alcohol and nicotine to be illegal you can't have two substances that do more damage to people as well as being more addictive being sold and not the other plus the legalization of cannabis in Uruguay, Washington and Colorado have also brought down crime and made a lot of money in taxes, which can be put to good use for example the NHS for people with drug and alcohol addiction. Plus the war on drugs is costing millions a year and its a losing battle if people want to do something they will do it. plus helps pain from various ailments and injuries, arthritis, bursitis, migraines, multiple sclerosis, hepatitis C, insomnia, nausea, low appetite, HIV/AIDS, cancer, chemotherapy, crohn's, muscular dystrophy, epilepsy, parkinson's, asthma, emphysema, glaucoma, psoriasis, etc, etc. kyledavies0510
  • Score: 23

9:06pm Sun 16 Mar 14

Adrian Williams says...

Whilst cannabis is less harmful than several drugs (alcohol being one) it's important to point out that it is a very addictive drug and it can make people lazy and lethargic. I've seen it have detramental long term affects on people I've known well in the past.
Whilst cannabis is less harmful than several drugs (alcohol being one) it's important to point out that it is a very addictive drug and it can make people lazy and lethargic. I've seen it have detramental long term affects on people I've known well in the past. Adrian Williams
  • Score: -17

9:29pm Sun 16 Mar 14

cannaman29 says...

Sign it people make the change happen

http://www.change.or
g/en-GB/petitions/da
vid-cameron-decrimin
alise-cannabis?recru
iter=54538583&utm_so
urce=share_petition&
utm_medium=email&utm
_campaign=share_emai
l_mobile
Sign it people make the change happen http://www.change.or g/en-GB/petitions/da vid-cameron-decrimin alise-cannabis?recru iter=54538583&utm_so urce=share_petition& utm_medium=email&utm _campaign=share_emai l_mobile cannaman29
  • Score: -1

9:42pm Sun 16 Mar 14

Sheep'n'wellies says...

Adrian Williams wrote:
Whilst cannabis is less harmful than several drugs (alcohol being one) it's important to point out that it is a very addictive drug and it can make people lazy and lethargic. I've seen it have detramental long term affects on people I've known well in the past.
I'm not addicted to it and I'm certainly not lazy as I'm at 4:30 five days a week for work so please don't tar everybody with the same brush
[quote][p][bold]Adrian Williams[/bold] wrote: Whilst cannabis is less harmful than several drugs (alcohol being one) it's important to point out that it is a very addictive drug and it can make people lazy and lethargic. I've seen it have detramental long term affects on people I've known well in the past.[/p][/quote]I'm not addicted to it and I'm certainly not lazy as I'm at 4:30 five days a week for work so please don't tar everybody with the same brush Sheep'n'wellies
  • Score: 8

9:42pm Sun 16 Mar 14

Sheep'n'wellies says...

Adrian Williams wrote:
Whilst cannabis is less harmful than several drugs (alcohol being one) it's important to point out that it is a very addictive drug and it can make people lazy and lethargic. I've seen it have detramental long term affects on people I've known well in the past.
I'm not addicted to it and I'm certainly not lazy as I'm at 4:30 five days a week for work so please don't tar everybody with the same brush
[quote][p][bold]Adrian Williams[/bold] wrote: Whilst cannabis is less harmful than several drugs (alcohol being one) it's important to point out that it is a very addictive drug and it can make people lazy and lethargic. I've seen it have detramental long term affects on people I've known well in the past.[/p][/quote]I'm not addicted to it and I'm certainly not lazy as I'm at 4:30 five days a week for work so please don't tar everybody with the same brush Sheep'n'wellies
  • Score: 0

9:47pm Sun 16 Mar 14

PJ Reynolds says...

Adrian Williams wrote:
Whilst cannabis is less harmful than several drugs (alcohol being one) it's important to point out that it is a very addictive drug and it can make people lazy and lethargic. I've seen it have detramental long term affects on people I've known well in the past.
Cannabis is not 'very addictive'. The prevalence of dependency (about 9% of all users) and intensity of withdrawal symptoms are less than coffee (Hall et al 2001, Coffey et al 2002, Copeland et al 2004). I also refer to the Henningfield and Benowitz ratings of addictiveness, both of which show cannabis as less addictive than nicotine, heroin, cocaine, alcohol and caffeine: http://www.tfy.drugs
ense.org/tfy/addictv
n.htm
[quote][p][bold]Adrian Williams[/bold] wrote: Whilst cannabis is less harmful than several drugs (alcohol being one) it's important to point out that it is a very addictive drug and it can make people lazy and lethargic. I've seen it have detramental long term affects on people I've known well in the past.[/p][/quote]Cannabis is not 'very addictive'. The prevalence of dependency (about 9% of all users) and intensity of withdrawal symptoms are less than coffee (Hall et al 2001, Coffey et al 2002, Copeland et al 2004). I also refer to the Henningfield and Benowitz ratings of addictiveness, both of which show cannabis as less addictive than nicotine, heroin, cocaine, alcohol and caffeine: http://www.tfy.drugs ense.org/tfy/addictv n.htm PJ Reynolds
  • Score: 8

12:36am Mon 17 Mar 14

RevolutionIsNow says...

The only reason the GOV do not legalize cannabis is the same reason it was declared illegal in 1920 the big bad corporations will lose too much profit. In 1920 it was made illegal so that the plastic industry's could thrive as before then the hemp market was extremely strong and left no room for competitors. Today however it would be the pharmaceutical company's that would go under for example someone with extreme pain could eat cannabis and be relived of that pain all day and therefore they would not need there painkiller (e.g Tramadol). this would be the case for many ailments and the pharmaceutical company's would hit an all time low also the amount of profit the GOV make from handing out fines regarding the use of cannabis is astonishing they would have to kiss goodbye to that.
The only reason the GOV do not legalize cannabis is the same reason it was declared illegal in 1920 the big bad corporations will lose too much profit. In 1920 it was made illegal so that the plastic industry's could thrive as before then the hemp market was extremely strong and left no room for competitors. Today however it would be the pharmaceutical company's that would go under for example someone with extreme pain could eat cannabis and be relived of that pain all day and therefore they would not need there painkiller (e.g Tramadol). this would be the case for many ailments and the pharmaceutical company's would hit an all time low also the amount of profit the GOV make from handing out fines regarding the use of cannabis is astonishing they would have to kiss goodbye to that. RevolutionIsNow
  • Score: 11

3:50am Mon 17 Mar 14

gathin says...

What will happen is this:
They will give the contract for growing/selling to big pharma and that will be the only weed you'll be legally allowed to buy/smoke.
The "unofficial" sellers/growers will still be illegally operating- I can guarantee this.
If this badly run country can make a few more quid for it's corporate owners ,it will, but not at the expense of letting dealers who pay no tax have a foot in the door.
The corporate weed will be low quality and no better than African bush weed and not nice whereas smokers will have to gravitate towards their normal dealers to get decent stuff.
This is all about taxation and money making for the guv.
What will happen is this: They will give the contract for growing/selling to big pharma and that will be the only weed you'll be legally allowed to buy/smoke. The "unofficial" sellers/growers will still be illegally operating- I can guarantee this. If this badly run country can make a few more quid for it's corporate owners ,it will, but not at the expense of letting dealers who pay no tax have a foot in the door. The corporate weed will be low quality and no better than African bush weed and not nice whereas smokers will have to gravitate towards their normal dealers to get decent stuff. This is all about taxation and money making for the guv. gathin
  • Score: 2

6:52am Mon 17 Mar 14

Dai Rear says...

Sheep'n'wellies wrote:
Dai Rear wrote:
"So it's okay for the government to make billions a year from the sale of alcohol and fags which are also drugs as they are addictive and also kill you,but because it's cannabis which had no recorded fatalities it's a different story. If that's the case anybody who smokes fags or drinks alcohol should also need an assessment and pay for it. Unfortunately your argument is very flawed my friend"
I think the government is actually trying to remove tobacco altogether (unless bought abroad) by pricing it out of reach. They are also being taken to task for the sale of "cheap" alcohol though I've been on the planet for many decades and never found such a thing in UK.
Rather more to the point cannabis potentiates the effect of alcohol and criminals do rather nasty things under the combined effect. So to be consistent I take it you want booze banned? Well, mine's a pint, and you're very welcome to put that in your "bong" or whatever childish name your lot now use, and smoke it.
As said in my first post I smoke a spliff for reasons as stated. I also smoke fags and drink and I'm not a nasty criminal but a hard working family man so I really don't get ur point
Well you maybe don't deal with criminals and , if that be the case, then you can either accept that I know what I'm talking about or reject it. But , if you have any friends in the police you could check up on what I say by asking them.
[quote][p][bold]Sheep'n'wellies[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dai Rear[/bold] wrote: "So it's okay for the government to make billions a year from the sale of alcohol and fags which are also drugs as they are addictive and also kill you,but because it's cannabis which had no recorded fatalities it's a different story. If that's the case anybody who smokes fags or drinks alcohol should also need an assessment and pay for it. Unfortunately your argument is very flawed my friend" I think the government is actually trying to remove tobacco altogether (unless bought abroad) by pricing it out of reach. They are also being taken to task for the sale of "cheap" alcohol though I've been on the planet for many decades and never found such a thing in UK. Rather more to the point cannabis potentiates the effect of alcohol and criminals do rather nasty things under the combined effect. So to be consistent I take it you want booze banned? Well, mine's a pint, and you're very welcome to put that in your "bong" or whatever childish name your lot now use, and smoke it.[/p][/quote]As said in my first post I smoke a spliff for reasons as stated. I also smoke fags and drink and I'm not a nasty criminal but a hard working family man so I really don't get ur point[/p][/quote]Well you maybe don't deal with criminals and , if that be the case, then you can either accept that I know what I'm talking about or reject it. But , if you have any friends in the police you could check up on what I say by asking them. Dai Rear
  • Score: 0

6:56am Mon 17 Mar 14

Dai Rear says...

Sheep'n'wellies wrote:
Adrian Williams wrote:
Whilst cannabis is less harmful than several drugs (alcohol being one) it's important to point out that it is a very addictive drug and it can make people lazy and lethargic. I've seen it have detramental long term affects on people I've known well in the past.
I'm not addicted to it and I'm certainly not lazy as I'm at 4:30 five days a week for work so please don't tar everybody with the same brush
And I like a couple of pints of Brains but I'm not living in a cardboard box with my dog Spot. What's your point? He said "it CAN make people lazy" as indeed you know it can, particularly adolescents, and no, I'm not saying you're an adolescent. Does that help?
[quote][p][bold]Sheep'n'wellies[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Adrian Williams[/bold] wrote: Whilst cannabis is less harmful than several drugs (alcohol being one) it's important to point out that it is a very addictive drug and it can make people lazy and lethargic. I've seen it have detramental long term affects on people I've known well in the past.[/p][/quote]I'm not addicted to it and I'm certainly not lazy as I'm at 4:30 five days a week for work so please don't tar everybody with the same brush[/p][/quote]And I like a couple of pints of Brains but I'm not living in a cardboard box with my dog Spot. What's your point? He said "it CAN make people lazy" as indeed you know it can, particularly adolescents, and no, I'm not saying you're an adolescent. Does that help? Dai Rear
  • Score: 1

7:02am Mon 17 Mar 14

Dai Rear says...

RevolutionIsNow wrote:
The only reason the GOV do not legalize cannabis is the same reason it was declared illegal in 1920 the big bad corporations will lose too much profit. In 1920 it was made illegal so that the plastic industry's could thrive as before then the hemp market was extremely strong and left no room for competitors. Today however it would be the pharmaceutical company's that would go under for example someone with extreme pain could eat cannabis and be relived of that pain all day and therefore they would not need there painkiller (e.g Tramadol). this would be the case for many ailments and the pharmaceutical company's would hit an all time low also the amount of profit the GOV make from handing out fines regarding the use of cannabis is astonishing they would have to kiss goodbye to that.
The usual-yer wicked capiterlists and
Government makes profit from fines (ha ha)
Well you can't have it both ways. Your lot's argument in favour of dispensing the wretched rubbish to half wit teens is that government could make cash out of it. So which is it? Government makes more, or less, by flogging the garbage than fining the dopes?
[quote][p][bold]RevolutionIsNow[/bold] wrote: The only reason the GOV do not legalize cannabis is the same reason it was declared illegal in 1920 the big bad corporations will lose too much profit. In 1920 it was made illegal so that the plastic industry's could thrive as before then the hemp market was extremely strong and left no room for competitors. Today however it would be the pharmaceutical company's that would go under for example someone with extreme pain could eat cannabis and be relived of that pain all day and therefore they would not need there painkiller (e.g Tramadol). this would be the case for many ailments and the pharmaceutical company's would hit an all time low also the amount of profit the GOV make from handing out fines regarding the use of cannabis is astonishing they would have to kiss goodbye to that.[/p][/quote]The usual-yer wicked capiterlists and Government makes profit from fines (ha ha) Well you can't have it both ways. Your lot's argument in favour of dispensing the wretched rubbish to half wit teens is that government could make cash out of it. So which is it? Government makes more, or less, by flogging the garbage than fining the dopes? Dai Rear
  • Score: -7

7:07am Mon 17 Mar 14

Dai Rear says...

gathin wrote:
What will happen is this:
They will give the contract for growing/selling to big pharma and that will be the only weed you'll be legally allowed to buy/smoke.
The "unofficial" sellers/growers will still be illegally operating- I can guarantee this.
If this badly run country can make a few more quid for it's corporate owners ,it will, but not at the expense of letting dealers who pay no tax have a foot in the door.
The corporate weed will be low quality and no better than African bush weed and not nice whereas smokers will have to gravitate towards their normal dealers to get decent stuff.
This is all about taxation and money making for the guv.
A pattern's emerging. This is a Free Spirits-v-yer wicked capiterlists dichotomy.
Try this one. If a drunk crashes into you the chances of a successful prosecution for drink drive are about 99%. If a "free spirit" full of cannabis fumes does the same, they're no better than evens. Would that alone be a good reason not to promulgate another intoxicant?
[quote][p][bold]gathin[/bold] wrote: What will happen is this: They will give the contract for growing/selling to big pharma and that will be the only weed you'll be legally allowed to buy/smoke. The "unofficial" sellers/growers will still be illegally operating- I can guarantee this. If this badly run country can make a few more quid for it's corporate owners ,it will, but not at the expense of letting dealers who pay no tax have a foot in the door. The corporate weed will be low quality and no better than African bush weed and not nice whereas smokers will have to gravitate towards their normal dealers to get decent stuff. This is all about taxation and money making for the guv.[/p][/quote]A pattern's emerging. This is a Free Spirits-v-yer wicked capiterlists dichotomy. Try this one. If a drunk crashes into you the chances of a successful prosecution for drink drive are about 99%. If a "free spirit" full of cannabis fumes does the same, they're no better than evens. Would that alone be a good reason not to promulgate another intoxicant? Dai Rear
  • Score: 0

8:42am Mon 17 Mar 14

malcolmkyle says...

Maybe you're a police officer, a prison guard, or a local/national politician. Possibly you're scared of losing employment, overtime pay, the many kickbacks, and those regular fat bribes. But what good will any of that do you once our society has followed Mexico over the dystopian abyss of dismembered bodies, vats of acid, and marauding thugs carrying gold-plated AK-47s with leopard-skinned gunstocks?

Kindly allow us to forgo the next level of your sycophantic prohibition-engender
ed mayhem!
Maybe you're a police officer, a prison guard, or a local/national politician. Possibly you're scared of losing employment, overtime pay, the many kickbacks, and those regular fat bribes. But what good will any of that do you once our society has followed Mexico over the dystopian abyss of dismembered bodies, vats of acid, and marauding thugs carrying gold-plated AK-47s with leopard-skinned gunstocks? Kindly allow us to forgo the next level of your sycophantic prohibition-engender ed mayhem! malcolmkyle
  • Score: -4

9:32am Mon 17 Mar 14

Dai Rear says...

Mexico failed to legalise cannabis and look what happened there. I'm so grateful it's not only legal but compulsory in Colombia, Venezuela and S. Africa, the murder capitals of the world.
PS I don't need any form of employment mentioned by you to say the idea of legalising an unpleasant and grubby drug is a nonsense but I accept you have one very, tiny...wait for it...point. Ketamine was never so popular as when it was legislated against and morons now take so much that it removes their bladders. Like heavy cannabis users let us hope they depart this world before they've the opportunity to pass on their genes.
Mexico failed to legalise cannabis and look what happened there. I'm so grateful it's not only legal but compulsory in Colombia, Venezuela and S. Africa, the murder capitals of the world. PS I don't need any form of employment mentioned by you to say the idea of legalising an unpleasant and grubby drug is a nonsense but I accept you have one very, tiny...wait for it...point. Ketamine was never so popular as when it was legislated against and morons now take so much that it removes their bladders. Like heavy cannabis users let us hope they depart this world before they've the opportunity to pass on their genes. Dai Rear
  • Score: 2

10:43am Mon 17 Mar 14

Sheep'n'wellies says...

Dai Rear wrote:
Sheep'n'wellies wrote:
Dai Rear wrote: "So it's okay for the government to make billions a year from the sale of alcohol and fags which are also drugs as they are addictive and also kill you,but because it's cannabis which had no recorded fatalities it's a different story. If that's the case anybody who smokes fags or drinks alcohol should also need an assessment and pay for it. Unfortunately your argument is very flawed my friend" I think the government is actually trying to remove tobacco altogether (unless bought abroad) by pricing it out of reach. They are also being taken to task for the sale of "cheap" alcohol though I've been on the planet for many decades and never found such a thing in UK. Rather more to the point cannabis potentiates the effect of alcohol and criminals do rather nasty things under the combined effect. So to be consistent I take it you want booze banned? Well, mine's a pint, and you're very welcome to put that in your "bong" or whatever childish name your lot now use, and smoke it.
As said in my first post I smoke a spliff for reasons as stated. I also smoke fags and drink and I'm not a nasty criminal but a hard working family man so I really don't get ur point
Well you maybe don't deal with criminals and , if that be the case, then you can either accept that I know what I'm talking about or reject it. But , if you have any friends in the police you could check up on what I say by asking them.
Why would I want to speak to the police they are some of the most corrupt people in the country along with politicians. Free the weed
[quote][p][bold]Dai Rear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sheep'n'wellies[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dai Rear[/bold] wrote: "So it's okay for the government to make billions a year from the sale of alcohol and fags which are also drugs as they are addictive and also kill you,but because it's cannabis which had no recorded fatalities it's a different story. If that's the case anybody who smokes fags or drinks alcohol should also need an assessment and pay for it. Unfortunately your argument is very flawed my friend" I think the government is actually trying to remove tobacco altogether (unless bought abroad) by pricing it out of reach. They are also being taken to task for the sale of "cheap" alcohol though I've been on the planet for many decades and never found such a thing in UK. Rather more to the point cannabis potentiates the effect of alcohol and criminals do rather nasty things under the combined effect. So to be consistent I take it you want booze banned? Well, mine's a pint, and you're very welcome to put that in your "bong" or whatever childish name your lot now use, and smoke it.[/p][/quote]As said in my first post I smoke a spliff for reasons as stated. I also smoke fags and drink and I'm not a nasty criminal but a hard working family man so I really don't get ur point[/p][/quote]Well you maybe don't deal with criminals and , if that be the case, then you can either accept that I know what I'm talking about or reject it. But , if you have any friends in the police you could check up on what I say by asking them.[/p][/quote]Why would I want to speak to the police they are some of the most corrupt people in the country along with politicians. Free the weed Sheep'n'wellies
  • Score: -2

11:00am Mon 17 Mar 14

whatintheworld says...

good on the argus for printing this! a well reasoned, well researched peice.
good on the argus for printing this! a well reasoned, well researched peice. whatintheworld
  • Score: 2

11:40am Mon 17 Mar 14

Dai Rear says...

"Why would I want to speak to the police they are some of the most corrupt people in the country along with politicians. Free the weed"
A lot of dysfunctional people in the pro-cannabis lobby it would seem. I assume EDF is in favour of de-criminalisation?
"Why would I want to speak to the police they are some of the most corrupt people in the country along with politicians. Free the weed" A lot of dysfunctional people in the pro-cannabis lobby it would seem. I assume EDF is in favour of de-criminalisation? Dai Rear
  • Score: 2

11:59am Mon 17 Mar 14

Lliswerry Man says...

Right, so lets legalise something illegal so we can tax it?? for real?...

How many people are working right now, High as a kite, driving, operating machinery etc and how many are causing accidents?
How many times a day do we hear, people do not do their jobs properly anymore.... NO because they are either HIGH or still HUNG over from the night before.

BUT wait, dont the drug takers tell us, that they are peaceful, relaxed and chilled out when they take it? ALL the more reason you should not legalise it, we need people in work wide awake and ALERT.... not fallen over their own feet watching daisies.

Come on SWA.... cannot believe even your paper could stoop this low.... its a drug, which causes so much pain to families, as despite what those who take it claim, IT does lead onto other drugs.
Right, so lets legalise something illegal so we can tax it?? for real?... How many people are working right now, High as a kite, driving, operating machinery etc and how many are causing accidents? How many times a day do we hear, people do not do their jobs properly anymore.... NO because they are either HIGH or still HUNG over from the night before. BUT wait, dont the drug takers tell us, that they are peaceful, relaxed and chilled out when they take it? ALL the more reason you should not legalise it, we need people in work wide awake and ALERT.... not fallen over their own feet watching daisies. Come on SWA.... cannot believe even your paper could stoop this low.... its a drug, which causes so much pain to families, as despite what those who take it claim, IT does lead onto other drugs. Lliswerry Man
  • Score: -8

1:52pm Mon 17 Mar 14

whatintheworld says...

