Cannabis facts

THE argument for cannabis legalisation can no longer be ignored. In News by Maria Williams (Sunday 16th March), Pippa Bartolotti, from the Wales Green party, is reported as saying that 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. This is not true.

In January this year a mother of three from Dorset died as a result of cannabis poisoning, an inquest has found. A post-mortem examination found she died as a result of cannabis toxicity.

The British Lung Foundation says smoking three joints a day can cause the same damage to the airways as a pack of 20 cigarettes and therefore cause deaths.

The drug can cause cancer, lung disease and abnormalities associated with serious mental illness. Users are up to six times more likely to develop schizophrenia.

According to Brake, in the UK 18 per cent of people killed in road crashes have traces of illegal drugs in their blood, with cannabis the most common. Pippa Bartolotti is reckless in promoting cannabis to vulnerable people as some sort of wonder drug . My son has epilepsy and I absolutely do not wish him to be misled or encouraged to use cannabis and certainly not by someone who is not qualified to do so, in the hope of political gain.

Ann Greagsby, Bromley Drive, Caerau

Comments (56)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

12:13pm Fri 28 Mar 14

-trigg- says...

Whilst it is true that an inquest found that cannabis poisoning contributed to the tragic death of a young woman in Dorset, this is the only recorded instance of such a finding anywhere in the world and has been called into question by a number of sources far more knowlegable about such matters than I am.

I do not dispute that "smoking joints" is likely to cause lung damage. however, this may largely be attributed to the practice of mixing cannabis with tobaccco and the depth of inhalation. This risk is not presence in other methods of consumption such as vapourisation.

There is ongoing debate regarding a possible link between cannabis use and increased mental illness. Whilst there is a light statistical increase in prevalance of mental illness amongst cannabis smokers, there is evidence to suggest that this is a result of self-medication - i.e. that people with mental health issues were more likely to smoke cannabis, rather than cannabis smoking causing the illness.

I am not in a position to question the figure of 18% of road traffic casualties testing positive for traces of illegal drugs (note this refers to all illegal drugs, rather than cannabis use), however it would be interesting to perform similar tests on a random sample of people to see whether there is any significant difference in this statistic to that of the population in general.
Whilst it is true that an inquest found that cannabis poisoning contributed to the tragic death of a young woman in Dorset, this is the only recorded instance of such a finding anywhere in the world and has been called into question by a number of sources far more knowlegable about such matters than I am. I do not dispute that "smoking joints" is likely to cause lung damage. however, this may largely be attributed to the practice of mixing cannabis with tobaccco and the depth of inhalation. This risk is not presence in other methods of consumption such as vapourisation. There is ongoing debate regarding a possible link between cannabis use and increased mental illness. Whilst there is a light statistical increase in prevalance of mental illness amongst cannabis smokers, there is evidence to suggest that this is a result of self-medication - i.e. that people with mental health issues were more likely to smoke cannabis, rather than cannabis smoking causing the illness. I am not in a position to question the figure of 18% of road traffic casualties testing positive for traces of illegal drugs (note this refers to all illegal drugs, rather than cannabis use), however it would be interesting to perform similar tests on a random sample of people to see whether there is any significant difference in this statistic to that of the population in general. -trigg-
  • Score: 4

12:37pm Fri 28 Mar 14

GardenVarietyMushroom says...

What a complete load of nonsense. The letter writer I mean, nogt -Trigg-, who talks sense.

I just googled the story in question of the young lady who died. Strangely enough, it's only mentioned (far as I can find) in articles written outside the UK that the young lady who died was on prescription medication for depression. Medication which has been proven to cause heart problems.

Strange huh? That that wouldn't make it into the story.

Though I also found that after she quit smoking weed, she joined a church - so the argument of cannabis causing mental health problems can't really be so easily dismissed afterall.
What a complete load of nonsense. The letter writer I mean, nogt -Trigg-, who talks sense. I just googled the story in question of the young lady who died. Strangely enough, it's only mentioned (far as I can find) in articles written outside the UK that the young lady who died was on prescription medication for depression. Medication which has been proven to cause heart problems. Strange huh? That that wouldn't make it into the story. Though I also found that after she quit smoking weed, she joined a church - so the argument of cannabis causing mental health problems can't really be so easily dismissed afterall. GardenVarietyMushroom
  • Score: -5

1:53pm Fri 28 Mar 14

whatintheworld says...

here we go again...

there is PLENTY of evidence to show cannabis has a positive effect on a range of medical problems. Colorado, USA has just passed a law allowing CHILDREN with epilepsy to access medical cannabis.

as GVM said, the lady that supposedly died from cannabis use was on medication that has been proven to cause heart problems.

the "3 joints = 20 fags" claim is absoloute nonsense. cannabis causes lung problems if you smoke it, but that is because it is often cut with tobacco. besides, there are plenty of alternative ways to consume cannabis - safely.

cannabis can increase the risk of psycotic episodes in those already pre-disposed to suffering them. ie those with a family history of severe mental illness like scizophrenia. if youre family history is clean, youre fine. if it isnt, then its a risk the user should be allowed to make - just like lung cancer sufferers buying fags.

driving under the influence of cannabis is not acceptable. youll find that most people who support legalistation/decrim
inilsation share your opinion on this.

in short, GOOGLE!
here we go again... there is PLENTY of evidence to show cannabis has a positive effect on a range of medical problems. Colorado, USA has just passed a law allowing CHILDREN with epilepsy to access medical cannabis. as GVM said, the lady that supposedly died from cannabis use was on medication that has been proven to cause heart problems. the "3 joints = 20 fags" claim is absoloute nonsense. cannabis causes lung problems if you smoke it, but that is because it is often cut with tobacco. besides, there are plenty of alternative ways to consume cannabis - safely. cannabis can increase the risk of psycotic episodes in those already pre-disposed to suffering them. ie those with a family history of severe mental illness like scizophrenia. if youre family history is clean, youre fine. if it isnt, then its a risk the user should be allowed to make - just like lung cancer sufferers buying fags. driving under the influence of cannabis is not acceptable. youll find that most people who support legalistation/decrim inilsation share your opinion on this. in short, GOOGLE! whatintheworld
  • Score: 2

2:08pm Fri 28 Mar 14

cannaman29 says...

What a load f rubbish nothing but scaremongering

If you want to make a difference sign my petition

http://www.change.or
g/en-GB/petitions/da
vid-cameron-legalise
-cannabis-5
What a load f rubbish nothing but scaremongering If you want to make a difference sign my petition http://www.change.or g/en-GB/petitions/da vid-cameron-legalise -cannabis-5 cannaman29
  • Score: -1

2:35pm Fri 28 Mar 14

Jwrstewart says...

Dear Ann Greagsby,
You are entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts. Not a single one of your statements stands up to scrutiny.
Yours sincerely,
John
Dear Ann Greagsby, You are entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts. Not a single one of your statements stands up to scrutiny. Yours sincerely, John Jwrstewart
  • Score: 3

3:15pm Fri 28 Mar 14

doggydog8 says...

What utter, UTTER nonsense - entitling this article 'Cannabis facts' couldn't be any more misleading. Let me respond to each paragraph in turn:

1. Does it not seem odd that, according to this incredibly isolated case, there has been only 1 single death of cannabis toxicity? In THOUSANDS of years of use? It is a statistical anomaly at best, but more likely a mistake by the coroner.

Also, saying 'This is not true' after mentioning the well documented medical benefits of cannabis, is disingenuous to say the least. You are attempting to fear-monger, but thankfully your insane ramblings will be seen by the vast majority of people to be utter nonsense.

2. Cannabis toxicity - http://en.wikipedia.
org/wiki/Effects_of_
cannabis#Toxicity - and I quote:

THC, the principal psychoactive constituent of the cannabis plant, has an extremely low toxicity and the amount that can enter the body through the consumption of cannabis plants poses no threat of death. In lab animal tests, scientists have had much difficulty administering a dosage of THC that is high enough to be lethal.

3. BLF - see http://profdavidnutt
.wordpress.com/2012/
06/11/smoke-without-
fire-scaremongering-
by-the-british-lung-
foundation-over-cann
abis-vs-tobacco/

4. Wrong again Greagsby!!! DO YOUR RESEARCH BEFORE STATING YOUR 'FACTS'. Cannabis is currently going through multiple trials in relation to fighting cancer, so I'd be very surprised if it caused it! And the mental illness / schizophrenia link has been disproven time and time again - in fact, CBD (Cannabidiol) part of the plant is a known anti-psychotic.

5. So what does that 18% of people statistic prove??!?! I could just as easily say they had all drank milk, so milk should be banned!! Correlation does not imply causation.

How many drugs has your son been prescribed for his epilepsy? I'd imagine it's been quite a few over the years - some worked, some made him worse, some did nothing I'd imagine. Would you allow him to try cannabis if your doctor recommended it? When (not if) the law changes I'd like to think your doctor would prescribe anything that may help - that may be cannabis, it may not, but until the law changes we're stuck listening to nonsense from people like yourself who claim to know the 'facts'.

I do feel sorry for your son, can't be easy living with epilepsy, but there is every chance that a medication he'll be recommended in future will contain cannabis of some form and hopefully then you'll see how misguided your worries were before.

Please look into the facts - the wikipedia link above would be a good place to start. I'm not saying cannabis doesn't cause harm, far from it, but it is up to the individual to make their own choices - even if you don't agree with them. What I or anyone else puts into their bodies in their own business - even if it were to endanger my life, it is none of any one elses business. If you think cannabis should remain illegal because you think it's dangerous, then perhaps you should start a campaign to ban all extreme sports.
What utter, UTTER nonsense - entitling this article 'Cannabis facts' couldn't be any more misleading. Let me respond to each paragraph in turn: 1. Does it not seem odd that, according to this incredibly isolated case, there has been only 1 single death of cannabis toxicity? In THOUSANDS of years of use? It is a statistical anomaly at best, but more likely a mistake by the coroner. Also, saying 'This is not true' after mentioning the well documented medical benefits of cannabis, is disingenuous to say the least. You are attempting to fear-monger, but thankfully your insane ramblings will be seen by the vast majority of people to be utter nonsense. 2. Cannabis toxicity - http://en.wikipedia. org/wiki/Effects_of_ cannabis#Toxicity - and I quote: THC, the principal psychoactive constituent of the cannabis plant, has an extremely low toxicity and the amount that can enter the body through the consumption of cannabis plants poses no threat of death. In lab animal tests, scientists have had much difficulty administering a dosage of THC that is high enough to be lethal. 3. BLF - see http://profdavidnutt .wordpress.com/2012/ 06/11/smoke-without- fire-scaremongering- by-the-british-lung- foundation-over-cann abis-vs-tobacco/ 4. Wrong again Greagsby!!! DO YOUR RESEARCH BEFORE STATING YOUR 'FACTS'. Cannabis is currently going through multiple trials in relation to fighting cancer, so I'd be very surprised if it caused it! And the mental illness / schizophrenia link has been disproven time and time again - in fact, CBD (Cannabidiol) part of the plant is a known anti-psychotic. 5. So what does that 18% of people statistic prove??!?! I could just as easily say they had all drank milk, so milk should be banned!! Correlation does not imply causation. How many drugs has your son been prescribed for his epilepsy? I'd imagine it's been quite a few over the years - some worked, some made him worse, some did nothing I'd imagine. Would you allow him to try cannabis if your doctor recommended it? When (not if) the law changes I'd like to think your doctor would prescribe anything that may help - that may be cannabis, it may not, but until the law changes we're stuck listening to nonsense from people like yourself who claim to know the 'facts'. I do feel sorry for your son, can't be easy living with epilepsy, but there is every chance that a medication he'll be recommended in future will contain cannabis of some form and hopefully then you'll see how misguided your worries were before. Please look into the facts - the wikipedia link above would be a good place to start. I'm not saying cannabis doesn't cause harm, far from it, but it is up to the individual to make their own choices - even if you don't agree with them. What I or anyone else puts into their bodies in their own business - even if it were to endanger my life, it is none of any one elses business. If you think cannabis should remain illegal because you think it's dangerous, then perhaps you should start a campaign to ban all extreme sports. doggydog8
  • Score: -1

4:15pm Fri 28 Mar 14

Realist UK says...

However, possession of cannabis, in large quantities, is illegal and although you may consider the law an **** until it's changed penalties should be proportionately handed to offenders. The liberal elite, much like the pro homosexual marriage brigade, seemingly play the victim or persecution card to get their own way. Stiffer sentencing should be imposed on those using this drug unless medically prescribed.
However, possession of cannabis, in large quantities, is illegal and although you may consider the law an **** until it's changed penalties should be proportionately handed to offenders. The liberal elite, much like the pro homosexual marriage brigade, seemingly play the victim or persecution card to get their own way. Stiffer sentencing should be imposed on those using this drug unless medically prescribed. Realist UK
  • Score: -26

4:36pm Fri 28 Mar 14

doggydog8 says...

Wow, you really showed your true colours there bringing gay marriage into the debate there 'Realist UK'!!! And your amazingly statist attitude towards the Misuse of Drugs Act really hits it home!

Quick! To the money tree!!! We need to use taxpayers money to lock up all these stoners - we know what's best for them! They need locking away - that will teach them!!!!

Think about it this way - would you honestly never drink again if they banned alcohol tomorrow and arrested & imprisoned anyone who was caught with so much as a can of beer? Try and think for yourself instead of allowing the government to do it for you.

One point I do agree with you on though is proportionality, but do you honestly think locking up people for enjoying a plant is a good use of tax payer funds? Do you not think that, as people are going to use it anyway, it might be better to make it as safe as possible and take the criminal element out of it (for both user and producer)? Wouldn't taxing this product be a better option? The savings & financial benefits to the tax payer would astronomical.
Wow, you really showed your true colours there bringing gay marriage into the debate there 'Realist UK'!!! And your amazingly statist attitude towards the Misuse of Drugs Act really hits it home! Quick! To the money tree!!! We need to use taxpayers money to lock up all these stoners - we know what's best for them! They need locking away - that will teach them!!!! Think about it this way - would you honestly never drink again if they banned alcohol tomorrow and arrested & imprisoned anyone who was caught with so much as a can of beer? Try and think for yourself instead of allowing the government to do it for you. One point I do agree with you on though is proportionality, but do you honestly think locking up people for enjoying a plant is a good use of tax payer funds? Do you not think that, as people are going to use it anyway, it might be better to make it as safe as possible and take the criminal element out of it (for both user and producer)? Wouldn't taxing this product be a better option? The savings & financial benefits to the tax payer would astronomical. doggydog8
  • Score: 4

4:53pm Fri 28 Mar 14

Sam Lyons says...

Usually, to have one recorded death against a drug as widely used as cannabis, over such long time, would not be used as an argument against its safety. I suppose people see what they want to see.
Usually, to have one recorded death against a drug as widely used as cannabis, over such long time, would not be used as an argument against its safety. I suppose people see what they want to see. Sam Lyons
  • Score: 2

5:38pm Fri 28 Mar 14

handytrim says...

Nothing but regurgitated lies, mistruths and nonsense.

Of the 5000 or so years that the human race is known to have used cannabis, in one way or another there, has been no records to prove that it has been the direct cause of a users death. Just as the rest of the world is awakening to the hypocrisy and corruption surrounding the prohibition of a substance proven to be about as harmful and addictive as coffee (caffeine being more dangerous as a tablespoon of it will kill an adult) here in the UK (Bournemouth, the centre of ground breaking medical discoveries, no less) we have declared the first case of 'death by cannabis toxicity'. If you actually knew anything about cannabis you would know that it is one of the least toxic active substances known to man. The very reason why nobody has been recorded as directly dying from its consumption. The actual weight of cannabis a person would need to consume and absorb into their bodies is an impossibility. Look it up, the information is freely available to those who can be bothered to do some research (unlike the morons in Bournemouth).

Now even if this was a tragic case of 'death by cannabis toxicity' think about it for a second...how many people have died as a result of consuming alcohol, tobacco, caffeine, peanuts! Now compare that to cannabis. One, two, hell why not, three! Three against millions. Now, which is legal and which is illegal on the basis of supposed health grounds?

Speaking of which, that BLF article (the studies it referenced were hardly up to date) was pretty much pulled apart and the conclusions refuted by many far more educated than I on the subject.

"The drug can cause cancer, lung disease and abnormalities associated with serious mental illness. Users are up to six times more likely to develop schizophrenia."

THC and cancer - Google it! Cause or treat?
CBD and mental health - Google it! Again, cause or treat?

On the subject of driving under the influence, it is of my personal belief that nobody should be driving whilst impaired by any substance. the trouble with cannabis is that the initial high can last for a fairly short amount of time, 20-40 min, then there is a comedown period that lasts longer, for around two hours. The effects can also be longer for someone who has eaten food with cannabis in (which really depends on how much has been consumed). Generally after that two hour period peoples full cognitive skills return to normal and they are safe to drive, but if they are tested up to several weeks later there is a possibility that traces of cannabis may still be in their system (our bodies really like cannabis...check out the endocannabinoid system). This gives rise to the possibility of innocent people being punished. Again, I do not agree with anybody who is not fully capable of driving safely to do so, but studies have proven that long-term/experience
d users have actually shown to have higher states of alertness and are far more capable of driving when compared to experienced alcohol drinkers. But just to be on the safe side, wait a few hours after a smoke if you really have to drive...don't drive at all if you've had some alcohol.

Ask GW Pharmaceuticals for their current research into CBD oil for the treatment of epilepsy. I thought it was the job of every parent to fill their children with hope and encouragement especially in the face of adversity, not dash it away from them because they simply do not agree or it is against some outdated moral code. If you wish to actually help that hope you would refocus your grievances towards those who have helped to suppress information and research by outlawing and banning cannabis in the first place. Those same people who continue to ignore the mounting evidence that cannabis medicine can, and will, be used to treat a wide range of illnesses in favour of lies, propaganda and corruption.

