Peter Reynolds
The truth about cannabis is CLEAR.
http://profdavidnutt.wordpress.com/2011/09/29/popular-intoxicants-%E2%80%93-how-do-alcohol-and-cannabis-compare/
D.L.
interesting view point i guess............there is little mention of the different strengths of cannabis which in my limited experience plays its part in mental health issues. I have spent time in Holland and yeah less criminal activity but not less 'out of it people' on the streets. (can't give stats just personal perception).
J.R.
I totally agree with Prof Nutt on cannabis use and would also stress that criminalizing the possession and use of the drug causes harm in itself. I'm quite sure the police would rather not waste resources enforcing the prohibition of cannabis, and likewise with the courts and prison services. Not only would de-criminalizing cannabis have huge cost savings, it would also remove the risk to users of being labelled 'criminal', which can go on to affect their future lives in a far more damaging way, i.e. With gaining employment, etc., than using the drug itself.
Of course, some people will say that if you use an illegal drug then you deserve to be punished but that, IMO, is a very closed view as any punishment should not exceed the harm caused by the individual. Naturally, offences like driving under the influence of drink or drugs would still apply, as it does currently as part of road safety. As the law stands people taking prescription drugs are liable to prosecution if they were considered unfit to drive. The same rule would apply to cannabis users who drive..
S.O.
We can't have cannabis because...well....it might lead to harder drugs. We can't have cannabis because....well....it might lead to schizophrenia.
We can have cigarettes because...well, who doesn't want cancer? Who doesn't want emphysema? Who doesn't want heart disease? Etc.
We can have alcohol because...well, who doesn't want to be violently assaulted? Who doesn't want liver disease? Etc etc.
Let's just be honest, there's a schizophrenia inherent right there in our drug laws.
D.L.
I certainly don't profess to be an expert but when I worked in drugs services most of those entangled in the CJS as a result of their drug use it generally it was opiates etc not cannabis
R.B.
In my Opinion that Cannabis May Lead to harder drugs is Flawed on the basis that before many people try cannabis they have more than likely and in about 99.999% of the Time tried alcohol or tobacco first,
F.G.
Go back a few days to my post on hemp and that’s we we are not allowed it, it has nothing to do with medical issues its cos its a danger to the OIL COMPANIES
A.W.
All very well Robert. But there's no ideological pathway from alcohol to cannabis.
C.F.
pass the duchy on the left hand side lol
J.R.
Sorry A.W. but what do you mean by "there's no ideological pathway from alcohol to cannabis."? Surely if people are brainwashed into thinking that one is acceptable and the other is not, then ideology is pre-subscribed...
S.O.
Is there an "ideological pathway" (inappropriate phrase) from cannabis to heroin then? Blimey....
J.R.
I think that be 'pre-prescribed' rather than 'pre-subscribed'...
P.R.
There's an "ideological pathway" among illegal drug dealers and that is a direct harm of prohibition. Ashley's either a Daily Mail scientist or a lobbyist for Big Pharma or the alcohol industry
B.G.
Alcohol is the gateway drug. Alcohol reduces inhibitions so when someone is drunk they're more likely to try cannabis, cocaine or Ecstasy than if they're sober.
J.R.
Peter. I think the stars'n'stripes profile pic tells all.. :)
A.W.
I would suggest the law prohibiting people buying drugs does more good than harm.
P.R.
Ashley, that's a reasonable argument and I can understand how someone who's taken no time to look at the evidence would put it forward. Educate yourself though and you will discover that precisely the opposite is true.
A.W.
Peter - What makes you think I have not taken time to try to understand the arguments for and against prohibiting drugs? Is it because I have drawn a different conclusion?
S.O.
It's a naive view, and a surprising one coming from the University student I suspect he is....
There's an entire series of The Wire that I think makes a strong statement about the futility of the war on drugs.
A.W.
War on drugs you say? Haven't the prohibitive drug laws been gradually relaxed to a state of non-existence in this country for the last 30 years?
S.O.
Plainly not Ashley. Yes, you still might get no more than a ticking off if caught with a small quantity of cannabis, but then again you may not.