Lliswerry Man wrote:
Right, so lets legalise something illegal so we can tax it?? for real?... How many people are working right now, High as a kite, driving, operating machinery etc and how many are causing accidents? How many times a day do we hear, people do not do their jobs properly anymore.... NO because they are either HIGH or still HUNG over from the night before. BUT wait, dont the drug takers tell us, that they are peaceful, relaxed and chilled out when they take it? ALL the more reason you should not legalise it, we need people in work wide awake and ALERT.... not fallen over their own feet watching daisies. Come on SWA.... cannot believe even your paper could stoop this low.... its a drug, which causes so much pain to families, as despite what those who take it claim, IT does lead onto other drugs.
no one is suggesting that working under the influence would suddenly become acceptable.

you're grasping at straws with that arguement
[quote][p][bold]Lliswerry Man[/bold] wrote: Right, so lets legalise something illegal so we can tax it?? for real?... How many people are working right now, High as a kite, driving, operating machinery etc and how many are causing accidents? How many times a day do we hear, people do not do their jobs properly anymore.... NO because they are either HIGH or still HUNG over from the night before. BUT wait, dont the drug takers tell us, that they are peaceful, relaxed and chilled out when they take it? ALL the more reason you should not legalise it, we need people in work wide awake and ALERT.... not fallen over their own feet watching daisies. Come on SWA.... cannot believe even your paper could stoop this low.... its a drug, which causes so much pain to families, as despite what those who take it claim, IT does lead onto other drugs.[/p][/quote]no one is suggesting that working under the influence would suddenly become acceptable. you're grasping at straws with that arguement whatintheworld
  • Score: -1

2:25pm Mon 17 Mar 14

Dai Rear says...

"no one is suggesting that working under the influence would suddenly become acceptable. you're grasping at straws with that argument"
Compulsory blood test every time Ned absent -mindedly adjusts Ted's parting with a hydraulic spanner? You do know how long THC breakdown products stay in the blood, don't you? You do know that forensic scientists are unable to determine their potency at the time of the incident, don't you? I think the legalise lobby would soon be whingeing about that.
"no one is suggesting that working under the influence would suddenly become acceptable. you're grasping at straws with that argument" Compulsory blood test every time Ned absent -mindedly adjusts Ted's parting with a hydraulic spanner? You do know how long THC breakdown products stay in the blood, don't you? You do know that forensic scientists are unable to determine their potency at the time of the incident, don't you? I think the legalise lobby would soon be whingeing about that. Dai Rear
  • Score: 1

2:39pm Mon 17 Mar 14

whatintheworld says...

Dai Rear wrote:
"no one is suggesting that working under the influence would suddenly become acceptable. you're grasping at straws with that argument" Compulsory blood test every time Ned absent -mindedly adjusts Ted's parting with a hydraulic spanner? You do know how long THC breakdown products stay in the blood, don't you? You do know that forensic scientists are unable to determine their potency at the time of the incident, don't you? I think the legalise lobby would soon be whingeing about that.
THC stays in the blood for only a few hours. though youre right in that it can be detected in body fat for up to two weeks.

http://intranet/Engl
ish/NewsEvents/Pages
/ERPaBetterWayOfMana
gingResources.aspx

However, the effects of THC last hours - unlike, say, alcohol.

What if Ned likes a drink? Would you make him take a breath test every morning before touching Ted's spanner?
[quote][p][bold]Dai Rear[/bold] wrote: "no one is suggesting that working under the influence would suddenly become acceptable. you're grasping at straws with that argument" Compulsory blood test every time Ned absent -mindedly adjusts Ted's parting with a hydraulic spanner? You do know how long THC breakdown products stay in the blood, don't you? You do know that forensic scientists are unable to determine their potency at the time of the incident, don't you? I think the legalise lobby would soon be whingeing about that.[/p][/quote]THC stays in the blood for only a few hours. though youre right in that it can be detected in body fat for up to two weeks. http://intranet/Engl ish/NewsEvents/Pages /ERPaBetterWayOfMana gingResources.aspx However, the effects of THC last hours - unlike, say, alcohol. What if Ned likes a drink? Would you make him take a breath test every morning before touching Ted's spanner? whatintheworld
  • Score: 3

2:41pm Mon 17 Mar 14

whatintheworld says...

Dai Rear wrote:
"no one is suggesting that working under the influence would suddenly become acceptable. you're grasping at straws with that argument" Compulsory blood test every time Ned absent -mindedly adjusts Ted's parting with a hydraulic spanner? You do know how long THC breakdown products stay in the blood, don't you? You do know that forensic scientists are unable to determine their potency at the time of the incident, don't you? I think the legalise lobby would soon be whingeing about that.
THC stays in the blood for only a few hours. though youre right in that it can be detected in body fat for up to two weeks.

http://alcoholism.ab
out.com/od/pot/a/mar
ijuana_test.htm

However, the effects of THC last hours - unlike, say, alcohol.

What if Ned likes a drink? Would you make him take a breath test every morning before touching Ted's spanner?

*added correct link
[quote][p][bold]Dai Rear[/bold] wrote: "no one is suggesting that working under the influence would suddenly become acceptable. you're grasping at straws with that argument" Compulsory blood test every time Ned absent -mindedly adjusts Ted's parting with a hydraulic spanner? You do know how long THC breakdown products stay in the blood, don't you? You do know that forensic scientists are unable to determine their potency at the time of the incident, don't you? I think the legalise lobby would soon be whingeing about that.[/p][/quote]THC stays in the blood for only a few hours. though youre right in that it can be detected in body fat for up to two weeks. http://alcoholism.ab out.com/od/pot/a/mar ijuana_test.htm However, the effects of THC last hours - unlike, say, alcohol. What if Ned likes a drink? Would you make him take a breath test every morning before touching Ted's spanner? *added correct link whatintheworld
  • Score: 2

3:39pm Mon 17 Mar 14

newportexpat says...

All the doubters on this topic might want to view this: http://www.youtube.c
om/watch?v=7qbtYY4HF
Ow

It's a bit lengthy but very informative!!
All the doubters on this topic might want to view this: http://www.youtube.c om/watch?v=7qbtYY4HF Ow It's a bit lengthy but very informative!! newportexpat
  • Score: -3

4:57pm Mon 17 Mar 14

welshmen says...

Legalise all drugs, after all it's us the public that suffer, robbing us to get their drug money, also nowhere for reforming addicts to get off any drugs unless your families minted....
Legalise all drugs, after all it's us the public that suffer, robbing us to get their drug money, also nowhere for reforming addicts to get off any drugs unless your families minted.... welshmen
  • Score: -2

5:04pm Mon 17 Mar 14

Dai Rear says...

Not really worth going down this road that far but you know when someone's been drinking because their breath smells of alcohol or formaldehyde so but not if they've ingested cannabis. So testing would become the norm
Put simply, would it be fair to say that the argument is
(A) we tolerate harmful drugs, booze and fags, so why not one more?
(B) Loads of folk do it
(C) Enforcement is not very successful
(C) It's a wonder drug
To which I suppose most of us would say
(a) Haven't we got enough problems already without telling people that cannabis is OK?
(B) Loads of folk shoplift
(C) Many of them get away with it
(D) So was Thalidomide
Would that be fair?
Not really worth going down this road that far but you know when someone's been drinking because their breath smells of alcohol or formaldehyde so but not if they've ingested cannabis. So testing would become the norm Put simply, would it be fair to say that the argument is (A) we tolerate harmful drugs, booze and fags, so why not one more? (B) Loads of folk do it (C) Enforcement is not very successful (C) It's a wonder drug To which I suppose most of us would say (a) Haven't we got enough problems already without telling people that cannabis is OK? (B) Loads of folk shoplift (C) Many of them get away with it (D) So was Thalidomide Would that be fair? Dai Rear
  • Score: 1

6:29pm Mon 17 Mar 14

Mervyn James says...

I cannot believe the Argus allows this newspaper to discuss the legalization of drugs as a virtual no-brainer. NO drug is safe, except in a medical situation, with moderation, intense monitoring, and lengthy testing, to be dispensed only under medial supervision.

Zero tolerance is the only direction we should be taking. It is defeatist,and questionable that as we are losing the war on drugs its better to make it legal so no battles take place. Next up legalise cocaine, legalise heroin, legalise... after all we are losing against the drug barons there too... We know most drugs come from the golden triangles and, south americas, we go in there flatten the crops, at least then we limit supply.

Maybe electricity boards in THIS country can pass on details of households who use excessive amounts compared with their size ? as these are clues someone is farming indoors ! The argument its on;y fun and non addictive or harmful, is the first sign someone is making excuses for being addicted ! Or others already addicted claiming their body their right, the trail of devastation left behind by these people is horrific.
I cannot believe the Argus allows this newspaper to discuss the legalization of drugs as a virtual no-brainer. NO drug is safe, except in a medical situation, with moderation, intense monitoring, and lengthy testing, to be dispensed only under medial supervision. Zero tolerance is the only direction we should be taking. It is defeatist,and questionable that as we are losing the war on drugs its better to make it legal so no battles take place. Next up legalise cocaine, legalise heroin, legalise... after all we are losing against the drug barons there too... We know most drugs come from the golden triangles and, south americas, we go in there flatten the crops, at least then we limit supply. Maybe electricity boards in THIS country can pass on details of households who use excessive amounts compared with their size ? as these are clues someone is farming indoors ! The argument its on;y fun and non addictive or harmful, is the first sign someone is making excuses for being addicted ! Or others already addicted claiming their body their right, the trail of devastation left behind by these people is horrific. Mervyn James
  • Score: 0

7:21pm Mon 17 Mar 14

coalpicker says...

Dai Rear wrote:
Give the Colorado experiment 20 years and see what's happening then. I like the idea that the criminal gangs around cultivation of the stuff would say "Ah well, nice while it lasted. Best turn our hands to landscape gardening and selling milkshakes now" Kidnapping , folks, extortion? No, I'm sure that'd never cross their little minds.
"The popular myth that cannabis is a major cause of mental health problems is entirely false." yes I'm sure the vested interests like that one. As I've said before consumption of the stuff MAY be self-medication by those with psychoses. It may be causal. Who knows? After all the revolver has 6 chambers and apparently only one or two of them have live rounds in them.
Great Dai Rear as long as you never meet a smoker going along a motorway in the wrong direction. It would be interesting to know what the
highway accident figures are in Colorado since legalisation,probabl
y the state will be unconcerned as long as the dollars are rolling in.
[quote][p][bold]Dai Rear[/bold] wrote: Give the Colorado experiment 20 years and see what's happening then. I like the idea that the criminal gangs around cultivation of the stuff would say "Ah well, nice while it lasted. Best turn our hands to landscape gardening and selling milkshakes now" Kidnapping , folks, extortion? No, I'm sure that'd never cross their little minds. "The popular myth that cannabis is a major cause of mental health problems is entirely false." yes I'm sure the vested interests like that one. As I've said before consumption of the stuff MAY be self-medication by those with psychoses. It may be causal. Who knows? After all the revolver has 6 chambers and apparently only one or two of them have live rounds in them.[/p][/quote]Great Dai Rear as long as you never meet a smoker going along a motorway in the wrong direction. It would be interesting to know what the highway accident figures are in Colorado since legalisation,probabl y the state will be unconcerned as long as the dollars are rolling in. coalpicker
  • Score: -1

7:45am Tue 18 Mar 14

Dai Rear says...

In Colorado I can legally buy a gun and legally total anyone who breaks in on my home. Now that's a bit of Colorado law I like, but I bet the cannabis lobby doesn't.
In Colorado I can legally buy a gun and legally total anyone who breaks in on my home. Now that's a bit of Colorado law I like, but I bet the cannabis lobby doesn't. Dai Rear
  • Score: 4

8:35am Tue 18 Mar 14

Mervyn James says...

Dai Rear wrote:
In Colorado I can legally buy a gun and legally total anyone who breaks in on my home. Now that's a bit of Colorado law I like, but I bet the cannabis lobby doesn't.
The problem is knowing householders have guns crims carry them too, so it all escalates out of control, Guns have not made America safer, just more dangerous. You can go out by grenades, rocket launchers and even tanks if you want in the USA, complete lunacy given half the USA is on medication and most on drugs as well. They are an unstable society with few realistic restrictions to protect the populace, and a legal system that doesn't work in favour of any victim. Neither does ours !.
[quote][p][bold]Dai Rear[/bold] wrote: In Colorado I can legally buy a gun and legally total anyone who breaks in on my home. Now that's a bit of Colorado law I like, but I bet the cannabis lobby doesn't.[/p][/quote]The problem is knowing householders have guns crims carry them too, so it all escalates out of control, Guns have not made America safer, just more dangerous. You can go out by grenades, rocket launchers and even tanks if you want in the USA, complete lunacy given half the USA is on medication and most on drugs as well. They are an unstable society with few realistic restrictions to protect the populace, and a legal system that doesn't work in favour of any victim. Neither does ours !. Mervyn James
  • Score: 2

8:50am Tue 18 Mar 14

Dai Rear says...

Merv, you don't count because you're not a legaliser. Let's find out whether the NRA is comprised of legalisers. Methinks not.
Merv, you don't count because you're not a legaliser. Let's find out whether the NRA is comprised of legalisers. Methinks not. Dai Rear
  • Score: 2

9:08am Tue 18 Mar 14

VoiceOfInsanity says...

Will somebody please teach this Dai Rear clown how to use a quote on this forum!
Why does this imbecile have to copy and paste everyone else's posts into his own? Is he really that stupid of a person that he cannot see a large button under each comment that says "QUOTE" because we all know he sure as hell knows how to use the "REPORT THIS POST" button.

South Wales Argus comments section, where the real trolls live!
Will somebody please teach this Dai Rear clown how to use a quote on this forum! Why does this imbecile have to copy and paste everyone else's posts into his own? Is he really that stupid of a person that he cannot see a large button under each comment that says "QUOTE" because we all know he sure as hell knows how to use the "REPORT THIS POST" button. South Wales Argus comments section, where the real trolls live! VoiceOfInsanity
  • Score: -5

9:09am Tue 18 Mar 14

VoiceOfInsanity says...

Mervyn James wrote:
I cannot believe the Argus allows this newspaper to discuss the legalization of drugs as a virtual no-brainer. NO drug is safe, except in a medical situation, with moderation, intense monitoring, and lengthy testing, to be dispensed only under medial supervision.

Zero tolerance is the only direction we should be taking. It is defeatist,and questionable that as we are losing the war on drugs its better to make it legal so no battles take place. Next up legalise cocaine, legalise heroin, legalise... after all we are losing against the drug barons there too... We know most drugs come from the golden triangles and, south americas, we go in there flatten the crops, at least then we limit supply.

Maybe electricity boards in THIS country can pass on details of households who use excessive amounts compared with their size ? as these are clues someone is farming indoors ! The argument its on;y fun and non addictive or harmful, is the first sign someone is making excuses for being addicted ! Or others already addicted claiming their body their right, the trail of devastation left behind by these people is horrific.
Where's your proof that cannabis isn't safe Mervyn?
[quote][p][bold]Mervyn James[/bold] wrote: I cannot believe the Argus allows this newspaper to discuss the legalization of drugs as a virtual no-brainer. NO drug is safe, except in a medical situation, with moderation, intense monitoring, and lengthy testing, to be dispensed only under medial supervision. Zero tolerance is the only direction we should be taking. It is defeatist,and questionable that as we are losing the war on drugs its better to make it legal so no battles take place. Next up legalise cocaine, legalise heroin, legalise... after all we are losing against the drug barons there too... We know most drugs come from the golden triangles and, south americas, we go in there flatten the crops, at least then we limit supply. Maybe electricity boards in THIS country can pass on details of households who use excessive amounts compared with their size ? as these are clues someone is farming indoors ! The argument its on;y fun and non addictive or harmful, is the first sign someone is making excuses for being addicted ! Or others already addicted claiming their body their right, the trail of devastation left behind by these people is horrific.[/p][/quote]Where's your proof that cannabis isn't safe Mervyn? VoiceOfInsanity
  • Score: -5

9:21am Tue 18 Mar 14

Dai Rear says...

VoiceOfInsanity you're clearly a legaliser (as well as a tiresomely abusive twit) so tell us about the gun question.
VoiceOfInsanity you're clearly a legaliser (as well as a tiresomely abusive twit) so tell us about the gun question. Dai Rear
  • Score: 2

10:00am Tue 18 Mar 14

Dr Martin says...

Sheep'n'wellies wrote:
Dai Rear wrote:
Sheep'n'wellies wrote:
Dai Rear wrote: "So it's okay for the government to make billions a year from the sale of alcohol and fags which are also drugs as they are addictive and also kill you,but because it's cannabis which had no recorded fatalities it's a different story. If that's the case anybody who smokes fags or drinks alcohol should also need an assessment and pay for it. Unfortunately your argument is very flawed my friend" I think the government is actually trying to remove tobacco altogether (unless bought abroad) by pricing it out of reach. They are also being taken to task for the sale of "cheap" alcohol though I've been on the planet for many decades and never found such a thing in UK. Rather more to the point cannabis potentiates the effect of alcohol and criminals do rather nasty things under the combined effect. So to be consistent I take it you want booze banned? Well, mine's a pint, and you're very welcome to put that in your "bong" or whatever childish name your lot now use, and smoke it.
As said in my first post I smoke a spliff for reasons as stated. I also smoke fags and drink and I'm not a nasty criminal but a hard working family man so I really don't get ur point
Well you maybe don't deal with criminals and , if that be the case, then you can either accept that I know what I'm talking about or reject it. But , if you have any friends in the police you could check up on what I say by asking them.
Why would I want to speak to the police they are some of the most corrupt people in the country along with politicians. Free the weed
and your proof is??
[quote][p][bold]Sheep'n'wellies[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dai Rear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sheep'n'wellies[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dai Rear[/bold] wrote: "So it's okay for the government to make billions a year from the sale of alcohol and fags which are also drugs as they are addictive and also kill you,but because it's cannabis which had no recorded fatalities it's a different story. If that's the case anybody who smokes fags or drinks alcohol should also need an assessment and pay for it. Unfortunately your argument is very flawed my friend" I think the government is actually trying to remove tobacco altogether (unless bought abroad) by pricing it out of reach. They are also being taken to task for the sale of "cheap" alcohol though I've been on the planet for many decades and never found such a thing in UK. Rather more to the point cannabis potentiates the effect of alcohol and criminals do rather nasty things under the combined effect. So to be consistent I take it you want booze banned? Well, mine's a pint, and you're very welcome to put that in your "bong" or whatever childish name your lot now use, and smoke it.[/p][/quote]As said in my first post I smoke a spliff for reasons as stated. I also smoke fags and drink and I'm not a nasty criminal but a hard working family man so I really don't get ur point[/p][/quote]Well you maybe don't deal with criminals and , if that be the case, then you can either accept that I know what I'm talking about or reject it. But , if you have any friends in the police you could check up on what I say by asking them.[/p][/quote]Why would I want to speak to the police they are some of the most corrupt people in the country along with politicians. Free the weed[/p][/quote]and your proof is?? Dr Martin
  • Score: 0

10:04am Tue 18 Mar 14

Dr Martin says...

VoiceOfInsanity wrote:
Will somebody please teach this Dai Rear clown how to use a quote on this forum!
Why does this imbecile have to copy and paste everyone else's posts into his own? Is he really that stupid of a person that he cannot see a large button under each comment that says "QUOTE" because we all know he sure as hell knows how to use the "REPORT THIS POST" button.

South Wales Argus comments section, where the real trolls live!
"South Wales Argus comments section, where the real trolls live!"

Refreshingly honest opinion about yourself
[quote][p][bold]VoiceOfInsanity[/bold] wrote: Will somebody please teach this Dai Rear clown how to use a quote on this forum! Why does this imbecile have to copy and paste everyone else's posts into his own? Is he really that stupid of a person that he cannot see a large button under each comment that says "QUOTE" because we all know he sure as hell knows how to use the "REPORT THIS POST" button. South Wales Argus comments section, where the real trolls live![/p][/quote]"South Wales Argus comments section, where the real trolls live!" Refreshingly honest opinion about yourself Dr Martin
  • Score: 0

10:08am Tue 18 Mar 14

Dr Martin says...

Mervyn James wrote:
I cannot believe the Argus allows this newspaper to discuss the legalization of drugs as a virtual no-brainer. NO drug is safe, except in a medical situation, with moderation, intense monitoring, and lengthy testing, to be dispensed only under medial supervision.

Zero tolerance is the only direction we should be taking. It is defeatist,and questionable that as we are losing the war on drugs its better to make it legal so no battles take place. Next up legalise cocaine, legalise heroin, legalise... after all we are losing against the drug barons there too... We know most drugs come from the golden triangles and, south americas, we go in there flatten the crops, at least then we limit supply.