Please join us on the right side of the fence. Educate yourself. Do not allow them to educate you as you'll only end up being their parrot.
Nothing but regurgitated lies, mistruths and nonsense. Of the 5000 or so years that the human race is known to have used cannabis, in one way or another there, has been no records to prove that it has been the direct cause of a users death. Just as the rest of the world is awakening to the hypocrisy and corruption surrounding the prohibition of a substance proven to be about as harmful and addictive as coffee (caffeine being more dangerous as a tablespoon of it will kill an adult) here in the UK (Bournemouth, the centre of ground breaking medical discoveries, no less) we have declared the first case of 'death by cannabis toxicity'. If you actually knew anything about cannabis you would know that it is one of the least toxic active substances known to man. The very reason why nobody has been recorded as directly dying from its consumption. The actual weight of cannabis a person would need to consume and absorb into their bodies is an impossibility. Look it up, the information is freely available to those who can be bothered to do some research (unlike the morons in Bournemouth). Now even if this was a tragic case of 'death by cannabis toxicity' think about it for a second...how many people have died as a result of consuming alcohol, tobacco, caffeine, peanuts! Now compare that to cannabis. One, two, hell why not, three! Three against millions. Now, which is legal and which is illegal on the basis of supposed health grounds? Speaking of which, that BLF article (the studies it referenced were hardly up to date) was pretty much pulled apart and the conclusions refuted by many far more educated than I on the subject. "The drug can cause cancer, lung disease and abnormalities associated with serious mental illness. Users are up to six times more likely to develop schizophrenia." THC and cancer - Google it! Cause or treat? CBD and mental health - Google it! Again, cause or treat? On the subject of driving under the influence, it is of my personal belief that nobody should be driving whilst impaired by any substance. the trouble with cannabis is that the initial high can last for a fairly short amount of time, 20-40 min, then there is a comedown period that lasts longer, for around two hours. The effects can also be longer for someone who has eaten food with cannabis in (which really depends on how much has been consumed). Generally after that two hour period peoples full cognitive skills return to normal and they are safe to drive, but if they are tested up to several weeks later there is a possibility that traces of cannabis may still be in their system (our bodies really like cannabis...check out the endocannabinoid system). This gives rise to the possibility of innocent people being punished. Again, I do not agree with anybody who is not fully capable of driving safely to do so, but studies have proven that long-term/experience d users have actually shown to have higher states of alertness and are far more capable of driving when compared to experienced alcohol drinkers. But just to be on the safe side, wait a few hours after a smoke if you really have to drive...don't drive at all if you've had some alcohol. Ask GW Pharmaceuticals for their current research into CBD oil for the treatment of epilepsy. I thought it was the job of every parent to fill their children with hope and encouragement especially in the face of adversity, not dash it away from them because they simply do not agree or it is against some outdated moral code. If you wish to actually help that hope you would refocus your grievances towards those who have helped to suppress information and research by outlawing and banning cannabis in the first place. Those same people who continue to ignore the mounting evidence that cannabis medicine can, and will, be used to treat a wide range of illnesses in favour of lies, propaganda and corruption. Please join us on the right side of the fence. Educate yourself. Do not allow them to educate you as you'll only end up being their parrot. handytrim
  • Score: -1

7:11pm Fri 28 Mar 14

Realist UK says...

The ‘legal dope will be safer’ argument has always seemed to me to be wrong on two grounds. One, mind-bending drugs can never be safe. It's hardly surprising that people who mess about with their brains later become mentally ill, is it? You can’t repair a bent brain as you can mend a broken finger, or even a broken leg - though the constant puffing and boosting of so-called ‘Neuroscience’ has managed to give many people the idea that science and medicine know much more about the brain than they actually do.
The ‘legal dope will be safer’ argument has always seemed to me to be wrong on two grounds. One, mind-bending drugs can never be safe. It's hardly surprising that people who mess about with their brains later become mentally ill, is it? You can’t repair a bent brain as you can mend a broken finger, or even a broken leg - though the constant puffing and boosting of so-called ‘Neuroscience’ has managed to give many people the idea that science and medicine know much more about the brain than they actually do. Realist UK
  • Score: -6

8:37pm Fri 28 Mar 14

welshmen says...

How many people die from Alcohol a year thousands, how many die from cannabis I doubt ten....
How many people die from Alcohol a year thousands, how many die from cannabis I doubt ten.... welshmen
  • Score: -5

8:40am Sat 29 Mar 14

gathin says...

welshmen wrote:
How many people die from Alcohol a year thousands, how many die from cannabis I doubt ten....
Actually nobody has ever died from weed.
You'd need to consume a ton within a few hours which is absolutely impossible.
OP-which pharmaceutical company are you posting on behalf of?
lol
[quote][p][bold]welshmen[/bold] wrote: How many people die from Alcohol a year thousands, how many die from cannabis I doubt ten....[/p][/quote]Actually nobody has ever died from weed. You'd need to consume a ton within a few hours which is absolutely impossible. OP-which pharmaceutical company are you posting on behalf of? lol gathin
  • Score: 2

9:07am Sat 29 Mar 14

GardenVarietyMushroom says...

gathin wrote:
welshmen wrote:
How many people die from Alcohol a year thousands, how many die from cannabis I doubt ten....
Actually nobody has ever died from weed.
You'd need to consume a ton within a few hours which is absolutely impossible.
OP-which pharmaceutical company are you posting on behalf of?
lol
Not sure she's posting on behalf of a pharma co' - I suspect she has some axe to grind with Pippa Bartolotti. If you google the letter writer, seems she's somehow connected to the welsh green party. You have to wonder if there's a bit of bad blood there. If that's true, then it's just unfortunate that Mrs. Greagsby has chosen to pursue that by clearly illustrating what an idiot she is. Own goal - back of the net.
[quote][p][bold]gathin[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]welshmen[/bold] wrote: How many people die from Alcohol a year thousands, how many die from cannabis I doubt ten....[/p][/quote]Actually nobody has ever died from weed. You'd need to consume a ton within a few hours which is absolutely impossible. OP-which pharmaceutical company are you posting on behalf of? lol[/p][/quote]Not sure she's posting on behalf of a pharma co' - I suspect she has some axe to grind with Pippa Bartolotti. If you google the letter writer, seems she's somehow connected to the welsh green party. You have to wonder if there's a bit of bad blood there. If that's true, then it's just unfortunate that Mrs. Greagsby has chosen to pursue that by clearly illustrating what an idiot she is. Own goal - back of the net. GardenVarietyMushroom
  • Score: -4

9:13am Sat 29 Mar 14

Mervyn James says...

Realist UK wrote:
However, possession of cannabis, in large quantities, is illegal and although you may consider the law an **** until it's changed penalties should be proportionately handed to offenders. The liberal elite, much like the pro homosexual marriage brigade, seemingly play the victim or persecution card to get their own way. Stiffer sentencing should be imposed on those using this drug unless medically prescribed.
I'm with that. Liberalism is just another excuse to bleat we should all do what we want any way we want to regardless of effects on self, family or others, the overriding view of cest la vie clouds much misery and heartbreak, while at the same time undermining honesty, fairness and an outright assault on other people's beliefs, as well as moral views.

We now await the liberals to justify it all.... allowing this liberalism to inevitable end would mean chaos plain and simple. We still read 'drugs are OK in moderation, they do no harm if managed properly,it's just a buzz .. ",yep graveyards are full of them, poor MH is on the rise, drugs amount for most crimes, families disintegrated, yep drugs are OK, what's the fuss ?
[quote][p][bold]Realist UK[/bold] wrote: However, possession of cannabis, in large quantities, is illegal and although you may consider the law an **** until it's changed penalties should be proportionately handed to offenders. The liberal elite, much like the pro homosexual marriage brigade, seemingly play the victim or persecution card to get their own way. Stiffer sentencing should be imposed on those using this drug unless medically prescribed.[/p][/quote]I'm with that. Liberalism is just another excuse to bleat we should all do what we want any way we want to regardless of effects on self, family or others, the overriding view of cest la vie clouds much misery and heartbreak, while at the same time undermining honesty, fairness and an outright assault on other people's beliefs, as well as moral views. We now await the liberals to justify it all.... allowing this liberalism to inevitable end would mean chaos plain and simple. We still read 'drugs are OK in moderation, they do no harm if managed properly,it's just a buzz .. ",yep graveyards are full of them, poor MH is on the rise, drugs amount for most crimes, families disintegrated, yep drugs are OK, what's the fuss ? Mervyn James
  • Score: 2

11:03am Sat 29 Mar 14

jimmysmith says...

see all the druggies out in force defending this disgusting drug
see all the druggies out in force defending this disgusting drug jimmysmith
  • Score: 1

11:27am Sat 29 Mar 14

varteg1 says...

I believe that sticking anything in to my body, by mouth or injection, is stupid unless prescribed by a doctor for sound medical reasons.

Therefore I care not a whit whether the weed is good or bad, but I will say this, as it can be grown in any little plant pot (no pun intended) on a window sill, that nasty tax man cannot get his hands on it, and you can forget all the so called counter evidence for it being bad or good, if like tobacco it could not be grown and processed at home, it would soon be 'legalised' ...but with a hefty great amount of tax on it.
I believe that sticking anything in to my body, by mouth or injection, is stupid unless prescribed by a doctor for sound medical reasons. Therefore I care not a whit whether the weed is good or bad, but I will say this, as it can be grown in any little plant pot (no pun intended) on a window sill, that nasty tax man cannot get his hands on it, and you can forget all the so called counter evidence for it being bad or good, if like tobacco it could not be grown and processed at home, it would soon be 'legalised' ...but with a hefty great amount of tax on it. varteg1
  • Score: 0

12:28pm Sat 29 Mar 14

ncfcr says...

Let us not forget the most important fact of all; that people who smoke cannabis are totally cool.
Let us not forget the most important fact of all; that people who smoke cannabis are totally cool. ncfcr
  • Score: -5

2:59pm Sat 29 Mar 14

Dr Martin says...

Ryan Perks is a very "cool" guy, thanks to the righteous herb
http://www.dailyecho
.co.uk/news/10732162
.Motorway_plunge_vic
tim_was_high_on_cann
abis/
Ryan Perks is a very "cool" guy, thanks to the righteous herb http://www.dailyecho .co.uk/news/10732162 .Motorway_plunge_vic tim_was_high_on_cann abis/ Dr Martin
  • Score: 0

3:02pm Sat 29 Mar 14

Dr Martin says...

varteg1 wrote:
I believe that sticking anything in to my body, by mouth or injection, is stupid unless prescribed by a doctor for sound medical reasons.

Therefore I care not a whit whether the weed is good or bad, but I will say this, as it can be grown in any little plant pot (no pun intended) on a window sill, that nasty tax man cannot get his hands on it, and you can forget all the so called counter evidence for it being bad or good, if like tobacco it could not be grown and processed at home, it would soon be 'legalised' ...but with a hefty great amount of tax on it.
stoners don't want to pay tax on weed, they can get it from their dealer tax free
[quote][p][bold]varteg1[/bold] wrote: I believe that sticking anything in to my body, by mouth or injection, is stupid unless prescribed by a doctor for sound medical reasons. Therefore I care not a whit whether the weed is good or bad, but I will say this, as it can be grown in any little plant pot (no pun intended) on a window sill, that nasty tax man cannot get his hands on it, and you can forget all the so called counter evidence for it being bad or good, if like tobacco it could not be grown and processed at home, it would soon be 'legalised' ...but with a hefty great amount of tax on it.[/p][/quote]stoners don't want to pay tax on weed, they can get it from their dealer tax free Dr Martin
  • Score: 0

4:53pm Sat 29 Mar 14

varteg1 says...

Dr Martin wrote:
varteg1 wrote:
I believe that sticking anything in to my body, by mouth or injection, is stupid unless prescribed by a doctor for sound medical reasons.

Therefore I care not a whit whether the weed is good or bad, but I will say this, as it can be grown in any little plant pot (no pun intended) on a window sill, that nasty tax man cannot get his hands on it, and you can forget all the so called counter evidence for it being bad or good, if like tobacco it could not be grown and processed at home, it would soon be 'legalised' ...but with a hefty great amount of tax on it.
stoners don't want to pay tax on weed, they can get it from their dealer tax free
As I said, only because it is easy to grow in your back bedroom, so how could the tax man hit on it?

If like tobacco it had to be imported, legitimately, not only would you be paying tax on it, your friendly neighbourhood 'dealer' would be out of business.
[quote][p][bold]Dr Martin[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]varteg1[/bold] wrote: I believe that sticking anything in to my body, by mouth or injection, is stupid unless prescribed by a doctor for sound medical reasons. Therefore I care not a whit whether the weed is good or bad, but I will say this, as it can be grown in any little plant pot (no pun intended) on a window sill, that nasty tax man cannot get his hands on it, and you can forget all the so called counter evidence for it being bad or good, if like tobacco it could not be grown and processed at home, it would soon be 'legalised' ...but with a hefty great amount of tax on it.[/p][/quote]stoners don't want to pay tax on weed, they can get it from their dealer tax free[/p][/quote]As I said, only because it is easy to grow in your back bedroom, so how could the tax man hit on it? If like tobacco it had to be imported, legitimately, not only would you be paying tax on it, your friendly neighbourhood 'dealer' would be out of business. varteg1
  • Score: 0

5:02pm Sat 29 Mar 14

varteg1 says...

quote...


.........5. So what does that 18% of people statistic prove??!?! I could just as easily say they had all drank milk, so milk should be banned!! Correlation does not imply causation.....

From personal experience. I would add that you may have been sardonic, but milk is a very dangerous liquid. Too many people use it far too much, it contributes enormously to obesity, which is medically recognised as a killer, probably more so than pot.

I would here suggest we should all cut down dramatically on milk consumption, better to cut it out altogether and opt for substitute liquids, soya and almond for example.
quote... .........5. So what does that 18% of people statistic prove??!?! I could just as easily say they had all drank milk, so milk should be banned!! Correlation does not imply causation..... From personal experience. I would add that you may have been sardonic, but milk is a very dangerous liquid. Too many people use it far too much, it contributes enormously to obesity, which is medically recognised as a killer, probably more so than pot. I would here suggest we should all cut down dramatically on milk consumption, better to cut it out altogether and opt for substitute liquids, soya and almond for example. varteg1
  • Score: 0

5:50pm Sat 29 Mar 14

Dr Martin says...

varteg1 wrote:
Dr Martin wrote:
varteg1 wrote:
I believe that sticking anything in to my body, by mouth or injection, is stupid unless prescribed by a doctor for sound medical reasons.

Therefore I care not a whit whether the weed is good or bad, but I will say this, as it can be grown in any little plant pot (no pun intended) on a window sill, that nasty tax man cannot get his hands on it, and you can forget all the so called counter evidence for it being bad or good, if like tobacco it could not be grown and processed at home, it would soon be 'legalised' ...but with a hefty great amount of tax on it.
stoners don't want to pay tax on weed, they can get it from their dealer tax free
As I said, only because it is easy to grow in your back bedroom, so how could the tax man hit on it?

If like tobacco it had to be imported, legitimately, not only would you be paying tax on it, your friendly neighbourhood 'dealer' would be out of business.
Dealer will be still in business, do you think they will just go away?
Cannabis users will still use illegal/cheaper means to buy their weed just like Alcohol and tobacco users do
[quote][p][bold]varteg1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dr Martin[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]varteg1[/bold] wrote: I believe that sticking anything in to my body, by mouth or injection, is stupid unless prescribed by a doctor for sound medical reasons. Therefore I care not a whit whether the weed is good or bad, but I will say this, as it can be grown in any little plant pot (no pun intended) on a window sill, that nasty tax man cannot get his hands on it, and you can forget all the so called counter evidence for it being bad or good, if like tobacco it could not be grown and processed at home, it would soon be 'legalised' ...but with a hefty great amount of tax on it.[/p][/quote]stoners don't want to pay tax on weed, they can get it from their dealer tax free[/p][/quote]As I said, only because it is easy to grow in your back bedroom, so how could the tax man hit on it? If like tobacco it had to be imported, legitimately, not only would you be paying tax on it, your friendly neighbourhood 'dealer' would be out of business.[/p][/quote]Dealer will be still in business, do you think they will just go away? Cannabis users will still use illegal/cheaper means to buy their weed just like Alcohol and tobacco users do Dr Martin
  • Score: 1

5:53pm Sat 29 Mar 14

Mervyn James says...

The death penalty for pushers will deter a few ! A war on central American growing fields and the Asian triangle will also limit the amount they can push. Those that advocate ANY sort of drug need counselling and treatment, NOW !
The death penalty for pushers will deter a few ! A war on central American growing fields and the Asian triangle will also limit the amount they can push. Those that advocate ANY sort of drug need counselling and treatment, NOW ! Mervyn James
  • Score: 2

6:31pm Sat 29 Mar 14

-trigg- says...

varteg1 wrote:
I believe that sticking anything in to my body, by mouth or injection, is stupid unless prescribed by a doctor for sound medical reasons.

Therefore I care not a whit whether the weed is good or bad, but I will say this, as it can be grown in any little plant pot (no pun intended) on a window sill, that nasty tax man cannot get his hands on it, and you can forget all the so called counter evidence for it being bad or good, if like tobacco it could not be grown and processed at home, it would soon be 'legalised' ...but with a hefty great amount of tax on it.
Have you ever eaten food or drunk water?

Were these specifically prescribed by your Doctor? No? Then your whole arguement is clearly invalid.
[quote][p][bold]varteg1[/bold] wrote: I believe that sticking anything in to my body, by mouth or injection, is stupid unless prescribed by a doctor for sound medical reasons. Therefore I care not a whit whether the weed is good or bad, but I will say this, as it can be grown in any little plant pot (no pun intended) on a window sill, that nasty tax man cannot get his hands on it, and you can forget all the so called counter evidence for it being bad or good, if like tobacco it could not be grown and processed at home, it would soon be 'legalised' ...but with a hefty great amount of tax on it.[/p][/quote]Have you ever eaten food or drunk water? Were these specifically prescribed by your Doctor? No? Then your whole arguement is clearly invalid. -trigg-
  • Score: 10

6:33pm Sat 29 Mar 14

Dr Martin says...

gathin wrote:
welshmen wrote:
How many people die from Alcohol a year thousands, how many die from cannabis I doubt ten....
Actually nobody has ever died from weed.
You'd need to consume a ton within a few hours which is absolutely impossible.
OP-which pharmaceutical company are you posting on behalf of?
lol
282 deaths due to cannabis (1993-2012),
http://www.ons.gov.u
k/ons/publications/r
e-reference-tables.h
tml?edition=tcm%3A77
-314585
Of course the pro pot peeps use death as a measure of harm caused by cannabis, but I say ask your local psychiatrist as they are the ones that have to deal with the consumers of your righteous herb on a daily basis
[quote][p][bold]gathin[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]welshmen[/bold] wrote: How many people die from Alcohol a year thousands, how many die from cannabis I doubt ten....[/p][/quote]Actually nobody has ever died from weed. You'd need to consume a ton within a few hours which is absolutely impossible. OP-which pharmaceutical company are you posting on behalf of? lol[/p][/quote]282 deaths due to cannabis (1993-2012), http://www.ons.gov.u k/ons/publications/r e-reference-tables.h tml?edition=tcm%3A77 -314585 Of course the pro pot peeps use death as a measure of harm caused by cannabis, but I say ask your local psychiatrist as they are the ones that have to deal with the consumers of your righteous herb on a daily basis Dr Martin
  • Score: 0

10:52pm Sat 29 Mar 14

Donnie Valentino says...

I have come across so many people over the years who are shot to bits and have paranoia because of dope.Maybe that's down to the type of weed that they smoke,maybe strong "skunk" or whatever.You can never win the argument,alcohol causes problems as well and it's an easy defence for the stoners to point that out,and they will be right in doing so.People should really have a choice with what they want within acceptable limits,maybe legalising it will be the best for all at the end of the day,people will do it anyway.
I have come across so many people over the years who are shot to bits and have paranoia because of dope.Maybe that's down to the type of weed that they smoke,maybe strong "skunk" or whatever.You can never win the argument,alcohol causes problems as well and it's an easy defence for the stoners to point that out,and they will be right in doing so.People should really have a choice with what they want within acceptable limits,maybe legalising it will be the best for all at the end of the day,people will do it anyway. Donnie Valentino
  • Score: 5

11:08pm Sat 29 Mar 14

El Chapo says...

Cannabis facts in short for the layman

Cannabis should be legalised for cures and social use but tax it.

If legalised we would need random tests for drivers of cars and even machinery. Being caught driving with cannabis fresh in your system should result in the convictions/fines similar to alcohol laws.

If you use tobacco and cannabis together of course it is bad for your health.