A.W.
Statistically you are unlikely (if caught) to get convicted. But if convicted, it'll probably be no more than a ticking off anyway.
P.R.
384 people went directly to jail for simple possession of cannabis in 2010.
Every week, people who suffer from dreadful illnesses and disabilities, whose doctors have prescribed them Sativex but whose health authorities have refused to pay for it, are prosecuted for "production" of cannabis and many are sent to jail in their wheelchairs while paedophiles and violent thugs go free.
J.B.
D.L.---think you will find those off it in the street are tourists
S.O.
Ashley, would you be supportive of the prohibition of alcohol too?
A.J.B.W.
Drugs are for Mugs....
Sorry did I say Mug, I meant bong.
A.W.
Peter - In terms of percentage, what was the conviction to prison sentence ratio?
Scott - I don't think prohibiting alcohol is the same as prohibiting a considerably more dangerous drug like cannabis. I would therefore not support the prohibition of alcohol.
P.R.
"a considerably more dangerous drug like cannabis"!!!
A.W. has spoken! Now bugger off all you scientists, doctors, statisticians, researchers. A.W. knows best.
A.J.B.W.
I would ban alcohol tomorrow. One of the worst drugs and its legal.
Violence, health problem, social problems, families breaking up..Yeah Id ban alcohol.
AFAIK, and I have done a wee bit of online research is that cannabis is not a dangerous drug. Definitely less dangerous than nicotine or alcohol.
P.R.
Thank God, I give all British political parties credit for having far more intelligence and interest in evidence-based policy than A.W. portrays.
If he is an American then he is already out of step with his own nation.
Or perhaps he's just a pretty flag waver?
B.G.
When the U.S. banned alcohol it was a total disaster. However marijuana is not more dangerous than alcohol. When people overdose on alcohol they die and you can't get more dangerous than that. They don't theoretically die-they actually die. I know a midwife who worked for several years in Accident Emergency. She said that most of the overdoses she saw were alcohol or heroin. She didn't see any marijuana overdoses in Accident&Emergency because when someone overdoses on marijuana they fall asleep on the sofa. Alcohol is considerably more dangerous than cannabis and that's the truth. A.W.has constructed his arguments on a lie so his arguments are a house of cards.
C.F.
noone has ever died directly through cannabis .and cannabis psychosis is far from proven
C.F.
Amsterdam has the right attitude, I’ve been many times and I’ve yet to see the carnage at chucking out time that I have seen in many cities in the UK, cannabis is a social [drug] alcohol is completely anti social
A.W.
The evidence suggests alcohol is flushed out of the system after 24 hours if consumed responsibly. Cannabis on the other hand remains in your system for some time. So those who enjoy a glass of wine on a Friday or Saturday will be okay to drive into work come Monday morning.
Peter - As you tried to incorporate stats to prove a point, would you care to answer the question I previously asked?
C.F.
and your point is .how many people get drunk on a Sunday night and kill in their cars next morning ,and how many who have a few joints kill by car the day after ,before you shout about cannabis and advocate alcohol take time to check the stats
P.R.
Heroin and cocaine are also "flushed out of the system" quickly. That is why you now have many more heroin addicts in prisons where there is drug testing. If they smoke a harmless joint they can be busted a month after. If they smoke some smack it doesn't show after 24 hours. This is the logic you follow is it?
In Australia they can now roadside test for cannabis "active metabolites" which gives an accurate measure of intoxication as opposed to your ideas which are based on prejudice, discrimination and ignorance.
And your question? You mean: "In terms of percentage, what was the conviction to prison sentence ratio?"?
I don't know the answer but how would it be meaningful in any way? How could it advance the debate?
J.P.
The body flushes out those substances it deems nasty or harmful hence why alcohol out ya system also why u get a hangover
P.R.
Ashley, you're struggling and that's because you're wrong.
It's not your fault. You are the victim of misinformation and propaganda, funded by alcohol and Big Pharma and sanctioned by bought and paid for politicians.
J.P.