Maybe electricity boards in THIS country can pass on details of households who use excessive amounts compared with their size ? as these are clues someone is farming indoors ! The argument its on;y fun and non addictive or harmful, is the first sign someone is making excuses for being addicted ! Or others already addicted claiming their body their right, the trail of devastation left behind by these people is horrific.
agreed
[quote][p][bold]Mervyn James[/bold] wrote: I cannot believe the Argus allows this newspaper to discuss the legalization of drugs as a virtual no-brainer. NO drug is safe, except in a medical situation, with moderation, intense monitoring, and lengthy testing, to be dispensed only under medial supervision. Zero tolerance is the only direction we should be taking. It is defeatist,and questionable that as we are losing the war on drugs its better to make it legal so no battles take place. Next up legalise cocaine, legalise heroin, legalise... after all we are losing against the drug barons there too... We know most drugs come from the golden triangles and, south americas, we go in there flatten the crops, at least then we limit supply. Maybe electricity boards in THIS country can pass on details of households who use excessive amounts compared with their size ? as these are clues someone is farming indoors ! The argument its on;y fun and non addictive or harmful, is the first sign someone is making excuses for being addicted ! Or others already addicted claiming their body their right, the trail of devastation left behind by these people is horrific.[/p][/quote]agreed Dr Martin
  • Score: 0

10:16am Tue 18 Mar 14

Dr Martin says...

PJ Reynolds wrote:
We need to stop this stupid and unwinnable war against cannabis. It is causing far more harm to our communities than it prevents. The British people have been systematically misled and deceived about cannabis for nearly 100 years.

If we had a properly regulated system of production and supply we'd have no more illegal and dangerous cannabis farms causing fires, blighting communities and involved in human trafficking. Instead we'd have thousands of new jobs. We'd have no more dealers on the streets. Cannabis would be available to adults only through licensed outlets and we'd have some control over its content and who it is sold to.

Doctors would be able to prescribe one of the most effective medicines that has no serious side effects at all. At the moment the government has given GW Pharmaceuticals an unlawful monopoly on cannabis so they export Sativex all over the world at a vastly inflated price when anyone can grow the equivalent at home for pennies.

The popular myth that cannabis is a major cause of mental health problems is entirely false. That's not to say it is harmless but peanut allergy causes more health harms. The facts of hospital admissions and the numbers in treatment show that cannabis is a minor cause of problems and irrelevant in public health terms. Science proves how much safer it is than tobacco, alcohol, all prescription and OTC medicines. More than that, experts now recognise that for most adults, in moderation, cannabis is actually good for you. It acts as a supplement to the endocannabinoid system and helps to protect against autoimmune conditions such as diabetes and cancer. It is also neuroprotective and helpful in the treatment of neurodegenerative conditions such as Alzheimer's and Parkinson's.

CLEAR Cannabis Law Reform published independent, expert research in 2011 which shows that a tax and regulate policy on cannabis would produce a net gain to the UK economy of up to £9.3 billion per annum.

The rest of the word is leaving Britain behind and taking advantage of the huge financial and health benefits of cannabis. It is a scandal that our government, our judges, our courts, our police and our newspapers keep misleading us. Well done to the Argus for this intelligent and well researched article.
"The popular myth that cannabis is a major cause of mental health problems is entirely false"

Keep hoping causality won't be found, Peter, might be only to a tiny minority but it will be found in the meantime people who have mental health issues continue to exacerbate their mental illness by smoking it.

How is Owen Richards?, I haven't seen him in a while.
[quote][p][bold]PJ Reynolds[/bold] wrote: We need to stop this stupid and unwinnable war against cannabis. It is causing far more harm to our communities than it prevents. The British people have been systematically misled and deceived about cannabis for nearly 100 years. If we had a properly regulated system of production and supply we'd have no more illegal and dangerous cannabis farms causing fires, blighting communities and involved in human trafficking. Instead we'd have thousands of new jobs. We'd have no more dealers on the streets. Cannabis would be available to adults only through licensed outlets and we'd have some control over its content and who it is sold to. Doctors would be able to prescribe one of the most effective medicines that has no serious side effects at all. At the moment the government has given GW Pharmaceuticals an unlawful monopoly on cannabis so they export Sativex all over the world at a vastly inflated price when anyone can grow the equivalent at home for pennies. The popular myth that cannabis is a major cause of mental health problems is entirely false. That's not to say it is harmless but peanut allergy causes more health harms. The facts of hospital admissions and the numbers in treatment show that cannabis is a minor cause of problems and irrelevant in public health terms. Science proves how much safer it is than tobacco, alcohol, all prescription and OTC medicines. More than that, experts now recognise that for most adults, in moderation, cannabis is actually good for you. It acts as a supplement to the endocannabinoid system and helps to protect against autoimmune conditions such as diabetes and cancer. It is also neuroprotective and helpful in the treatment of neurodegenerative conditions such as Alzheimer's and Parkinson's. CLEAR Cannabis Law Reform published independent, expert research in 2011 which shows that a tax and regulate policy on cannabis would produce a net gain to the UK economy of up to £9.3 billion per annum. The rest of the word is leaving Britain behind and taking advantage of the huge financial and health benefits of cannabis. It is a scandal that our government, our judges, our courts, our police and our newspapers keep misleading us. Well done to the Argus for this intelligent and well researched article.[/p][/quote]"The popular myth that cannabis is a major cause of mental health problems is entirely false" Keep hoping causality won't be found, Peter, might be only to a tiny minority but it will be found in the meantime people who have mental health issues continue to exacerbate their mental illness by smoking it. How is Owen Richards?, I haven't seen him in a while. Dr Martin
  • Score: 0

10:35am Tue 18 Mar 14

johnny50 says...

I have worked in Mental Health,Whilst we were training at St Cadocs a senior Mental Health Officer who had worked in Mental Health for over 25 years said that cannabis usage can bring out Mental health problems such as Manic Depression, Bi Polar disorders etc, that would otherwise have been dormant within the patient.I would listen tolong service health workers who have worked with people who have suffered long term mental health problems they have the true experience
well as the families
I have worked in Mental Health,Whilst we were training at St Cadocs a senior Mental Health Officer who had worked in Mental Health for over 25 years said that cannabis usage can bring out Mental health problems such as Manic Depression, Bi Polar disorders etc, that would otherwise have been dormant within the patient.I would listen tolong service health workers who have worked with people who have suffered long term mental health problems they have the true experience well as the families johnny50
  • Score: 1

11:56am Tue 18 Mar 14

-trigg- says...

The primary arguments against legalisation all centre around the premise that cannabis use would increase drastically following a change in the law. Whilst it is likely that there will be a short term spike in the number of users, over the medium to longer term the probability is that there will be no change in user numbers. Make no mistake, if someone wants to buy cannabis now they can easily do so.

Given that the number of users or the amount of use will not change, there would be no increase in the risk of health and safety incidents at work or drug related traffic incidents. Indeed, police and employers will be better able to deal with these incidents without unduly criminalising people.

One benefit to legalisation that is not discussed enough is the damage that criminalisation has on young people. There is no question that teenagers are more likely to smoke marijuana, just as they are more likely to start smoking tobacco or drink to excess. Under the present system a young person caught in posession of a large amount of marijuana or, as often happens, clubbing together with friends to buy in bulk can be charged with dealing and find themselves sentenced to a stay behind bars. That prison sentence often leads to a spiral of criminality involving harder drug use and petty theft to fund that use.

As an analogy, I expect that I am not the only person here to drink alcohol in a pub while underage. Imagine if you bought a round for your friends and as a result you were sentenced to a year's imprisonment. The prison term interrupts your education, meaning you don't have the qualifications you would otherwise have, and nobody will want to employ you anyway because of your criminal record. How bright would your future be then?
The primary arguments against legalisation all centre around the premise that cannabis use would increase drastically following a change in the law. Whilst it is likely that there will be a short term spike in the number of users, over the medium to longer term the probability is that there will be no change in user numbers. Make no mistake, if someone wants to buy cannabis now they can easily do so. Given that the number of users or the amount of use will not change, there would be no increase in the risk of health and safety incidents at work or drug related traffic incidents. Indeed, police and employers will be better able to deal with these incidents without unduly criminalising people. One benefit to legalisation that is not discussed enough is the damage that criminalisation has on young people. There is no question that teenagers are more likely to smoke marijuana, just as they are more likely to start smoking tobacco or drink to excess. Under the present system a young person caught in posession of a large amount of marijuana or, as often happens, clubbing together with friends to buy in bulk can be charged with dealing and find themselves sentenced to a stay behind bars. That prison sentence often leads to a spiral of criminality involving harder drug use and petty theft to fund that use. As an analogy, I expect that I am not the only person here to drink alcohol in a pub while underage. Imagine if you bought a round for your friends and as a result you were sentenced to a year's imprisonment. The prison term interrupts your education, meaning you don't have the qualifications you would otherwise have, and nobody will want to employ you anyway because of your criminal record. How bright would your future be then? -trigg-
  • Score: 3

12:28pm Tue 18 Mar 14

Dr Martin says...

Legalisation would mean an increase in illegal drug use
Legalisation would mean an increase in illegal drug use Dr Martin
  • Score: 0

3:40pm Tue 18 Mar 14

VoiceOfInsanity says...

Dr Martin, mmm ok a Doctor? Doctor of what, Thuganomics, or just a fan of bad itv comedy drama?

Yea I can't wait till cannabis is legalised so I can go out and mainline some smack down my eyeball! Stupid!!

As you have proven in your posts, that you are rather uneducated when it comes to this subject, it's probably best you go sip your 40 proof whiskey and toke on your cochibas down your local old boys club and leave this subject to the South Wales Argus and other people who are a bit more savvy on the matter!
Dr Martin, mmm ok a Doctor? Doctor of what, Thuganomics, or just a fan of bad itv comedy drama? Yea I can't wait till cannabis is legalised so I can go out and mainline some smack down my eyeball! Stupid!! As you have proven in your posts, that you are rather uneducated when it comes to this subject, it's probably best you go sip your 40 proof whiskey and toke on your cochibas down your local old boys club and leave this subject to the South Wales Argus and other people who are a bit more savvy on the matter! VoiceOfInsanity
  • Score: -3

3:46pm Tue 18 Mar 14

VoiceOfInsanity says...

http://www.cancer.go
v/cancertopics/pdq/c
am/cannabis/healthpr
ofessional/page4

http://m.livescience
.com/6232-marijuana-
glaucoma.html

http://www.collectiv
e-evolution.com/2013
/08/23/20-medical-st
udies-that-prove-can
nabis-can-cure-cance
r/
http://www.cancer.go v/cancertopics/pdq/c am/cannabis/healthpr ofessional/page4 http://m.livescience .com/6232-marijuana- glaucoma.html http://www.collectiv e-evolution.com/2013 /08/23/20-medical-st udies-that-prove-can nabis-can-cure-cance r/ VoiceOfInsanity
  • Score: -4

3:50pm Tue 18 Mar 14

Dai Rear says...

VoiceOfInsanity wrote:
Dr Martin, mmm ok a Doctor? Doctor of what, Thuganomics, or just a fan of bad itv comedy drama?

Yea I can't wait till cannabis is legalised so I can go out and mainline some smack down my eyeball! Stupid!!

As you have proven in your posts, that you are rather uneducated when it comes to this subject, it's probably best you go sip your 40 proof whiskey and toke on your cochibas down your local old boys club and leave this subject to the South Wales Argus and other people who are a bit more savvy on the matter!
If you believe you have a coherent argument for adding another stupefiant to the lexicon of permitted escapes from reality why not expound it rather than engage in silly abuse which suggests you haven't a clue why the stuff should not be proscribed?
[quote][p][bold]VoiceOfInsanity[/bold] wrote: Dr Martin, mmm ok a Doctor? Doctor of what, Thuganomics, or just a fan of bad itv comedy drama? Yea I can't wait till cannabis is legalised so I can go out and mainline some smack down my eyeball! Stupid!! As you have proven in your posts, that you are rather uneducated when it comes to this subject, it's probably best you go sip your 40 proof whiskey and toke on your cochibas down your local old boys club and leave this subject to the South Wales Argus and other people who are a bit more savvy on the matter![/p][/quote]If you believe you have a coherent argument for adding another stupefiant to the lexicon of permitted escapes from reality why not expound it rather than engage in silly abuse which suggests you haven't a clue why the stuff should not be proscribed? Dai Rear
  • Score: 2

3:50pm Tue 18 Mar 14

VoiceOfInsanity says...

Dai Rear wrote:
VoiceOfInsanity you're clearly a legaliser (as well as a tiresomely abusive twit) so tell us about the gun question.
Tiresomely abusive? Hmm coming from the boy who trolls everyone's posts. You really do live up to your name sir. Perhaps you should change it to Verbal Dai Rear!
As for being a legaliser if that is such a term, surely I'm more of an advocate of the medical use of canbabis for curing glaucoma and cancers?
Just check the three links posted above if you have the time?
[quote][p][bold]Dai Rear[/bold] wrote: VoiceOfInsanity you're clearly a legaliser (as well as a tiresomely abusive twit) so tell us about the gun question.[/p][/quote]Tiresomely abusive? Hmm coming from the boy who trolls everyone's posts. You really do live up to your name sir. Perhaps you should change it to Verbal Dai Rear! As for being a legaliser if that is such a term, surely I'm more of an advocate of the medical use of canbabis for curing glaucoma and cancers? Just check the three links posted above if you have the time? VoiceOfInsanity
  • Score: -2

4:03pm Tue 18 Mar 14

VoiceOfInsanity says...

Dai Rear wrote:
VoiceOfInsanity wrote:
Dr Martin, mmm ok a Doctor? Doctor of what, Thuganomics, or just a fan of bad itv comedy drama?

Yea I can't wait till cannabis is legalised so I can go out and mainline some smack down my eyeball! Stupid!!

As you have proven in your posts, that you are rather uneducated when it comes to this subject, it's probably best you go sip your 40 proof whiskey and toke on your cochibas down your local old boys club and leave this subject to the South Wales Argus and other people who are a bit more savvy on the matter!
If you believe you have a coherent argument for adding another stupefiant to the lexicon of permitted escapes from reality why not expound it rather than engage in silly abuse which suggests you haven't a clue why the stuff should not be proscribed?
Well done on the posh French word for drug and lexicon, wow! Your spellchecker has been working really well for you.

Yes, drugs should be legalised I believe that drugs are positive here is why
Cannabis has been used for over 10,000 years and not one single death has EVER been recorded.
• It is not addictive and is actually far less addictive than caffeine
• If legalized, far less more minors would be using Cannabis
or weed would be sold in stores, valid ID must be given and the user must be at least 21 years of age. After customers start buying from these weed dispensaries, drug dealers would vanish and the ones that stick around would be most likely dealing hard drugs
• Marijuana is not a gateway drug, it's just the dealers persistently persuading their customers to try harder drugs because they know marijuana is not addictive. If they were to get them to at least try the harder drugs, they would get addicted and come back for more, giving the dealer never ending business
• Marijuana cures and prevents Alzheimer and Glaucoma, helps relieve stress, anxiety, depression, slows down tumor growth, and helps relieve pain for chemo/radiation therapy patients as well.
• If legalized, marijuana can be taxed which would produce billions of dollars annually in profit which in turn would help our nation get out of debt. Cannabis farms can be set up as well, and growing and harvesting marijuana can become a profession thus lowering the unemployment rate.
• Does not lead to or cause lung cancer

Is that enough for you? Or shall I rewrite it in French or possibly Latin for you?
[quote][p][bold]Dai Rear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]VoiceOfInsanity[/bold] wrote: Dr Martin, mmm ok a Doctor? Doctor of what, Thuganomics, or just a fan of bad itv comedy drama? Yea I can't wait till cannabis is legalised so I can go out and mainline some smack down my eyeball! Stupid!! As you have proven in your posts, that you are rather uneducated when it comes to this subject, it's probably best you go sip your 40 proof whiskey and toke on your cochibas down your local old boys club and leave this subject to the South Wales Argus and other people who are a bit more savvy on the matter![/p][/quote]If you believe you have a coherent argument for adding another stupefiant to the lexicon of permitted escapes from reality why not expound it rather than engage in silly abuse which suggests you haven't a clue why the stuff should not be proscribed?[/p][/quote]Well done on the posh French word for drug and lexicon, wow! Your spellchecker has been working really well for you. Yes, drugs should be legalised I believe that drugs are positive here is why Cannabis has been used for over 10,000 years and not one single death has EVER been recorded. • It is not addictive and is actually far less addictive than caffeine • If legalized, far less more minors would be using Cannabis or weed would be sold in stores, valid ID must be given and the user must be at least 21 years of age. After customers start buying from these weed dispensaries, drug dealers would vanish and the ones that stick around would be most likely dealing hard drugs • Marijuana is not a gateway drug, it's just the dealers persistently persuading their customers to try harder drugs because they know marijuana is not addictive. If they were to get them to at least try the harder drugs, they would get addicted and come back for more, giving the dealer never ending business • Marijuana cures and prevents Alzheimer and Glaucoma, helps relieve stress, anxiety, depression, slows down tumor growth, and helps relieve pain for chemo/radiation therapy patients as well. • If legalized, marijuana can be taxed which would produce billions of dollars annually in profit which in turn would help our nation get out of debt. Cannabis farms can be set up as well, and growing and harvesting marijuana can become a profession thus lowering the unemployment rate. • Does not lead to or cause lung cancer Is that enough for you? Or shall I rewrite it in French or possibly Latin for you? VoiceOfInsanity
  • Score: -3

4:05pm Tue 18 Mar 14

Dai Rear says...

I have no idea what " trolls everyone's posts" means. I can't see that the medical use of cannabis, or morphine for that matter has anything to do with a debate on whether the consumption of either of those drugs should be proscribed or not. Try not to keep playing on the name. The diarrhoea thing was done to death months ago and it wasn't remotely funny the first time
I have no idea what " trolls everyone's posts" means. I can't see that the medical use of cannabis, or morphine for that matter has anything to do with a debate on whether the consumption of either of those drugs should be proscribed or not. Try not to keep playing on the name. The diarrhoea thing was done to death months ago and it wasn't remotely funny the first time Dai Rear
  • Score: 3

4:10pm Tue 18 Mar 14

Dr Martin says...

VoiceOfInsanity wrote:
Dr Martin, mmm ok a Doctor? Doctor of what, Thuganomics, or just a fan of bad itv comedy drama?

Yea I can't wait till cannabis is legalised so I can go out and mainline some smack down my eyeball! Stupid!!

As you have proven in your posts, that you are rather uneducated when it comes to this subject, it's probably best you go sip your 40 proof whiskey and toke on your cochibas down your local old boys club and leave this subject to the South Wales Argus and other people who are a bit more savvy on the matter!
No Dr Martin is just a username, you didn't really think I was a real Doctor?
What is Thuganomics?, well if you are stupid enough to advocate making a psychoactive substance like dope more readily available to a wider audience you might be just stupid enough to mainline some smack
I have as much right to post my comments here as anyone else, you don't make the rules stoner
[quote][p][bold]VoiceOfInsanity[/bold] wrote: Dr Martin, mmm ok a Doctor? Doctor of what, Thuganomics, or just a fan of bad itv comedy drama? Yea I can't wait till cannabis is legalised so I can go out and mainline some smack down my eyeball! Stupid!! As you have proven in your posts, that you are rather uneducated when it comes to this subject, it's probably best you go sip your 40 proof whiskey and toke on your cochibas down your local old boys club and leave this subject to the South Wales Argus and other people who are a bit more savvy on the matter![/p][/quote]No Dr Martin is just a username, you didn't really think I was a real Doctor? What is Thuganomics?, well if you are stupid enough to advocate making a psychoactive substance like dope more readily available to a wider audience you might be just stupid enough to mainline some smack I have as much right to post my comments here as anyone else, you don't make the rules stoner Dr Martin
  • Score: 0

4:14pm Tue 18 Mar 14

VoiceOfInsanity says...

Dr Martin wrote:
VoiceOfInsanity wrote:
Dr Martin, mmm ok a Doctor? Doctor of what, Thuganomics, or just a fan of bad itv comedy drama?

Yea I can't wait till cannabis is legalised so I can go out and mainline some smack down my eyeball! Stupid!!

As you have proven in your posts, that you are rather uneducated when it comes to this subject, it's probably best you go sip your 40 proof whiskey and toke on your cochibas down your local old boys club and leave this subject to the South Wales Argus and other people who are a bit more savvy on the matter!
No Dr Martin is just a username, you didn't really think I was a real Doctor?
What is Thuganomics?, well if you are stupid enough to advocate making a psychoactive substance like dope more readily available to a wider audience you might be just stupid enough to mainline some smack
I have as much right to post my comments here as anyone else, you don't make the rules stoner
Typical Zooportonian answer
[quote][p][bold]Dr Martin[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]VoiceOfInsanity[/bold] wrote: Dr Martin, mmm ok a Doctor? Doctor of what, Thuganomics, or just a fan of bad itv comedy drama? Yea I can't wait till cannabis is legalised so I can go out and mainline some smack down my eyeball! Stupid!! As you have proven in your posts, that you are rather uneducated when it comes to this subject, it's probably best you go sip your 40 proof whiskey and toke on your cochibas down your local old boys club and leave this subject to the South Wales Argus and other people who are a bit more savvy on the matter![/p][/quote]No Dr Martin is just a username, you didn't really think I was a real Doctor? What is Thuganomics?, well if you are stupid enough to advocate making a psychoactive substance like dope more readily available to a wider audience you might be just stupid enough to mainline some smack I have as much right to post my comments here as anyone else, you don't make the rules stoner[/p][/quote]Typical Zooportonian answer VoiceOfInsanity
  • Score: -5

4:21pm Tue 18 Mar 14

Dr Martin says...