I for one believe that continuous use of Cannabis over many years does encourage mental health issues although anything to do with the human mind and how it reacts and behaves is such a grey area and depends on many other factors.
Cannabis facts in short for the layman Cannabis should be legalised for cures and social use but tax it. If legalised we would need random tests for drivers of cars and even machinery. Being caught driving with cannabis fresh in your system should result in the convictions/fines similar to alcohol laws. If you use tobacco and cannabis together of course it is bad for your health. I for one believe that continuous use of Cannabis over many years does encourage mental health issues although anything to do with the human mind and how it reacts and behaves is such a grey area and depends on many other factors. El Chapo
  • Score: -1

8:37am Sun 30 Mar 14

Crossbenchtory says...

There can be little doubt that the law regarding recreational substances is, in most countries, somewhat archane and largely unworkable.

When it comes to cannabis I do not believe it to be any more or less harmful than alcohol or tobacco, both of which are quite legal to possess, sell and use in the UK providing certain conditions are met.

Like alcohol, cannabis will cause social problems when abused however these issues reduce where it is used in moderation much the same as social problems related to alcohol reduce if that is used in moderation. This being the case one has to ask why are alcohol and cannabis treated so differently by the law?

The physical health problems, arising from the use of cannabis, are caused predominately by the most common method of use, smoking. Smoke inhalation, irrespective of the substance being burnt, is bad for the human body. This does beg the question whether smoking a "joint" is really any worse for your health than smoking a cigarette? If the answer to this question is no then the logical next question is why are tobacco and cannibas treated so differently?

Turning now to the effects of cannabis on mental health, I would submit that, where an underlying mental health issue exists, any chemical which alters the way in which brain chemistry works, whether it be cannabis, alcohol or anti-psychotic medication, is going to have an effect on that underlying issue, either exacerbating or reducing it depending on the nature of the underlying issue and the amount of the chemical ingested.

Whilst I am not myself a cannabis user, or for that matter a big drinker, I did, like most of my generation, experiment with cannabis when I was younger. That said I have suffered no detrimental effects, either short or long term, and I would go so far as to say that I rather enjoyed being "stoned", I certainly found it a vastly more pleasant experiance than being drunk. Also, sorry to disappoint the "gateway drug" brigade, cannabis is the only illegal drug I have ever used.

As I said at the start, the law relating to recreational substances is somewhat archane and largely unworkable and as such I believe they do need reforming to not only reflect modern attitudes but also to make them workable. That is not to say that I am advocating legalisation, it may be that the reclassification of cannabis to bring it into line with alcohol is the way forward or it maybe that the reclassification of alcohol and tobacco to bring them into line with cannabis is the way forward or it maybe something in between.

Finally, irrespective of what you think of the current laws surrounding cannabis, it's possession and supply is currently illegal and if you choose to break the law then you, quite rightly, should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, it's the risk you take.
There can be little doubt that the law regarding recreational substances is, in most countries, somewhat archane and largely unworkable. When it comes to cannabis I do not believe it to be any more or less harmful than alcohol or tobacco, both of which are quite legal to possess, sell and use in the UK providing certain conditions are met. Like alcohol, cannabis will cause social problems when abused however these issues reduce where it is used in moderation much the same as social problems related to alcohol reduce if that is used in moderation. This being the case one has to ask why are alcohol and cannabis treated so differently by the law? The physical health problems, arising from the use of cannabis, are caused predominately by the most common method of use, smoking. Smoke inhalation, irrespective of the substance being burnt, is bad for the human body. This does beg the question whether smoking a "joint" is really any worse for your health than smoking a cigarette? If the answer to this question is no then the logical next question is why are tobacco and cannibas treated so differently? Turning now to the effects of cannabis on mental health, I would submit that, where an underlying mental health issue exists, any chemical which alters the way in which brain chemistry works, whether it be cannabis, alcohol or anti-psychotic medication, is going to have an effect on that underlying issue, either exacerbating or reducing it depending on the nature of the underlying issue and the amount of the chemical ingested. Whilst I am not myself a cannabis user, or for that matter a big drinker, I did, like most of my generation, experiment with cannabis when I was younger. That said I have suffered no detrimental effects, either short or long term, and I would go so far as to say that I rather enjoyed being "stoned", I certainly found it a vastly more pleasant experiance than being drunk. Also, sorry to disappoint the "gateway drug" brigade, cannabis is the only illegal drug I have ever used. As I said at the start, the law relating to recreational substances is somewhat archane and largely unworkable and as such I believe they do need reforming to not only reflect modern attitudes but also to make them workable. That is not to say that I am advocating legalisation, it may be that the reclassification of cannabis to bring it into line with alcohol is the way forward or it maybe that the reclassification of alcohol and tobacco to bring them into line with cannabis is the way forward or it maybe something in between. Finally, irrespective of what you think of the current laws surrounding cannabis, it's possession and supply is currently illegal and if you choose to break the law then you, quite rightly, should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, it's the risk you take. Crossbenchtory
  • Score: -1

10:13am Sun 30 Mar 14

Dai Rear says...

welshmen wrote:
How many people die from Alcohol a year thousands, how many die from cannabis I doubt ten....
And possibly not even one a decade from the reaction of acid on ferrocyanate salts, so this would be a ground for making it easy to purchase concentrated sulphuric acid?
But anyway the cannabis single issue fanatics will bang on in their usual manner. Look you know it's tolerated and rarely prosecuted. That's good enough but you have to go further like the homosexual SIF's so we end up with Mock Marriage and the spectacle of the 2 gigantic white clad female homosexuals trying to grapple each other which had me falling off my chair watching the TV last night. Laugh? I nearly bought my own beer!
[quote][p][bold]welshmen[/bold] wrote: How many people die from Alcohol a year thousands, how many die from cannabis I doubt ten....[/p][/quote]And possibly not even one a decade from the reaction of acid on ferrocyanate salts, so this would be a ground for making it easy to purchase concentrated sulphuric acid? But anyway the cannabis single issue fanatics will bang on in their usual manner. Look you know it's tolerated and rarely prosecuted. That's good enough but you have to go further like the homosexual SIF's so we end up with Mock Marriage and the spectacle of the 2 gigantic white clad female homosexuals trying to grapple each other which had me falling off my chair watching the TV last night. Laugh? I nearly bought my own beer! Dai Rear
  • Score: 2

11:04am Sun 30 Mar 14

Mervyn James says...

Crossbenchtory wrote:
There can be little doubt that the law regarding recreational substances is, in most countries, somewhat archane and largely unworkable.

When it comes to cannabis I do not believe it to be any more or less harmful than alcohol or tobacco, both of which are quite legal to possess, sell and use in the UK providing certain conditions are met.

Like alcohol, cannabis will cause social problems when abused however these issues reduce where it is used in moderation much the same as social problems related to alcohol reduce if that is used in moderation. This being the case one has to ask why are alcohol and cannabis treated so differently by the law?

The physical health problems, arising from the use of cannabis, are caused predominately by the most common method of use, smoking. Smoke inhalation, irrespective of the substance being burnt, is bad for the human body. This does beg the question whether smoking a "joint" is really any worse for your health than smoking a cigarette? If the answer to this question is no then the logical next question is why are tobacco and cannibas treated so differently?

Turning now to the effects of cannabis on mental health, I would submit that, where an underlying mental health issue exists, any chemical which alters the way in which brain chemistry works, whether it be cannabis, alcohol or anti-psychotic medication, is going to have an effect on that underlying issue, either exacerbating or reducing it depending on the nature of the underlying issue and the amount of the chemical ingested.

Whilst I am not myself a cannabis user, or for that matter a big drinker, I did, like most of my generation, experiment with cannabis when I was younger. That said I have suffered no detrimental effects, either short or long term, and I would go so far as to say that I rather enjoyed being "stoned", I certainly found it a vastly more pleasant experiance than being drunk. Also, sorry to disappoint the "gateway drug" brigade, cannabis is the only illegal drug I have ever used.

As I said at the start, the law relating to recreational substances is somewhat archane and largely unworkable and as such I believe they do need reforming to not only reflect modern attitudes but also to make them workable. That is not to say that I am advocating legalisation, it may be that the reclassification of cannabis to bring it into line with alcohol is the way forward or it maybe that the reclassification of alcohol and tobacco to bring them into line with cannabis is the way forward or it maybe something in between.

Finally, irrespective of what you think of the current laws surrounding cannabis, it's possession and supply is currently illegal and if you choose to break the law then you, quite rightly, should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, it's the risk you take.
That's your problem you cannot see harm in drug taking. And the problem of pro-drugs supporters here. There is NO such thing as a soft drug. Soft or hard the end result is always the same. The issue is really, to prevent supply. Addicts never listen to warnings.
[quote][p][bold]Crossbenchtory[/bold] wrote: There can be little doubt that the law regarding recreational substances is, in most countries, somewhat archane and largely unworkable. When it comes to cannabis I do not believe it to be any more or less harmful than alcohol or tobacco, both of which are quite legal to possess, sell and use in the UK providing certain conditions are met. Like alcohol, cannabis will cause social problems when abused however these issues reduce where it is used in moderation much the same as social problems related to alcohol reduce if that is used in moderation. This being the case one has to ask why are alcohol and cannabis treated so differently by the law? The physical health problems, arising from the use of cannabis, are caused predominately by the most common method of use, smoking. Smoke inhalation, irrespective of the substance being burnt, is bad for the human body. This does beg the question whether smoking a "joint" is really any worse for your health than smoking a cigarette? If the answer to this question is no then the logical next question is why are tobacco and cannibas treated so differently? Turning now to the effects of cannabis on mental health, I would submit that, where an underlying mental health issue exists, any chemical which alters the way in which brain chemistry works, whether it be cannabis, alcohol or anti-psychotic medication, is going to have an effect on that underlying issue, either exacerbating or reducing it depending on the nature of the underlying issue and the amount of the chemical ingested. Whilst I am not myself a cannabis user, or for that matter a big drinker, I did, like most of my generation, experiment with cannabis when I was younger. That said I have suffered no detrimental effects, either short or long term, and I would go so far as to say that I rather enjoyed being "stoned", I certainly found it a vastly more pleasant experiance than being drunk. Also, sorry to disappoint the "gateway drug" brigade, cannabis is the only illegal drug I have ever used. As I said at the start, the law relating to recreational substances is somewhat archane and largely unworkable and as such I believe they do need reforming to not only reflect modern attitudes but also to make them workable. That is not to say that I am advocating legalisation, it may be that the reclassification of cannabis to bring it into line with alcohol is the way forward or it maybe that the reclassification of alcohol and tobacco to bring them into line with cannabis is the way forward or it maybe something in between. Finally, irrespective of what you think of the current laws surrounding cannabis, it's possession and supply is currently illegal and if you choose to break the law then you, quite rightly, should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, it's the risk you take.[/p][/quote]That's your problem you cannot see harm in drug taking. And the problem of pro-drugs supporters here. There is NO such thing as a soft drug. Soft or hard the end result is always the same. The issue is really, to prevent supply. Addicts never listen to warnings. Mervyn James
  • Score: 3

11:24am Sun 30 Mar 14

Crossbenchtory says...

Mervyn James wrote:
Crossbenchtory wrote:
There can be little doubt that the law regarding recreational substances is, in most countries, somewhat archane and largely unworkable.

When it comes to cannabis I do not believe it to be any more or less harmful than alcohol or tobacco, both of which are quite legal to possess, sell and use in the UK providing certain conditions are met.

Like alcohol, cannabis will cause social problems when abused however these issues reduce where it is used in moderation much the same as social problems related to alcohol reduce if that is used in moderation. This being the case one has to ask why are alcohol and cannabis treated so differently by the law?

The physical health problems, arising from the use of cannabis, are caused predominately by the most common method of use, smoking. Smoke inhalation, irrespective of the substance being burnt, is bad for the human body. This does beg the question whether smoking a "joint" is really any worse for your health than smoking a cigarette? If the answer to this question is no then the logical next question is why are tobacco and cannibas treated so differently?

Turning now to the effects of cannabis on mental health, I would submit that, where an underlying mental health issue exists, any chemical which alters the way in which brain chemistry works, whether it be cannabis, alcohol or anti-psychotic medication, is going to have an effect on that underlying issue, either exacerbating or reducing it depending on the nature of the underlying issue and the amount of the chemical ingested.

Whilst I am not myself a cannabis user, or for that matter a big drinker, I did, like most of my generation, experiment with cannabis when I was younger. That said I have suffered no detrimental effects, either short or long term, and I would go so far as to say that I rather enjoyed being "stoned", I certainly found it a vastly more pleasant experiance than being drunk. Also, sorry to disappoint the "gateway drug" brigade, cannabis is the only illegal drug I have ever used.

As I said at the start, the law relating to recreational substances is somewhat archane and largely unworkable and as such I believe they do need reforming to not only reflect modern attitudes but also to make them workable. That is not to say that I am advocating legalisation, it may be that the reclassification of cannabis to bring it into line with alcohol is the way forward or it maybe that the reclassification of alcohol and tobacco to bring them into line with cannabis is the way forward or it maybe something in between.

Finally, irrespective of what you think of the current laws surrounding cannabis, it's possession and supply is currently illegal and if you choose to break the law then you, quite rightly, should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, it's the risk you take.
That's your problem you cannot see harm in drug taking. And the problem of pro-drugs supporters here. There is NO such thing as a soft drug. Soft or hard the end result is always the same. The issue is really, to prevent supply. Addicts never listen to warnings.
MJ

Obviously you have either not read and understood what I have written or you are merely being obtuse.

The problems, both health and societal, with any substance arise from abuse. Someone who abuses alcohol will become an alcoholic, with all the associated issues, someone who abuses sugar will become diabetic, with all the associated issues, someone who abuses food in General will become obese, with all the associated issues.

The logic of your argument appears to be that we should unquestioningly ban anything which may potentially cause harm. Given that, as I have indicated in my previous paragraph, every substance, including the oxygen we require to live, causes harm to us I would submit that your solution is somewhat simplistic.

I would also point out to you that I am not a drug supporter, I am fairly ambivalent on the topic being that the only drug I use on a regular basis is caffeine. What I am a supporter of is freedom of choice and the individual responsibility which that freedom comes with.
[quote][p][bold]Mervyn James[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Crossbenchtory[/bold] wrote: There can be little doubt that the law regarding recreational substances is, in most countries, somewhat archane and largely unworkable. When it comes to cannabis I do not believe it to be any more or less harmful than alcohol or tobacco, both of which are quite legal to possess, sell and use in the UK providing certain conditions are met. Like alcohol, cannabis will cause social problems when abused however these issues reduce where it is used in moderation much the same as social problems related to alcohol reduce if that is used in moderation. This being the case one has to ask why are alcohol and cannabis treated so differently by the law? The physical health problems, arising from the use of cannabis, are caused predominately by the most common method of use, smoking. Smoke inhalation, irrespective of the substance being burnt, is bad for the human body. This does beg the question whether smoking a "joint" is really any worse for your health than smoking a cigarette? If the answer to this question is no then the logical next question is why are tobacco and cannibas treated so differently? Turning now to the effects of cannabis on mental health, I would submit that, where an underlying mental health issue exists, any chemical which alters the way in which brain chemistry works, whether it be cannabis, alcohol or anti-psychotic medication, is going to have an effect on that underlying issue, either exacerbating or reducing it depending on the nature of the underlying issue and the amount of the chemical ingested. Whilst I am not myself a cannabis user, or for that matter a big drinker, I did, like most of my generation, experiment with cannabis when I was younger. That said I have suffered no detrimental effects, either short or long term, and I would go so far as to say that I rather enjoyed being "stoned", I certainly found it a vastly more pleasant experiance than being drunk. Also, sorry to disappoint the "gateway drug" brigade, cannabis is the only illegal drug I have ever used. As I said at the start, the law relating to recreational substances is somewhat archane and largely unworkable and as such I believe they do need reforming to not only reflect modern attitudes but also to make them workable. That is not to say that I am advocating legalisation, it may be that the reclassification of cannabis to bring it into line with alcohol is the way forward or it maybe that the reclassification of alcohol and tobacco to bring them into line with cannabis is the way forward or it maybe something in between. Finally, irrespective of what you think of the current laws surrounding cannabis, it's possession and supply is currently illegal and if you choose to break the law then you, quite rightly, should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, it's the risk you take.[/p][/quote]That's your problem you cannot see harm in drug taking. And the problem of pro-drugs supporters here. There is NO such thing as a soft drug. Soft or hard the end result is always the same. The issue is really, to prevent supply. Addicts never listen to warnings.[/p][/quote]MJ Obviously you have either not read and understood what I have written or you are merely being obtuse. The problems, both health and societal, with any substance arise from abuse. Someone who abuses alcohol will become an alcoholic, with all the associated issues, someone who abuses sugar will become diabetic, with all the associated issues, someone who abuses food in General will become obese, with all the associated issues. The logic of your argument appears to be that we should unquestioningly ban anything which may potentially cause harm. Given that, as I have indicated in my previous paragraph, every substance, including the oxygen we require to live, causes harm to us I would submit that your solution is somewhat simplistic. I would also point out to you that I am not a drug supporter, I am fairly ambivalent on the topic being that the only drug I use on a regular basis is caffeine. What I am a supporter of is freedom of choice and the individual responsibility which that freedom comes with. Crossbenchtory
  • Score: -1

12:49pm Sun 30 Mar 14

Evil Flanker says...

I see no actual facts in this story, with no links to medical journals or any other recognised organisation, just personal opinion and conjecture.

Seems like more propaganda to me.

In all honesty I see far less problems in society related to cannabis than with alcohol, as for comments stating 'health benefits are not true' , this at best is absurd, at worst it is promoting ignorance.

People who use cannabis for a variety of conditions would rightly argue for it's use where there are no other alternatives, or alternatives have failed, taking this away is NOT a morally correct course of action.

The people who use cannabis have a better understanding of it's usage and effects than anyone out there with an opinion based on propaganda like this story!
I see no actual facts in this story, with no links to medical journals or any other recognised organisation, just personal opinion and conjecture. Seems like more propaganda to me. In all honesty I see far less problems in society related to cannabis than with alcohol, as for comments stating 'health benefits are not true' , this at best is absurd, at worst it is promoting ignorance. People who use cannabis for a variety of conditions would rightly argue for it's use where there are no other alternatives, or alternatives have failed, taking this away is NOT a morally correct course of action. The people who use cannabis have a better understanding of it's usage and effects than anyone out there with an opinion based on propaganda like this story! Evil Flanker
  • Score: -1

7:43pm Sun 30 Mar 14

Mervyn James says...

Crossbenchtory wrote:
Mervyn James wrote:
Crossbenchtory wrote:
There can be little doubt that the law regarding recreational substances is, in most countries, somewhat archane and largely unworkable.

When it comes to cannabis I do not believe it to be any more or less harmful than alcohol or tobacco, both of which are quite legal to possess, sell and use in the UK providing certain conditions are met.

Like alcohol, cannabis will cause social problems when abused however these issues reduce where it is used in moderation much the same as social problems related to alcohol reduce if that is used in moderation. This being the case one has to ask why are alcohol and cannabis treated so differently by the law?

The physical health problems, arising from the use of cannabis, are caused predominately by the most common method of use, smoking. Smoke inhalation, irrespective of the substance being burnt, is bad for the human body. This does beg the question whether smoking a "joint" is really any worse for your health than smoking a cigarette? If the answer to this question is no then the logical next question is why are tobacco and cannibas treated so differently?