A.W. your quick enuff to cite your own proofs have u even looked into some of the debates surrounding weed an all the evidence???
A.W.
C.F.- one substance is legal and the one isn't. You cannot compare like for like, but if common sense was applied, if both were legal, cannabis would be more likely to do considerably more damage.
Peter - Again, it's not a like for like comparison. The health implications from a drug like heroin are going to be far more damaging than alcohol.
And as far as the question on stats goes, it would be a good idea to establish how many people were actually convicted for the use of cannabis before assuming jailing one person a day for an entire year was a considerable number.
A.W.
Peter - one minute you are praising the political elite for their common sense and so-called 'evidence based' approach. The next they are sanctioning anti-drug propaganda.
S.O.
Naive, preposterous twaddle Ashley. There is no sense debating with someone promoting nonsense that "cannabis would be more likely to do considerably more damage" (than alcohol). On what basis? Have you no notion of the absurd levels of crime that alcohol consumption is responsible for? Have you any idea of the scale of cannabis use in this country? It is enormous and crosses the social strata.
No amount of arrogant, pithy verbiage can save the fact that you clearly haven't the foggiest on the subject matter to claim a worthwhile opinion.
P.R.
Ashley, you are so, so, so wrong. Alcohol kills gradually. If you are on a maintenance dose of heroin, it has no deleterious mental or physical effects. There is nothing damaging about heroin in itself unless you overdose or become addicted. Alcohol causes actual physical damage and you become addicted.
L.M.
in Ireland alcohol causes 84% of all accident and emergencies at weekends.. that’s says it all... any cannabis cases are in conjunction with other drugs to... and statistically in cali we are 66% less likely to get cancers if we use cannabis as well as binge drink...
P.R.
"one substance is legal and the one isn't. You cannot compare like for like"
Are you for real? What, so because the law says something that amounts to scientific evidence?
You are an excellent example of the sort of ignorance that pervades this issue.
P.R.
You're from a different planet aren't you Ashley? Come on, own# up!
A.W.
I do not doubt some of what you say is true Scott. But it has been proven past and present that zero tolerance works.
And yes, in scientific circles, it is widely accepted that alcohol is considerably less dangerous than cannabis.
L.M.
More people were jailed for alcohol related offences than for using or having cannabis. and just because someone isnt jailed for cannabis doesnt mean their lives arent ruined because of a criminal record!
P.R.
"And yes, in scientific circles, it is widely accepted that alcohol is considerably less dangerous than cannabis." A.W.Walsh, 28-09-11
May his words live for evermore so that he will always be reminded
Good night all.
L.M.
and you most certainly CAN compare like for like! i believe that if all drugs were decriminalised like in portugal.. alcohol causes MOST harms, most crimes and effexcts society the MOST!!! look it up!
A.W.
Peter - Do keep up. It is important to highlight how we cannot compare the availability of a legal substance to an illegal one. Not to use a circular argument, but to highlight an important point that because a substance is illegal, lots of people have been discouraged from buying it.
And although I don't come from a different planet, I come from a city called Derby. Some say that's one and the same thing :)
P.R.
I'm going off to dreamland amongst Ashley's "scientific circles". It's a wild, fantasmagorical magic carpet ride!
S.O.
No it isn't Ashley. It isn't a health drug by any means - it's not good for you. But alcohol is socially the more devastating drug by far. Inarguably so. How you can believe otherwise is plain ridiculous - you must wander around with your eyes shut? All of the local addicts in my vicinity have heroin/crack and/or alcohol issues. If anything it seems to be the latter that lends people towards the former.
It hasn't been "proven past and present that zero tolerance works" (towards cannabis? or just generally?). What absolute rubbish.
Oh and take down the American flag.
It hasn't been "proven past and present that zero tolerance works" (towards cannabis? or just generally?). What absolute rubbish.
Oh and take down the American flag.
S.O.
Ashley, cannabis is illegal and the number of users in the UK is in the millions. Prohibition is a waste of time.
A.W.
How then do you explain a phenomena like Sweden?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article6900001.ece
S.O.