VoiceOfInsanity wrote:
Dr Martin wrote:
VoiceOfInsanity wrote:
Dr Martin, mmm ok a Doctor? Doctor of what, Thuganomics, or just a fan of bad itv comedy drama?

Yea I can't wait till cannabis is legalised so I can go out and mainline some smack down my eyeball! Stupid!!

As you have proven in your posts, that you are rather uneducated when it comes to this subject, it's probably best you go sip your 40 proof whiskey and toke on your cochibas down your local old boys club and leave this subject to the South Wales Argus and other people who are a bit more savvy on the matter!
No Dr Martin is just a username, you didn't really think I was a real Doctor?
What is Thuganomics?, well if you are stupid enough to advocate making a psychoactive substance like dope more readily available to a wider audience you might be just stupid enough to mainline some smack
I have as much right to post my comments here as anyone else, you don't make the rules stoner
Typical Zooportonian answer
What does that mean , it's not english
[quote][p][bold]VoiceOfInsanity[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dr Martin[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]VoiceOfInsanity[/bold] wrote: Dr Martin, mmm ok a Doctor? Doctor of what, Thuganomics, or just a fan of bad itv comedy drama? Yea I can't wait till cannabis is legalised so I can go out and mainline some smack down my eyeball! Stupid!! As you have proven in your posts, that you are rather uneducated when it comes to this subject, it's probably best you go sip your 40 proof whiskey and toke on your cochibas down your local old boys club and leave this subject to the South Wales Argus and other people who are a bit more savvy on the matter![/p][/quote]No Dr Martin is just a username, you didn't really think I was a real Doctor? What is Thuganomics?, well if you are stupid enough to advocate making a psychoactive substance like dope more readily available to a wider audience you might be just stupid enough to mainline some smack I have as much right to post my comments here as anyone else, you don't make the rules stoner[/p][/quote]Typical Zooportonian answer[/p][/quote]What does that mean , it's not english Dr Martin
  • Score: 0

4:27pm Tue 18 Mar 14

Dr Martin says...

VoiceOfInsanity wrote:
http://www.cancer.go

v/cancertopics/pdq/c

am/cannabis/healthpr

ofessional/page4

http://m.livescience

.com/6232-marijuana-

glaucoma.html

http://www.collectiv

e-evolution.com/2013

/08/23/20-medical-st

udies-that-prove-can

nabis-can-cure-cance

r/
I would never doubt cannabis can (when you break it down in it's parts) be made into lots of effective medicines (let the pharmacueticals deal with that) , but let's be honest its not the CBD you desire the THC and to get stoned
[quote][p][bold]VoiceOfInsanity[/bold] wrote: http://www.cancer.go v/cancertopics/pdq/c am/cannabis/healthpr ofessional/page4 http://m.livescience .com/6232-marijuana- glaucoma.html http://www.collectiv e-evolution.com/2013 /08/23/20-medical-st udies-that-prove-can nabis-can-cure-cance r/[/p][/quote]I would never doubt cannabis can (when you break it down in it's parts) be made into lots of effective medicines (let the pharmacueticals deal with that) , but let's be honest its not the CBD you desire the THC and to get stoned Dr Martin
  • Score: 3

4:32pm Tue 18 Mar 14

VoiceOfInsanity says...

Dr Martin wrote:
VoiceOfInsanity wrote:
Dr Martin wrote:
VoiceOfInsanity wrote:
Dr Martin, mmm ok a Doctor? Doctor of what, Thuganomics, or just a fan of bad itv comedy drama?

Yea I can't wait till cannabis is legalised so I can go out and mainline some smack down my eyeball! Stupid!!

As you have proven in your posts, that you are rather uneducated when it comes to this subject, it's probably best you go sip your 40 proof whiskey and toke on your cochibas down your local old boys club and leave this subject to the South Wales Argus and other people who are a bit more savvy on the matter!
No Dr Martin is just a username, you didn't really think I was a real Doctor?
What is Thuganomics?, well if you are stupid enough to advocate making a psychoactive substance like dope more readily available to a wider audience you might be just stupid enough to mainline some smack
I have as much right to post my comments here as anyone else, you don't make the rules stoner
Typical Zooportonian answer
What does that mean , it's not english
Sorry forgot should if put it in Latin shouldn't I?
Te futueo et caballum tuum, cunnus!
[quote][p][bold]Dr Martin[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]VoiceOfInsanity[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dr Martin[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]VoiceOfInsanity[/bold] wrote: Dr Martin, mmm ok a Doctor? Doctor of what, Thuganomics, or just a fan of bad itv comedy drama? Yea I can't wait till cannabis is legalised so I can go out and mainline some smack down my eyeball! Stupid!! As you have proven in your posts, that you are rather uneducated when it comes to this subject, it's probably best you go sip your 40 proof whiskey and toke on your cochibas down your local old boys club and leave this subject to the South Wales Argus and other people who are a bit more savvy on the matter![/p][/quote]No Dr Martin is just a username, you didn't really think I was a real Doctor? What is Thuganomics?, well if you are stupid enough to advocate making a psychoactive substance like dope more readily available to a wider audience you might be just stupid enough to mainline some smack I have as much right to post my comments here as anyone else, you don't make the rules stoner[/p][/quote]Typical Zooportonian answer[/p][/quote]What does that mean , it's not english[/p][/quote]Sorry forgot should if put it in Latin shouldn't I? Te futueo et caballum tuum, cunnus! VoiceOfInsanity
  • Score: -2

4:36pm Tue 18 Mar 14

VoiceOfInsanity says...

Dr Martin wrote:
VoiceOfInsanity wrote:
http://www.cancer.go


v/cancertopics/pdq/c


am/cannabis/healthpr


ofessional/page4

http://m.livescience


.com/6232-marijuana-


glaucoma.html

http://www.collectiv


e-evolution.com/2013


/08/23/20-medical-st


udies-that-prove-can


nabis-can-cure-cance


r/
I would never doubt cannabis can (when you break it down in it's parts) be made into lots of effective medicines (let the pharmacueticals deal with that) , but let's be honest its not the CBD you desire the THC and to get stoned
Well you know nothing of me or the type of cancer I have! As I said previous I am an advocate of it. I love CBD it works wonders for me, and if the pains too much and I cannot sleep then I'll have some THC. It's not all about getting stoned!
[quote][p][bold]Dr Martin[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]VoiceOfInsanity[/bold] wrote: http://www.cancer.go v/cancertopics/pdq/c am/cannabis/healthpr ofessional/page4 http://m.livescience .com/6232-marijuana- glaucoma.html http://www.collectiv e-evolution.com/2013 /08/23/20-medical-st udies-that-prove-can nabis-can-cure-cance r/[/p][/quote]I would never doubt cannabis can (when you break it down in it's parts) be made into lots of effective medicines (let the pharmacueticals deal with that) , but let's be honest its not the CBD you desire the THC and to get stoned[/p][/quote]Well you know nothing of me or the type of cancer I have! As I said previous I am an advocate of it. I love CBD it works wonders for me, and if the pains too much and I cannot sleep then I'll have some THC. It's not all about getting stoned! VoiceOfInsanity
  • Score: -1

4:37pm Tue 18 Mar 14

Dr Martin says...

VoiceOfInsanity wrote:
Dr Martin wrote:
VoiceOfInsanity wrote:
Dr Martin wrote:
VoiceOfInsanity wrote:
Dr Martin, mmm ok a Doctor? Doctor of what, Thuganomics, or just a fan of bad itv comedy drama?

Yea I can't wait till cannabis is legalised so I can go out and mainline some smack down my eyeball! Stupid!!

As you have proven in your posts, that you are rather uneducated when it comes to this subject, it's probably best you go sip your 40 proof whiskey and toke on your cochibas down your local old boys club and leave this subject to the South Wales Argus and other people who are a bit more savvy on the matter!
No Dr Martin is just a username, you didn't really think I was a real Doctor?
What is Thuganomics?, well if you are stupid enough to advocate making a psychoactive substance like dope more readily available to a wider audience you might be just stupid enough to mainline some smack
I have as much right to post my comments here as anyone else, you don't make the rules stoner
Typical Zooportonian answer
What does that mean , it's not english
Sorry forgot should if put it in Latin shouldn't I?
Te futueo et caballum tuum, cunnus!
So I drop a large hint that I speak English then he posts a Latin phrase, oh dear
never mind
I take it you are new to posting comments to this website?
[quote][p][bold]VoiceOfInsanity[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dr Martin[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]VoiceOfInsanity[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dr Martin[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]VoiceOfInsanity[/bold] wrote: Dr Martin, mmm ok a Doctor? Doctor of what, Thuganomics, or just a fan of bad itv comedy drama? Yea I can't wait till cannabis is legalised so I can go out and mainline some smack down my eyeball! Stupid!! As you have proven in your posts, that you are rather uneducated when it comes to this subject, it's probably best you go sip your 40 proof whiskey and toke on your cochibas down your local old boys club and leave this subject to the South Wales Argus and other people who are a bit more savvy on the matter![/p][/quote]No Dr Martin is just a username, you didn't really think I was a real Doctor? What is Thuganomics?, well if you are stupid enough to advocate making a psychoactive substance like dope more readily available to a wider audience you might be just stupid enough to mainline some smack I have as much right to post my comments here as anyone else, you don't make the rules stoner[/p][/quote]Typical Zooportonian answer[/p][/quote]What does that mean , it's not english[/p][/quote]Sorry forgot should if put it in Latin shouldn't I? Te futueo et caballum tuum, cunnus![/p][/quote]So I drop a large hint that I speak English then he posts a Latin phrase, oh dear never mind I take it you are new to posting comments to this website? Dr Martin
  • Score: 0

4:39pm Tue 18 Mar 14

VoiceOfInsanity says...

VoiceOfInsanity wrote:
Dr Martin wrote:
VoiceOfInsanity wrote:
http://www.cancer.go



v/cancertopics/pdq/c



am/cannabis/healthpr



ofessional/page4

http://m.livescience



.com/6232-marijuana-



glaucoma.html

http://www.collectiv



e-evolution.com/2013



/08/23/20-medical-st



udies-that-prove-can



nabis-can-cure-cance



r/
I would never doubt cannabis can (when you break it down in it's parts) be made into lots of effective medicines (let the pharmacueticals deal with that) , but let's be honest its not the CBD you desire the THC and to get stoned
Well you know nothing of me or the type of cancer I have! As I said previous I am an advocate of it. I love CBD it works wonders for me, and if the pains too much and I cannot sleep then I'll have some THC. It's not all about getting stoned!
Try using some commas and full stops please.
It's bad enough reading your drivel, but having to do it in one breath!!
[quote][p][bold]VoiceOfInsanity[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dr Martin[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]VoiceOfInsanity[/bold] wrote: http://www.cancer.go v/cancertopics/pdq/c am/cannabis/healthpr ofessional/page4 http://m.livescience .com/6232-marijuana- glaucoma.html http://www.collectiv e-evolution.com/2013 /08/23/20-medical-st udies-that-prove-can nabis-can-cure-cance r/[/p][/quote]I would never doubt cannabis can (when you break it down in it's parts) be made into lots of effective medicines (let the pharmacueticals deal with that) , but let's be honest its not the CBD you desire the THC and to get stoned[/p][/quote]Well you know nothing of me or the type of cancer I have! As I said previous I am an advocate of it. I love CBD it works wonders for me, and if the pains too much and I cannot sleep then I'll have some THC. It's not all about getting stoned![/p][/quote]Try using some commas and full stops please. It's bad enough reading your drivel, but having to do it in one breath!! VoiceOfInsanity
  • Score: -8

4:39pm Tue 18 Mar 14

Dr Martin says...

VoiceOfInsanity wrote:
Dr Martin wrote:
VoiceOfInsanity wrote:
http://www.cancer.go



v/cancertopics/pdq/c



am/cannabis/healthpr



ofessional/page4

http://m.livescience



.com/6232-marijuana-



glaucoma.html

http://www.collectiv



e-evolution.com/2013



/08/23/20-medical-st



udies-that-prove-can



nabis-can-cure-cance



r/
I would never doubt cannabis can (when you break it down in it's parts) be made into lots of effective medicines (let the pharmacueticals deal with that) , but let's be honest its not the CBD you desire the THC and to get stoned
Well you know nothing of me or the type of cancer I have! As I said previous I am an advocate of it. I love CBD it works wonders for me, and if the pains too much and I cannot sleep then I'll have some THC. It's not all about getting stoned!
then you are in a minority
[quote][p][bold]VoiceOfInsanity[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dr Martin[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]VoiceOfInsanity[/bold] wrote: http://www.cancer.go v/cancertopics/pdq/c am/cannabis/healthpr ofessional/page4 http://m.livescience .com/6232-marijuana- glaucoma.html http://www.collectiv e-evolution.com/2013 /08/23/20-medical-st udies-that-prove-can nabis-can-cure-cance r/[/p][/quote]I would never doubt cannabis can (when you break it down in it's parts) be made into lots of effective medicines (let the pharmacueticals deal with that) , but let's be honest its not the CBD you desire the THC and to get stoned[/p][/quote]Well you know nothing of me or the type of cancer I have! As I said previous I am an advocate of it. I love CBD it works wonders for me, and if the pains too much and I cannot sleep then I'll have some THC. It's not all about getting stoned![/p][/quote]then you are in a minority Dr Martin
  • Score: 0

4:42pm Tue 18 Mar 14

Dr Martin says...

VoiceOfInsanity wrote:
VoiceOfInsanity wrote:
Dr Martin wrote:
VoiceOfInsanity wrote:
http://www.cancer.go




v/cancertopics/pdq/c




am/cannabis/healthpr




ofessional/page4

http://m.livescience




.com/6232-marijuana-




glaucoma.html

http://www.collectiv




e-evolution.com/2013




/08/23/20-medical-st




udies-that-prove-can




nabis-can-cure-cance




r/
I would never doubt cannabis can (when you break it down in it's parts) be made into lots of effective medicines (let the pharmacueticals deal with that) , but let's be honest its not the CBD you desire the THC and to get stoned
Well you know nothing of me or the type of cancer I have! As I said previous I am an advocate of it. I love CBD it works wonders for me, and if the pains too much and I cannot sleep then I'll have some THC. It's not all about getting stoned!
Try using some commas and full stops please.
It's bad enough reading your drivel, but having to do it in one breath!!
Then don't read it, I am not forcing you to read it.
[quote][p][bold]VoiceOfInsanity[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]VoiceOfInsanity[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dr Martin[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]VoiceOfInsanity[/bold] wrote: http://www.cancer.go v/cancertopics/pdq/c am/cannabis/healthpr ofessional/page4 http://m.livescience .com/6232-marijuana- glaucoma.html http://www.collectiv e-evolution.com/2013 /08/23/20-medical-st udies-that-prove-can nabis-can-cure-cance r/[/p][/quote]I would never doubt cannabis can (when you break it down in it's parts) be made into lots of effective medicines (let the pharmacueticals deal with that) , but let's be honest its not the CBD you desire the THC and to get stoned[/p][/quote]Well you know nothing of me or the type of cancer I have! As I said previous I am an advocate of it. I love CBD it works wonders for me, and if the pains too much and I cannot sleep then I'll have some THC. It's not all about getting stoned![/p][/quote]Try using some commas and full stops please. It's bad enough reading your drivel, but having to do it in one breath!![/p][/quote]Then don't read it, I am not forcing you to read it. Dr Martin
  • Score: 0

4:43pm Tue 18 Mar 14

Dai Rear says...

"Well done on the posh French word for drug and lexicon, wow! Your spellchecker has been working really well for you." Is that your argument for legalising?

"Yes, drugs should be legalised I believe that drugs are positive here is why" In my professional career I have met a lot of opiate users. They tend to have poor hygiene, exacerbated by constipation (gives you halitosis). I struggle to understand how that is positive any more than the behaviour of the amphetamine and cocaine intoxicated opponents in the supermarket in Merthyr which I witnessed many moons ago. " Cannabis has been used for over 10,000 years and not one single death has EVER been recorded. " I expect the same applies to Spam, or Winalot. Doesn't seem much of an argument to me.
• "It is not addictive and is actually far less addictive than caffeine" I've never met anyone addicted to Spam or Winalot either but addictive is as addictive does and if you believe that things like jogging are not psychologically addictive then look again
• "If legalized, far less more minors would be using Cannabis" I think you mean "less" Your reason for saying this escapes me.
" or weed would be sold in stores, valid ID must be given and the user must be at least 21 years of age."
Do not late teenagers purchase alcohol for early teenagers? Sorry, rhetorical question." After customers start buying from these weed dispensaries, drug dealers would vanish and the ones that stick around would be most likely dealing hard drugs" And presumably endeavouring to expand their activities to compensate for their lost profit.
• "Marijuana is not a gateway drug, it's just the dealers persistently persuading their customers to try harder drugs because they know marijuana is not addictive. If they were to get them to at least try the harder drugs, they would get addicted and come back for more, giving the dealer never ending business" See what I said about expanding the business, above.
• "Marijuana cures and prevents Alzheimer and Glaucoma, helps relieve stress, anxiety, depression, slows down tumor growth, and helps relieve pain for chemo/radiation therapy patients as well." Not germane to its use, and I deprecate the expression, "recreationally"
• "If legalized, marijuana can be taxed which would produce billions of dollars annually in profit which in turn would help our nation get out of debt. "Well that displaced cash would have to come from somewhere, unless you are arguing that consumption would increase massively. Come from spending on food maybe? "Cannabis farms can be set up as well, and growing and harvesting marijuana can become a profession thus lowering the unemployment rate."I don't think the State would go for something as terrifyingly carbon fuel intensive as high THC crop cultivation
• "Does not lead to or cause lung cancer" Nor do lots of things. I suppose hydrocyanic acid doesn't. I'd still not be too impressed with the general sale of that chemical.

"Is that enough for you? Or shall I rewrite it in French or possibly Latin for you"
Is that part of your case for cannabis? Don't follow.
The case against is simple. Told that it's "legal", as in "legal highs", some of the more naïve will come to harm. That is a given. How many would be an acceptable number? 10?20?30?. Or, you don't legalise it. You tell people it may do them harm, which is true. What has society actually lost?
"Well done on the posh French word for drug and lexicon, wow! Your spellchecker has been working really well for you." Is that your argument for legalising? "Yes, drugs should be legalised I believe that drugs are positive here is why" In my professional career I have met a lot of opiate users. They tend to have poor hygiene, exacerbated by constipation (gives you halitosis). I struggle to understand how that is positive any more than the behaviour of the amphetamine and cocaine intoxicated opponents in the supermarket in Merthyr which I witnessed many moons ago. " Cannabis has been used for over 10,000 years and not one single death has EVER been recorded. " I expect the same applies to Spam, or Winalot. Doesn't seem much of an argument to me. • "It is not addictive and is actually far less addictive than caffeine" I've never met anyone addicted to Spam or Winalot either but addictive is as addictive does and if you believe that things like jogging are not psychologically addictive then look again • "If legalized, far less more minors would be using Cannabis" I think you mean "less" Your reason for saying this escapes me. " or weed would be sold in stores, valid ID must be given and the user must be at least 21 years of age." Do not late teenagers purchase alcohol for early teenagers? Sorry, rhetorical question." After customers start buying from these weed dispensaries, drug dealers would vanish and the ones that stick around would be most likely dealing hard drugs" And presumably endeavouring to expand their activities to compensate for their lost profit. • "Marijuana is not a gateway drug, it's just the dealers persistently persuading their customers to try harder drugs because they know marijuana is not addictive. If they were to get them to at least try the harder drugs, they would get addicted and come back for more, giving the dealer never ending business" See what I said about expanding the business, above. • "Marijuana cures and prevents Alzheimer and Glaucoma, helps relieve stress, anxiety, depression, slows down tumor growth, and helps relieve pain for chemo/radiation therapy patients as well." Not germane to its use, and I deprecate the expression, "recreationally" • "If legalized, marijuana can be taxed which would produce billions of dollars annually in profit which in turn would help our nation get out of debt. "Well that displaced cash would have to come from somewhere, unless you are arguing that consumption would increase massively. Come from spending on food maybe? "Cannabis farms can be set up as well, and growing and harvesting marijuana can become a profession thus lowering the unemployment rate."I don't think the State would go for something as terrifyingly carbon fuel intensive as high THC crop cultivation • "Does not lead to or cause lung cancer" Nor do lots of things. I suppose hydrocyanic acid doesn't. I'd still not be too impressed with the general sale of that chemical. "Is that enough for you? Or shall I rewrite it in French or possibly Latin for you" Is that part of your case for cannabis? Don't follow. The case against is simple. Told that it's "legal", as in "legal highs", some of the more naïve will come to harm. That is a given. How many would be an acceptable number? 10?20?30?. Or, you don't legalise it. You tell people it may do them harm, which is true. What has society actually lost? Dai Rear
  • Score: 2

5:43pm Tue 18 Mar 14

Cyril123 says...