Turning now to the effects of cannabis on mental health, I would submit that, where an underlying mental health issue exists, any chemical which alters the way in which brain chemistry works, whether it be cannabis, alcohol or anti-psychotic medication, is going to have an effect on that underlying issue, either exacerbating or reducing it depending on the nature of the underlying issue and the amount of the chemical ingested.

Whilst I am not myself a cannabis user, or for that matter a big drinker, I did, like most of my generation, experiment with cannabis when I was younger. That said I have suffered no detrimental effects, either short or long term, and I would go so far as to say that I rather enjoyed being "stoned", I certainly found it a vastly more pleasant experiance than being drunk. Also, sorry to disappoint the "gateway drug" brigade, cannabis is the only illegal drug I have ever used.

As I said at the start, the law relating to recreational substances is somewhat archane and largely unworkable and as such I believe they do need reforming to not only reflect modern attitudes but also to make them workable. That is not to say that I am advocating legalisation, it may be that the reclassification of cannabis to bring it into line with alcohol is the way forward or it maybe that the reclassification of alcohol and tobacco to bring them into line with cannabis is the way forward or it maybe something in between.

Finally, irrespective of what you think of the current laws surrounding cannabis, it's possession and supply is currently illegal and if you choose to break the law then you, quite rightly, should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, it's the risk you take.
That's your problem you cannot see harm in drug taking. And the problem of pro-drugs supporters here. There is NO such thing as a soft drug. Soft or hard the end result is always the same. The issue is really, to prevent supply. Addicts never listen to warnings.
MJ

Obviously you have either not read and understood what I have written or you are merely being obtuse.

The problems, both health and societal, with any substance arise from abuse. Someone who abuses alcohol will become an alcoholic, with all the associated issues, someone who abuses sugar will become diabetic, with all the associated issues, someone who abuses food in General will become obese, with all the associated issues.

The logic of your argument appears to be that we should unquestioningly ban anything which may potentially cause harm. Given that, as I have indicated in my previous paragraph, every substance, including the oxygen we require to live, causes harm to us I would submit that your solution is somewhat simplistic.

I would also point out to you that I am not a drug supporter, I am fairly ambivalent on the topic being that the only drug I use on a regular basis is caffeine. What I am a supporter of is freedom of choice and the individual responsibility which that freedom comes with.
I don't support free choice, that's the only way to respond, since your choice or someone else's might well be a form of outrage or abuse to me, or to others. It's why laws exist, to prevent/limit one individual's behaviour hurting someone else.. So no free choice in that respect doesn't exist for anyone, or paedos would do that they want with our children, or some rabid religion would impinge on the free speech.

Singling out ambivalence on Drugs is just stating its OK, not our business so long as it doesn't affect you. Don't knock it till you try it or something ! I don't need to take drugs to know the damage they do. If I jump over a cliff I have a fair idea it is going to hurt at some point, without me testing the fact. Your faux pas is in assuming we should do what we want, it hasn't happened, won't happen, you cannot post here and say what you like, there are limits. The prospect of free speech rampant would frighten the hell out of me frankly, its bad enough with the loony fringes now, without giving them carte blanch.

The problem with let and let live is it is a pipe dream, it cannot happen and you still live in a safe society nd fair society, what he have is maybe as good as it will every get, I'd start REALLY worrying free speech and thought of action would commence unregulated. Too many dangerous ideas.
[quote][p][bold]Crossbenchtory[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mervyn James[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Crossbenchtory[/bold] wrote: There can be little doubt that the law regarding recreational substances is, in most countries, somewhat archane and largely unworkable. When it comes to cannabis I do not believe it to be any more or less harmful than alcohol or tobacco, both of which are quite legal to possess, sell and use in the UK providing certain conditions are met. Like alcohol, cannabis will cause social problems when abused however these issues reduce where it is used in moderation much the same as social problems related to alcohol reduce if that is used in moderation. This being the case one has to ask why are alcohol and cannabis treated so differently by the law? The physical health problems, arising from the use of cannabis, are caused predominately by the most common method of use, smoking. Smoke inhalation, irrespective of the substance being burnt, is bad for the human body. This does beg the question whether smoking a "joint" is really any worse for your health than smoking a cigarette? If the answer to this question is no then the logical next question is why are tobacco and cannibas treated so differently? Turning now to the effects of cannabis on mental health, I would submit that, where an underlying mental health issue exists, any chemical which alters the way in which brain chemistry works, whether it be cannabis, alcohol or anti-psychotic medication, is going to have an effect on that underlying issue, either exacerbating or reducing it depending on the nature of the underlying issue and the amount of the chemical ingested. Whilst I am not myself a cannabis user, or for that matter a big drinker, I did, like most of my generation, experiment with cannabis when I was younger. That said I have suffered no detrimental effects, either short or long term, and I would go so far as to say that I rather enjoyed being "stoned", I certainly found it a vastly more pleasant experiance than being drunk. Also, sorry to disappoint the "gateway drug" brigade, cannabis is the only illegal drug I have ever used. As I said at the start, the law relating to recreational substances is somewhat archane and largely unworkable and as such I believe they do need reforming to not only reflect modern attitudes but also to make them workable. That is not to say that I am advocating legalisation, it may be that the reclassification of cannabis to bring it into line with alcohol is the way forward or it maybe that the reclassification of alcohol and tobacco to bring them into line with cannabis is the way forward or it maybe something in between. Finally, irrespective of what you think of the current laws surrounding cannabis, it's possession and supply is currently illegal and if you choose to break the law then you, quite rightly, should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, it's the risk you take.[/p][/quote]That's your problem you cannot see harm in drug taking. And the problem of pro-drugs supporters here. There is NO such thing as a soft drug. Soft or hard the end result is always the same. The issue is really, to prevent supply. Addicts never listen to warnings.[/p][/quote]MJ Obviously you have either not read and understood what I have written or you are merely being obtuse. The problems, both health and societal, with any substance arise from abuse. Someone who abuses alcohol will become an alcoholic, with all the associated issues, someone who abuses sugar will become diabetic, with all the associated issues, someone who abuses food in General will become obese, with all the associated issues. The logic of your argument appears to be that we should unquestioningly ban anything which may potentially cause harm. Given that, as I have indicated in my previous paragraph, every substance, including the oxygen we require to live, causes harm to us I would submit that your solution is somewhat simplistic. I would also point out to you that I am not a drug supporter, I am fairly ambivalent on the topic being that the only drug I use on a regular basis is caffeine. What I am a supporter of is freedom of choice and the individual responsibility which that freedom comes with.[/p][/quote]I don't support free choice, that's the only way to respond, since your choice or someone else's might well be a form of outrage or abuse to me, or to others. It's why laws exist, to prevent/limit one individual's behaviour hurting someone else.. So no free choice in that respect doesn't exist for anyone, or paedos would do that they want with our children, or some rabid religion would impinge on the free speech. Singling out ambivalence on Drugs is just stating its OK, not our business so long as it doesn't affect you. Don't knock it till you try it or something ! I don't need to take drugs to know the damage they do. If I jump over a cliff I have a fair idea it is going to hurt at some point, without me testing the fact. Your faux pas is in assuming we should do what we want, it hasn't happened, won't happen, you cannot post here and say what you like, there are limits. The prospect of free speech rampant would frighten the hell out of me frankly, its bad enough with the loony fringes now, without giving them carte blanch. The problem with let and let live is it is a pipe dream, it cannot happen and you still live in a safe society nd fair society, what he have is maybe as good as it will every get, I'd start REALLY worrying free speech and thought of action would commence unregulated. Too many dangerous ideas. Mervyn James
  • Score: 1

7:58am Mon 31 Mar 14

varteg1 says...

-trigg- wrote:
varteg1 wrote:
I believe that sticking anything in to my body, by mouth or injection, is stupid unless prescribed by a doctor for sound medical reasons.

Therefore I care not a whit whether the weed is good or bad, but I will say this, as it can be grown in any little plant pot (no pun intended) on a window sill, that nasty tax man cannot get his hands on it, and you can forget all the so called counter evidence for it being bad or good, if like tobacco it could not be grown and processed at home, it would soon be 'legalised' ...but with a hefty great amount of tax on it.
Have you ever eaten food or drunk water?

Were these specifically prescribed by your Doctor? No? Then your whole arguement is clearly invalid.
I need foodstuffs and water to remain alive, since when did I need a specific plant, almost exclusively imbibed or inhaled for recreational purposes, compared to the necessity of eating and drinking.

Please don't refer to any possible medical reason, when used as such, pot becomes not a jolly drug but a necessary drug for physical wellbeing.

Idiot.
[quote][p][bold]-trigg-[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]varteg1[/bold] wrote: I believe that sticking anything in to my body, by mouth or injection, is stupid unless prescribed by a doctor for sound medical reasons. Therefore I care not a whit whether the weed is good or bad, but I will say this, as it can be grown in any little plant pot (no pun intended) on a window sill, that nasty tax man cannot get his hands on it, and you can forget all the so called counter evidence for it being bad or good, if like tobacco it could not be grown and processed at home, it would soon be 'legalised' ...but with a hefty great amount of tax on it.[/p][/quote]Have you ever eaten food or drunk water? Were these specifically prescribed by your Doctor? No? Then your whole arguement is clearly invalid.[/p][/quote]I need foodstuffs and water to remain alive, since when did I need a specific plant, almost exclusively imbibed or inhaled for recreational purposes, compared to the necessity of eating and drinking. Please don't refer to any possible medical reason, when used as such, pot becomes not a jolly drug but a necessary drug for physical wellbeing. Idiot. varteg1
  • Score: 0

8:05am Mon 31 Mar 14

varteg1 says...

Dr Martin wrote:
varteg1 wrote:
Dr Martin wrote:
varteg1 wrote:
I believe that sticking anything in to my body, by mouth or injection, is stupid unless prescribed by a doctor for sound medical reasons.

Therefore I care not a whit whether the weed is good or bad, but I will say this, as it can be grown in any little plant pot (no pun intended) on a window sill, that nasty tax man cannot get his hands on it, and you can forget all the so called counter evidence for it being bad or good, if like tobacco it could not be grown and processed at home, it would soon be 'legalised' ...but with a hefty great amount of tax on it.
stoners don't want to pay tax on weed, they can get it from their dealer tax free
As I said, only because it is easy to grow in your back bedroom, so how could the tax man hit on it?

If like tobacco it had to be imported, legitimately, not only would you be paying tax on it, your friendly neighbourhood 'dealer' would be out of business.
Dealer will be still in business, do you think they will just go away?
Cannabis users will still use illegal/cheaper means to buy their weed just like Alcohol and tobacco users do
Under present circumstances, dealers are part of a nationwide black industry, an industry that may continue, but at a far lower level if pot was legalised, much as tobacco legal, as it is, still attracts a low level of comparative 'smuggling' by a very few, compared to that legally imported and thereby taxable.
One can obtain Viagra through the doctor, on 'scrip, but illegal supplies can be obtain off the 'net, as long as one wishes to take the risk they are genuine and not just coloured placebos and not potentially dangerous.
[quote][p][bold]Dr Martin[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]varteg1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dr Martin[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]varteg1[/bold] wrote: I believe that sticking anything in to my body, by mouth or injection, is stupid unless prescribed by a doctor for sound medical reasons. Therefore I care not a whit whether the weed is good or bad, but I will say this, as it can be grown in any little plant pot (no pun intended) on a window sill, that nasty tax man cannot get his hands on it, and you can forget all the so called counter evidence for it being bad or good, if like tobacco it could not be grown and processed at home, it would soon be 'legalised' ...but with a hefty great amount of tax on it.[/p][/quote]stoners don't want to pay tax on weed, they can get it from their dealer tax free[/p][/quote]As I said, only because it is easy to grow in your back bedroom, so how could the tax man hit on it? If like tobacco it had to be imported, legitimately, not only would you be paying tax on it, your friendly neighbourhood 'dealer' would be out of business.[/p][/quote]Dealer will be still in business, do you think they will just go away? Cannabis users will still use illegal/cheaper means to buy their weed just like Alcohol and tobacco users do[/p][/quote]Under present circumstances, dealers are part of a nationwide black industry, an industry that may continue, but at a far lower level if pot was legalised, much as tobacco legal, as it is, still attracts a low level of comparative 'smuggling' by a very few, compared to that legally imported and thereby taxable. One can obtain Viagra through the doctor, on 'scrip, but illegal supplies can be obtain off the 'net, as long as one wishes to take the risk they are genuine and not just coloured placebos and not potentially dangerous. varteg1
  • Score: -2

10:39am Mon 31 Mar 14

Mervyn James says...

varteg1 wrote:
Dr Martin wrote:
varteg1 wrote:
Dr Martin wrote:
varteg1 wrote:
I believe that sticking anything in to my body, by mouth or injection, is stupid unless prescribed by a doctor for sound medical reasons.

Therefore I care not a whit whether the weed is good or bad, but I will say this, as it can be grown in any little plant pot (no pun intended) on a window sill, that nasty tax man cannot get his hands on it, and you can forget all the so called counter evidence for it being bad or good, if like tobacco it could not be grown and processed at home, it would soon be 'legalised' ...but with a hefty great amount of tax on it.
stoners don't want to pay tax on weed, they can get it from their dealer tax free
As I said, only because it is easy to grow in your back bedroom, so how could the tax man hit on it?

If like tobacco it had to be imported, legitimately, not only would you be paying tax on it, your friendly neighbourhood 'dealer' would be out of business.
Dealer will be still in business, do you think they will just go away?
Cannabis users will still use illegal/cheaper means to buy their weed just like Alcohol and tobacco users do
Under present circumstances, dealers are part of a nationwide black industry, an industry that may continue, but at a far lower level if pot was legalised, much as tobacco legal, as it is, still attracts a low level of comparative 'smuggling' by a very few, compared to that legally imported and thereby taxable.
One can obtain Viagra through the doctor, on 'scrip, but illegal supplies can be obtain off the 'net, as long as one wishes to take the risk they are genuine and not just coloured placebos and not potentially dangerous.
we've heard this before, it suggests legalizing it can raise more tax revenue too, so we can posture at Russia and wage un-winnable wars etc. Drug pushers are in it for money, they won't want to share it with the state pimp. They will invest in harder more expensive drugs instead.

In Australia they vet incoming mail from abroad to see if drugs are coming in, they can apply that to removing 'medication' unobtainable here legally but easier obtainable via the net. The means are there the will currently isn't. Greater control is needed,this isn't about free speech or choice, it is about the assault on our society and daily lives. Drugs kill, create addicts, destroy lives and are not an 'innocent buzz' at all. No amount of bleating freedom of choice justifies it.
[quote][p][bold]varteg1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dr Martin[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]varteg1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dr Martin[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]varteg1[/bold] wrote: I believe that sticking anything in to my body, by mouth or injection, is stupid unless prescribed by a doctor for sound medical reasons. Therefore I care not a whit whether the weed is good or bad, but I will say this, as it can be grown in any little plant pot (no pun intended) on a window sill, that nasty tax man cannot get his hands on it, and you can forget all the so called counter evidence for it being bad or good, if like tobacco it could not be grown and processed at home, it would soon be 'legalised' ...but with a hefty great amount of tax on it.[/p][/quote]stoners don't want to pay tax on weed, they can get it from their dealer tax free[/p][/quote]As I said, only because it is easy to grow in your back bedroom, so how could the tax man hit on it? If like tobacco it had to be imported, legitimately, not only would you be paying tax on it, your friendly neighbourhood 'dealer' would be out of business.[/p][/quote]Dealer will be still in business, do you think they will just go away? Cannabis users will still use illegal/cheaper means to buy their weed just like Alcohol and tobacco users do[/p][/quote]Under present circumstances, dealers are part of a nationwide black industry, an industry that may continue, but at a far lower level if pot was legalised, much as tobacco legal, as it is, still attracts a low level of comparative 'smuggling' by a very few, compared to that legally imported and thereby taxable. One can obtain Viagra through the doctor, on 'scrip, but illegal supplies can be obtain off the 'net, as long as one wishes to take the risk they are genuine and not just coloured placebos and not potentially dangerous.[/p][/quote]we've heard this before, it suggests legalizing it can raise more tax revenue too, so we can posture at Russia and wage un-winnable wars etc. Drug pushers are in it for money, they won't want to share it with the state pimp. They will invest in harder more expensive drugs instead. In Australia they vet incoming mail from abroad to see if drugs are coming in, they can apply that to removing 'medication' unobtainable here legally but easier obtainable via the net. The means are there the will currently isn't. Greater control is needed,this isn't about free speech or choice, it is about the assault on our society and daily lives. Drugs kill, create addicts, destroy lives and are not an 'innocent buzz' at all. No amount of bleating freedom of choice justifies it. Mervyn James
  • Score: 2

11:13am Mon 31 Mar 14

Crossbenchtory says...

Mervyn James wrote:
Crossbenchtory wrote:
Mervyn James wrote:
Crossbenchtory wrote:
There can be little doubt that the law regarding recreational substances is, in most countries, somewhat archane and largely unworkable.

When it comes to cannabis I do not believe it to be any more or less harmful than alcohol or tobacco, both of which are quite legal to possess, sell and use in the UK providing certain conditions are met.

Like alcohol, cannabis will cause social problems when abused however these issues reduce where it is used in moderation much the same as social problems related to alcohol reduce if that is used in moderation. This being the case one has to ask why are alcohol and cannabis treated so differently by the law?

The physical health problems, arising from the use of cannabis, are caused predominately by the most common method of use, smoking. Smoke inhalation, irrespective of the substance being burnt, is bad for the human body. This does beg the question whether smoking a "joint" is really any worse for your health than smoking a cigarette? If the answer to this question is no then the logical next question is why are tobacco and cannibas treated so differently?

Turning now to the effects of cannabis on mental health, I would submit that, where an underlying mental health issue exists, any chemical which alters the way in which brain chemistry works, whether it be cannabis, alcohol or anti-psychotic medication, is going to have an effect on that underlying issue, either exacerbating or reducing it depending on the nature of the underlying issue and the amount of the chemical ingested.

Whilst I am not myself a cannabis user, or for that matter a big drinker, I did, like most of my generation, experiment with cannabis when I was younger. That said I have suffered no detrimental effects, either short or long term, and I would go so far as to say that I rather enjoyed being "stoned", I certainly found it a vastly more pleasant experiance than being drunk. Also, sorry to disappoint the "gateway drug" brigade, cannabis is the only illegal drug I have ever used.

As I said at the start, the law relating to recreational substances is somewhat archane and largely unworkable and as such I believe they do need reforming to not only reflect modern attitudes but also to make them workable. That is not to say that I am advocating legalisation, it may be that the reclassification of cannabis to bring it into line with alcohol is the way forward or it maybe that the reclassification of alcohol and tobacco to bring them into line with cannabis is the way forward or it maybe something in between.

Finally, irrespective of what you think of the current laws surrounding cannabis, it's possession and supply is currently illegal and if you choose to break the law then you, quite rightly, should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, it's the risk you take.
That's your problem you cannot see harm in drug taking. And the problem of pro-drugs supporters here. There is NO such thing as a soft drug. Soft or hard the end result is always the same. The issue is really, to prevent supply. Addicts never listen to warnings.
MJ

Obviously you have either not read and understood what I have written or you are merely being obtuse.

The problems, both health and societal, with any substance arise from abuse. Someone who abuses alcohol will become an alcoholic, with all the associated issues, someone who abuses sugar will become diabetic, with all the associated issues, someone who abuses food in General will become obese, with all the associated issues.