Did you read it? Clearly if so, you didn't understand it.
"There is little evidence that altering the legal classification of cannabis affects consumption. When the law was liberalised in 2004 cannabis consumption was falling in most of Western Europe, and the UK has followed the general trend.
Two Western European countries with markedly different policies have less of a problem than the UK. The Swedes adopt a prohibitionist line and only about 8 per cent of adolescents have smoked cannabis. The Dutch have a very liberal policy and 28 per cent of adolescents use cannabis. Both have lower consumption than the UK where 38 per cent of 16-year-olds have used it. Teenagers starting to use cannabis do not debate its exact classification; many do not even think it is a drug and few have any knowledge of its hazards. What does appear to have an effect is knowledge about the risks of heavy consumption."
There are risks too with "heavy consumption" of alcohol or indeed any other harmful drug. Why am I bothering though? You're not interested in the reality that cannabis use is common and widespread. You're not interested that whilst proven harmful drugs such as alcohol and tobacco are legal, it really makes no sense to criminalise users of cannabis. You're not even interested in admitting that your claim that alcohol is a less harmful drug is plainfully false.
A.W.
Firstly tobacco has not even been mentioned in this debate, so don't tell me where I stand on this issue.
Secondly, although I have clearly stated I would not take adhere to total prohibition on alcohol, I will concede that perhaps we should look at tightening thr regulation of selling alcohol.
Finally, the piece included with the link does not give the most comprehensive list of the dangers of cannabis.
But it does make very clear your position on zero tolerance is actually false.
B.G.
The NHS recently recorded a 50% rise in alcohol related deaths since 1991 so anyone who claims that cannabis is more dangerous than alcohol is talking total nonsense.As for the suggestion that alcohol is somehow safer than cannabis because it gets flushed out of the system the NHS has also recently recorded a 50% rise in people under 30 needing hospital treatment for serious liver damage since 1991 so again that claim is total nonsense.Alcohol might not stay in the body for as long as cannabis but it does more damage while it's there.I don't know if A.W.has ever heard of a footballer called George Best-he was one of the finest players ever to pull the shirt on for Manchester United.However if Manchester United win the title again this season George won't be around to see it because George had a drink problem and that drink problem killed him.At one stage George was in line for a liver transplant because of the damage alcohol had done to his liver but the Doctors concluded that the alcohol he'd consumed had done so much damage to his other internal organs there wasn't any point.Silly Doctors they should have listened to A.W.who apparently thinks that alcohol is much safer than cannabis.If A.W.had been George Best's Doctor then George would have been fixed up a treat because A.W.would have magicked away all the massive and irreversible damage to George's internal organs with a few strokes on the keyboard of his computer which apparently doesn't have a 'google' function.
A.W.
It's actually a Blackberry. And there's a reason why it is easier to build a case for tighter regulation of the sale of alcohol. I'd refer you to the link I provided earlier for details regarding how difficult it is to get comparable data on cannabis.
And whilst we can all reflect on the sad loss of Best, not so many of us will be able to hear the story of others who waste their lives in an equally tragic manner thanks to cannabis.
H.A.
I would say that neither drug is particularly good for you but its our choice how we live our lives so long as we hurt no one else's.
H.A.
You might like to have a look at this A.W.:) http://www.saferchoice.org/content/view/24/53/
Alcohol vs. Marijuana
www.saferchoice.org
A.W.
Thanks Hex. But I'm not sure how scientifically rigorous the assertions are on a pro-cannabis lobbyist website.
For those who say cannabis is equally or even less alcohol. Children as young as five are entitled to intake alcohol. Fourteen year olds can enjoy an alcoholic drink with a meal. At what age do you propose we introduce cannabis to children if it is not as harmful as alcohol?
J.P.
hahaha so u trust scientific asserrtions about alcohol but comsider those assertions made by similar scientists about weed untrue an flakey ...dude get a grip an listen to yourself
A.P.
You do realise that the moral stance the government has taken on alcohol and cannabis is not the basis for a stance in an argument. 'The government says it's bad, so it must be bad, I'm right if I say it's bad and that's all the evidence I need.'