Dr Martin wrote:
VoiceOfInsanity wrote:
http://www.cancer.go


v/cancertopics/pdq/c


am/cannabis/healthpr


ofessional/page4

http://m.livescience


.com/6232-marijuana-


glaucoma.html

http://www.collectiv


e-evolution.com/2013


/08/23/20-medical-st


udies-that-prove-can


nabis-can-cure-cance


r/
I would never doubt cannabis can (when you break it down in it's parts) be made into lots of effective medicines (let the pharmacueticals deal with that) , but let's be honest its not the CBD you desire the THC and to get stoned
I rarely post on these forums as I generally just laugh at the people spouting rubbish.

Would you please do a search on sativex, you will see that sativex is made by GW Pharmaceuticals, you will also notice they are now providing it to many countries and the research on it is vast, it has many many uses, then please notice on the label it says "whole cannabis extract".

The reason it's a whole extract is because you can't break it down into parts, it doesn't work anywhere near as well without the existence of the rest of the compounds.

You can grow plants that are heavier in CBD or Cannabidiol, these can be used for epilepsy, Parkinson's and many other conditions, CBD is also non-psychoactive, that's why many many families in the states are rushing to move to Colorado to save their children's life, do you think this is wrong too?

Please watch a couple of videos on YouTube showing Dr Sanjay Gupta, he has done 2 videos weed, and weed 2 (convienient names I know), but please before you say you are fully against cannabis to be legalised, think to yourself what if that were your child?, I am a father and I know the answer......
[quote][p][bold]Dr Martin[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]VoiceOfInsanity[/bold] wrote: http://www.cancer.go v/cancertopics/pdq/c am/cannabis/healthpr ofessional/page4 http://m.livescience .com/6232-marijuana- glaucoma.html http://www.collectiv e-evolution.com/2013 /08/23/20-medical-st udies-that-prove-can nabis-can-cure-cance r/[/p][/quote]I would never doubt cannabis can (when you break it down in it's parts) be made into lots of effective medicines (let the pharmacueticals deal with that) , but let's be honest its not the CBD you desire the THC and to get stoned[/p][/quote]I rarely post on these forums as I generally just laugh at the people spouting rubbish. Would you please do a search on sativex, you will see that sativex is made by GW Pharmaceuticals, you will also notice they are now providing it to many countries and the research on it is vast, it has many many uses, then please notice on the label it says "whole cannabis extract". The reason it's a whole extract is because you can't break it down into parts, it doesn't work anywhere near as well without the existence of the rest of the compounds. You can grow plants that are heavier in CBD or Cannabidiol, these can be used for epilepsy, Parkinson's and many other conditions, CBD is also non-psychoactive, that's why many many families in the states are rushing to move to Colorado to save their children's life, do you think this is wrong too? Please watch a couple of videos on YouTube showing Dr Sanjay Gupta, he has done 2 videos weed, and weed 2 (convienient names I know), but please before you say you are fully against cannabis to be legalised, think to yourself what if that were your child?, I am a father and I know the answer...... Cyril123
  • Score: -1

5:51pm Tue 18 Mar 14

Dai Rear says...

Cyril123 why do you conflate the medicinal use of cannabis with its "recreational" use. The opium poppy is a an essential weapon in the medical armoury. You would presumably not now wish to countenance the reintroduction of opium dens in our cities, would you?
Cyril123 why do you conflate the medicinal use of cannabis with its "recreational" use. The opium poppy is a an essential weapon in the medical armoury. You would presumably not now wish to countenance the reintroduction of opium dens in our cities, would you? Dai Rear
  • Score: 2

6:33pm Tue 18 Mar 14

Verumque says...

No need to wait 20 years to see how Colorado turns out.
12 years ago Portugal basically decriminalised everything.
Read about it here.....

http://www.spiegel.d
e/international/euro
pe/evaluating-drug-d
ecriminalization-in-
portugal-12-years-la
ter-a-891060.html

From which the following by Frank Zobel of the European Monitoring Center for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA) says "he can observe "the greatest innovation in this field" right outside his office door.""
"No drug policy, Zobel says, can genuinely prevent people from taking drugs -- at least, he is not familiar with any model that works this way. As for Portugal, Zobel says, "This is working. Drug consumption has not increased severely. There is no mass chaos. For me as an evaluator, that's a very good outcome.""
This also might be of some interests to the rather ill informed knee jerk reactionary scaremongers. Hughes, C.E. & A. Stevens paper: "A Resounding Success or A Disastrous Failure - Portugal Decriminalisation of Illicit Drugs - 2012"
Portugal has taken drug possession out of the 'criminal' arena and put it into the one labelled 'health', a very civilised and honest approach. neither term seems to fit Victorian UK.

Our govt. meanwhile rejects the need for a Royal Commission on the subject as "not necessary". Just about typical when David Nutt was sacked by the previous incumbents for not singing from the official hymn sheet.

If people take consciousness changing substances to 'escape reality', maybe its the reality of life in the UK that needs changing!
No need to wait 20 years to see how Colorado turns out. 12 years ago Portugal basically decriminalised everything. Read about it here..... http://www.spiegel.d e/international/euro pe/evaluating-drug-d ecriminalization-in- portugal-12-years-la ter-a-891060.html From which the following by Frank Zobel of the European Monitoring Center for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA) says "he can observe "the greatest innovation in this field" right outside his office door."" "No drug policy, Zobel says, can genuinely prevent people from taking drugs -- at least, he is not familiar with any model that works this way. As for Portugal, Zobel says, "This is working. Drug consumption has not increased severely. There is no mass chaos. For me as an evaluator, that's a very good outcome."" This also might be of some interests to the rather ill informed knee jerk reactionary scaremongers. Hughes, C.E. & A. Stevens paper: "A Resounding Success or A Disastrous Failure - Portugal Decriminalisation of Illicit Drugs - 2012" Portugal has taken drug possession out of the 'criminal' arena and put it into the one labelled 'health', a very civilised and honest approach. neither term seems to fit Victorian UK. Our govt. meanwhile rejects the need for a Royal Commission on the subject as "not necessary". Just about typical when David Nutt was sacked by the previous incumbents for not singing from the official hymn sheet. If people take consciousness changing substances to 'escape reality', maybe its the reality of life in the UK that needs changing! Verumque
  • Score: 0

7:01pm Tue 18 Mar 14

Mervyn James says...

Half the posters here must be on the wacky baccy going by the incoherent attempts to justify drug usage here. 'It won't happen to me..', "you cannot stop it so go with it..." etc. 'Its a wonder drug.." (Must be the stupidest argument yet), and others 'explanations' that show most are already divorced from the reality of drug use, whether it is 'soft' or 'hard' is simply degree, and doesn't allow for idiots, the depressed or other areas who are just having 'fun', yep the hospitals and graveyards are full of them. No single individual reaction is the same as anyone else, so stupidly generalizing as well.
Half the posters here must be on the wacky baccy going by the incoherent attempts to justify drug usage here. 'It won't happen to me..', "you cannot stop it so go with it..." etc. 'Its a wonder drug.." (Must be the stupidest argument yet), and others 'explanations' that show most are already divorced from the reality of drug use, whether it is 'soft' or 'hard' is simply degree, and doesn't allow for idiots, the depressed or other areas who are just having 'fun', yep the hospitals and graveyards are full of them. No single individual reaction is the same as anyone else, so stupidly generalizing as well. Mervyn James
  • Score: 0

7:09pm Tue 18 Mar 14

VoiceOfInsanity says...

Dai Rear wrote:
"Well done on the posh French word for drug and lexicon, wow! Your spellchecker has been working really well for you." Is that your argument for legalising?

"Yes, drugs should be legalised I believe that drugs are positive here is why" In my professional career I have met a lot of opiate users. They tend to have poor hygiene, exacerbated by constipation (gives you halitosis). I struggle to understand how that is positive any more than the behaviour of the amphetamine and cocaine intoxicated opponents in the supermarket in Merthyr which I witnessed many moons ago. " Cannabis has been used for over 10,000 years and not one single death has EVER been recorded. " I expect the same applies to Spam, or Winalot. Doesn't seem much of an argument to me.
• "It is not addictive and is actually far less addictive than caffeine" I've never met anyone addicted to Spam or Winalot either but addictive is as addictive does and if you believe that things like jogging are not psychologically addictive then look again
• "If legalized, far less more minors would be using Cannabis" I think you mean "less" Your reason for saying this escapes me.
" or weed would be sold in stores, valid ID must be given and the user must be at least 21 years of age."
Do not late teenagers purchase alcohol for early teenagers? Sorry, rhetorical question." After customers start buying from these weed dispensaries, drug dealers would vanish and the ones that stick around would be most likely dealing hard drugs" And presumably endeavouring to expand their activities to compensate for their lost profit.
• "Marijuana is not a gateway drug, it's just the dealers persistently persuading their customers to try harder drugs because they know marijuana is not addictive. If they were to get them to at least try the harder drugs, they would get addicted and come back for more, giving the dealer never ending business" See what I said about expanding the business, above.
• "Marijuana cures and prevents Alzheimer and Glaucoma, helps relieve stress, anxiety, depression, slows down tumor growth, and helps relieve pain for chemo/radiation therapy patients as well." Not germane to its use, and I deprecate the expression, "recreationally"
• "If legalized, marijuana can be taxed which would produce billions of dollars annually in profit which in turn would help our nation get out of debt. "Well that displaced cash would have to come from somewhere, unless you are arguing that consumption would increase massively. Come from spending on food maybe? "Cannabis farms can be set up as well, and growing and harvesting marijuana can become a profession thus lowering the unemployment rate."I don't think the State would go for something as terrifyingly carbon fuel intensive as high THC crop cultivation
• "Does not lead to or cause lung cancer" Nor do lots of things. I suppose hydrocyanic acid doesn't. I'd still not be too impressed with the general sale of that chemical.

"Is that enough for you? Or shall I rewrite it in French or possibly Latin for you"
Is that part of your case for cannabis? Don't follow.
The case against is simple. Told that it's "legal", as in "legal highs", some of the more naïve will come to harm. That is a given. How many would be an acceptable number? 10?20?30?. Or, you don't legalise it. You tell people it may do them harm, which is true. What has society actually lost?
And you call that an educated response? Wow!
[quote][p][bold]Dai Rear[/bold] wrote: "Well done on the posh French word for drug and lexicon, wow! Your spellchecker has been working really well for you." Is that your argument for legalising? "Yes, drugs should be legalised I believe that drugs are positive here is why" In my professional career I have met a lot of opiate users. They tend to have poor hygiene, exacerbated by constipation (gives you halitosis). I struggle to understand how that is positive any more than the behaviour of the amphetamine and cocaine intoxicated opponents in the supermarket in Merthyr which I witnessed many moons ago. " Cannabis has been used for over 10,000 years and not one single death has EVER been recorded. " I expect the same applies to Spam, or Winalot. Doesn't seem much of an argument to me. • "It is not addictive and is actually far less addictive than caffeine" I've never met anyone addicted to Spam or Winalot either but addictive is as addictive does and if you believe that things like jogging are not psychologically addictive then look again • "If legalized, far less more minors would be using Cannabis" I think you mean "less" Your reason for saying this escapes me. " or weed would be sold in stores, valid ID must be given and the user must be at least 21 years of age." Do not late teenagers purchase alcohol for early teenagers? Sorry, rhetorical question." After customers start buying from these weed dispensaries, drug dealers would vanish and the ones that stick around would be most likely dealing hard drugs" And presumably endeavouring to expand their activities to compensate for their lost profit. • "Marijuana is not a gateway drug, it's just the dealers persistently persuading their customers to try harder drugs because they know marijuana is not addictive. If they were to get them to at least try the harder drugs, they would get addicted and come back for more, giving the dealer never ending business" See what I said about expanding the business, above. • "Marijuana cures and prevents Alzheimer and Glaucoma, helps relieve stress, anxiety, depression, slows down tumor growth, and helps relieve pain for chemo/radiation therapy patients as well." Not germane to its use, and I deprecate the expression, "recreationally" • "If legalized, marijuana can be taxed which would produce billions of dollars annually in profit which in turn would help our nation get out of debt. "Well that displaced cash would have to come from somewhere, unless you are arguing that consumption would increase massively. Come from spending on food maybe? "Cannabis farms can be set up as well, and growing and harvesting marijuana can become a profession thus lowering the unemployment rate."I don't think the State would go for something as terrifyingly carbon fuel intensive as high THC crop cultivation • "Does not lead to or cause lung cancer" Nor do lots of things. I suppose hydrocyanic acid doesn't. I'd still not be too impressed with the general sale of that chemical. "Is that enough for you? Or shall I rewrite it in French or possibly Latin for you" Is that part of your case for cannabis? Don't follow. The case against is simple. Told that it's "legal", as in "legal highs", some of the more naïve will come to harm. That is a given. How many would be an acceptable number? 10?20?30?. Or, you don't legalise it. You tell people it may do them harm, which is true. What has society actually lost?[/p][/quote]And you call that an educated response? Wow! VoiceOfInsanity
  • Score: -5

7:14pm Tue 18 Mar 14

VoiceOfInsanity says...

Dr Martin wrote:
VoiceOfInsanity wrote:
Dr Martin wrote:
VoiceOfInsanity wrote:
Dr Martin wrote:
VoiceOfInsanity wrote:
Dr Martin, mmm ok a Doctor? Doctor of what, Thuganomics, or just a fan of bad itv comedy drama?

Yea I can't wait till cannabis is legalised so I can go out and mainline some smack down my eyeball! Stupid!!

As you have proven in your posts, that you are rather uneducated when it comes to this subject, it's probably best you go sip your 40 proof whiskey and toke on your cochibas down your local old boys club and leave this subject to the South Wales Argus and other people who are a bit more savvy on the matter!
No Dr Martin is just a username, you didn't really think I was a real Doctor?
What is Thuganomics?, well if you are stupid enough to advocate making a psychoactive substance like dope more readily available to a wider audience you might be just stupid enough to mainline some smack
I have as much right to post my comments here as anyone else, you don't make the rules stoner
Typical Zooportonian answer
What does that mean , it's not english
Sorry forgot should if put it in Latin shouldn't I?
Te futueo et caballum tuum, cunnus!
So I drop a large hint that I speak English then he posts a Latin phrase, oh dear
never mind
I take it you are new to posting comments to this website?
No I posted in Latin because with all your pomp in your posts I naturally thought you were of higher intelligence, boy was I wrong.
Typicall web forum troll, with far too much time on his hands, well hand more like, because we all know where the keyboard warrior keeps his left hand!
[quote][p][bold]Dr Martin[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]VoiceOfInsanity[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dr Martin[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]VoiceOfInsanity[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dr Martin[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]VoiceOfInsanity[/bold] wrote: Dr Martin, mmm ok a Doctor? Doctor of what, Thuganomics, or just a fan of bad itv comedy drama? Yea I can't wait till cannabis is legalised so I can go out and mainline some smack down my eyeball! Stupid!! As you have proven in your posts, that you are rather uneducated when it comes to this subject, it's probably best you go sip your 40 proof whiskey and toke on your cochibas down your local old boys club and leave this subject to the South Wales Argus and other people who are a bit more savvy on the matter![/p][/quote]No Dr Martin is just a username, you didn't really think I was a real Doctor? What is Thuganomics?, well if you are stupid enough to advocate making a psychoactive substance like dope more readily available to a wider audience you might be just stupid enough to mainline some smack I have as much right to post my comments here as anyone else, you don't make the rules stoner[/p][/quote]Typical Zooportonian answer[/p][/quote]What does that mean , it's not english[/p][/quote]Sorry forgot should if put it in Latin shouldn't I? Te futueo et caballum tuum, cunnus![/p][/quote]So I drop a large hint that I speak English then he posts a Latin phrase, oh dear never mind I take it you are new to posting comments to this website?[/p][/quote]No I posted in Latin because with all your pomp in your posts I naturally thought you were of higher intelligence, boy was I wrong. Typicall web forum troll, with far too much time on his hands, well hand more like, because we all know where the keyboard warrior keeps his left hand! VoiceOfInsanity
  • Score: -5

7:19pm Tue 18 Mar 14

Dr Martin says...

Cyril123 wrote:
Dr Martin wrote:
VoiceOfInsanity wrote:
http://www.cancer.go



v/cancertopics/pdq/c



am/cannabis/healthpr



ofessional/page4

http://m.livescience



.com/6232-marijuana-



glaucoma.html

http://www.collectiv



e-evolution.com/2013



/08/23/20-medical-st



udies-that-prove-can



nabis-can-cure-cance



r/
I would never doubt cannabis can (when you break it down in it's parts) be made into lots of effective medicines (let the pharmacueticals deal with that) , but let's be honest its not the CBD you desire the THC and to get stoned
I rarely post on these forums as I generally just laugh at the people spouting rubbish.

Would you please do a search on sativex, you will see that sativex is made by GW Pharmaceuticals, you will also notice they are now providing it to many countries and the research on it is vast, it has many many uses, then please notice on the label it says "whole cannabis extract".

The reason it's a whole extract is because you can't break it down into parts, it doesn't work anywhere near as well without the existence of the rest of the compounds.

You can grow plants that are heavier in CBD or Cannabidiol, these can be used for epilepsy, Parkinson's and many other conditions, CBD is also non-psychoactive, that's why many many families in the states are rushing to move to Colorado to save their children's life, do you think this is wrong too?

Please watch a couple of videos on YouTube showing Dr Sanjay Gupta, he has done 2 videos weed, and weed 2 (convienient names I know), but please before you say you are fully against cannabis to be legalised, think to yourself what if that were your child?, I am a father and I know the answer......
Cannabis users tend to laugh about a lot things, I think it's one of the less harmful side effects of weed alongside the munches
Cyril, I have been debating cannabis for the nearly 2 years, I work in the NHS (Psychiatry) I see the harm cannabis does, to some it has ruined their lives, some need constant care, until a cure can be found for schizophrenia their misery will continue, I will always debate against the pro pot lobby
Let the pharmaceuticals research it , market it and regulate it I am sure it will bring some much needed revenues to this country.
I am sure you always find someone who will say weed is the only thing that will cure my back pain /help me sleep etc etc etc, but all in all most just want to get stoned
[quote][p][bold]Cyril123[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dr Martin[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]VoiceOfInsanity[/bold] wrote: http://www.cancer.go v/cancertopics/pdq/c am/cannabis/healthpr ofessional/page4 http://m.livescience .com/6232-marijuana- glaucoma.html http://www.collectiv e-evolution.com/2013 /08/23/20-medical-st udies-that-prove-can nabis-can-cure-cance r/[/p][/quote]I would never doubt cannabis can (when you break it down in it's parts) be made into lots of effective medicines (let the pharmacueticals deal with that) , but let's be honest its not the CBD you desire the THC and to get stoned[/p][/quote]I rarely post on these forums as I generally just laugh at the people spouting rubbish. Would you please do a search on sativex, you will see that sativex is made by GW Pharmaceuticals, you will also notice they are now providing it to many countries and the research on it is vast, it has many many uses, then please notice on the label it says "whole cannabis extract". The reason it's a whole extract is because you can't break it down into parts, it doesn't work anywhere near as well without the existence of the rest of the compounds. You can grow plants that are heavier in CBD or Cannabidiol, these can be used for epilepsy, Parkinson's and many other conditions, CBD is also non-psychoactive, that's why many many families in the states are rushing to move to Colorado to save their children's life, do you think this is wrong too? Please watch a couple of videos on YouTube showing Dr Sanjay Gupta, he has done 2 videos weed, and weed 2 (convienient names I know), but please before you say you are fully against cannabis to be legalised, think to yourself what if that were your child?, I am a father and I know the answer......[/p][/quote]Cannabis users tend to laugh about a lot things, I think it's one of the less harmful side effects of weed alongside the munches Cyril, I have been debating cannabis for the nearly 2 years, I work in the NHS (Psychiatry) I see the harm cannabis does, to some it has ruined their lives, some need constant care, until a cure can be found for schizophrenia their misery will continue, I will always debate against the pro pot lobby Let the pharmaceuticals research it , market it and regulate it I am sure it will bring some much needed revenues to this country. I am sure you always find someone who will say weed is the only thing that will cure my back pain /help me sleep etc etc etc, but all in all most just want to get stoned Dr Martin
  • Score: 1

7:28pm Tue 18 Mar 14

Dr Martin says...

VoiceOfInsanity wrote:
Dr Martin wrote:
VoiceOfInsanity wrote:
Dr Martin wrote:
VoiceOfInsanity wrote:
Dr Martin wrote:
VoiceOfInsanity wrote:
Dr Martin, mmm ok a Doctor? Doctor of what, Thuganomics, or just a fan of bad itv comedy drama?

Yea I can't wait till cannabis is legalised so I can go out and mainline some smack down my eyeball! Stupid!!