The logic of your argument appears to be that we should unquestioningly ban anything which may potentially cause harm. Given that, as I have indicated in my previous paragraph, every substance, including the oxygen we require to live, causes harm to us I would submit that your solution is somewhat simplistic.

I would also point out to you that I am not a drug supporter, I am fairly ambivalent on the topic being that the only drug I use on a regular basis is caffeine. What I am a supporter of is freedom of choice and the individual responsibility which that freedom comes with.
I don't support free choice, that's the only way to respond, since your choice or someone else's might well be a form of outrage or abuse to me, or to others. It's why laws exist, to prevent/limit one individual's behaviour hurting someone else.. So no free choice in that respect doesn't exist for anyone, or paedos would do that they want with our children, or some rabid religion would impinge on the free speech.

Singling out ambivalence on Drugs is just stating its OK, not our business so long as it doesn't affect you. Don't knock it till you try it or something ! I don't need to take drugs to know the damage they do. If I jump over a cliff I have a fair idea it is going to hurt at some point, without me testing the fact. Your faux pas is in assuming we should do what we want, it hasn't happened, won't happen, you cannot post here and say what you like, there are limits. The prospect of free speech rampant would frighten the hell out of me frankly, its bad enough with the loony fringes now, without giving them carte blanch.

The problem with let and let live is it is a pipe dream, it cannot happen and you still live in a safe society nd fair society, what he have is maybe as good as it will every get, I'd start REALLY worrying free speech and thought of action would commence unregulated. Too many dangerous ideas.
So MJ

You do not support freedom of choice?

"... I'd start really worrying free ... thought ... would commence unregulated ..."

So you think everything we think, say and do should be regulated lest it cause offence to someone? So who decides what thoughts, views and ideas are acceptable? If, for example, the government decided that everyone had to wear a yellow shirt on Thursdays, would you be happy with that?

I feel the need, at this juncture, to point out that Orson Wells wrote 1984 as a warning, not as a manifesto.

Prescribed thought, speech and action is what they had in nazi Germany and the USSR and what they currently have in North Korea. It appears to me that you are saying that this is what you want for the UK. Now I find that quite offensive, however I would defend your right to believe and say it, to my dying breath, as much as I would oppose you to my dying breath. It is called freedom.

I would also reiterate that freedom comes with responsibility, which means that when exercising your freedom of thought, speech and action you do so in such a way as not to impinge upon the rights, freedoms and well being of others.

Yes, a society needs laws in order that those who's actions do cause harm to others may be dealt with in such a way as to satisfy the need for an ordered society which protects those who go about their lives without causing harm to others.

But, as a consequence of societal evolution, laws which are at one time perfectly acceptable to the majority become out dated, arcane and at variance with modern norms. Examples of this are the laws surrounding homosexuality (including gay marriage, which would have probably caused rioting even in the '80s), abortion and the death penalty. Indeed, I can see a time, in the not too distant future, when prostitution would be legalised and regulated in the UK.

Finally, your comment about "jumping off a cliff hurting at some point", yes, there is a fair amount of certainty that it would but I would still defend your right to throw yourself off Beachy Head if you so wished.
[quote][p][bold]Mervyn James[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Crossbenchtory[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mervyn James[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Crossbenchtory[/bold] wrote: There can be little doubt that the law regarding recreational substances is, in most countries, somewhat archane and largely unworkable. When it comes to cannabis I do not believe it to be any more or less harmful than alcohol or tobacco, both of which are quite legal to possess, sell and use in the UK providing certain conditions are met. Like alcohol, cannabis will cause social problems when abused however these issues reduce where it is used in moderation much the same as social problems related to alcohol reduce if that is used in moderation. This being the case one has to ask why are alcohol and cannabis treated so differently by the law? The physical health problems, arising from the use of cannabis, are caused predominately by the most common method of use, smoking. Smoke inhalation, irrespective of the substance being burnt, is bad for the human body. This does beg the question whether smoking a "joint" is really any worse for your health than smoking a cigarette? If the answer to this question is no then the logical next question is why are tobacco and cannibas treated so differently? Turning now to the effects of cannabis on mental health, I would submit that, where an underlying mental health issue exists, any chemical which alters the way in which brain chemistry works, whether it be cannabis, alcohol or anti-psychotic medication, is going to have an effect on that underlying issue, either exacerbating or reducing it depending on the nature of the underlying issue and the amount of the chemical ingested. Whilst I am not myself a cannabis user, or for that matter a big drinker, I did, like most of my generation, experiment with cannabis when I was younger. That said I have suffered no detrimental effects, either short or long term, and I would go so far as to say that I rather enjoyed being "stoned", I certainly found it a vastly more pleasant experiance than being drunk. Also, sorry to disappoint the "gateway drug" brigade, cannabis is the only illegal drug I have ever used. As I said at the start, the law relating to recreational substances is somewhat archane and largely unworkable and as such I believe they do need reforming to not only reflect modern attitudes but also to make them workable. That is not to say that I am advocating legalisation, it may be that the reclassification of cannabis to bring it into line with alcohol is the way forward or it maybe that the reclassification of alcohol and tobacco to bring them into line with cannabis is the way forward or it maybe something in between. Finally, irrespective of what you think of the current laws surrounding cannabis, it's possession and supply is currently illegal and if you choose to break the law then you, quite rightly, should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, it's the risk you take.[/p][/quote]That's your problem you cannot see harm in drug taking. And the problem of pro-drugs supporters here. There is NO such thing as a soft drug. Soft or hard the end result is always the same. The issue is really, to prevent supply. Addicts never listen to warnings.[/p][/quote]MJ Obviously you have either not read and understood what I have written or you are merely being obtuse. The problems, both health and societal, with any substance arise from abuse. Someone who abuses alcohol will become an alcoholic, with all the associated issues, someone who abuses sugar will become diabetic, with all the associated issues, someone who abuses food in General will become obese, with all the associated issues. The logic of your argument appears to be that we should unquestioningly ban anything which may potentially cause harm. Given that, as I have indicated in my previous paragraph, every substance, including the oxygen we require to live, causes harm to us I would submit that your solution is somewhat simplistic. I would also point out to you that I am not a drug supporter, I am fairly ambivalent on the topic being that the only drug I use on a regular basis is caffeine. What I am a supporter of is freedom of choice and the individual responsibility which that freedom comes with.[/p][/quote]I don't support free choice, that's the only way to respond, since your choice or someone else's might well be a form of outrage or abuse to me, or to others. It's why laws exist, to prevent/limit one individual's behaviour hurting someone else.. So no free choice in that respect doesn't exist for anyone, or paedos would do that they want with our children, or some rabid religion would impinge on the free speech. Singling out ambivalence on Drugs is just stating its OK, not our business so long as it doesn't affect you. Don't knock it till you try it or something ! I don't need to take drugs to know the damage they do. If I jump over a cliff I have a fair idea it is going to hurt at some point, without me testing the fact. Your faux pas is in assuming we should do what we want, it hasn't happened, won't happen, you cannot post here and say what you like, there are limits. The prospect of free speech rampant would frighten the hell out of me frankly, its bad enough with the loony fringes now, without giving them carte blanch. The problem with let and let live is it is a pipe dream, it cannot happen and you still live in a safe society nd fair society, what he have is maybe as good as it will every get, I'd start REALLY worrying free speech and thought of action would commence unregulated. Too many dangerous ideas.[/p][/quote]So MJ You do not support freedom of choice? "... I'd start really worrying [if] free ... thought ... would commence unregulated ..." So you think everything we think, say and do should be regulated lest it cause offence to someone? So who decides what thoughts, views and ideas are acceptable? If, for example, the government decided that everyone had to wear a yellow shirt on Thursdays, would you be happy with that? I feel the need, at this juncture, to point out that Orson Wells wrote 1984 as a warning, not as a manifesto. Prescribed thought, speech and action is what they had in nazi Germany and the USSR and what they currently have in North Korea. It appears to me that you are saying that this is what you want for the UK. Now I find that quite offensive, however I would defend your right to believe and say it, to my dying breath, as much as I would oppose you to my dying breath. It is called freedom. I would also reiterate that freedom comes with responsibility, which means that when exercising your freedom of thought, speech and action you do so in such a way as not to impinge upon the rights, freedoms and well being of others. Yes, a society needs laws in order that those who's actions do cause harm to others may be dealt with in such a way as to satisfy the need for an ordered society which protects those who go about their lives without causing harm to others. But, as a consequence of societal evolution, laws which are at one time perfectly acceptable to the majority become out dated, arcane and at variance with modern norms. Examples of this are the laws surrounding homosexuality (including gay marriage, which would have probably caused rioting even in the '80s), abortion and the death penalty. Indeed, I can see a time, in the not too distant future, when prostitution would be legalised and regulated in the UK. Finally, your comment about "jumping off a cliff hurting at some point", yes, there is a fair amount of certainty that it would but I would still defend your right to throw yourself off Beachy Head if you so wished. Crossbenchtory
  • Score: -1

11:43am Mon 31 Mar 14

doggydog8 says...

I feel the bottomline here is that it is none of anyone else's business what another person does to their body, end of story. If you think you your views should be taken into account with regard to what an individual puts into their body, then I think you have deeper issues than can't be discussed in a comments section of a news website.

If your argument is based on "think of the children!" then I can't understand why you'd want to keep cannabis illegal when the evidence suggests that children would have less access to cannabis in a legal market (cannabis is seen as pretty boring by young people in Holland). Also, if your child was caught with enough cannabis to be imprisoned, would you want them prosecuted to the full extent of the law?

The current acts regarding drugs are undoubtedly arcane and not fit for purpose. Science has moved on considerably over the past 40 years, with considerable research into all aspects of cannabis. The VAST majority of the research, including that performed by the HASC Inquiry into drug laws, all point to relaxing the laws and taking a more health oriented approach. If the majority of the research pointed the other way, the pro-legalisation camp wouldn't be so active on threads such as this - the considerable evidence is on our side I'm afraid.

Whatever you think, I'd be astonished if the laws haven't changed in the next few years. The relaxation of laws in the States (and Uruguay) cannot be ignored forever and many in the UK government know we need to modernise our laws.
I feel the bottomline here is that it is none of anyone else's business what another person does to their body, end of story. If you think you your views should be taken into account with regard to what an individual puts into their body, then I think you have deeper issues than can't be discussed in a comments section of a news website. If your argument is based on "think of the children!" then I can't understand why you'd want to keep cannabis illegal when the evidence suggests that children would have less access to cannabis in a legal market (cannabis is seen as pretty boring by young people in Holland). Also, if your child was caught with enough cannabis to be imprisoned, would you want them prosecuted to the full extent of the law? The current acts regarding drugs are undoubtedly arcane and not fit for purpose. Science has moved on considerably over the past 40 years, with considerable research into all aspects of cannabis. The VAST majority of the research, including that performed by the HASC Inquiry into drug laws, all point to relaxing the laws and taking a more health oriented approach. If the majority of the research pointed the other way, the pro-legalisation camp wouldn't be so active on threads such as this - the considerable evidence is on our side I'm afraid. Whatever you think, I'd be astonished if the laws haven't changed in the next few years. The relaxation of laws in the States (and Uruguay) cannot be ignored forever and many in the UK government know we need to modernise our laws. doggydog8
  • Score: 0

12:45am Tue 1 Apr 14

Dr Martin says...

I think it's important that there are regulations in regards to what a person "put's in their body" especially in relation to illicit drugs.
Cannabis is a psychoactive mind altering substance as dangerous to a persons mental health as alcohol, and in regards to schizophrenia said to be be responsible for up to 8% of cases in the population (Wikipedia).
In regards to driving and cannabis use "risk of a road traffic collision whilst driving under the influence of cannabis was significant and almost twice the risk compared to driving having not consumed this drug" perhaps you should tell the parents road victims killed by stoners who drove under the influence of cannabis or families who have a family member who have to has to take anti psychotic medication like Clozapine, " it is none of anyone else's business what another person does to their body" There are many victims of cannabis use, not just the users themselves.
I regards to Uruguay and its relaxation of cannabis laws, this is a county with a population of 3.5 million and passed laws to appease 300,000 stoners hardly a good blueprint for developed nations like the UK to follow
As for research is a lot that support's the anti pot side as well, and in my view the pro pot lobby is not so active on these websites as it was about a year ago CLEAR media team who used to post on these websites regularly(several user accounts) now are limited to a few pots from PJ Reynolds (who I assume is Peter Reynolds) the CVF420 just posts I am not sure he ever answers to any replies,most of the rest keep the debate going for about a day then give up, most stories I have commented on are finished by an anti pot view.
I think it's important that there are regulations in regards to what a person "put's in their body" especially in relation to illicit drugs. Cannabis is a psychoactive mind altering substance as dangerous to a persons mental health as alcohol, and in regards to schizophrenia said to be be responsible for up to 8% of cases in the population (Wikipedia). In regards to driving and cannabis use "risk of a road traffic collision whilst driving under the influence of cannabis was significant and almost twice the risk compared to driving having not consumed this drug" perhaps you should tell the parents road victims killed by stoners who drove under the influence of cannabis or families who have a family member who have to has to take anti psychotic medication like Clozapine, " it is none of anyone else's business what another person does to their body" There are many victims of cannabis use, not just the users themselves. I regards to Uruguay and its relaxation of cannabis laws, this is a county with a population of 3.5 million and passed laws to appease 300,000 stoners hardly a good blueprint for developed nations like the UK to follow As for research is a lot that support's the anti pot side as well, and in my view the pro pot lobby is not so active on these websites as it was about a year ago CLEAR media team who used to post on these websites regularly(several user accounts) now are limited to a few pots from PJ Reynolds (who I assume is Peter Reynolds) the CVF420 just posts I am not sure he ever answers to any replies,most of the rest keep the debate going for about a day then give up, most stories I have commented on are finished by an anti pot view. Dr Martin
  • Score: 0

7:35am Tue 1 Apr 14

Crossbenchtory says...

Dr Martin wrote:
I think it's important that there are regulations in regards to what a person "put's in their body" especially in relation to illicit drugs.
Cannabis is a psychoactive mind altering substance as dangerous to a persons mental health as alcohol, and in regards to schizophrenia said to be be responsible for up to 8% of cases in the population (Wikipedia).
In regards to driving and cannabis use "risk of a road traffic collision whilst driving under the influence of cannabis was significant and almost twice the risk compared to driving having not consumed this drug" perhaps you should tell the parents road victims killed by stoners who drove under the influence of cannabis or families who have a family member who have to has to take anti psychotic medication like Clozapine, " it is none of anyone else's business what another person does to their body" There are many victims of cannabis use, not just the users themselves.
I regards to Uruguay and its relaxation of cannabis laws, this is a county with a population of 3.5 million and passed laws to appease 300,000 stoners hardly a good blueprint for developed nations like the UK to follow
As for research is a lot that support's the anti pot side as well, and in my view the pro pot lobby is not so active on these websites as it was about a year ago CLEAR media team who used to post on these websites regularly(several user accounts) now are limited to a few pots from PJ Reynolds (who I assume is Peter Reynolds) the CVF420 just posts I am not sure he ever answers to any replies,most of the rest keep the debate going for about a day then give up, most stories I have commented on are finished by an anti pot view.
Well it is entirely possible that you may well have the last word on this subject too, not because of the overwhelming coherence of your argument, little evidence of which is decernable, but because people who cite "Wikipedia" as a source are very much like Sun readers, largely obstinate and thus pointless arguing with.

You say that cannabis is "... as dangerous to a persons mental health as alcohol ..." If this is the case then why are they treated differently?

You also say that the risk of having an RTC "... driving under the influence of cannabis is almost twice the risk ..." of driving not under the influence. Perversely, if true, this makes it safer than driving under the influence of alcohol.

I would suggest that the logical consequence of your argument is that alcohol and cannabis should be placed in the same drug classification. The only question is whether that classification is prohibited or regulated?
[quote][p][bold]Dr Martin[/bold] wrote: I think it's important that there are regulations in regards to what a person "put's in their body" especially in relation to illicit drugs. Cannabis is a psychoactive mind altering substance as dangerous to a persons mental health as alcohol, and in regards to schizophrenia said to be be responsible for up to 8% of cases in the population (Wikipedia). In regards to driving and cannabis use "risk of a road traffic collision whilst driving under the influence of cannabis was significant and almost twice the risk compared to driving having not consumed this drug" perhaps you should tell the parents road victims killed by stoners who drove under the influence of cannabis or families who have a family member who have to has to take anti psychotic medication like Clozapine, " it is none of anyone else's business what another person does to their body" There are many victims of cannabis use, not just the users themselves. I regards to Uruguay and its relaxation of cannabis laws, this is a county with a population of 3.5 million and passed laws to appease 300,000 stoners hardly a good blueprint for developed nations like the UK to follow As for research is a lot that support's the anti pot side as well, and in my view the pro pot lobby is not so active on these websites as it was about a year ago CLEAR media team who used to post on these websites regularly(several user accounts) now are limited to a few pots from PJ Reynolds (who I assume is Peter Reynolds) the CVF420 just posts I am not sure he ever answers to any replies,most of the rest keep the debate going for about a day then give up, most stories I have commented on are finished by an anti pot view.[/p][/quote]Well it is entirely possible that you may well have the last word on this subject too, not because of the overwhelming coherence of your argument, little evidence of which is decernable, but because people who cite "Wikipedia" as a source are very much like Sun readers, largely obstinate and thus pointless arguing with. You say that cannabis is "... as dangerous to a persons mental health as alcohol ..." If this is the case then why are they treated differently? You also say that the risk of having an RTC "... driving under the influence of cannabis is almost twice the risk ..." of driving not under the influence. Perversely, if true, this makes it safer than driving under the influence of alcohol. I would suggest that the logical consequence of your argument is that alcohol and cannabis should be placed in the same drug classification. The only question is whether that classification is prohibited or regulated? Crossbenchtory
  • Score: -1

11:08am Tue 1 Apr 14

doggydog8 says...

Dr Martin wrote:
I think it's important that there are regulations in regards to what a person "put's in their body" especially in relation to illicit drugs.
Cannabis is a psychoactive mind altering substance as dangerous to a persons mental health as alcohol, and in regards to schizophrenia said to be be responsible for up to 8% of cases in the population (Wikipedia).
In regards to driving and cannabis use "risk of a road traffic collision whilst driving under the influence of cannabis was significant and almost twice the risk compared to driving having not consumed this drug" perhaps you should tell the parents road victims killed by stoners who drove under the influence of cannabis or families who have a family member who have to has to take anti psychotic medication like Clozapine, " it is none of anyone else's business what another person does to their body" There are many victims of cannabis use, not just the users themselves.
I regards to Uruguay and its relaxation of cannabis laws, this is a county with a population of 3.5 million and passed laws to appease 300,000 stoners hardly a good blueprint for developed nations like the UK to follow
As for research is a lot that support's the anti pot side as well, and in my view the pro pot lobby is not so active on these websites as it was about a year ago CLEAR media team who used to post on these websites regularly(several user accounts) now are limited to a few pots from PJ Reynolds (who I assume is Peter Reynolds) the CVF420 just posts I am not sure he ever answers to any replies,most of the rest keep the debate going for about a day then give up, most stories I have commented on are finished by an anti pot view.
By the sound of it I think you're actually quite close to being pro-legalisation Dr Martin, because the problems you mention would either not be affected by legislation or would actually be helped by it.