J.P.
does seem to b like that doesnt it im sure the government said the world was flat at one time doesnt mean sailors didnt laugh in there faces or wen evidence was produced they changed there minds accordingly !! why cant u all just look at wat in front of your eyes everyone different an should b there choice as to wat to ingest based on there own chemical make up or experiences
A.P.
I'm just waiting to say why the government has banned it; 'It makes you think maaaan! Broadens your reality maaan! They can't handle it maaan!'
J.P.
prob banned it cause none of the politicains r board of directors in weed companys b totally different if they were
A.P.
I mean not to say it's a absolutely wonderfull thing, it's main draw back, as South Park so eloquently put it is 'that it makes being lazy ok'.
D.L.
May i just point out that people who drink to the point of addiction can die if they just stop. People who use heroin to the point of addiction and just stop will be pretty ill but likely to be ok. People who use cannabis to the point of 'addiction' ( never seen any prove this is possible) will be fine by just stopping. Just saying................
A.P.
You can very realisticaly get addicted to cannabis, only it would be a psychological addiction, whilst you wouldn't have the horrendous and possibly fatal effects of heavy alcohol or heroin withdrawl, you wouldn't be 'fine'. A lot better of than other adicts mind.
D.L.
Sorry Alexander my 'bad' i was thinking purely physically. Yes there is evidence to suggest the psychological affects are difficult. In the NHS we see the adverse affects of alcohol and heroin a whole lot more than cannabis. (I work in the mental health sector) I would never promote changing the way you feel by using street drugs or alcohol, but i would ALWAYS suggest that recovery from cannabis appears on the surface to be a whole lot more reachable.
A.P.
Oh totally, I'd say it was the kind of addiction that in the right circumstances could be defeated with will power alone. With the only downsides being a few cranky days! I also find it interesting that you see the effects of heroin and alcohol. One of my associates said that she saw the effects of cannabis more, she too worked in the mental health area. Although she was in a rather specified unit, which could make all the difference as to the experience.
D.L.
I used to work specifically in drugs and alcohol services and still say alcohol and heroin issues presented more there. However i did some research for my degree on presentations (who) to drug services and there was a % of long term cannabis users presenting interestingly often they drank too. (sorry can't give you access to the research am rubbish at keeping things lol). The other interesting aspect was gender related, as in 80% of people using the services (only looked at UK) were male. Of that 80% a high % (again sorry can't be specific as i am rubbish) were presenting as a result of other family members giving them ultimatums to stop or go. My sense is that recreational use of most street drugs and alcohol brings little 'damage' to anyone, the problems arise when people just want to escape their own reality.
A.W.
So at what age to we introduce the wonders of cannabis to children? Anyone?
D.L.
Sorry A.W.who suggested introducing ANY intoxicants to children? I missed the post could you point me towards it please?
S.O.
I'm rather incredulous that A.W.chose to claim victory (a sure sign of immaturity) over his use of a decidedly debatable comment article from The Times. Not least since, having been roundly derided for his naive opening gambit on a substance he's clearly never used and quite obviously has no idea of just how widespread it is across the social spectrum, he chose to misdirect the argument on to zero tolerance approach to prohibition (which had not previously been under discussion). The success of which isn't proven by unsubstantiated statistics in said article, statistics that are gleaned from a country where there is a zero tolerance to prohibition. As any sociologist will tell you, this is going to have a bearing on what people are willing to admit. Amusingly the article concedes the big issue with cannabis is heavy usage. More amusing is the fact that this is true of any drug.
More amusingly still, one of the most infamous prohibition acts of the 20th century - of alcohol in the USA - is widely acknowledged to have been a massive flop, largly ignored and responsible for a massive increase in organised crime. Presumably, to use this argument in regard to cannabis, one must convice themselves that you cannot compare two commonly used recreational drugs.
Still failing to acknowledge the far greater social damage alcohol causes...No, instead Ashley, you talk of using alcohol responsibly. Well, many people do not use it responsibly. It also ignores the fact that most users of cannabis do so in moderation. These are the realities that no amount of articles on the subject change.