As you have proven in your posts, that you are rather uneducated when it comes to this subject, it's probably best you go sip your 40 proof whiskey and toke on your cochibas down your local old boys club and leave this subject to the South Wales Argus and other people who are a bit more savvy on the matter!
No Dr Martin is just a username, you didn't really think I was a real Doctor?
What is Thuganomics?, well if you are stupid enough to advocate making a psychoactive substance like dope more readily available to a wider audience you might be just stupid enough to mainline some smack
I have as much right to post my comments here as anyone else, you don't make the rules stoner
Typical Zooportonian answer
What does that mean , it's not english
Sorry forgot should if put it in Latin shouldn't I?
Te futueo et caballum tuum, cunnus!
So I drop a large hint that I speak English then he posts a Latin phrase, oh dear
never mind
I take it you are new to posting comments to this website?
No I posted in Latin because with all your pomp in your posts I naturally thought you were of higher intelligence, boy was I wrong.
Typicall web forum troll, with far too much time on his hands, well hand more like, because we all know where the keyboard warrior keeps his left hand!
fingers on the home keys, I need both hands to type

If you want me to go down to your level that's fine by me , but I am guessing you wont be around for long , stoners don't have the staying power
[quote][p][bold]VoiceOfInsanity[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dr Martin[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]VoiceOfInsanity[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dr Martin[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]VoiceOfInsanity[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dr Martin[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]VoiceOfInsanity[/bold] wrote: Dr Martin, mmm ok a Doctor? Doctor of what, Thuganomics, or just a fan of bad itv comedy drama? Yea I can't wait till cannabis is legalised so I can go out and mainline some smack down my eyeball! Stupid!! As you have proven in your posts, that you are rather uneducated when it comes to this subject, it's probably best you go sip your 40 proof whiskey and toke on your cochibas down your local old boys club and leave this subject to the South Wales Argus and other people who are a bit more savvy on the matter![/p][/quote]No Dr Martin is just a username, you didn't really think I was a real Doctor? What is Thuganomics?, well if you are stupid enough to advocate making a psychoactive substance like dope more readily available to a wider audience you might be just stupid enough to mainline some smack I have as much right to post my comments here as anyone else, you don't make the rules stoner[/p][/quote]Typical Zooportonian answer[/p][/quote]What does that mean , it's not english[/p][/quote]Sorry forgot should if put it in Latin shouldn't I? Te futueo et caballum tuum, cunnus![/p][/quote]So I drop a large hint that I speak English then he posts a Latin phrase, oh dear never mind I take it you are new to posting comments to this website?[/p][/quote]No I posted in Latin because with all your pomp in your posts I naturally thought you were of higher intelligence, boy was I wrong. Typicall web forum troll, with far too much time on his hands, well hand more like, because we all know where the keyboard warrior keeps his left hand![/p][/quote]fingers on the home keys, I need both hands to type If you want me to go down to your level that's fine by me , but I am guessing you wont be around for long , stoners don't have the staying power Dr Martin
  • Score: 2

8:08pm Tue 18 Mar 14

Verumque says...

Dr Martin says...
"I work in the NHS (Psychiatry) I see the harm cannabis does, to some it has ruined their lives, some need constant care, until a cure can be found for schizophrenia their misery will continue, I will always debate against the pro pot lobby"

And my CPN with some 30+ years exp. disagrees with you. Who should I believe?
My 45+ years of 'experimentation' with most of the recreational drugs doesn't seem to have had any lasting affects, at 49 I went back to college, did another degree 'for fun', hardly ever attended lectures and 'p***ed' a 2:1.
Most of the people I've ever encountered who have problems with 'abusing' rather than 'using' drugs really shouldn't have started, they lack sufficient willpower and self control to have a fun time or a deep learning experience from the exercise.
Dr Martin says... "I work in the NHS (Psychiatry) I see the harm cannabis does, to some it has ruined their lives, some need constant care, until a cure can be found for schizophrenia their misery will continue, I will always debate against the pro pot lobby" And my CPN with some 30+ years exp. disagrees with you. Who should I believe? My 45+ years of 'experimentation' with most of the recreational drugs doesn't seem to have had any lasting affects, at 49 I went back to college, did another degree 'for fun', hardly ever attended lectures and 'p***ed' a 2:1. Most of the people I've ever encountered who have problems with 'abusing' rather than 'using' drugs really shouldn't have started, they lack sufficient willpower and self control to have a fun time or a deep learning experience from the exercise. Verumque
  • Score: -5

10:33pm Tue 18 Mar 14

RevolutionIsNow says...

Dai Rear wrote:
RevolutionIsNow wrote:
The only reason the GOV do not legalize cannabis is the same reason it was declared illegal in 1920 the big bad corporations will lose too much profit. In 1920 it was made illegal so that the plastic industry's could thrive as before then the hemp market was extremely strong and left no room for competitors. Today however it would be the pharmaceutical company's that would go under for example someone with extreme pain could eat cannabis and be relived of that pain all day and therefore they would not need there painkiller (e.g Tramadol). this would be the case for many ailments and the pharmaceutical company's would hit an all time low also the amount of profit the GOV make from handing out fines regarding the use of cannabis is astonishing they would have to kiss goodbye to that.
The usual-yer wicked capiterlists and
Government makes profit from fines (ha ha)
Well you can't have it both ways. Your lot's argument in favour of dispensing the wretched rubbish to half wit teens is that government could make cash out of it. So which is it? Government makes more, or less, by flogging the garbage than fining the dopes?
to put is simply for you Dai , in a way that someone with your intellectual capabilities could understand, from a medical prospective do u allow somebody to consume cannabiss e.g eating(not smoking as i agree the smoke will eventually harm there lungs however that is there choice) or consuming ridiculous amounts of prescription DRUGS yes there drugs too which have been proven to be a lot less effective and a lot more toxic to the human body
for example TRAMADOL(commonly prescribed for treating chronic pain such as backache deaths in 2012 from tramadol where 175
deaths from cannabis 0
however im sure you would happily pop a few tablets that the DR prescribes for you
stop being a sheep and learn the truth.
[quote][p][bold]Dai Rear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RevolutionIsNow[/bold] wrote: The only reason the GOV do not legalize cannabis is the same reason it was declared illegal in 1920 the big bad corporations will lose too much profit. In 1920 it was made illegal so that the plastic industry's could thrive as before then the hemp market was extremely strong and left no room for competitors. Today however it would be the pharmaceutical company's that would go under for example someone with extreme pain could eat cannabis and be relived of that pain all day and therefore they would not need there painkiller (e.g Tramadol). this would be the case for many ailments and the pharmaceutical company's would hit an all time low also the amount of profit the GOV make from handing out fines regarding the use of cannabis is astonishing they would have to kiss goodbye to that.[/p][/quote]The usual-yer wicked capiterlists and Government makes profit from fines (ha ha) Well you can't have it both ways. Your lot's argument in favour of dispensing the wretched rubbish to half wit teens is that government could make cash out of it. So which is it? Government makes more, or less, by flogging the garbage than fining the dopes?[/p][/quote]to put is simply for you Dai , in a way that someone with your intellectual capabilities could understand, from a medical prospective do u allow somebody to consume cannabiss e.g eating(not smoking as i agree the smoke will eventually harm there lungs however that is there choice) or consuming ridiculous amounts of prescription DRUGS yes there drugs too which have been proven to be a lot less effective and a lot more toxic to the human body for example TRAMADOL(commonly prescribed for treating chronic pain such as backache deaths in 2012 from tramadol where 175 deaths from cannabis 0 however im sure you would happily pop a few tablets that the DR prescribes for you stop being a sheep and learn the truth. RevolutionIsNow
  • Score: -2

10:46pm Tue 18 Mar 14

Dai Rear says...

"And you call that an educated response? Wow!"
No I don't. I don't see what point you intend to make with silly abuse.
"to put is simply for you Dai , in a way that someone with your intellectual capabilities could understand," and the same again. Abuse simply says you have no argument. Useful if you want to hit me over the head with a pool cue, but a bit lacking here, though rest assured that since I'm quite old I'm sure you'd win at fisticuffs.
"stop being a sheep and learn the truth." I fear I'll learn nothing from you. But, in fairness, your illiteracy does speak volumes. Is there anyone who can make a simple non-abusive case for legalising another harmful drug?
"And you call that an educated response? Wow!" No I don't. I don't see what point you intend to make with silly abuse. "to put is simply for you Dai , in a way that someone with your intellectual capabilities could understand," and the same again. Abuse simply says you have no argument. Useful if you want to hit me over the head with a pool cue, but a bit lacking here, though rest assured that since I'm quite old I'm sure you'd win at fisticuffs. "stop being a sheep and learn the truth." I fear I'll learn nothing from you. But, in fairness, your illiteracy does speak volumes. Is there anyone who can make a simple non-abusive case for legalising another harmful drug? Dai Rear
  • Score: 2

11:50pm Tue 18 Mar 14

Dr Martin says...

Verumque wrote:
Dr Martin says...
"I work in the NHS (Psychiatry) I see the harm cannabis does, to some it has ruined their lives, some need constant care, until a cure can be found for schizophrenia their misery will continue, I will always debate against the pro pot lobby"

And my CPN with some 30+ years exp. disagrees with you. Who should I believe?
My 45+ years of 'experimentation' with most of the recreational drugs doesn't seem to have had any lasting affects, at 49 I went back to college, did another degree 'for fun', hardly ever attended lectures and 'p***ed' a 2:1.
Most of the people I've ever encountered who have problems with 'abusing' rather than 'using' drugs really shouldn't have started, they lack sufficient willpower and self control to have a fun time or a deep learning experience from the exercise.
I don't expect everyone to agree with me, but congratulations on the degree, just imagine what you could have achieved if you hadn't dabbled in illicit substances and you might not need to see your CPN quite so often
[quote][p][bold]Verumque[/bold] wrote: Dr Martin says... "I work in the NHS (Psychiatry) I see the harm cannabis does, to some it has ruined their lives, some need constant care, until a cure can be found for schizophrenia their misery will continue, I will always debate against the pro pot lobby" And my CPN with some 30+ years exp. disagrees with you. Who should I believe? My 45+ years of 'experimentation' with most of the recreational drugs doesn't seem to have had any lasting affects, at 49 I went back to college, did another degree 'for fun', hardly ever attended lectures and 'p***ed' a 2:1. Most of the people I've ever encountered who have problems with 'abusing' rather than 'using' drugs really shouldn't have started, they lack sufficient willpower and self control to have a fun time or a deep learning experience from the exercise.[/p][/quote]I don't expect everyone to agree with me, but congratulations on the degree, just imagine what you could have achieved if you hadn't dabbled in illicit substances and you might not need to see your CPN quite so often Dr Martin
  • Score: 0

12:07am Wed 19 Mar 14

Dr Martin says...

@Verumque
Re: A Resounding Success or A Disastrous Failure - Portugal Decriminalisation of Illicit Drugs - 2012"
A bit of a mixed bag as regards to success for Portugal's drug laws
illicit drug use is rising in Portugal (falling in the UK), Increase in the number of drug addicts seeking rehab
If you read the last paragraph it mentions that this treatment is expensive and may face cut backs, I am sure Portugal's mighty economy will be able to pay for it
@Verumque Re: A Resounding Success or A Disastrous Failure - Portugal Decriminalisation of Illicit Drugs - 2012" A bit of a mixed bag as regards to success for Portugal's drug laws illicit drug use is rising in Portugal (falling in the UK), Increase in the number of drug addicts seeking rehab If you read the last paragraph it mentions that this treatment is expensive and may face cut backs, I am sure Portugal's mighty economy will be able to pay for it Dr Martin
  • Score: 1

2:26am Wed 19 Mar 14

zooportandproudofit says...

Wow ! like heavy man,it took me hours to read all these posts and I ain't even stoned..
Wow ! like heavy man,it took me hours to read all these posts and I ain't even stoned.. zooportandproudofit
  • Score: 3

8:30am Wed 19 Mar 14

VoiceOfInsanity says...

Verumque wrote:
Dr Martin says...
"I work in the NHS (Psychiatry) I see the harm cannabis does, to some it has ruined their lives, some need constant care, until a cure can be found for schizophrenia their misery will continue, I will always debate against the pro pot lobby"

And my CPN with some 30+ years exp. disagrees with you. Who should I believe?
My 45+ years of 'experimentation' with most of the recreational drugs doesn't seem to have had any lasting affects, at 49 I went back to college, did another degree 'for fun', hardly ever attended lectures and 'p***ed' a 2:1.
Most of the people I've ever encountered who have problems with 'abusing' rather than 'using' drugs really shouldn't have started, they lack sufficient willpower and self control to have a fun time or a deep learning experience from the exercise.
Oh so he's a shrink now? Yesterday his posts stated he wasn't a doctor? Walter Mitty I think he should be called or Dai Rear 2. Another one whose full of it!
[quote][p][bold]Verumque[/bold] wrote: Dr Martin says... "I work in the NHS (Psychiatry) I see the harm cannabis does, to some it has ruined their lives, some need constant care, until a cure can be found for schizophrenia their misery will continue, I will always debate against the pro pot lobby" And my CPN with some 30+ years exp. disagrees with you. Who should I believe? My 45+ years of 'experimentation' with most of the recreational drugs doesn't seem to have had any lasting affects, at 49 I went back to college, did another degree 'for fun', hardly ever attended lectures and 'p***ed' a 2:1. Most of the people I've ever encountered who have problems with 'abusing' rather than 'using' drugs really shouldn't have started, they lack sufficient willpower and self control to have a fun time or a deep learning experience from the exercise.[/p][/quote]Oh so he's a shrink now? Yesterday his posts stated he wasn't a doctor? Walter Mitty I think he should be called or Dai Rear 2. Another one whose full of it! VoiceOfInsanity
  • Score: -5

8:35am Wed 19 Mar 14

VoiceOfInsanity says...

Dr Martin wrote:
VoiceOfInsanity wrote:
Dr Martin wrote:
VoiceOfInsanity wrote:
Dr Martin wrote:
VoiceOfInsanity wrote:
Dr Martin wrote:
VoiceOfInsanity wrote:
Dr Martin, mmm ok a Doctor? Doctor of what, Thuganomics, or just a fan of bad itv comedy drama?

Yea I can't wait till cannabis is legalised so I can go out and mainline some smack down my eyeball! Stupid!!

As you have proven in your posts, that you are rather uneducated when it comes to this subject, it's probably best you go sip your 40 proof whiskey and toke on your cochibas down your local old boys club and leave this subject to the South Wales Argus and other people who are a bit more savvy on the matter!
No Dr Martin is just a username, you didn't really think I was a real Doctor?
What is Thuganomics?, well if you are stupid enough to advocate making a psychoactive substance like dope more readily available to a wider audience you might be just stupid enough to mainline some smack
I have as much right to post my comments here as anyone else, you don't make the rules stoner
Typical Zooportonian answer
What does that mean , it's not english
Sorry forgot should if put it in Latin shouldn't I?
Te futueo et caballum tuum, cunnus!
So I drop a large hint that I speak English then he posts a Latin phrase, oh dear
never mind
I take it you are new to posting comments to this website?
No I posted in Latin because with all your pomp in your posts I naturally thought you were of higher intelligence, boy was I wrong.
Typicall web forum troll, with far too much time on his hands, well hand more like, because we all know where the keyboard warrior keeps his left hand!
fingers on the home keys, I need both hands to type

If you want me to go down to your level that's fine by me , but I am guessing you wont be around for long , stoners don't have the staying power
Who said I'm a stoner? Just because I use canbabis to help ease the pain I'm in from bowel cancer, you think it's some kind of stick to beat me with? Do you think it's funny? Do you find a cancer sufferer funny?
You're a vile little man and I really hope that you don't have to suffer in agony like I and others are doing, you really are one sick person!
[quote][p][bold]Dr Martin[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]VoiceOfInsanity[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dr Martin[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]VoiceOfInsanity[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dr Martin[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]VoiceOfInsanity[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dr Martin[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]VoiceOfInsanity[/bold] wrote: Dr Martin, mmm ok a Doctor? Doctor of what, Thuganomics, or just a fan of bad itv comedy drama? Yea I can't wait till cannabis is legalised so I can go out and mainline some smack down my eyeball! Stupid!! As you have proven in your posts, that you are rather uneducated when it comes to this subject, it's probably best you go sip your 40 proof whiskey and toke on your cochibas down your local old boys club and leave this subject to the South Wales Argus and other people who are a bit more savvy on the matter![/p][/quote]No Dr Martin is just a username, you didn't really think I was a real Doctor? What is Thuganomics?, well if you are stupid enough to advocate making a psychoactive substance like dope more readily available to a wider audience you might be just stupid enough to mainline some smack I have as much right to post my comments here as anyone else, you don't make the rules stoner[/p][/quote]Typical Zooportonian answer[/p][/quote]What does that mean , it's not english[/p][/quote]Sorry forgot should if put it in Latin shouldn't I? Te futueo et caballum tuum, cunnus![/p][/quote]So I drop a large hint that I speak English then he posts a Latin phrase, oh dear never mind I take it you are new to posting comments to this website?[/p][/quote]No I posted in Latin because with all your pomp in your posts I naturally thought you were of higher intelligence, boy was I wrong. Typicall web forum troll, with far too much time on his hands, well hand more like, because we all know where the keyboard warrior keeps his left hand![/p][/quote]fingers on the home keys, I need both hands to type If you want me to go down to your level that's fine by me , but I am guessing you wont be around for long , stoners don't have the staying power[/p][/quote]Who said I'm a stoner? Just because I use canbabis to help ease the pain I'm in from bowel cancer, you think it's some kind of stick to beat me with? Do you think it's funny? Do you find a cancer sufferer funny? You're a vile little man and I really hope that you don't have to suffer in agony like I and others are doing, you really are one sick person! VoiceOfInsanity
  • Score: -5

8:59am Wed 19 Mar 14

Dai Rear says...

" Just because I use canbabis to help ease the pain I'm in from bowel cancer..."
One obviously can't tell whether this is real but, assuming it is, do you really find relief from using cannabis, which has no analgesic properties to speak of, over morphine which for everyone else I've ever heard of in my life ,provides analgesia up to the last moments? I think, if you're real, you must have an incredibly reactionary personality.
" Just because I use canbabis to help ease the pain I'm in from bowel cancer..." One obviously can't tell whether this is real but, assuming it is, do you really find relief from using cannabis, which has no analgesic properties to speak of, over morphine which for everyone else I've ever heard of in my life ,provides analgesia up to the last moments? I think, if you're real, you must have an incredibly reactionary personality. Dai Rear
  • Score: 2

9:20am Wed 19 Mar 14

-trigg- says...

Dr Martin wrote:
@Verumque Re: A Resounding Success or A Disastrous Failure - Portugal Decriminalisation of Illicit Drugs - 2012" A bit of a mixed bag as regards to success for Portugal's drug laws illicit drug use is rising in Portugal (falling in the UK), Increase in the number of drug addicts seeking rehab If you read the last paragraph it mentions that this treatment is expensive and may face cut backs, I am sure Portugal's mighty economy will be able to pay for it
If Portugal had not only decriminalised but also legitimised the sale of these drugs, the taxes raised could have then been used to support the rehabilitation programme.
[quote][p][bold]Dr Martin[/bold] wrote: @Verumque Re: A Resounding Success or A Disastrous Failure - Portugal Decriminalisation of Illicit Drugs - 2012" A bit of a mixed bag as regards to success for Portugal's drug laws illicit drug use is rising in Portugal (falling in the UK), Increase in the number of drug addicts seeking rehab If you read the last paragraph it mentions that this treatment is expensive and may face cut backs, I am sure Portugal's mighty economy will be able to pay for it[/p][/quote]If Portugal had not only decriminalised but also legitimised the sale of these drugs, the taxes raised could have then been used to support the rehabilitation programme. -trigg-
  • Score: -1

9:21am Wed 19 Mar 14

Dr Martin says...

VoiceOfInsanity wrote:
Dr Martin wrote:
VoiceOfInsanity wrote:
Dr Martin wrote:
VoiceOfInsanity wrote:
Dr Martin wrote:
VoiceOfInsanity wrote:
Dr Martin wrote:
VoiceOfInsanity wrote:
Dr Martin, mmm ok a Doctor? Doctor of what, Thuganomics, or just a fan of bad itv comedy drama?

Yea I can't wait till cannabis is legalised so I can go out and mainline some smack down my eyeball! Stupid!!