Having regulations in regards to what one puts in their body doesn't stop people doing it, though it does make it far more dangerous.

Yes, cannabis is a psychoactive substance, but it is not, as you state, as dangerous to a persons mental health as alcohol. If we were to more effectively control cannabis sales we could better limit negative effects - the current situation only exacerbates them.

When it comes to DUI I'd obviously rather people didn't drive while under the influence of anything, but given the choice I'd prefer someone drove stoned than drunk. And when people say "wait til you lose someone close to you", that could happen by any number of tragic circumstance and could certainly happen with the laws as they are already.

I'm sure there would be a 'honeymoon' period of a year or 2 after legalisation where people would over do it somewhat, but very soon things would calm down.

You may think it's important that there are regulations in regards to what a person puts in their body, but any argument you have is shot down by a single word - "their". I'm sorry, but it really, truly, is none of your business what someone does to their own body. We already have numerous laws regarding punishments for people who harm others, these laws apply whether you are under the influence or not. There are literally thousands of things people do every day that could harm others - driving a car being the principal one - but you can't stop people doing what they want, you simply have to make it as safe as possible for them to do so and to limit any negative effects to others (speed limits etc).

The benefits of legalisation far, FAR outweigh the negatives. The current laws are ruining many people lives and endangering young people. The laws will undoubtedly change in the near(ish!) future and I'm positive that you will see the benefits before too long. I think people will look back on the 'war on drugs' with dismay - it is not a 'war on drugs', it is a 'war on people who use other drugs than those the establishment uses'. It has been a massively costly mistake that has ruined countless lives and made what was a small problem into a much bigger one.
[quote][p][bold]Dr Martin[/bold] wrote: I think it's important that there are regulations in regards to what a person "put's in their body" especially in relation to illicit drugs. Cannabis is a psychoactive mind altering substance as dangerous to a persons mental health as alcohol, and in regards to schizophrenia said to be be responsible for up to 8% of cases in the population (Wikipedia). In regards to driving and cannabis use "risk of a road traffic collision whilst driving under the influence of cannabis was significant and almost twice the risk compared to driving having not consumed this drug" perhaps you should tell the parents road victims killed by stoners who drove under the influence of cannabis or families who have a family member who have to has to take anti psychotic medication like Clozapine, " it is none of anyone else's business what another person does to their body" There are many victims of cannabis use, not just the users themselves. I regards to Uruguay and its relaxation of cannabis laws, this is a county with a population of 3.5 million and passed laws to appease 300,000 stoners hardly a good blueprint for developed nations like the UK to follow As for research is a lot that support's the anti pot side as well, and in my view the pro pot lobby is not so active on these websites as it was about a year ago CLEAR media team who used to post on these websites regularly(several user accounts) now are limited to a few pots from PJ Reynolds (who I assume is Peter Reynolds) the CVF420 just posts I am not sure he ever answers to any replies,most of the rest keep the debate going for about a day then give up, most stories I have commented on are finished by an anti pot view.[/p][/quote]By the sound of it I think you're actually quite close to being pro-legalisation Dr Martin, because the problems you mention would either not be affected by legislation or would actually be helped by it. Having regulations in regards to what one puts in their body doesn't stop people doing it, though it does make it far more dangerous. Yes, cannabis is a psychoactive substance, but it is not, as you state, as dangerous to a persons mental health as alcohol. If we were to more effectively control cannabis sales we could better limit negative effects - the current situation only exacerbates them. When it comes to DUI I'd obviously rather people didn't drive while under the influence of anything, but given the choice I'd prefer someone drove stoned than drunk. And when people say "wait til you lose someone close to you", that could happen by any number of tragic circumstance and could certainly happen with the laws as they are already. I'm sure there would be a 'honeymoon' period of a year or 2 after legalisation where people would over do it somewhat, but very soon things would calm down. You may think it's important that there are regulations in regards to what a person puts in their body, but any argument you have is shot down by a single word - "their". I'm sorry, but it really, truly, is none of your business what someone does to their own body. We already have numerous laws regarding punishments for people who harm others, these laws apply whether you are under the influence or not. There are literally thousands of things people do every day that could harm others - driving a car being the principal one - but you can't stop people doing what they want, you simply have to make it as safe as possible for them to do so and to limit any negative effects to others (speed limits etc). The benefits of legalisation far, FAR outweigh the negatives. The current laws are ruining many people lives and endangering young people. The laws will undoubtedly change in the near(ish!) future and I'm positive that you will see the benefits before too long. I think people will look back on the 'war on drugs' with dismay - it is not a 'war on drugs', it is a 'war on people who use other drugs than those the establishment uses'. It has been a massively costly mistake that has ruined countless lives and made what was a small problem into a much bigger one. doggydog8
  • Score: 0

12:56pm Tue 1 Apr 14

Dr Martin says...

Crossbenchtory wrote:
Dr Martin wrote:
I think it's important that there are regulations in regards to what a person "put's in their body" especially in relation to illicit drugs.
Cannabis is a psychoactive mind altering substance as dangerous to a persons mental health as alcohol, and in regards to schizophrenia said to be be responsible for up to 8% of cases in the population (Wikipedia).
In regards to driving and cannabis use "risk of a road traffic collision whilst driving under the influence of cannabis was significant and almost twice the risk compared to driving having not consumed this drug" perhaps you should tell the parents road victims killed by stoners who drove under the influence of cannabis or families who have a family member who have to has to take anti psychotic medication like Clozapine, " it is none of anyone else's business what another person does to their body" There are many victims of cannabis use, not just the users themselves.
I regards to Uruguay and its relaxation of cannabis laws, this is a county with a population of 3.5 million and passed laws to appease 300,000 stoners hardly a good blueprint for developed nations like the UK to follow
As for research is a lot that support's the anti pot side as well, and in my view the pro pot lobby is not so active on these websites as it was about a year ago CLEAR media team who used to post on these websites regularly(several user accounts) now are limited to a few pots from PJ Reynolds (who I assume is Peter Reynolds) the CVF420 just posts I am not sure he ever answers to any replies,most of the rest keep the debate going for about a day then give up, most stories I have commented on are finished by an anti pot view.
Well it is entirely possible that you may well have the last word on this subject too, not because of the overwhelming coherence of your argument, little evidence of which is decernable, but because people who cite "Wikipedia" as a source are very much like Sun readers, largely obstinate and thus pointless arguing with.

You say that cannabis is "... as dangerous to a persons mental health as alcohol ..." If this is the case then why are they treated differently?

You also say that the risk of having an RTC "... driving under the influence of cannabis is almost twice the risk ..." of driving not under the influence. Perversely, if true, this makes it safer than driving under the influence of alcohol.

I would suggest that the logical consequence of your argument is that alcohol and cannabis should be placed in the same drug classification. The only question is whether that classification is prohibited or regulated?
I tend to find people who criticise Wikipedia and don't offer any facts of their own are quite small minded quite prevalent amongst the pro pot lobby.
I am not aware cannabis users are treated differently than alcoholics, I am fairly sure they would both be seen in outpatient clinics by psychiatrist and /or seen by the local drug and alcohol teams in the first instance, it depends on the severity of their mental illness
Alcohol is a nasty drug as well as it's harms to mental health (which are bad) you have it's harms to physical health best illustrated by David Nutt's study into comparing harms of legal and illegal drugs http://www.bbc.co.uk
/news/uk-11660210 unfortunately Alcohol is legal and while it is causing the harm that it does why do you want to make another dangerous drug more widely available?
[quote][p][bold]Crossbenchtory[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dr Martin[/bold] wrote: I think it's important that there are regulations in regards to what a person "put's in their body" especially in relation to illicit drugs. Cannabis is a psychoactive mind altering substance as dangerous to a persons mental health as alcohol, and in regards to schizophrenia said to be be responsible for up to 8% of cases in the population (Wikipedia). In regards to driving and cannabis use "risk of a road traffic collision whilst driving under the influence of cannabis was significant and almost twice the risk compared to driving having not consumed this drug" perhaps you should tell the parents road victims killed by stoners who drove under the influence of cannabis or families who have a family member who have to has to take anti psychotic medication like Clozapine, " it is none of anyone else's business what another person does to their body" There are many victims of cannabis use, not just the users themselves. I regards to Uruguay and its relaxation of cannabis laws, this is a county with a population of 3.5 million and passed laws to appease 300,000 stoners hardly a good blueprint for developed nations like the UK to follow As for research is a lot that support's the anti pot side as well, and in my view the pro pot lobby is not so active on these websites as it was about a year ago CLEAR media team who used to post on these websites regularly(several user accounts) now are limited to a few pots from PJ Reynolds (who I assume is Peter Reynolds) the CVF420 just posts I am not sure he ever answers to any replies,most of the rest keep the debate going for about a day then give up, most stories I have commented on are finished by an anti pot view.[/p][/quote]Well it is entirely possible that you may well have the last word on this subject too, not because of the overwhelming coherence of your argument, little evidence of which is decernable, but because people who cite "Wikipedia" as a source are very much like Sun readers, largely obstinate and thus pointless arguing with. You say that cannabis is "... as dangerous to a persons mental health as alcohol ..." If this is the case then why are they treated differently? You also say that the risk of having an RTC "... driving under the influence of cannabis is almost twice the risk ..." of driving not under the influence. Perversely, if true, this makes it safer than driving under the influence of alcohol. I would suggest that the logical consequence of your argument is that alcohol and cannabis should be placed in the same drug classification. The only question is whether that classification is prohibited or regulated?[/p][/quote]I tend to find people who criticise Wikipedia and don't offer any facts of their own are quite small minded quite prevalent amongst the pro pot lobby. I am not aware cannabis users are treated differently than alcoholics, I am fairly sure they would both be seen in outpatient clinics by psychiatrist and /or seen by the local drug and alcohol teams in the first instance, it depends on the severity of their mental illness Alcohol is a nasty drug as well as it's harms to mental health (which are bad) you have it's harms to physical health best illustrated by David Nutt's study into comparing harms of legal and illegal drugs http://www.bbc.co.uk /news/uk-11660210 unfortunately Alcohol is legal and while it is causing the harm that it does why do you want to make another dangerous drug more widely available? Dr Martin
  • Score: 0

1:43pm Tue 1 Apr 14

doggydog8 says...

So all us 'stoners' are small-minded, eh? Well there's a nice generalisation! I'm very confident the exact opposite is true.

Couldn't agree with you more with regard to the harmful effects of alcohol, you only need to go into any town on any day to see what it can do to some people. However, we're not likely to see it banned anytime soon and I wouldn't want that anyway - look what happened to America during prohibition.... the same thing that is happening now because of our drug laws.

Cannabis is already pretty widely available, but the dealers are able to make it more dangerous in both what they put in and what else they might be able to sell you (and what happens with the proceeds). The current laws are making things worse for all concerned and we need to take a more health oriented approach, as opposed to the punitive one we have now. People have always sought-out altered states of consciousness and always will - would not be better to make that safer and educate people? Everything has it's dangers, so surely we should do our best to limit them, rather than exacerbate them? Branding these people as criminals helps no one.

I get the feeling we're just going to go round in circles here though!! Thankfully, those who are against legalisation are in the minority now and their numbers are dropping year on year, due in no small part to people realising how foolish and futile the current acts are.
So all us 'stoners' are small-minded, eh? Well there's a nice generalisation! I'm very confident the exact opposite is true. Couldn't agree with you more with regard to the harmful effects of alcohol, you only need to go into any town on any day to see what it can do to some people. However, we're not likely to see it banned anytime soon and I wouldn't want that anyway - look what happened to America during prohibition.... the same thing that is happening now because of our drug laws. Cannabis is already pretty widely available, but the dealers are able to make it more dangerous in both what they put in and what else they might be able to sell you (and what happens with the proceeds). The current laws are making things worse for all concerned and we need to take a more health oriented approach, as opposed to the punitive one we have now. People have always sought-out altered states of consciousness and always will - would not be better to make that safer and educate people? Everything has it's dangers, so surely we should do our best to limit them, rather than exacerbate them? Branding these people as criminals helps no one. I get the feeling we're just going to go round in circles here though!! Thankfully, those who are against legalisation are in the minority now and their numbers are dropping year on year, due in no small part to people realising how foolish and futile the current acts are. doggydog8
  • Score: 0

1:49pm Tue 1 Apr 14

Dr Martin says...

doggydog8 wrote:
Dr Martin wrote:
I think it's important that there are regulations in regards to what a person "put's in their body" especially in relation to illicit drugs.
Cannabis is a psychoactive mind altering substance as dangerous to a persons mental health as alcohol, and in regards to schizophrenia said to be be responsible for up to 8% of cases in the population (Wikipedia).
In regards to driving and cannabis use "risk of a road traffic collision whilst driving under the influence of cannabis was significant and almost twice the risk compared to driving having not consumed this drug" perhaps you should tell the parents road victims killed by stoners who drove under the influence of cannabis or families who have a family member who have to has to take anti psychotic medication like Clozapine, " it is none of anyone else's business what another person does to their body" There are many victims of cannabis use, not just the users themselves.
I regards to Uruguay and its relaxation of cannabis laws, this is a county with a population of 3.5 million and passed laws to appease 300,000 stoners hardly a good blueprint for developed nations like the UK to follow
As for research is a lot that support's the anti pot side as well, and in my view the pro pot lobby is not so active on these websites as it was about a year ago CLEAR media team who used to post on these websites regularly(several user accounts) now are limited to a few pots from PJ Reynolds (who I assume is Peter Reynolds) the CVF420 just posts I am not sure he ever answers to any replies,most of the rest keep the debate going for about a day then give up, most stories I have commented on are finished by an anti pot view.
By the sound of it I think you're actually quite close to being pro-legalisation Dr Martin, because the problems you mention would either not be affected by legislation or would actually be helped by it.

Having regulations in regards to what one puts in their body doesn't stop people doing it, though it does make it far more dangerous.

Yes, cannabis is a psychoactive substance, but it is not, as you state, as dangerous to a persons mental health as alcohol. If we were to more effectively control cannabis sales we could better limit negative effects - the current situation only exacerbates them.

When it comes to DUI I'd obviously rather people didn't drive while under the influence of anything, but given the choice I'd prefer someone drove stoned than drunk. And when people say "wait til you lose someone close to you", that could happen by any number of tragic circumstance and could certainly happen with the laws as they are already.

I'm sure there would be a 'honeymoon' period of a year or 2 after legalisation where people would over do it somewhat, but very soon things would calm down.

You may think it's important that there are regulations in regards to what a person puts in their body, but any argument you have is shot down by a single word - "their". I'm sorry, but it really, truly, is none of your business what someone does to their own body. We already have numerous laws regarding punishments for people who harm others, these laws apply whether you are under the influence or not. There are literally thousands of things people do every day that could harm others - driving a car being the principal one - but you can't stop people doing what they want, you simply have to make it as safe as possible for them to do so and to limit any negative effects to others (speed limits etc).

The benefits of legalisation far, FAR outweigh the negatives. The current laws are ruining many people lives and endangering young people. The laws will undoubtedly change in the near(ish!) future and I'm positive that you will see the benefits before too long. I think people will look back on the 'war on drugs' with dismay - it is not a 'war on drugs', it is a 'war on people who use other drugs than those the establishment uses'. It has been a massively costly mistake that has ruined countless lives and made what was a small problem into a much bigger one.
If you make a dangerous psychoactive substance like cannabis legal it will become more wildly available, more people will use it and it will still get into the hands of those (children and those suffering from mental illness amongst others) who shouldn't be getting it which should the principal aim of drug legalisation , regulation will still leave the local drug dealer in business as you say "Having regulations in regards to what one puts in their body doesn't stop people doing it" not unless you are advocating a free for all as regards to cannabis.
We will have to disagree on the relative harms of alcohol and cannabis in regards to mental health but there was a user called Owen Richards from CLEAR, he used to quote this fanciful post which basically said Alcohol was 6 times more harmful to a persons mental health than cannabis, up to a year ago this was posted on many websites, with a little help from a local consultant psychiatrist I was able to debunk it, that particular post from CLEAR doesn't get posted anymore
I don't believe we are fighting a war on drugs if we were it's a pretty half hearted attempt at one even so I would say drug prohibition has by and large worked (most drug usage has either fallen or stabilised) and our system compares favourably with many other nations in regards to controlling illicit drug usage.
[quote][p][bold]doggydog8[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dr Martin[/bold] wrote: I think it's important that there are regulations in regards to what a person "put's in their body" especially in relation to illicit drugs. Cannabis is a psychoactive mind altering substance as dangerous to a persons mental health as alcohol, and in regards to schizophrenia said to be be responsible for up to 8% of cases in the population (Wikipedia). In regards to driving and cannabis use "risk of a road traffic collision whilst driving under the influence of cannabis was significant and almost twice the risk compared to driving having not consumed this drug" perhaps you should tell the parents road victims killed by stoners who drove under the influence of cannabis or families who have a family member who have to has to take anti psychotic medication like Clozapine, " it is none of anyone else's business what another person does to their body" There are many victims of cannabis use, not just the users themselves. I regards to Uruguay and its relaxation of cannabis laws, this is a county with a population of 3.5 million and passed laws to appease 300,000 stoners hardly a good blueprint for developed nations like the UK to follow As for research is a lot that support's the anti pot side as well, and in my view the pro pot lobby is not so active on these websites as it was about a year ago CLEAR media team who used to post on these websites regularly(several user accounts) now are limited to a few pots from PJ Reynolds (who I assume is Peter Reynolds) the CVF420 just posts I am not sure he ever answers to any replies,most of the rest keep the debate going for about a day then give up, most stories I have commented on are finished by an anti pot view.[/p][/quote]By the sound of it I think you're actually quite close to being pro-legalisation Dr Martin, because the problems you mention would either not be affected by legislation or would actually be helped by it. Having regulations in regards to what one puts in their body doesn't stop people doing it, though it does make it far more dangerous. Yes, cannabis is a psychoactive substance, but it is not, as you state, as dangerous to a persons mental health as alcohol. If we were to more effectively control cannabis sales we could better limit negative effects - the current situation only exacerbates them. When it comes to DUI I'd obviously rather people didn't drive while under the influence of anything, but given the choice I'd prefer someone drove stoned than drunk. And when people say "wait til you lose someone close to you", that could happen by any number of tragic circumstance and could certainly happen with the laws as they are already. I'm sure there would be a 'honeymoon' period of a year or 2 after legalisation where people would over do it somewhat, but very soon things would calm down. You may think it's important that there are regulations in regards to what a person puts in their body, but any argument you have is shot down by a single word - "their". I'm sorry, but it really, truly, is none of your business what someone does to their own body. We already have numerous laws regarding punishments for people who harm others, these laws apply whether you are under the influence or not. There are literally thousands of things people do every day that could harm others - driving a car being the principal one - but you can't stop people doing what they want, you simply have to make it as safe as possible for them to do so and to limit any negative effects to others (speed limits etc). The benefits of legalisation far, FAR outweigh the negatives. The current laws are ruining many people lives and endangering young people. The laws will undoubtedly change in the near(ish!) future and I'm positive that you will see the benefits before too long. I think people will look back on the 'war on drugs' with dismay - it is not a 'war on drugs', it is a 'war on people who use other drugs than those the establishment uses'. It has been a massively costly mistake that has ruined countless lives and made what was a small problem into a much bigger one.[/p][/quote]If you make a dangerous psychoactive substance like cannabis legal it will become more wildly available, more people will use it and it will still get into the hands of those (children and those suffering from mental illness amongst others) who shouldn't be getting it which should the principal aim of drug legalisation , regulation will still leave the local drug dealer in business as you say "Having regulations in regards to what one puts in their body doesn't stop people doing it" not unless you are advocating a free for all as regards to cannabis. We will have to disagree on the relative harms of alcohol and cannabis in regards to mental health but there was a user called Owen Richards from CLEAR, he used to quote this fanciful post which basically said Alcohol was 6 times more harmful to a persons mental health than cannabis, up to a year ago this was posted on many websites, with a little help from a local consultant psychiatrist I was able to debunk it, that particular post from CLEAR doesn't get posted anymore I don't believe we are fighting a war on drugs if we were it's a pretty half hearted attempt at one even so I would say drug prohibition has by and large worked (most drug usage has either fallen or stabilised) and our system compares favourably with many other nations in regards to controlling illicit drug usage. Dr Martin
  • Score: 0

2:36pm Tue 1 Apr 14

Dr Martin says...

doggydog8 wrote:
So all us 'stoners' are small-minded, eh? Well there's a nice generalisation! I'm very confident the exact opposite is true.