Take ANY drug - alcohol, cannabis etc - then the detriment to health will become apparent. To suppose that alcohol has a lesser effect is plainly ridiculous. It is quite clear that your position is determined by legality and not by knowledge or experience. An intelligent man would know better than to spurt forth on a subject he's evidentially no idea about. But, I guess, that's the folly of youth and general life inexperience. We all thought we knew-it-all once...
Also Ashley, what are you wittering on about re: telling you how you stand on tobacco? This only informs me that you don't understand what you read. The comment I made was "You're not interested that whilst proven harmful drugs such as alcohol and tobacco are legal, it really makes no sense to criminalise users of cannabis." That sentence does at no point make claims for your opinion on either alcohol or tobacco, as I'm sure users of the English language would concur. HTF did you get that so wrong? Bizarre.
P.R.
It's an utterly ridiculous, argumentative question Ashley. Of course children should not use cannabis unless it is prescribed to them by a doctor. The very small risks of cannabis are greater in children as are the risks of any drug.
P.R.
A.W.claimed victory?
Dear God, the man is deluded.
P.R.
In what, plonker of the year, most embarrassing denial of science, making a fool of yourself online?
K.J.B.
are u effing HIGH ash, zero tolerence doesnt work, look at the krokodil epidemic in Russia....
K.J.B.
i will save u all a lot of time, ASH go look at this, www.leap.cc
S.O.
"So at what age to we introduce the wonders of cannabis to children? Anyone?"
Possibly the most inane post of all time. Is this another "ideological pathway"?
Ri.F.
Yikes. Of course children should not be allowed to have cannabis or any other drug at all unless prescribed by a doctor. When they are adults they can make their own decisions. Be they healthy or not healthy ones
A.W.
There's a reason why the zero tolerance approach works in countries like Sweden and Japan. They consider both the use and sale of drugs to be a criminal offence. The prohibition in America you refer to only targeted the sale of alcohol.
So whilst a deterrent for the sale of alcohol was implemented, buy it wasn't.
It goes without saying if you take a zero tolerance approach, you deter both buyers and sellers.
And no victory has been claimed on my part. Simply a dissenting albeit lone opinion. If you take comfort from being within a majority, fine.
As only Peter has offered an answer to my original question (I am grateful he concedes that cannabis should not be introduced to children), can I ask, how do we decide what constitutes the responsible use of cannabis?
We know the limitations for both men and women for alcohol, but how do we teach children to use cannabis responsibly when they grow up? Or do we leave them to their own devices?
A.P.
'The government department for responsible cannabis consumption recomends no more than five joints, of a standard build and strength, a week'
S.O.
No "comfort obtained" from being in a majority (of this particular topic?). I shall ignore the inference that I haven't reached my own conclusions - not for the first time where you're concerned Ashley.
What do you mean how do we teach children to use cannabis responsibly? Does the high level of alcohol abuse indicate that we currently teach children to use alcohol responsibly then? Come on man, please develop a coherent argument rather than an argument for the sake of having one.
As for your typically disingenuous approach to dismissing the prohibition of alcohol in the US of A as having any bearing, I shall have to outline the fairly obvious point inherent in illustrating it. Prohibition does not prevent people using cannabis, just as prohibition did not prevent people consuming alcohol. It is a rather schizophrenic ideal to dismiss the prohibition of the latter but support the former, on the grounds that it is a less harmful drug. Plainly, alcohol is a much greater harm to society as a whole. Cannabis users tend to affect nobody but themselves - if you had any experience of the drug, which you clearly don't, you would know that is the nature of it. However, it is worthwhile reminding myself at this juncture that 'zero tolerance' has only arisen as a fairly obvious means of redirecting your original claims.
I shall remind you once again, incidentally, that 'zero tolerance' does not categorically work in Sweden and Japan. As an intelligent man you must surely acknowledge that the penalties for use will adversely affect the number of people prepared to admit to taking it - I'm not sure we can trust those figures, and I'm not sure why you do. I agree that a 'zero tolerance' approach would certainly cut down their usage, not least the supply, but eradicate? No, it is clear that it has failed to do so (was it 8% in that article? That's far from being insignificant, in crime terms it's very high).