As you have proven in your posts, that you are rather uneducated when it comes to this subject, it's probably best you go sip your 40 proof whiskey and toke on your cochibas down your local old boys club and leave this subject to the South Wales Argus and other people who are a bit more savvy on the matter!
No Dr Martin is just a username, you didn't really think I was a real Doctor?
What is Thuganomics?, well if you are stupid enough to advocate making a psychoactive substance like dope more readily available to a wider audience you might be just stupid enough to mainline some smack
I have as much right to post my comments here as anyone else, you don't make the rules stoner
Typical Zooportonian answer
What does that mean , it's not english
Sorry forgot should if put it in Latin shouldn't I?
Te futueo et caballum tuum, cunnus!
So I drop a large hint that I speak English then he posts a Latin phrase, oh dear
never mind
I take it you are new to posting comments to this website?
No I posted in Latin because with all your pomp in your posts I naturally thought you were of higher intelligence, boy was I wrong.
Typicall web forum troll, with far too much time on his hands, well hand more like, because we all know where the keyboard warrior keeps his left hand!
fingers on the home keys, I need both hands to type

If you want me to go down to your level that's fine by me , but I am guessing you wont be around for long , stoners don't have the staying power
Who said I'm a stoner? Just because I use canbabis to help ease the pain I'm in from bowel cancer, you think it's some kind of stick to beat me with? Do you think it's funny? Do you find a cancer sufferer funny?
You're a vile little man and I really hope that you don't have to suffer in agony like I and others are doing, you really are one sick person!
I label all cannabis users or advocates of pot stoners.
For someone who has made a fair few abusive comments , count yourself lucky I am just using the term stoner.
It won't be long before you tire of hurling abuse and you can back under the rock which you came from.
[quote][p][bold]VoiceOfInsanity[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dr Martin[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]VoiceOfInsanity[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dr Martin[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]VoiceOfInsanity[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dr Martin[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]VoiceOfInsanity[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dr Martin[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]VoiceOfInsanity[/bold] wrote: Dr Martin, mmm ok a Doctor? Doctor of what, Thuganomics, or just a fan of bad itv comedy drama? Yea I can't wait till cannabis is legalised so I can go out and mainline some smack down my eyeball! Stupid!! As you have proven in your posts, that you are rather uneducated when it comes to this subject, it's probably best you go sip your 40 proof whiskey and toke on your cochibas down your local old boys club and leave this subject to the South Wales Argus and other people who are a bit more savvy on the matter![/p][/quote]No Dr Martin is just a username, you didn't really think I was a real Doctor? What is Thuganomics?, well if you are stupid enough to advocate making a psychoactive substance like dope more readily available to a wider audience you might be just stupid enough to mainline some smack I have as much right to post my comments here as anyone else, you don't make the rules stoner[/p][/quote]Typical Zooportonian answer[/p][/quote]What does that mean , it's not english[/p][/quote]Sorry forgot should if put it in Latin shouldn't I? Te futueo et caballum tuum, cunnus![/p][/quote]So I drop a large hint that I speak English then he posts a Latin phrase, oh dear never mind I take it you are new to posting comments to this website?[/p][/quote]No I posted in Latin because with all your pomp in your posts I naturally thought you were of higher intelligence, boy was I wrong. Typicall web forum troll, with far too much time on his hands, well hand more like, because we all know where the keyboard warrior keeps his left hand![/p][/quote]fingers on the home keys, I need both hands to type If you want me to go down to your level that's fine by me , but I am guessing you wont be around for long , stoners don't have the staying power[/p][/quote]Who said I'm a stoner? Just because I use canbabis to help ease the pain I'm in from bowel cancer, you think it's some kind of stick to beat me with? Do you think it's funny? Do you find a cancer sufferer funny? You're a vile little man and I really hope that you don't have to suffer in agony like I and others are doing, you really are one sick person![/p][/quote]I label all cannabis users or advocates of pot stoners. For someone who has made a fair few abusive comments , count yourself lucky I am just using the term stoner. It won't be long before you tire of hurling abuse and you can back under the rock which you came from. Dr Martin
  • Score: 0

9:29am Wed 19 Mar 14

Dr Martin says...

VoiceOfInsanity wrote:
Verumque wrote:
Dr Martin says...
"I work in the NHS (Psychiatry) I see the harm cannabis does, to some it has ruined their lives, some need constant care, until a cure can be found for schizophrenia their misery will continue, I will always debate against the pro pot lobby"

And my CPN with some 30+ years exp. disagrees with you. Who should I believe?
My 45+ years of 'experimentation' with most of the recreational drugs doesn't seem to have had any lasting affects, at 49 I went back to college, did another degree 'for fun', hardly ever attended lectures and 'p***ed' a 2:1.
Most of the people I've ever encountered who have problems with 'abusing' rather than 'using' drugs really shouldn't have started, they lack sufficient willpower and self control to have a fun time or a deep learning experience from the exercise.
Oh so he's a shrink now? Yesterday his posts stated he wasn't a doctor? Walter Mitty I think he should be called or Dai Rear 2. Another one whose full of it!
You don't have to be a doctor to work in the NHS , did you not know that?
[quote][p][bold]VoiceOfInsanity[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Verumque[/bold] wrote: Dr Martin says... "I work in the NHS (Psychiatry) I see the harm cannabis does, to some it has ruined their lives, some need constant care, until a cure can be found for schizophrenia their misery will continue, I will always debate against the pro pot lobby" And my CPN with some 30+ years exp. disagrees with you. Who should I believe? My 45+ years of 'experimentation' with most of the recreational drugs doesn't seem to have had any lasting affects, at 49 I went back to college, did another degree 'for fun', hardly ever attended lectures and 'p***ed' a 2:1. Most of the people I've ever encountered who have problems with 'abusing' rather than 'using' drugs really shouldn't have started, they lack sufficient willpower and self control to have a fun time or a deep learning experience from the exercise.[/p][/quote]Oh so he's a shrink now? Yesterday his posts stated he wasn't a doctor? Walter Mitty I think he should be called or Dai Rear 2. Another one whose full of it![/p][/quote]You don't have to be a doctor to work in the NHS , did you not know that? Dr Martin
  • Score: 1

11:22am Wed 19 Mar 14

Bobevans says...

Adrian Williams wrote:
Whilst cannabis is less harmful than several drugs (alcohol being one) it's important to point out that it is a very addictive drug and it can make people lazy and lethargic. I've seen it have detramental long term affects on people I've known well in the past.
It also cause long term mental health issues particularly when taken with alcohol
[quote][p][bold]Adrian Williams[/bold] wrote: Whilst cannabis is less harmful than several drugs (alcohol being one) it's important to point out that it is a very addictive drug and it can make people lazy and lethargic. I've seen it have detramental long term affects on people I've known well in the past.[/p][/quote]It also cause long term mental health issues particularly when taken with alcohol Bobevans
  • Score: 5

11:25am Wed 19 Mar 14

Bobevans says...

Dai Rear wrote:
"So it's okay for the government to make billions a year from the sale of alcohol and fags which are also drugs as they are addictive and also kill you,but because it's cannabis which had no recorded fatalities it's a different story. If that's the case anybody who smokes fags or drinks alcohol should also need an assessment and pay for it. Unfortunately your argument is very flawed my friend"
I think the government is actually trying to remove tobacco altogether (unless bought abroad) by pricing it out of reach. They are also being taken to task for the sale of "cheap" alcohol though I've been on the planet for many decades and never found such a thing in UK.
Rather more to the point cannabis potentiates the effect of alcohol and criminals do rather nasty things under the combined effect. So to be consistent I take it you want booze banned? Well, mine's a pint, and you're very welcome to put that in your "bong" or whatever childish name your lot now use, and smoke it.
Alcohol drunk in moderation has no health risk in fact drinking wine can be good for you. The smoking of tobacco is being actively discouraged and further bans on where you can smoke are being introduced
[quote][p][bold]Dai Rear[/bold] wrote: "So it's okay for the government to make billions a year from the sale of alcohol and fags which are also drugs as they are addictive and also kill you,but because it's cannabis which had no recorded fatalities it's a different story. If that's the case anybody who smokes fags or drinks alcohol should also need an assessment and pay for it. Unfortunately your argument is very flawed my friend" I think the government is actually trying to remove tobacco altogether (unless bought abroad) by pricing it out of reach. They are also being taken to task for the sale of "cheap" alcohol though I've been on the planet for many decades and never found such a thing in UK. Rather more to the point cannabis potentiates the effect of alcohol and criminals do rather nasty things under the combined effect. So to be consistent I take it you want booze banned? Well, mine's a pint, and you're very welcome to put that in your "bong" or whatever childish name your lot now use, and smoke it.[/p][/quote]Alcohol drunk in moderation has no health risk in fact drinking wine can be good for you. The smoking of tobacco is being actively discouraged and further bans on where you can smoke are being introduced Bobevans
  • Score: -1

3:03pm Wed 19 Mar 14

Dr Martin says...

Ah you stoners and your vote rigging, the futility of it.
Ah you stoners and your vote rigging, the futility of it. Dr Martin
  • Score: 0

3:33pm Wed 19 Mar 14

Super Shinobi says...

Interesting posts on this topic, I've not heard the libertarian argument. Should the government have a say (with force) on what we put in our bodies? We see it with the criminalisation of smoking, by making it socially unacceptable. Alcohol will be next if we continue to empower the state on moral grounds.

I'm not convinced that, people who cite social and health problems have really considered what it means to allow the government to ban things deemed outside individual rights.

I'm not convinced by people who cite medical benefits either.

Getting 'buzzed' is OK by me. I don't think anybody should have a say in what we do with our own bodies, and given the health campaign on cigarettes and alcohol, I can't see what other responibilty a government has to it's customers.

It is said that, one in ten people can't get enough of getting blotto. The way a socialist society works, is that the government offers a 'safety net' by way of non negotiable insurance, that can be taken with force (fines and jail) if you don't comply. If you ruin your life with alcohol or cigarettes or even prescription drugs, it's on you, but the government deems it unfair to punish the liberties of responsible tax payers for the one in ten.

I'm struggling to square how alcohol and cigarettes can be held up to a separate standard. You all pay your insurance to the state, and are rightfully annoyed when they welch on the deal (green tax, pensions, fuel, health care and so on) but throw in some individual rights that we don't want to use, and all of a sudden, the moral outrage goes out the window. We must legislate against things we don't use, and to hell with the individual rights of others in the system.

The strongest argument I have heard is the mental health one, and the effects on society. But again the same criticism falls flat on it's face when applied to alcohol. Nobody is under any illusion that abusers of alcohol ruin their lives, take more than their fair share of social security tax, contribute to violence on people who don't abuse it, and do not do it for any other reason that they like to get high more than they should.

This is actually what happens, so it can't be anything to do with caring about their welfare, or sacrificing individual rights for the public good. I'm struggling to hold dope to a different standard.
Interesting posts on this topic, I've not heard the libertarian argument. Should the government have a say (with force) on what we put in our bodies? We see it with the criminalisation of smoking, by making it socially unacceptable. Alcohol will be next if we continue to empower the state on moral grounds. I'm not convinced that, people who cite social and health problems have really considered what it means to allow the government to ban things deemed outside individual rights. I'm not convinced by people who cite medical benefits either. Getting 'buzzed' is OK by me. I don't think anybody should have a say in what we do with our own bodies, and given the health campaign on cigarettes and alcohol, I can't see what other responibilty a government has to it's customers. It is said that, one in ten people can't get enough of getting blotto. The way a socialist society works, is that the government offers a 'safety net' by way of non negotiable insurance, that can be taken with force (fines and jail) if you don't comply. If you ruin your life with alcohol or cigarettes or even prescription drugs, it's on you, but the government deems it unfair to punish the liberties of responsible tax payers for the one in ten. I'm struggling to square how alcohol and cigarettes can be held up to a separate standard. You all pay your insurance to the state, and are rightfully annoyed when they welch on the deal (green tax, pensions, fuel, health care and so on) but throw in some individual rights that we don't want to use, and all of a sudden, the moral outrage goes out the window. We must legislate against things we don't use, and to hell with the individual rights of others in the system. The strongest argument I have heard is the mental health one, and the effects on society. But again the same criticism falls flat on it's face when applied to alcohol. Nobody is under any illusion that abusers of alcohol ruin their lives, take more than their fair share of social security tax, contribute to violence on people who don't abuse it, and do not do it for any other reason that they like to get high more than they should. This is actually what happens, so it can't be anything to do with caring about their welfare, or sacrificing individual rights for the public good. I'm struggling to hold dope to a different standard. Super Shinobi
  • Score: 0

4:41pm Wed 19 Mar 14

Dai Rear says...

Super Shinobi wrote:
Interesting posts on this topic, I've not heard the libertarian argument. Should the government have a say (with force) on what we put in our bodies? We see it with the criminalisation of smoking, by making it socially unacceptable. Alcohol will be next if we continue to empower the state on moral grounds.

I'm not convinced that, people who cite social and health problems have really considered what it means to allow the government to ban things deemed outside individual rights.

I'm not convinced by people who cite medical benefits either.

Getting 'buzzed' is OK by me. I don't think anybody should have a say in what we do with our own bodies, and given the health campaign on cigarettes and alcohol, I can't see what other responibilty a government has to it's customers.

It is said that, one in ten people can't get enough of getting blotto. The way a socialist society works, is that the government offers a 'safety net' by way of non negotiable insurance, that can be taken with force (fines and jail) if you don't comply. If you ruin your life with alcohol or cigarettes or even prescription drugs, it's on you, but the government deems it unfair to punish the liberties of responsible tax payers for the one in ten.

I'm struggling to square how alcohol and cigarettes can be held up to a separate standard. You all pay your insurance to the state, and are rightfully annoyed when they welch on the deal (green tax, pensions, fuel, health care and so on) but throw in some individual rights that we don't want to use, and all of a sudden, the moral outrage goes out the window. We must legislate against things we don't use, and to hell with the individual rights of others in the system.

The strongest argument I have heard is the mental health one, and the effects on society. But again the same criticism falls flat on it's face when applied to alcohol. Nobody is under any illusion that abusers of alcohol ruin their lives, take more than their fair share of social security tax, contribute to violence on people who don't abuse it, and do not do it for any other reason that they like to get high more than they should.

This is actually what happens, so it can't be anything to do with caring about their welfare, or sacrificing individual rights for the public good. I'm struggling to hold dope to a different standard.
" I'm not convinced that, people who cite social and health problems have really considered what it means to allow the government to ban things deemed outside individual rights"
The pragmatic argument is surely that if people come to harm, because the state changes its mind and says something is OK when previously it'd said it wasn't, as they inevitably would, is that an appropriate way for a state to behave? The stuff was banned in the 20's because of the adverse effect it was said to have on African Americans. That's unfortunate but it's where we are now and , since no one's suffering as a result of that ban, nothing needs fixing, surely?
[quote][p][bold]Super Shinobi[/bold] wrote: Interesting posts on this topic, I've not heard the libertarian argument. Should the government have a say (with force) on what we put in our bodies? We see it with the criminalisation of smoking, by making it socially unacceptable. Alcohol will be next if we continue to empower the state on moral grounds. I'm not convinced that, people who cite social and health problems have really considered what it means to allow the government to ban things deemed outside individual rights. I'm not convinced by people who cite medical benefits either. Getting 'buzzed' is OK by me. I don't think anybody should have a say in what we do with our own bodies, and given the health campaign on cigarettes and alcohol, I can't see what other responibilty a government has to it's customers. It is said that, one in ten people can't get enough of getting blotto. The way a socialist society works, is that the government offers a 'safety net' by way of non negotiable insurance, that can be taken with force (fines and jail) if you don't comply. If you ruin your life with alcohol or cigarettes or even prescription drugs, it's on you, but the government deems it unfair to punish the liberties of responsible tax payers for the one in ten. I'm struggling to square how alcohol and cigarettes can be held up to a separate standard. You all pay your insurance to the state, and are rightfully annoyed when they welch on the deal (green tax, pensions, fuel, health care and so on) but throw in some individual rights that we don't want to use, and all of a sudden, the moral outrage goes out the window. We must legislate against things we don't use, and to hell with the individual rights of others in the system. The strongest argument I have heard is the mental health one, and the effects on society. But again the same criticism falls flat on it's face when applied to alcohol. Nobody is under any illusion that abusers of alcohol ruin their lives, take more than their fair share of social security tax, contribute to violence on people who don't abuse it, and do not do it for any other reason that they like to get high more than they should. This is actually what happens, so it can't be anything to do with caring about their welfare, or sacrificing individual rights for the public good. I'm struggling to hold dope to a different standard.[/p][/quote]" I'm not convinced that, people who cite social and health problems have really considered what it means to allow the government to ban things deemed outside individual rights" The pragmatic argument is surely that if people come to harm, because the state changes its mind and says something is OK when previously it'd said it wasn't, as they inevitably would, is that an appropriate way for a state to behave? The stuff was banned in the 20's because of the adverse effect it was said to have on African Americans. That's unfortunate but it's where we are now and , since no one's suffering as a result of that ban, nothing needs fixing, surely? Dai Rear
  • Score: 1

7:02pm Wed 19 Mar 14

Super Shinobi says...

Dai Rear wrote:
Super Shinobi wrote: Interesting posts on this topic, I've not heard the libertarian argument. Should the government have a say (with force) on what we put in our bodies? We see it with the criminalisation of smoking, by making it socially unacceptable. Alcohol will be next if we continue to empower the state on moral grounds. I'm not convinced that, people who cite social and health problems have really considered what it means to allow the government to ban things deemed outside individual rights. I'm not convinced by people who cite medical benefits either. Getting 'buzzed' is OK by me. I don't think anybody should have a say in what we do with our own bodies, and given the health campaign on cigarettes and alcohol, I can't see what other responibilty a government has to it's customers. It is said that, one in ten people can't get enough of getting blotto. The way a socialist society works, is that the government offers a 'safety net' by way of non negotiable insurance, that can be taken with force (fines and jail) if you don't comply. If you ruin your life with alcohol or cigarettes or even prescription drugs, it's on you, but the government deems it unfair to punish the liberties of responsible tax payers for the one in ten. I'm struggling to square how alcohol and cigarettes can be held up to a separate standard. You all pay your insurance to the state, and are rightfully annoyed when they welch on the deal (green tax, pensions, fuel, health care and so on) but throw in some individual rights that we don't want to use, and all of a sudden, the moral outrage goes out the window. We must legislate against things we don't use, and to hell with the individual rights of others in the system. The strongest argument I have heard is the mental health one, and the effects on society. But again the same criticism falls flat on it's face when applied to alcohol. Nobody is under any illusion that abusers of alcohol ruin their lives, take more than their fair share of social security tax, contribute to violence on people who don't abuse it, and do not do it for any other reason that they like to get high more than they should. This is actually what happens, so it can't be anything to do with caring about their welfare, or sacrificing individual rights for the public good. I'm struggling to hold dope to a different standard.
" I'm not convinced that, people who cite social and health problems have really considered what it means to allow the government to ban things deemed outside individual rights" The pragmatic argument is surely that if people come to harm, because the state changes its mind and says something is OK when previously it'd said it wasn't, as they inevitably would, is that an appropriate way for a state to behave? The stuff was banned in the 20's because of the adverse effect it was said to have on African Americans. That's unfortunate but it's where we are now and , since no one's suffering as a result of that ban, nothing needs fixing, surely?
Dai, that would depend on if the state were to treat it different to alcohol and cigarettes, eg. No health warnings, no control in public places, no age control, etc. I can't see it happening that way.

The state doesn't think binge drinking is OK, yet they just made it cheaper. Mixed messages, or openly saying that they trust society will tick over with that freedom of choice? How would the government inevitably change it's mind, and become pro harm, without infringing upon health and safety type policies?

I don't agree that nobody is suffuring while it remains underground. The whole point of the libertarian argument is that we don't go around abusing tax payers individual rights with force afforded to the state. In a libertarian society, the state could not legislate the bail out of banks, or the ownership of your organs against the will of the people. But hey, it's for the greater good of society, they just don't know any better.

America had a war on drugs as way to control blacks. I can't remember the whole story (you can find it online) but the gist of it was; Marijuana use was a filthy habit, popular with the ethnic minorities, and they didn't want it infecting white culture. Obviously a lot of that type of politics was going on right through the 30's with prohibition, and on to the 60's with civil rights movements. Basically it was easier to control undesirable types if you criminalise them under the law. An infringement on liberties.

If you want to ban something that too many people are making money on, a government can legislate it out of existence, a la cigarettes (28p up today). Arguably, they could do the same to canabis once it has to comply with all the same laws.

I haven't made my mind up yet. I doubt I'll be buying dope if it becomes part of the available ways to get high, but I like the idea that as a tax paying adult, I could excersise that choice, without unecessary consequences to me or the state.
[quote][p][bold]Dai Rear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Super Shinobi[/bold] wrote: Interesting posts on this topic, I've not heard the libertarian argument. Should the government have a say (with force) on what we put in our bodies? We see it with the criminalisation of smoking, by making it socially unacceptable. Alcohol will be next if we continue to empower the state on moral grounds. I'm not convinced that, people who cite social and health problems have really considered what it means to allow the government to ban things deemed outside individual rights. I'm not convinced by people who cite medical benefits either. Getting 'buzzed' is OK by me. I don't think anybody should have a say in what we do with our own bodies, and given the health campaign on cigarettes and alcohol, I can't see what other responibilty a government has to it's customers. It is said that, one in ten people can't get enough of getting blotto. The way a socialist society works, is that the government offers a 'safety net' by way of non negotiable insurance, that can be taken with force (fines and jail) if you don't comply. If you ruin your life with alcohol or cigarettes or even prescription drugs, it's on you, but the government deems it unfair to punish the liberties of responsible tax payers for the one in ten. I'm struggling to square how alcohol and cigarettes can be held up to a separate standard. You all pay your insurance to the state, and are rightfully annoyed when they welch on the deal (green tax, pensions, fuel, health care and so on) but throw in some individual rights that we don't want to use, and all of a sudden, the moral outrage goes out the window. We must legislate against things we don't use, and to hell with the individual rights of others in the system. The strongest argument I have heard is the mental health one, and the effects on society. But again the same criticism falls flat on it's face when applied to alcohol. Nobody is under any illusion that abusers of alcohol ruin their lives, take more than their fair share of social security tax, contribute to violence on people who don't abuse it, and do not do it for any other reason that they like to get high more than they should. This is actually what happens, so it can't be anything to do with caring about their welfare, or sacrificing individual rights for the public good. I'm struggling to hold dope to a different standard.[/p][/quote]" I'm not convinced that, people who cite social and health problems have really considered what it means to allow the government to ban things deemed outside individual rights" The pragmatic argument is surely that if people come to harm, because the state changes its mind and says something is OK when previously it'd said it wasn't, as they inevitably would, is that an appropriate way for a state to behave? The stuff was banned in the 20's because of the adverse effect it was said to have on African Americans. That's unfortunate but it's where we are now and , since no one's suffering as a result of that ban, nothing needs fixing, surely?[/p][/quote]Dai, that would depend on if the state were to treat it different to alcohol and cigarettes, eg. No health warnings, no control in public places, no age control, etc. I can't see it happening that way. The state doesn't think binge drinking is OK, yet they just made it cheaper. Mixed messages, or openly saying that they trust society will tick over with that freedom of choice? How would the government inevitably change it's mind, and become pro harm, without infringing upon health and safety type policies? I don't agree that nobody is suffuring while it remains underground. The whole point of the libertarian argument is that we don't go around abusing tax payers individual rights with force afforded to the state. In a libertarian society, the state could not legislate the bail out of banks, or the ownership of your organs against the will of the people. But hey, it's for the greater good of society, they just don't know any better. America had a war on drugs as way to control blacks. I can't remember the whole story (you can find it online) but the gist of it was; Marijuana use was a filthy habit, popular with the ethnic minorities, and they didn't want it infecting white culture. Obviously a lot of that type of politics was going on right through the 30's with prohibition, and on to the 60's with civil rights movements. Basically it was easier to control undesirable types if you criminalise them under the law. An infringement on liberties. If you want to ban something that too many people are making money on, a government can legislate it out of existence, a la cigarettes (28p up today). Arguably, they could do the same to canabis once it has to comply with all the same laws. I haven't made my mind up yet. I doubt I'll be buying dope if it becomes part of the available ways to get high, but I like the idea that as a tax paying adult, I could excersise that choice, without unecessary consequences to me or the state. Super Shinobi
  • Score: 0

9:22am Thu 20 Mar 14

-trigg- says...