Couldn't agree with you more with regard to the harmful effects of alcohol, you only need to go into any town on any day to see what it can do to some people. However, we're not likely to see it banned anytime soon and I wouldn't want that anyway - look what happened to America during prohibition.... the same thing that is happening now because of our drug laws.

Cannabis is already pretty widely available, but the dealers are able to make it more dangerous in both what they put in and what else they might be able to sell you (and what happens with the proceeds). The current laws are making things worse for all concerned and we need to take a more health oriented approach, as opposed to the punitive one we have now. People have always sought-out altered states of consciousness and always will - would not be better to make that safer and educate people? Everything has it's dangers, so surely we should do our best to limit them, rather than exacerbate them? Branding these people as criminals helps no one.

I get the feeling we're just going to go round in circles here though!! Thankfully, those who are against legalisation are in the minority now and their numbers are dropping year on year, due in no small part to people realising how foolish and futile the current acts are.
I never said "all" stoners are small minded it's just a majority,( much as I despise the pro pot lobby there are few I get on with some of course I despise) and of course this is going to go round in circles, however good a point is made neither side is unlikely to change the other sides view on cannabis, I just make sure there is an anti pot view to counter the pro pot lobby.
Alcohol prohibition was doomed to fail from the start, it was poorly enforced with inadequate resources though I believe it did achieve it's principal aim that alcohol consumption was less during prohibition.
I am all for educating people show them a paranoid schizophrenic who has to constantly wear headphones to drown out their voices, or when you ask them a question you have to wait for them to finish listening to their voices before they respond to you, or see the effects of anti psychotic medication patients have to take (although good for mental health bad for physical health).
Find you local psychiatric unit, join a nursing agency and do some support worker shifts, and see what effect cannabis has done to some it's consumers; I will give you a clue it's not a positive one.
[quote][p][bold]doggydog8[/bold] wrote: So all us 'stoners' are small-minded, eh? Well there's a nice generalisation! I'm very confident the exact opposite is true. Couldn't agree with you more with regard to the harmful effects of alcohol, you only need to go into any town on any day to see what it can do to some people. However, we're not likely to see it banned anytime soon and I wouldn't want that anyway - look what happened to America during prohibition.... the same thing that is happening now because of our drug laws. Cannabis is already pretty widely available, but the dealers are able to make it more dangerous in both what they put in and what else they might be able to sell you (and what happens with the proceeds). The current laws are making things worse for all concerned and we need to take a more health oriented approach, as opposed to the punitive one we have now. People have always sought-out altered states of consciousness and always will - would not be better to make that safer and educate people? Everything has it's dangers, so surely we should do our best to limit them, rather than exacerbate them? Branding these people as criminals helps no one. I get the feeling we're just going to go round in circles here though!! Thankfully, those who are against legalisation are in the minority now and their numbers are dropping year on year, due in no small part to people realising how foolish and futile the current acts are.[/p][/quote]I never said "all" stoners are small minded it's just a majority,( much as I despise the pro pot lobby there are few I get on with some of course I despise) and of course this is going to go round in circles, however good a point is made neither side is unlikely to change the other sides view on cannabis, I just make sure there is an anti pot view to counter the pro pot lobby. Alcohol prohibition was doomed to fail from the start, it was poorly enforced with inadequate resources though I believe it did achieve it's principal aim that alcohol consumption was less during prohibition. I am all for educating people show them a paranoid schizophrenic who has to constantly wear headphones to drown out their voices, or when you ask them a question you have to wait for them to finish listening to their voices before they respond to you, or see the effects of anti psychotic medication patients have to take (although good for mental health bad for physical health). Find you local psychiatric unit, join a nursing agency and do some support worker shifts, and see what effect cannabis has done to some it's consumers; I will give you a clue it's not a positive one. Dr Martin
  • Score: 0

4:53pm Tue 1 Apr 14

Dr Martin says...

Crossbenchtory wrote:
Dr Martin wrote:
I think it's important that there are regulations in regards to what a person "put's in their body" especially in relation to illicit drugs.
Cannabis is a psychoactive mind altering substance as dangerous to a persons mental health as alcohol, and in regards to schizophrenia said to be be responsible for up to 8% of cases in the population (Wikipedia).
In regards to driving and cannabis use "risk of a road traffic collision whilst driving under the influence of cannabis was significant and almost twice the risk compared to driving having not consumed this drug" perhaps you should tell the parents road victims killed by stoners who drove under the influence of cannabis or families who have a family member who have to has to take anti psychotic medication like Clozapine, " it is none of anyone else's business what another person does to their body" There are many victims of cannabis use, not just the users themselves.
I regards to Uruguay and its relaxation of cannabis laws, this is a county with a population of 3.5 million and passed laws to appease 300,000 stoners hardly a good blueprint for developed nations like the UK to follow
As for research is a lot that support's the anti pot side as well, and in my view the pro pot lobby is not so active on these websites as it was about a year ago CLEAR media team who used to post on these websites regularly(several user accounts) now are limited to a few pots from PJ Reynolds (who I assume is Peter Reynolds) the CVF420 just posts I am not sure he ever answers to any replies,most of the rest keep the debate going for about a day then give up, most stories I have commented on are finished by an anti pot view.
Well it is entirely possible that you may well have the last word on this subject too, not because of the overwhelming coherence of your argument, little evidence of which is decernable, but because people who cite "Wikipedia" as a source are very much like Sun readers, largely obstinate and thus pointless arguing with.

You say that cannabis is "... as dangerous to a persons mental health as alcohol ..." If this is the case then why are they treated differently?

You also say that the risk of having an RTC "... driving under the influence of cannabis is almost twice the risk ..." of driving not under the influence. Perversely, if true, this makes it safer than driving under the influence of alcohol.

I would suggest that the logical consequence of your argument is that alcohol and cannabis should be placed in the same drug classification. The only question is whether that classification is prohibited or regulated?
re the Wikipedia remark
Did you read the 6th comment on this story?
[quote][p][bold]Crossbenchtory[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dr Martin[/bold] wrote: I think it's important that there are regulations in regards to what a person "put's in their body" especially in relation to illicit drugs. Cannabis is a psychoactive mind altering substance as dangerous to a persons mental health as alcohol, and in regards to schizophrenia said to be be responsible for up to 8% of cases in the population (Wikipedia). In regards to driving and cannabis use "risk of a road traffic collision whilst driving under the influence of cannabis was significant and almost twice the risk compared to driving having not consumed this drug" perhaps you should tell the parents road victims killed by stoners who drove under the influence of cannabis or families who have a family member who have to has to take anti psychotic medication like Clozapine, " it is none of anyone else's business what another person does to their body" There are many victims of cannabis use, not just the users themselves. I regards to Uruguay and its relaxation of cannabis laws, this is a county with a population of 3.5 million and passed laws to appease 300,000 stoners hardly a good blueprint for developed nations like the UK to follow As for research is a lot that support's the anti pot side as well, and in my view the pro pot lobby is not so active on these websites as it was about a year ago CLEAR media team who used to post on these websites regularly(several user accounts) now are limited to a few pots from PJ Reynolds (who I assume is Peter Reynolds) the CVF420 just posts I am not sure he ever answers to any replies,most of the rest keep the debate going for about a day then give up, most stories I have commented on are finished by an anti pot view.[/p][/quote]Well it is entirely possible that you may well have the last word on this subject too, not because of the overwhelming coherence of your argument, little evidence of which is decernable, but because people who cite "Wikipedia" as a source are very much like Sun readers, largely obstinate and thus pointless arguing with. You say that cannabis is "... as dangerous to a persons mental health as alcohol ..." If this is the case then why are they treated differently? You also say that the risk of having an RTC "... driving under the influence of cannabis is almost twice the risk ..." of driving not under the influence. Perversely, if true, this makes it safer than driving under the influence of alcohol. I would suggest that the logical consequence of your argument is that alcohol and cannabis should be placed in the same drug classification. The only question is whether that classification is prohibited or regulated?[/p][/quote]re the Wikipedia remark Did you read the 6th comment on this story? Dr Martin
  • Score: 1

5:21pm Tue 1 Apr 14

doggydog8 says...

Dr Martin wrote:
doggydog8 wrote:
So all us 'stoners' are small-minded, eh? Well there's a nice generalisation! I'm very confident the exact opposite is true.

Couldn't agree with you more with regard to the harmful effects of alcohol, you only need to go into any town on any day to see what it can do to some people. However, we're not likely to see it banned anytime soon and I wouldn't want that anyway - look what happened to America during prohibition.... the same thing that is happening now because of our drug laws.

Cannabis is already pretty widely available, but the dealers are able to make it more dangerous in both what they put in and what else they might be able to sell you (and what happens with the proceeds). The current laws are making things worse for all concerned and we need to take a more health oriented approach, as opposed to the punitive one we have now. People have always sought-out altered states of consciousness and always will - would not be better to make that safer and educate people? Everything has it's dangers, so surely we should do our best to limit them, rather than exacerbate them? Branding these people as criminals helps no one.

I get the feeling we're just going to go round in circles here though!! Thankfully, those who are against legalisation are in the minority now and their numbers are dropping year on year, due in no small part to people realising how foolish and futile the current acts are.
I never said "all" stoners are small minded it's just a majority,( much as I despise the pro pot lobby there are few I get on with some of course I despise) and of course this is going to go round in circles, however good a point is made neither side is unlikely to change the other sides view on cannabis, I just make sure there is an anti pot view to counter the pro pot lobby.
Alcohol prohibition was doomed to fail from the start, it was poorly enforced with inadequate resources though I believe it did achieve it's principal aim that alcohol consumption was less during prohibition.
I am all for educating people show them a paranoid schizophrenic who has to constantly wear headphones to drown out their voices, or when you ask them a question you have to wait for them to finish listening to their voices before they respond to you, or see the effects of anti psychotic medication patients have to take (although good for mental health bad for physical health).
Find you local psychiatric unit, join a nursing agency and do some support worker shifts, and see what effect cannabis has done to some it's consumers; I will give you a clue it's not a positive one.
I don't think you're a bad sort - it's healthy to have a debate with an alternative viewpoint (might be a bit boring otherwise!).

But I do think you are massively overstating the negative consequences of cannabis. Sadly there are some people whose underlying schizophrenia is exacerbated by cannabis, but the chances of this happening are tiny! Everything you do has possible negative outcomes - ever done a bungee-jump? There's a chance things could go wrong and you could end up in a wheelchair or even dead. But it would seem like madness to ban bungee-jumping altogether, we simply legislate to make it as safe as possible and make people aware of the dangers.

The vast majority of cannabis users are very normal, tax-paying citizens who simply enjoy one drug as opposed to another. Criminalising this behaviour, I feel, is not only reprehensible, but utterly futile. In a properly controlled market we could better limit access for kids and the vulnerable and tax revenue could be used for education and other worthy (related) causes. Of course, we won't stop the black market altogether, but we could massively reduce it while ensuring the much needed tax revenue doesn't simply go to organised crime.

If your worry is to do with the health side of things I find it hard to understand why you would opt for the punitive approach. As can be seen with tobacco, over the course of the last decade or so there has been a successful reduction in usage & uptake through various means - advertising bans, ever-increasingly alarming packet health warnings etc. The same model could be applied to cannabis, but with all the learned knowledge of the past.

The current legal status of cannabis is incredibly counter-productive in that it lumps it in with other, more harmful drugs. My generation had the ridiculous 'Just say no' campaign of the eighties, which made you think that all drugs were equally harmful (something many DEA agents still propagate). So, when a young person tries cannabis and thinks 'That wasn't so bad - quite a nice feeling in fact' it leads them to think that everything else they were told about drugs was a lie. Thankfully the information available for young people nowadays is slightly more honest, but they also have the ability to perform their own research on the web (which I'd imagine a lot of them do).

I could go on, but as we agreed previously, we won't get anywhere as we're both adamant our viewpoint is the correct one (much like the poor Jehovah's witness at my door earlier today!!!).

Health & happiness to you anyway Dr Martin!
[quote][p][bold]Dr Martin[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]doggydog8[/bold] wrote: So all us 'stoners' are small-minded, eh? Well there's a nice generalisation! I'm very confident the exact opposite is true. Couldn't agree with you more with regard to the harmful effects of alcohol, you only need to go into any town on any day to see what it can do to some people. However, we're not likely to see it banned anytime soon and I wouldn't want that anyway - look what happened to America during prohibition.... the same thing that is happening now because of our drug laws. Cannabis is already pretty widely available, but the dealers are able to make it more dangerous in both what they put in and what else they might be able to sell you (and what happens with the proceeds). The current laws are making things worse for all concerned and we need to take a more health oriented approach, as opposed to the punitive one we have now. People have always sought-out altered states of consciousness and always will - would not be better to make that safer and educate people? Everything has it's dangers, so surely we should do our best to limit them, rather than exacerbate them? Branding these people as criminals helps no one. I get the feeling we're just going to go round in circles here though!! Thankfully, those who are against legalisation are in the minority now and their numbers are dropping year on year, due in no small part to people realising how foolish and futile the current acts are.[/p][/quote]I never said "all" stoners are small minded it's just a majority,( much as I despise the pro pot lobby there are few I get on with some of course I despise) and of course this is going to go round in circles, however good a point is made neither side is unlikely to change the other sides view on cannabis, I just make sure there is an anti pot view to counter the pro pot lobby. Alcohol prohibition was doomed to fail from the start, it was poorly enforced with inadequate resources though I believe it did achieve it's principal aim that alcohol consumption was less during prohibition. I am all for educating people show them a paranoid schizophrenic who has to constantly wear headphones to drown out their voices, or when you ask them a question you have to wait for them to finish listening to their voices before they respond to you, or see the effects of anti psychotic medication patients have to take (although good for mental health bad for physical health). Find you local psychiatric unit, join a nursing agency and do some support worker shifts, and see what effect cannabis has done to some it's consumers; I will give you a clue it's not a positive one.[/p][/quote]I don't think you're a bad sort - it's healthy to have a debate with an alternative viewpoint (might be a bit boring otherwise!). But I do think you are massively overstating the negative consequences of cannabis. Sadly there are some people whose underlying schizophrenia is exacerbated by cannabis, but the chances of this happening are tiny! Everything you do has possible negative outcomes - ever done a bungee-jump? There's a chance things could go wrong and you could end up in a wheelchair or even dead. But it would seem like madness to ban bungee-jumping altogether, we simply legislate to make it as safe as possible and make people aware of the dangers. The vast majority of cannabis users are very normal, tax-paying citizens who simply enjoy one drug as opposed to another. Criminalising this behaviour, I feel, is not only reprehensible, but utterly futile. In a properly controlled market we could better limit access for kids and the vulnerable and tax revenue could be used for education and other worthy (related) causes. Of course, we won't stop the black market altogether, but we could massively reduce it while ensuring the much needed tax revenue doesn't simply go to organised crime. If your worry is to do with the health side of things I find it hard to understand why you would opt for the punitive approach. As can be seen with tobacco, over the course of the last decade or so there has been a successful reduction in usage & uptake through various means - advertising bans, ever-increasingly alarming packet health warnings etc. The same model could be applied to cannabis, but with all the learned knowledge of the past. The current legal status of cannabis is incredibly counter-productive in that it lumps it in with other, more harmful drugs. My generation had the ridiculous 'Just say no' campaign of the eighties, which made you think that all drugs were equally harmful (something many DEA agents still propagate). So, when a young person tries cannabis and thinks 'That wasn't so bad - quite a nice feeling in fact' it leads them to think that everything else they were told about drugs was a lie. Thankfully the information available for young people nowadays is slightly more honest, but they also have the ability to perform their own research on the web (which I'd imagine a lot of them do). I could go on, but as we agreed previously, we won't get anywhere as we're both adamant our viewpoint is the correct one (much like the poor Jehovah's witness at my door earlier today!!!). Health & happiness to you anyway Dr Martin! doggydog8
  • Score: 1

12:58am Wed 2 Apr 14

Dr Martin says...

I used the 8% figure from Wikipedia , I could have used the 14% figure from Prof Sir Robin Murray quote http://integratedsoc
iopsychology.net/blo
g/?tag=robin-murray which I could have done as the guy has more experience of the harms of cannabis than most people in Psychiatry, or the 2002 Zammit estimate of 13% this isn't a tiny figure by any means, at the moment there is no cure for Schizophrenia so it's a lifelong illness imagine those voices constantly talking in your head and you want to make this stuff legal and more widely available?
As regards tobacco there has only been a small reduction in smoking in the last decade 6% and 10% since 1990, a small improvement. I am afraid tobacco and alcohol regulations are hardly a good blueprint for weed as both are easily obtained by those who shouldn't be buying it, can be bought from illegal sources (back of a van)
Anyway thanks for the debate doggydog8
I used the 8% figure from Wikipedia , I could have used the 14% figure from Prof Sir Robin Murray quote http://integratedsoc iopsychology.net/blo g/?tag=robin-murray which I could have done as the guy has more experience of the harms of cannabis than most people in Psychiatry, or the 2002 Zammit estimate of 13% this isn't a tiny figure by any means, at the moment there is no cure for Schizophrenia so it's a lifelong illness imagine those voices constantly talking in your head and you want to make this stuff legal and more widely available? As regards tobacco there has only been a small reduction in smoking in the last decade 6% and 10% since 1990, a small improvement. I am afraid tobacco and alcohol regulations are hardly a good blueprint for weed as both are easily obtained by those who shouldn't be buying it, can be bought from illegal sources (back of a van) Anyway thanks for the debate doggydog8 Dr Martin
  • Score: 1

2:39pm Fri 4 Apr 14

Owen Richards says...

@"Dr" Martin

"...there was a user called Owen Richards from CLEAR, he used to quote this fanciful post which basically said Alcohol was 6 times more harmful to a persons mental health than cannabis, up to a year ago this was posted on many websites, with a little help from a local consultant psychiatrist I was able to debunk it, that particular post from CLEAR doesn't get posted anymore"

You are so full of it aren't you?

Why do your persist in impersonating a doctor when it's evident you couldn't could tell a stethoscope from a medical vapouriser?

Hospital Episode Statistics. Count of finished admission episodes (FAE) with a primary diagnosis of mental and behavioural disorders due to use of cannabinoids (ICD10 code F12) and alcohol (ICD10 code F10)

Cannabinoids (F12)

2009-10 713
2010-11 799

Alcohol (F10)

2009-10 47,402
2010-11 47,287

Source: Hospital Episode Statistics (HES), The NHS Information Centre for health and social care.

There are three million regular users of cannabis (Atha et al 2011) and 31 million regular users of alcohol (NHS Information Centre 2009). Therefore alcohol use is six times more likely to result in admission for mental and behavioural disorders.
@"Dr" Martin "...there was a user called Owen Richards from CLEAR, he used to quote this fanciful post which basically said Alcohol was 6 times more harmful to a persons mental health than cannabis, up to a year ago this was posted on many websites, with a little help from a local consultant psychiatrist I was able to debunk it, that particular post from CLEAR doesn't get posted anymore" You are so full of it aren't you? Why do your persist in impersonating a doctor when it's evident you couldn't could tell a stethoscope from a medical vapouriser? Hospital Episode Statistics. Count of finished admission episodes (FAE) with a primary diagnosis of mental and behavioural disorders due to use of cannabinoids (ICD10 code F12) and alcohol (ICD10 code F10) Cannabinoids (F12) 2009-10 713 2010-11 799 Alcohol (F10) 2009-10 47,402 2010-11 47,287 Source: Hospital Episode Statistics (HES), The NHS Information Centre for health and social care. There are three million regular users of cannabis (Atha et al 2011) and 31 million regular users of alcohol (NHS Information Centre 2009). Therefore alcohol use is six times more likely to result in admission for mental and behavioural disorders. Owen Richards
  • Score: -1

9:42pm Fri 4 Apr 14

Dr Martin says...

Owen Richards wrote:
@"Dr" Martin

"...there was a user called Owen Richards from CLEAR, he used to quote this fanciful post which basically said Alcohol was 6 times more harmful to a persons mental health than cannabis, up to a year ago this was posted on many websites, with a little help from a local consultant psychiatrist I was able to debunk it, that particular post from CLEAR doesn't get posted anymore"

You are so full of it aren't you?

Why do your persist in impersonating a doctor when it's evident you couldn't could tell a stethoscope from a medical vapouriser?

Hospital Episode Statistics. Count of finished admission episodes (FAE) with a primary diagnosis of mental and behavioural disorders due to use of cannabinoids (ICD10 code F12) and alcohol (ICD10 code F10)

Cannabinoids (F12)

2009-10 713
2010-11 799

Alcohol (F10)

2009-10 47,402
2010-11 47,287

Source: Hospital Episode Statistics (HES), The NHS Information Centre for health and social care.

There are three million regular users of cannabis (Atha et al 2011) and 31 million regular users of alcohol (NHS Information Centre 2009). Therefore alcohol use is six times more likely to result in admission for mental and behavioural disorders.
Hello Owen/Peter (I forget who you are at times)

I debunked this ages ago thanks to a local psychiatrist

.................the
y put cannabis under F20 Scizophrenia
[quote][p][bold]Owen Richards[/bold] wrote: @"Dr" Martin "...there was a user called Owen Richards from CLEAR, he used to quote this fanciful post which basically said Alcohol was 6 times more harmful to a persons mental health than cannabis, up to a year ago this was posted on many websites, with a little help from a local consultant psychiatrist I was able to debunk it, that particular post from CLEAR doesn't get posted anymore" You are so full of it aren't you? Why do your persist in impersonating a doctor when it's evident you couldn't could tell a stethoscope from a medical vapouriser? Hospital Episode Statistics. Count of finished admission episodes (FAE) with a primary diagnosis of mental and behavioural disorders due to use of cannabinoids (ICD10 code F12) and alcohol (ICD10 code F10) Cannabinoids (F12) 2009-10 713 2010-11 799 Alcohol (F10) 2009-10 47,402 2010-11 47,287 Source: Hospital Episode Statistics (HES), The NHS Information Centre for health and social care. There are three million regular users of cannabis (Atha et al 2011) and 31 million regular users of alcohol (NHS Information Centre 2009). Therefore alcohol use is six times more likely to result in admission for mental and behavioural disorders.[/p][/quote]Hello Owen/Peter (I forget who you are at times) I debunked this ages ago thanks to a local psychiatrist .................the y put cannabis under F20 Scizophrenia Dr Martin
  • Score: 0

9:43pm Fri 4 Apr 14

Dr Martin says...

Owen Richards wrote:
@"Dr" Martin

"...there was a user called Owen Richards from CLEAR, he used to quote this fanciful post which basically said Alcohol was 6 times more harmful to a persons mental health than cannabis, up to a year ago this was posted on many websites, with a little help from a local consultant psychiatrist I was able to debunk it, that particular post from CLEAR doesn't get posted anymore"

You are so full of it aren't you?

Why do your persist in impersonating a doctor when it's evident you couldn't could tell a stethoscope from a medical vapouriser?

Hospital Episode Statistics. Count of finished admission episodes (FAE) with a primary diagnosis of mental and behavioural disorders due to use of cannabinoids (ICD10 code F12) and alcohol (ICD10 code F10)

Cannabinoids (F12)

2009-10 713
2010-11 799

Alcohol (F10)

2009-10 47,402
2010-11 47,287

Source: Hospital Episode Statistics (HES), The NHS Information Centre for health and social care.

There are three million regular users of cannabis (Atha et al 2011) and 31 million regular users of alcohol (NHS Information Centre 2009). Therefore alcohol use is six times more likely to result in admission for mental and behavioural disorders.
Hello Owen/Peter (I forget who you are at times)

I debunked this ages ago thanks to a local psychiatrist

.................the
y put cannabis sufferers under F20 Schizophrenia
[quote][p][bold]Owen Richards[/bold] wrote: @"Dr" Martin "...there was a user called Owen Richards from CLEAR, he used to quote this fanciful post which basically said Alcohol was 6 times more harmful to a persons mental health than cannabis, up to a year ago this was posted on many websites, with a little help from a local consultant psychiatrist I was able to debunk it, that particular post from CLEAR doesn't get posted anymore" You are so full of it aren't you? Why do your persist in impersonating a doctor when it's evident you couldn't could tell a stethoscope from a medical vapouriser? Hospital Episode Statistics. Count of finished admission episodes (FAE) with a primary diagnosis of mental and behavioural disorders due to use of cannabinoids (ICD10 code F12) and alcohol (ICD10 code F10) Cannabinoids (F12) 2009-10 713 2010-11 799 Alcohol (F10) 2009-10 47,402 2010-11 47,287 Source: Hospital Episode Statistics (HES), The NHS Information Centre for health and social care. There are three million regular users of cannabis (Atha et al 2011) and 31 million regular users of alcohol (NHS Information Centre 2009). Therefore alcohol use is six times more likely to result in admission for mental and behavioural disorders.[/p][/quote]Hello Owen/Peter (I forget who you are at times) I debunked this ages ago thanks to a local psychiatrist .................the y put cannabis sufferers under F20 Schizophrenia Dr Martin
  • Score: 0

10:18pm Fri 4 Apr 14

Owen Richards says...

Dr Martin wrote:
Owen Richards wrote:
@"Dr" Martin

"...there was a user called Owen Richards from CLEAR, he used to quote this fanciful post which basically said Alcohol was 6 times more harmful to a persons mental health than cannabis, up to a year ago this was posted on many websites, with a little help from a local consultant psychiatrist I was able to debunk it, that particular post from CLEAR doesn't get posted anymore"

You are so full of it aren't you?

Why do your persist in impersonating a doctor when it's evident you couldn't could tell a stethoscope from a medical vapouriser?

Hospital Episode Statistics. Count of finished admission episodes (FAE) with a primary diagnosis of mental and behavioural disorders due to use of cannabinoids (ICD10 code F12) and alcohol (ICD10 code F10)

Cannabinoids (F12)

2009-10 713
2010-11 799

Alcohol (F10)

2009-10 47,402
2010-11 47,287

Source: Hospital Episode Statistics (HES), The NHS Information Centre for health and social care.

There are three million regular users of cannabis (Atha et al 2011) and 31 million regular users of alcohol (NHS Information Centre 2009). Therefore alcohol use is six times more likely to result in admission for mental and behavioural disorders.
Hello Owen/Peter (I forget who you are at times)

I debunked this ages ago thanks to a local psychiatrist

.................the

y put cannabis sufferers under F20 Schizophrenia
"Dr" Martin,

"I debunked this ages ago thanks to a local psychiatrist they put cannabis sufferers under F20 Schizophrenia"

You couldn't debunk a faith healer in a science lab. What a pathetic argument, that medical professionals would misuse ICD10 codes!

You are entirely remote from any science, evidence or common sense. You're a sad, local newspaper website troll, not worth the time of day.
[quote][p][bold]Dr Martin[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Owen Richards[/bold] wrote: @"Dr" Martin "...there was a user called Owen Richards from CLEAR, he used to quote this fanciful post which basically said Alcohol was 6 times more harmful to a persons mental health than cannabis, up to a year ago this was posted on many websites, with a little help from a local consultant psychiatrist I was able to debunk it, that particular post from CLEAR doesn't get posted anymore" You are so full of it aren't you? Why do your persist in impersonating a doctor when it's evident you couldn't could tell a stethoscope from a medical vapouriser? Hospital Episode Statistics. Count of finished admission episodes (FAE) with a primary diagnosis of mental and behavioural disorders due to use of cannabinoids (ICD10 code F12) and alcohol (ICD10 code F10) Cannabinoids (F12) 2009-10 713 2010-11 799 Alcohol (F10) 2009-10 47,402 2010-11 47,287 Source: Hospital Episode Statistics (HES), The NHS Information Centre for health and social care. There are three million regular users of cannabis (Atha et al 2011) and 31 million regular users of alcohol (NHS Information Centre 2009). Therefore alcohol use is six times more likely to result in admission for mental and behavioural disorders.[/p][/quote]Hello Owen/Peter (I forget who you are at times) I debunked this ages ago thanks to a local psychiatrist .................the y put cannabis sufferers under F20 Schizophrenia[/p][/quote]"Dr" Martin, "I debunked this ages ago thanks to a local psychiatrist they put cannabis sufferers under F20 Schizophrenia" You couldn't debunk a faith healer in a science lab. What a pathetic argument, that medical professionals would misuse ICD10 codes! You are entirely remote from any science, evidence or common sense. You're a sad, local newspaper website troll, not worth the time of day. Owen Richards
  • Score: -3

10:26pm Fri 4 Apr 14

Dr Martin says...

Owen Richards wrote:
Dr Martin wrote:
Owen Richards wrote:
@"Dr" Martin

"...there was a user called Owen Richards from CLEAR, he used to quote this fanciful post which basically said Alcohol was 6 times more harmful to a persons mental health than cannabis, up to a year ago this was posted on many websites, with a little help from a local consultant psychiatrist I was able to debunk it, that particular post from CLEAR doesn't get posted anymore"

You are so full of it aren't you?

Why do your persist in impersonating a doctor when it's evident you couldn't could tell a stethoscope from a medical vapouriser?

Hospital Episode Statistics. Count of finished admission episodes (FAE) with a primary diagnosis of mental and behavioural disorders due to use of cannabinoids (ICD10 code F12) and alcohol (ICD10 code F10)

Cannabinoids (F12)

2009-10 713
2010-11 799

Alcohol (F10)

2009-10 47,402
2010-11 47,287

Source: Hospital Episode Statistics (HES), The NHS Information Centre for health and social care.

There are three million regular users of cannabis (Atha et al 2011) and 31 million regular users of alcohol (NHS Information Centre 2009). Therefore alcohol use is six times more likely to result in admission for mental and behavioural disorders.
Hello Owen/Peter (I forget who you are at times)

I debunked this ages ago thanks to a local psychiatrist

.................the


y put cannabis sufferers under F20 Schizophrenia
"Dr" Martin,

"I debunked this ages ago thanks to a local psychiatrist they put cannabis sufferers under F20 Schizophrenia"

You couldn't debunk a faith healer in a science lab. What a pathetic argument, that medical professionals would misuse ICD10 codes!

You are entirely remote from any science, evidence or common sense. You're a sad, local newspaper website troll, not worth the time of day.
Oh come on Owen/ Peter, no need to be like that
You know there is a strong link between cannabis and schizophrenia of course if you look under F20 there are thousands of them

I hope your back is batter ;-)
[quote][p][bold]Owen Richards[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dr Martin[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Owen Richards[/bold] wrote: @"Dr" Martin "...there was a user called Owen Richards from CLEAR, he used to quote this fanciful post which basically said Alcohol was 6 times more harmful to a persons mental health than cannabis, up to a year ago this was posted on many websites, with a little help from a local consultant psychiatrist I was able to debunk it, that particular post from CLEAR doesn't get posted anymore" You are so full of it aren't you? Why do your persist in impersonating a doctor when it's evident you couldn't could tell a stethoscope from a medical vapouriser? Hospital Episode Statistics. Count of finished admission episodes (FAE) with a primary diagnosis of mental and behavioural disorders due to use of cannabinoids (ICD10 code F12) and alcohol (ICD10 code F10) Cannabinoids (F12) 2009-10 713 2010-11 799 Alcohol (F10) 2009-10 47,402 2010-11 47,287 Source: Hospital Episode Statistics (HES), The NHS Information Centre for health and social care. There are three million regular users of cannabis (Atha et al 2011) and 31 million regular users of alcohol (NHS Information Centre 2009). Therefore alcohol use is six times more likely to result in admission for mental and behavioural disorders.[/p][/quote]Hello Owen/Peter (I forget who you are at times) I debunked this ages ago thanks to a local psychiatrist .................the y put cannabis sufferers under F20 Schizophrenia[/p][/quote]"Dr" Martin, "I debunked this ages ago thanks to a local psychiatrist they put cannabis sufferers under F20 Schizophrenia" You couldn't debunk a faith healer in a science lab. What a pathetic argument, that medical professionals would misuse ICD10 codes! You are entirely remote from any science, evidence or common sense. You're a sad, local newspaper website troll, not worth the time of day.[/p][/quote]Oh come on Owen/ Peter, no need to be like that You know there is a strong link between cannabis and schizophrenia of course if you look under F20 there are thousands of them I hope your back is batter ;-) Dr Martin
  • Score: 0

10:27pm Fri 4 Apr 14

Dr Martin says...

Dr Martin wrote:
Owen Richards wrote:
Dr Martin wrote:
Owen Richards wrote:
@"Dr" Martin

"...there was a user called Owen Richards from CLEAR, he used to quote this fanciful post which basically said Alcohol was 6 times more harmful to a persons mental health than cannabis, up to a year ago this was posted on many websites, with a little help from a local consultant psychiatrist I was able to debunk it, that particular post from CLEAR doesn't get posted anymore"

You are so full of it aren't you?

Why do your persist in impersonating a doctor when it's evident you couldn't could tell a stethoscope from a medical vapouriser?

Hospital Episode Statistics. Count of finished admission episodes (FAE) with a primary diagnosis of mental and behavioural disorders due to use of cannabinoids (ICD10 code F12) and alcohol (ICD10 code F10)

Cannabinoids (F12)

2009-10 713
2010-11 799

Alcohol (F10)

2009-10 47,402
2010-11 47,287

Source: Hospital Episode Statistics (HES), The NHS Information Centre for health and social care.

There are three million regular users of cannabis (Atha et al 2011) and 31 million regular users of alcohol (NHS Information Centre 2009). Therefore alcohol use is six times more likely to result in admission for mental and behavioural disorders.
Hello Owen/Peter (I forget who you are at times)

I debunked this ages ago thanks to a local psychiatrist

.................the



y put cannabis sufferers under F20 Schizophrenia
"Dr" Martin,

"I debunked this ages ago thanks to a local psychiatrist they put cannabis sufferers under F20 Schizophrenia"

You couldn't debunk a faith healer in a science lab. What a pathetic argument, that medical professionals would misuse ICD10 codes!

You are entirely remote from any science, evidence or common sense. You're a sad, local newspaper website troll, not worth the time of day.
Oh come on Owen/ Peter, no need to be like that
You know there is a strong link between cannabis and schizophrenia of course if you look under F20 there are thousands of them

I hope your back is batter ;-)
**better
[quote][p][bold]Dr Martin[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Owen Richards[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dr Martin[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Owen Richards[/bold] wrote: @"Dr" Martin "...there was a user called Owen Richards from CLEAR, he used to quote this fanciful post which basically said Alcohol was 6 times more harmful to a persons mental health than cannabis, up to a year ago this was posted on many websites, with a little help from a local consultant psychiatrist I was able to debunk it, that particular post from CLEAR doesn't get posted anymore" You are so full of it aren't you? Why do your persist in impersonating a doctor when it's evident you couldn't could tell a stethoscope from a medical vapouriser? Hospital Episode Statistics. Count of finished admission episodes (FAE) with a primary diagnosis of mental and behavioural disorders due to use of cannabinoids (ICD10 code F12) and alcohol (ICD10 code F10) Cannabinoids (F12) 2009-10 713 2010-11 799 Alcohol (F10) 2009-10 47,402 2010-11 47,287 Source: Hospital Episode Statistics (HES), The NHS Information Centre for health and social care. There are three million regular users of cannabis (Atha et al 2011) and 31 million regular users of alcohol (NHS Information Centre 2009). Therefore alcohol use is six times more likely to result in admission for mental and behavioural disorders.[/p][/quote]Hello Owen/Peter (I forget who you are at times) I debunked this ages ago thanks to a local psychiatrist .................the y put cannabis sufferers under F20 Schizophrenia[/p][/quote]"Dr" Martin, "I debunked this ages ago thanks to a local psychiatrist they put cannabis sufferers under F20 Schizophrenia" You couldn't debunk a faith healer in a science lab. What a pathetic argument, that medical professionals would misuse ICD10 codes! You are entirely remote from any science, evidence or common sense. You're a sad, local newspaper website troll, not worth the time of day.[/p][/quote]Oh come on Owen/ Peter, no need to be like that You know there is a strong link between cannabis and schizophrenia of course if you look under F20 there are thousands of them I hope your back is batter ;-)[/p][/quote]**better Dr Martin
  • Score: 0

10:55pm Sat 5 Apr 14

Dr Martin says...

Quote "You couldn't debunk a faith healer in a science lab. What a pathetic argument, that medical professionals would misuse ICD10 codes!
You are entirely remote from any science, evidence or common sense. You're a sad, local newspaper website troll, not worth the time of day"


.. and you are an ignorant pro pot spammer, happy to use any illness to justify your filthy habit.I do not know why you get so angry just because the vast majority of professionals use F20 (Schizophrenia), your just annoyed that it helped beat your often repeated fact.
My science , evidence and common sense more than matches your flawed copy and paste posts, and if I wasn't worth the time of day why were you replying to my posts?
Quote "You couldn't debunk a faith healer in a science lab. What a pathetic argument, that medical professionals would misuse ICD10 codes! You are entirely remote from any science, evidence or common sense. You're a sad, local newspaper website troll, not worth the time of day" .. and you are an ignorant pro pot spammer, happy to use any illness to justify your filthy habit.I do not know why you get so angry just because the vast majority of professionals use F20 (Schizophrenia), your just annoyed that it helped beat your often repeated fact. My science , evidence and common sense more than matches your flawed copy and paste posts, and if I wasn't worth the time of day why were you replying to my posts? Dr Martin
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

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