In any event, the reality is (and it's reality we should be concerned with rather than chin-stroking egotism) that there are millions of users in the UK. Zero tolerance, well you just can't believe it'd change that overnight. Really, what is the point of criminalising them? To my mind, it is a complete nonsense when you allow drugs such as tobacco and alcohol, particularly seeing as the latter is by far the most socially devastating drug (responsible for the majority of violent crime, for instance). That's my basic argument and I fail to note any worthy response to it.
Ashley, maybe you should try some. Until then you really are talking out of your harris I'm afraid.
H.A.
Scott I don't care much for your personal point of view of Ashley; he is as entitled to his view as anyone else but I DO agree with a lot of what you are saying. Sorry Ashley, but I have smoked for er...30 mumble years. I am not psychotic and neither is my family. I have never been tempted to try anything harder. I chose smoke as my relaxant at the end of the day rather than alcohol because I realised I could be a lot more in control as a parent stoned than as a parent drunk. I have seen too many alcoholic parents scaring the crap out of their kids, weaving in front of them with glazed eyes, boozy breath and erratic behaviour. If I could have overdosed on cannabis I would have done so by now. I haven't. If I leave my area for a holiday I don't even think about the stuff - but god help anyone who takes my cigarettes away from me. Unlike Cannabis, tobacco IS addictive. Extremely. Smoke is a relaxant, alcohol is a stimulant. I have seen perfectly nice people turn into violent monsters on drink; can't say I've seen the same with smokers. EVER. Newspaper articles that carry stories of people committing crime and try to link Cannabis to their violence are ridiculous. If you are stoned, you do not exactly jump around in my experience lol. I am currently witnessing a friend destroying themselves on alcohol and they are closed to criticism. I have attended alcoholic's funerals and they are the saddest funerals I have ever been to, because no one turned up - apart from other drinkers. I have seen alcoholism in my family and the stress on relationships it has produced. I have been drunk about five times in my life? The last time I was drunk was to express grief over a dead parent. I turned into an animal and scared the bejesus out of my family and myself. These are my experiences and my view on the two drugs
Ri.F.
Hetty I wondered what that cloud of smoke that followed you was :p
H.A.
As far as the 'right age' to introduce children to drugs is concerned, you don't really need to concern yourself with this whether you are a smoke or a drinker because someone else will introduce your children to the stuff no matter what you say to your kids. I'm much happier knowing my kids may be getting stoned at home with friends, than jumping into ponds at the dead of night, starting fights with other people, dropping their trousers in a pub or beating up their partners or bonking people they normally wouldn't touch with a bargepole. sorry honey, but I think you will find that most people probably won't agree with you about the excessive use of Cannabis being as dangerous as the excessive use of alcohol. People need escapism no matter what. When I was a youngster, it was not just cannabis and alcohol but glue and even Tippex. When people from the West stop suffering from so much stress, you may find the need for ALL is reduced.
H.A.
lol Richard..also great for creativity. Some of my best writing and music is sparked by a smoke :) lol x
Ri.F.
For any form of drug it is the parents responsibility to control their childs intake of it as children do not in a physical or a legal sence have personal responsibility there.
Adults can do as they wish in my eyes with alcohol, but in safety and away from children. I know that is not the current law. Lets not promote drug abuse to children.
Alcohol is damaging that is true however it would be silly to introduce another danger to society just because we already have one. It would be cleverer to remove the first danger however that would require social change. I do believe successive governments have been working ver very slowly at this
K.J.B.
zero tolerence makes things worse, just like prohibition, go look at that LEAP link i posted, thats a bunch of VETERAN cops telling you what WE are telling you too......
D.L.
H.A.you dark horse you lol
J.R.
Ashley. In 1976 a psychiatrist who specialized in alcohol related problems told me that there were an estimated 500,000 children under the age of 16 years in the UK with alcohol abuse problems, so clearly children having access to alcohol is a serious issue and has long been so.
As for giving children cannabis, I would not recommend it to anyone under the age of 16 as the brain is not fully developed but the same rule applies to alcohol. However, it's time to stop dragging our feet over irrational laws that criminalize people for wanting to enjoy themselves or just relax. To date there has not been one death worldwide from smoking cannabis but there have been millions due to both alcohol and tobacco use. Your claim that cannabis is a "considerably more dangerous drug than alcohol" is quite clearly not true and the real issue with any drugs legislation, is that it should be target at harm reduction rather than prohibition.
The possession and use of cannabis has been illegal in the UK for the last 83 years and legislation prohibiting it's use has been largely inaffective. This is why the police give out warnings rather than prosecute for the possession of a small amount of cannabis. Neither the police nor the CPS want to be tied up with prosecuting people for cannabis possession, when historically prohibition has failed to stamp out it's use and in reality criminalizing cannabis has done more harm than good.
Having read the Times article on cannabis you posted previously I would point out that the article is misleading and the writer is unable to prove a link between schizophrenia and cannabis use. The 'undisuptable' fact, as the article describes it, that people with schizophrenia use more cannabis than the general population is not evidence of causation.
I also not that the writer attempts to demonstrate that different attitudes and policies in Sweden, Holland, and the UK, leads to it's usage but he makes no comparison on the incidence of schizophrenia between the three countries. I suggest that the differences between Sweden's prohibitive approach, the Netherlands' liberal approach, and the UK's confused prohibitive approach, and the 3 countries' usage, is likely to be more related to the 3 nations' Gini co-efficients, which are 25, 30.9, and 36, correspondingly. What further contradicts the article is that the UK has a lower incidence of schizophrenia than Sweden, despite a recorded 30% higher cannabis usage. Odd that, if Dr Murray's assertions are correct!?
J.R.
ps Ashley. Japan's Gini co-efficient is 24.9, just 0.1 lower than Sweden's! And, not only that but there is also a huge difference in cultural and attitude.
pps. The incidence of schizophrenia is Japan is higher than either the UK, the Netherlands, or Sweden...
A.W.
Thanks Hex - Whilst I appreciate some of the facts may not correlate with what you personally experience, it certainly does with other families that have.
It should be acknowledged that lots of families have experienced a rough time because of drink. But that's no real reason to say we should legalise every substance known to man, including cannabis. We know the grizzly truth about alcohol and more should be done to educate people about the dangers of it.
Scott - Thanks. But you have made some sweeping assumptions. Firstly what made you think I am a uni student? Secondly, what made you think I have never had any experience with cannabis?
It's neither double-think nor schizophrenia on my part that suggest that the alcohol van in alcohol didn't work but the ban on drugs in Sweden does. Just simply the willingness to enforce them.
H.A.
I respect your opinion A.W.and agree that a firmer decision should be made about all these drugs, addictive or not. It is causing a lot of confusion and almost a civil war type scenario between drinkers and smokers in certain respects. I think as I said before, it would be good for our civilisation to evolve to a point where the need for escapism that alters mind or body is no longer required as an antidote to stress. :)
H.A.
I enjoy smoking. I like the sociability of it, I like the expansion of my mind's idea, I like the natural creativity that comes from my fingertips. I feel relaxed, calm, in control, positive. I tend to look at people more affectionately. I like to discuss philosophy et al in depth with like minded people without the normal sober restrictions in communication. I love the humour of it. The infectious belly laugh or cackle that sets off a domino line of others. I love the thought process of imagination that can turn into creativity, the heightening of my hearing and my taste. I like the peace and tranquility of it. I have often used it as a painkiller, to stop an argument, to understand an upset. Its been in my life for years and I have never had a problem with it, quite on the contrary. I think this is the last time I'm going to comment on this subject to be honest. It has appeared so many times before. People who get badly drunk are likely to have a similar predisposition to addiction as those who get badly drugged. Moderation and balance is key in all angles of life; this is no different to my mind. Live and let live.
No comments:
Post a Comment