"That's unfortunate but it's where we are now and , since no one's suffering as a result of that ban, nothing needs fixing, surely?"

As in one of my earlier posts, the current pan IS causing sufffering, both to individuals and society as a whole. Legalisation would remove a large number of people from the criminal justice system which would otherwise blight their lives through criminal records and association with hardened criminals.

The knock on effects would include a significant reduction in petty crime, a reduction in wasted police, court and prison resources which could be better deployed elsewhere, a new business in a 'growth' sector leading to increased taxation and further employment opportunities.
"That's unfortunate but it's where we are now and , since no one's suffering as a result of that ban, nothing needs fixing, surely?" As in one of my earlier posts, the current pan IS causing sufffering, both to individuals and society as a whole. Legalisation would remove a large number of people from the criminal justice system which would otherwise blight their lives through criminal records and association with hardened criminals. The knock on effects would include a significant reduction in petty crime, a reduction in wasted police, court and prison resources which could be better deployed elsewhere, a new business in a 'growth' sector leading to increased taxation and further employment opportunities. -trigg-
  • Score: 0

10:07am Thu 20 Mar 14

Dr Martin says...

-trigg- wrote:
Dr Martin wrote:
@Verumque Re: A Resounding Success or A Disastrous Failure - Portugal Decriminalisation of Illicit Drugs - 2012" A bit of a mixed bag as regards to success for Portugal's drug laws illicit drug use is rising in Portugal (falling in the UK), Increase in the number of drug addicts seeking rehab If you read the last paragraph it mentions that this treatment is expensive and may face cut backs, I am sure Portugal's mighty economy will be able to pay for it
If Portugal had not only decriminalised but also legitimised the sale of these drugs, the taxes raised could have then been used to support the rehabilitation programme.
Portugal chose not to go down the legalisation route, what meagre taxes that might be raised would not make up for the cost of treatment.
[quote][p][bold]-trigg-[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dr Martin[/bold] wrote: @Verumque Re: A Resounding Success or A Disastrous Failure - Portugal Decriminalisation of Illicit Drugs - 2012" A bit of a mixed bag as regards to success for Portugal's drug laws illicit drug use is rising in Portugal (falling in the UK), Increase in the number of drug addicts seeking rehab If you read the last paragraph it mentions that this treatment is expensive and may face cut backs, I am sure Portugal's mighty economy will be able to pay for it[/p][/quote]If Portugal had not only decriminalised but also legitimised the sale of these drugs, the taxes raised could have then been used to support the rehabilitation programme.[/p][/quote]Portugal chose not to go down the legalisation route, what meagre taxes that might be raised would not make up for the cost of treatment. Dr Martin
  • Score: 0

8:38am Fri 21 Mar 14

Dai Rear says...

-trigg- wrote:
"That's unfortunate but it's where we are now and , since no one's suffering as a result of that ban, nothing needs fixing, surely?"

As in one of my earlier posts, the current pan IS causing sufffering, both to individuals and society as a whole. Legalisation would remove a large number of people from the criminal justice system which would otherwise blight their lives through criminal records and association with hardened criminals.

The knock on effects would include a significant reduction in petty crime, a reduction in wasted police, court and prison resources which could be better deployed elsewhere, a new business in a 'growth' sector leading to increased taxation and further employment opportunities.
Frankly the policy is to prosecute even 3 or 4 ounces now as possession rather than "with intent" so if you're a minor dealer you aren't going to be rubbing shoulders with Al Capone in chokey. And as someone "in the business" I have to say that your fears about criminal records are well nigh wholly unfounded. I can't recall having seen any pre-cons in the last 20 years which had solely a caution for possession but I suppose possession is usually picked up when you're doing something a bit more big league like driving when you've had a skinfull, or carrying a knife, or mouthing off outside a night club. Petty crime? No it's the junkies who shoplift as best I know. We've covered prison resources, I think. As to the police, they seem to have more than enough resources to put 100's of coppers on the question of whether someone hacked 2 Jags 'phone and recorded him ordering a dozen pizzas or whether a dead blokey did or didn't interfere with people at a time when the majority of the population wasn't even born, so no they 've got resources coming out of their....And the magistrates courts? No, they're not that busy anyway and with the BBC Poll Tax being de-criminalised they'll have bags of time on their hands. I don't want increased taxation. I don't think you do, any more than anyone outside an institution does, so we'll just call that a make weight, shall we? And no one is going to be employed because growing skunk is far too energy intensive. If it's legalised it'll be harvested in places like Yemen and Somalia so that the profits can go towards charitable work by Al Qaida. Be careful what you wish for.
[quote][p][bold]-trigg-[/bold] wrote: "That's unfortunate but it's where we are now and , since no one's suffering as a result of that ban, nothing needs fixing, surely?" As in one of my earlier posts, the current pan IS causing sufffering, both to individuals and society as a whole. Legalisation would remove a large number of people from the criminal justice system which would otherwise blight their lives through criminal records and association with hardened criminals. The knock on effects would include a significant reduction in petty crime, a reduction in wasted police, court and prison resources which could be better deployed elsewhere, a new business in a 'growth' sector leading to increased taxation and further employment opportunities.[/p][/quote]Frankly the policy is to prosecute even 3 or 4 ounces now as possession rather than "with intent" so if you're a minor dealer you aren't going to be rubbing shoulders with Al Capone in chokey. And as someone "in the business" I have to say that your fears about criminal records are well nigh wholly unfounded. I can't recall having seen any pre-cons in the last 20 years which had solely a caution for possession but I suppose possession is usually picked up when you're doing something a bit more big league like driving when you've had a skinfull, or carrying a knife, or mouthing off outside a night club. Petty crime? No it's the junkies who shoplift as best I know. We've covered prison resources, I think. As to the police, they seem to have more than enough resources to put 100's of coppers on the question of whether someone hacked 2 Jags 'phone and recorded him ordering a dozen pizzas or whether a dead blokey did or didn't interfere with people at a time when the majority of the population wasn't even born, so no they 've got resources coming out of their....And the magistrates courts? No, they're not that busy anyway and with the BBC Poll Tax being de-criminalised they'll have bags of time on their hands. I don't want increased taxation. I don't think you do, any more than anyone outside an institution does, so we'll just call that a make weight, shall we? And no one is going to be employed because growing skunk is far too energy intensive. If it's legalised it'll be harvested in places like Yemen and Somalia so that the profits can go towards charitable work by Al Qaida. Be careful what you wish for. Dai Rear
  • Score: 1

8:51am Fri 21 Mar 14

Dai Rear says...

Super Shinobi wrote:
Dai Rear wrote:
Super Shinobi wrote: Interesting posts on this topic, I've not heard the libertarian argument. Should the government have a say (with force) on what we put in our bodies? We see it with the criminalisation of smoking, by making it socially unacceptable. Alcohol will be next if we continue to empower the state on moral grounds. I'm not convinced that, people who cite social and health problems have really considered what it means to allow the government to ban things deemed outside individual rights. I'm not convinced by people who cite medical benefits either. Getting 'buzzed' is OK by me. I don't think anybody should have a say in what we do with our own bodies, and given the health campaign on cigarettes and alcohol, I can't see what other responibilty a government has to it's customers. It is said that, one in ten people can't get enough of getting blotto. The way a socialist society works, is that the government offers a 'safety net' by way of non negotiable insurance, that can be taken with force (fines and jail) if you don't comply. If you ruin your life with alcohol or cigarettes or even prescription drugs, it's on you, but the government deems it unfair to punish the liberties of responsible tax payers for the one in ten. I'm struggling to square how alcohol and cigarettes can be held up to a separate standard. You all pay your insurance to the state, and are rightfully annoyed when they welch on the deal (green tax, pensions, fuel, health care and so on) but throw in some individual rights that we don't want to use, and all of a sudden, the moral outrage goes out the window. We must legislate against things we don't use, and to hell with the individual rights of others in the system. The strongest argument I have heard is the mental health one, and the effects on society. But again the same criticism falls flat on it's face when applied to alcohol. Nobody is under any illusion that abusers of alcohol ruin their lives, take more than their fair share of social security tax, contribute to violence on people who don't abuse it, and do not do it for any other reason that they like to get high more than they should. This is actually what happens, so it can't be anything to do with caring about their welfare, or sacrificing individual rights for the public good. I'm struggling to hold dope to a different standard.
" I'm not convinced that, people who cite social and health problems have really considered what it means to allow the government to ban things deemed outside individual rights" The pragmatic argument is surely that if people come to harm, because the state changes its mind and says something is OK when previously it'd said it wasn't, as they inevitably would, is that an appropriate way for a state to behave? The stuff was banned in the 20's because of the adverse effect it was said to have on African Americans. That's unfortunate but it's where we are now and , since no one's suffering as a result of that ban, nothing needs fixing, surely?
Dai, that would depend on if the state were to treat it different to alcohol and cigarettes, eg. No health warnings, no control in public places, no age control, etc. I can't see it happening that way.

The state doesn't think binge drinking is OK, yet they just made it cheaper. Mixed messages, or openly saying that they trust society will tick over with that freedom of choice? How would the government inevitably change it's mind, and become pro harm, without infringing upon health and safety type policies?

I don't agree that nobody is suffuring while it remains underground. The whole point of the libertarian argument is that we don't go around abusing tax payers individual rights with force afforded to the state. In a libertarian society, the state could not legislate the bail out of banks, or the ownership of your organs against the will of the people. But hey, it's for the greater good of society, they just don't know any better.

America had a war on drugs as way to control blacks. I can't remember the whole story (you can find it online) but the gist of it was; Marijuana use was a filthy habit, popular with the ethnic minorities, and they didn't want it infecting white culture. Obviously a lot of that type of politics was going on right through the 30's with prohibition, and on to the 60's with civil rights movements. Basically it was easier to control undesirable types if you criminalise them under the law. An infringement on liberties.

If you want to ban something that too many people are making money on, a government can legislate it out of existence, a la cigarettes (28p up today). Arguably, they could do the same to canabis once it has to comply with all the same laws.

I haven't made my mind up yet. I doubt I'll be buying dope if it becomes part of the available ways to get high, but I like the idea that as a tax paying adult, I could excersise that choice, without unecessary consequences to me or the state.
Fair enough. I wouldn't particularly take issue on much of that but as I said immediately above, the practical situation is that the police don't look for people with cannabis. But if someone punches his missus or gobs off at a doorman, or plants his car in your sitting room after an evening at the Rose & Crown, and he's got 5gm of skunk , or 40 gms of resin he's going to be done for that too. Fair enough, he won't be done for the 20 Marlboro Super Weaks, but I think the pro lobby is making a mountain out of etc and the difference between boats coming from Morocco with the stuff illegally or legally is really too trivial to bother about.
[quote][p][bold]Super Shinobi[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dai Rear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Super Shinobi[/bold] wrote: Interesting posts on this topic, I've not heard the libertarian argument. Should the government have a say (with force) on what we put in our bodies? We see it with the criminalisation of smoking, by making it socially unacceptable. Alcohol will be next if we continue to empower the state on moral grounds. I'm not convinced that, people who cite social and health problems have really considered what it means to allow the government to ban things deemed outside individual rights. I'm not convinced by people who cite medical benefits either. Getting 'buzzed' is OK by me. I don't think anybody should have a say in what we do with our own bodies, and given the health campaign on cigarettes and alcohol, I can't see what other responibilty a government has to it's customers. It is said that, one in ten people can't get enough of getting blotto. The way a socialist society works, is that the government offers a 'safety net' by way of non negotiable insurance, that can be taken with force (fines and jail) if you don't comply. If you ruin your life with alcohol or cigarettes or even prescription drugs, it's on you, but the government deems it unfair to punish the liberties of responsible tax payers for the one in ten. I'm struggling to square how alcohol and cigarettes can be held up to a separate standard. You all pay your insurance to the state, and are rightfully annoyed when they welch on the deal (green tax, pensions, fuel, health care and so on) but throw in some individual rights that we don't want to use, and all of a sudden, the moral outrage goes out the window. We must legislate against things we don't use, and to hell with the individual rights of others in the system. The strongest argument I have heard is the mental health one, and the effects on society. But again the same criticism falls flat on it's face when applied to alcohol. Nobody is under any illusion that abusers of alcohol ruin their lives, take more than their fair share of social security tax, contribute to violence on people who don't abuse it, and do not do it for any other reason that they like to get high more than they should. This is actually what happens, so it can't be anything to do with caring about their welfare, or sacrificing individual rights for the public good. I'm struggling to hold dope to a different standard.[/p][/quote]" I'm not convinced that, people who cite social and health problems have really considered what it means to allow the government to ban things deemed outside individual rights" The pragmatic argument is surely that if people come to harm, because the state changes its mind and says something is OK when previously it'd said it wasn't, as they inevitably would, is that an appropriate way for a state to behave? The stuff was banned in the 20's because of the adverse effect it was said to have on African Americans. That's unfortunate but it's where we are now and , since no one's suffering as a result of that ban, nothing needs fixing, surely?[/p][/quote]Dai, that would depend on if the state were to treat it different to alcohol and cigarettes, eg. No health warnings, no control in public places, no age control, etc. I can't see it happening that way. The state doesn't think binge drinking is OK, yet they just made it cheaper. Mixed messages, or openly saying that they trust society will tick over with that freedom of choice? How would the government inevitably change it's mind, and become pro harm, without infringing upon health and safety type policies? I don't agree that nobody is suffuring while it remains underground. The whole point of the libertarian argument is that we don't go around abusing tax payers individual rights with force afforded to the state. In a libertarian society, the state could not legislate the bail out of banks, or the ownership of your organs against the will of the people. But hey, it's for the greater good of society, they just don't know any better. America had a war on drugs as way to control blacks. I can't remember the whole story (you can find it online) but the gist of it was; Marijuana use was a filthy habit, popular with the ethnic minorities, and they didn't want it infecting white culture. Obviously a lot of that type of politics was going on right through the 30's with prohibition, and on to the 60's with civil rights movements. Basically it was easier to control undesirable types if you criminalise them under the law. An infringement on liberties. If you want to ban something that too many people are making money on, a government can legislate it out of existence, a la cigarettes (28p up today). Arguably, they could do the same to canabis once it has to comply with all the same laws. I haven't made my mind up yet. I doubt I'll be buying dope if it becomes part of the available ways to get high, but I like the idea that as a tax paying adult, I could excersise that choice, without unecessary consequences to me or the state.[/p][/quote]Fair enough. I wouldn't particularly take issue on much of that but as I said immediately above, the practical situation is that the police don't look for people with cannabis. But if someone punches his missus or gobs off at a doorman, or plants his car in your sitting room after an evening at the Rose & Crown, and he's got 5gm of skunk , or 40 gms of resin he's going to be done for that too. Fair enough, he won't be done for the 20 Marlboro Super Weaks, but I think the pro lobby is making a mountain out of etc and the difference between boats coming from Morocco with the stuff illegally or legally is really too trivial to bother about. Dai Rear
  • Score: 5

3:12pm Fri 21 Mar 14

pbhj says...

Sheep'n'wellies wrote:
I have smoked it for the past 14 years after an accident in the steelworks I worked at on the advice of my surgeon who said it was the best painkiller u can get. Some people will say crime will go up which is utter rubbish,after iv had a spliff the last thing I think about is going out and robbing someone.
Meanwhile we've had our house burgled by kids who, when caught, confessed that they wanted money (or stuff to sell) so they could buy drugs; their drug of choice being cannabis.

Of course cannabis being legal for adults wouldn't necessarily have changed that situation so my anecdote doesn't provide impetus to either side of the argument really. Similarly Sheep's anecdote suggests that cannabinoids may need to be made more readily available for medical purposes (though they can already be prescribed just not in the form of spliffs).
[quote][p][bold]Sheep'n'wellies[/bold] wrote: I have smoked it for the past 14 years after an accident in the steelworks I worked at on the advice of my surgeon who said it was the best painkiller u can get. Some people will say crime will go up which is utter rubbish,after iv had a spliff the last thing I think about is going out and robbing someone.[/p][/quote]Meanwhile we've had our house burgled by kids who, when caught, confessed that they wanted money (or stuff to sell) so they could buy drugs; their drug of choice being cannabis. Of course cannabis being legal for adults wouldn't necessarily have changed that situation so my anecdote doesn't provide impetus to either side of the argument really. Similarly Sheep's anecdote suggests that cannabinoids may need to be made more readily available for medical purposes (though they can already be prescribed just not in the form of spliffs). pbhj
  • Score: 5

2:44pm Sat 22 Mar 14

Keith P says...

Bobevans wrote:
Dai Rear wrote:
Give the Colorado experiment 20 years and see what's happening then. I like the idea that the criminal gangs around cultivation of the stuff would say "Ah well, nice while it lasted. Best turn our hands to landscape gardening and selling milkshakes now" Kidnapping , folks, extortion? No, I'm sure that'd never cross their little minds.
"The popular myth that cannabis is a major cause of mental health problems is entirely false." yes I'm sure the vested interests like that one. As I've said before consumption of the stuff MAY be self-medication by those with psychoses. It may be causal. Who knows? After all the revolver has 6 chambers and apparently only one or two of them have live rounds in them.
What the dealers will do is move on to more dangerous drugs and peddle them
Any drug has long term affects it continually taken. There is no such thing as a save drug

If the do make Cannabis legally it needs to be tightly controlled. To buy it they should need to go to a GP for a full medical assessment for which a charge should be made. They will then be given a licence to purchases a defined weekly amount for 6 months. After 6 months they will need to go back to the GP
Bob Evans, following this logic you would need to go the dr to get permission for a beer.
[quote][p][bold]Bobevans[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dai Rear[/bold] wrote: Give the Colorado experiment 20 years and see what's happening then. I like the idea that the criminal gangs around cultivation of the stuff would say "Ah well, nice while it lasted. Best turn our hands to landscape gardening and selling milkshakes now" Kidnapping , folks, extortion? No, I'm sure that'd never cross their little minds. "The popular myth that cannabis is a major cause of mental health problems is entirely false." yes I'm sure the vested interests like that one. As I've said before consumption of the stuff MAY be self-medication by those with psychoses. It may be causal. Who knows? After all the revolver has 6 chambers and apparently only one or two of them have live rounds in them.[/p][/quote]What the dealers will do is move on to more dangerous drugs and peddle them Any drug has long term affects it continually taken. There is no such thing as a save drug If the do make Cannabis legally it needs to be tightly controlled. To buy it they should need to go to a GP for a full medical assessment for which a charge should be made. They will then be given a licence to purchases a defined weekly amount for 6 months. After 6 months they will need to go back to the GP[/p][/quote]Bob Evans, following this logic you would need to go the dr to get permission for a beer. Keith P
  • Score: -4

12:48pm Sun 23 Mar 14

Mervyn James says...

It's a vicious circle suggesting we legalize soft drugs (There are no soft drugs!), to avoid pushers selling harder ones. This hasn't worked from day one. The whole IDEA of selling soft drugs is to encourage addiction so they can sell more expensive harder drugs once addiction is established, in the USA they gave away free drugs for that purpose. Once we make some drugs easier to get, then pushers move on to drugs that are more potent and harmful anyway. we should be using the death penalty for drug pushers and enforce hospital treatment for addicts. World-wise launch an all out war on crops.
It's a vicious circle suggesting we legalize soft drugs (There are no soft drugs!), to avoid pushers selling harder ones. This hasn't worked from day one. The whole IDEA of selling soft drugs is to encourage addiction so they can sell more expensive harder drugs once addiction is established, in the USA they gave away free drugs for that purpose. Once we make some drugs easier to get, then pushers move on to drugs that are more potent and harmful anyway. we should be using the death penalty for drug pushers and enforce hospital treatment for addicts. World-wise launch an all out war on crops. Mervyn James
  • Score: 5

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree