Is Gordon Brown right to be considering raising cannabis to a "Class B" classified drug,due to concerns about higher strains of the drug such as "skunk". Or is it just media panic and scare-mongering for a relatively unharmful drug?
The implication is that there is a reasonably high correlation between the strength of legislation on a substance and the reduction in uptake of people using the substance. If there is, then the change is merited provided the potential reduction in uptake can be demonstrated to be beneficial. Clearly, simply arresting more people isn't necessarily beneficial unless those arrests act either as breaks in a supply chain or deterrents. I strongly suspect they don't, therefore I don't think the proposed tweak would amount to a hill of beans.
Meanwhile, the scientific evidence suggests there is a link between long-term use and mental problems. Whilst the media continually misrepresent science (see MMR), one can't blame them particularly for latching on to a large number of recent studies from diverse sources reporting the correlation. Given the scope of the powers of the state, what might they do to protect people from not only their own proclivities, but those of others wishing to detrimentally exploit their weaknesses in order to make a personal profit?
-------------------- If you feel like you're always in the dark - switch the lights on!
"A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on." - Winston Churchill
Its certainly true that 'skunk' is a lot more potent than strains that used to be around, and that the incidence of drug related psychosis associated with smoking skunk is on the increase.
i'm not sure that changing the legal status would really have any effect though.
Originally posted by miz'd: Its certainly true that 'skunk' is a lot more potent than strains that used to be around,
Is that really the case though, and if it is, does that mean that people are smoking more or less of the stuff to get stoned?
I really don't think skunk has got any stronger, either in the 10-15 years I've been smoking, or over a longer period based on friends testimonies. If anything, they say it's actually got weaker because most of the skunk around now is home-grown instead of coming from abroad.
And if it really has got stronger, people will still only smoke until they're stoned so they'll actually be smoking less of the stronger stuff. The skunk I get is often of variable strength - one time may be really good, others not so good, but all it means is that I put less in a spliff if it's strong and more if it's weak, but I still smoke more or less the same amount of spliffs.
quote:
and that the incidence of drug related psychosis associated with smoking skunk is on the increase.
It's worth considering why that is. Personally, I think it's down to the fact that due to tighter border restrictions there's less solid coming into the country so there's more home-grown around and that home-grown won't be processed into solid. However, I'd still like to see a comparison between rates of drug-related psychosis with non-drug-related psychosis, and what the criteria actually is for relating to it drugs.
quote:
i'm not sure that changing the legal status would really have any effect though.
I'm sure it will have absolutely no effect whatsoever. Changing from C to B had no effect - it was illegal before, it was illegal after, so I've no reason to believe changing it back will have any effect either.
What's annoying is that since they changed it from B to C they appear to have actually stepped up efforts to catch people growing and dealing. It's sending out mixed messages - downgrading implies it's less of a hazard, or at least equivalent to other class C drugs, yet they try and police it like it's a class A. I really can't remember ever hearing about a raid on a steroid dealer, yet they're classified the same as marijuana. The level of police action is more comparable to that against Coke or Heroin.
Legalise the lot of it and stop treating us all like children.
"Without free speech no search for truth is possible... no discovery of truth is useful... Better a thousandfold abuse of free speech than denial of free speech. The abuse dies in a day, but the denial slays the life of the people, and entombs the hope of the race." - Charles Bradlaugh.
Originally posted by ddmel: I happen to be of the opinion that all drugs should be legal. Legal to buy and consume, that is.
So you don't think that drugs are made illegal for a reason? i.e: they are harmful if not used responsibly?
While alcohol and tobacco remain legal the current drug regulations are completely illogical and meaningless.
"Without free speech no search for truth is possible... no discovery of truth is useful... Better a thousandfold abuse of free speech than denial of free speech. The abuse dies in a day, but the denial slays the life of the people, and entombs the hope of the race." - Charles Bradlaugh.
Originally posted by Asarualim: Is that really the case though,
yes it is, skunk has a % TCH between 10 and 15 (on average, but has been found as high as 30%) where 'weed' or 'hash' have more like 4/5 %. i don't know if 'skunk' has got stronger or not, but in itself is a relatively new strain compared to what most UK smokers used 20 years ago.
quote:
and if it is, does that mean that people are smoking more or less of the stuff to get stoned?
this is a naive question. many people smoke well more than they 'need' to get 'stoned', and taking your delivery in larger doses doesn't simply mean you get stoned quicker, but it affects you differently. you don't cure a headache quicker by taking 12 paracetemols, you wreck your liver.
quote:
However, I'd still like to see a comparison between rates of drug-related psychosis with non-drug-related psychosis, and what the criteria actually is for relating to it drugs.
well there is little doubt that drug use can prompt / exacerbate psychotic illness, the more significant question is whether it 'causes' it, or simply exacerbates an underlying condition in already susceptible people, but then perhaps even more significant is that given enough / the right stressors, no-one's mental health is guaranteed.
quote:
Legalise the lot of it and stop treating us all like children.
well, i think that would be fine if some drug users didn't behave like children, ie having no capacity for moderation or inhibition. we all know (of) the smoker who rolls up first thing, gets through 30 joints a day, and can barely function. wasters.
Originally posted by roros: QUOTE]So you believe that alcohol and tobacco are more harmful than drugs such as cannabis??
Of course!
I'm sorry maybe I'm just being naive,but then WHY are they not illegal aswell? What possible reason would the law have to make it illegal and allow such easy access to,drink and tobacco, something that in your opinion is far more dangerous? I'm not attacking your viewpoint,by the way; I'm just genuinely interested.
Originally posted by smokeAndMirrors: The implication is that there is a reasonably high correlation between the strength of legislation on a substance and the reduction in uptake of people using the substance.
In the case of cannabis and recent changes, the correlation is negative.
quote:
If there is, then the change is merited provided the potential reduction in uptake can be demonstrated to be beneficial. Clearly, simply arresting more people isn't necessarily beneficial unless those arrests act either as breaks in a supply chain or deterrents. I strongly suspect they don't, therefore I don't think the proposed tweak would amount to a hill of beans.
Indeed, it has the potential the make the situation worse, but it sounds good for politicians trying to sound tough.
Originally posted by roros: So you believe that alcohol and tobacco are more harmful than drugs such as cannabis??
Of course!
I'm sorry maybe I'm just being naive, but then WHY are they not illegal aswell?
Good question and one that highlights the absurdity of the law. Drug law is justified on the basis of harm, both to the individual and society. The recent horizon programme argued (rather well) that alcohol and tobacco more harmful than some class A drugs (such as E).
quote:
What possible reason would the law have to make it illegal and allow such easy access to,drink and tobacco, something that in your opinion is far more dangerous? I'm not attacking your viewpoint,by the way; I'm just genuinely interested.
No doubt if tobacco were discovered now it would be illegal, so it is a quirk of history. For a fuller answer you need to look at the motivations of the politicians and the prejudices of the audiences they were, and are, playing to.
Our government (all parties) *reeks* of double standards. With the PM hoping to protect a relative handful of cannabis smokers from potential psychological problems, he allows several thousands of smokers and drinkers to kill themselves with tobacco and alcohol every year. Not to mention the thousands of pedestrians killed by motorists on the roads every year (the majority of these could be saved with a 20mph limit in built up areas).
If he banned the Daily Mail we might be on the way to a bit of sense
Originally posted by Roy P: Our government (all parties) *reeks* of double standards.
Anyone recall the justification for banning beef on the bone? Government scientist calculated that there was a 1 in 100 million chance (per year) of someone contracting vCJD. On that basis it was banned. At the time 'Dr' Jack Cunningham said the government had to do this because its most important duty was to protect its citizens. Someone care to remind me how many people a year die from smoking related deaths?
Originally posted by Asarualim: Is that really the case though,
yes it is, skunk has a % TCH between 10 and 15 (on average, but has been found as high as 30%) where 'weed' or 'hash' have more like 4/5 %. i don't know if 'skunk' has got stronger or not, but in itself is a relatively new strain compared to what most UK smokers used 20 years ago.
It's never been in any doubt that skunk is stronger than solid so I'm not sure why you're comparing them - and as you've admitted, you don't know whether skunk is actually stronger than it used to be, whereas I am casting doubt that it has based on testimony of everyone I know that smokes - and the view is that it hasn't as imports have dried up and home-grown has replaced the variety of strains you used to get 20 years ago. I was in Amsterdam a few months ago and the skunk you get over there is significantly stronger than anything I've ever had in this country. That's no longer being imported so with those strains missing from sale the average strength of skunk is lower than as 20 years ago I think.
quote:
this is a naive question. many people smoke well more than they 'need' to get 'stoned', and taking your delivery in larger doses doesn't simply mean you get stoned quicker, but it affects you differently. you don't cure a headache quicker by taking 12 paracetemols, you wreck your liver.
I'm guessing you're not a smoker. Smoking skunk is fairly self limiting, when you've had enough you've had enough. there's only so much you can take in with each drag, so overloading a spliff is just wasting it as the excess is just burnt off without getting anywhere near your lungs.
quote:
well there is little doubt that drug use can prompt / exacerbate psychotic illness, the more significant question is whether it 'causes' it, or simply exacerbates an underlying condition in already susceptible people, but then perhaps even more significant is that given enough / the right stressors, no-one's mental health is guaranteed.
The only proof is that it can exacerbate mental illness in those already susceptible, or with a family history - but alcohol can do this too. And no-one's mental health is guaranteed whether they smoke or not.
quote:
well, i think that would be fine if some drug users didn't behave like children, ie having no capacity for moderation or inhibition. we all know (of) the smoker who rolls up first thing, gets through 30 joints a day, and can barely function. wasters.
I don't know anyone who can get through 30 spliffs a day. I've been up and smoking since first thing this morning (Glastonbury tickets went on sale at 9 so I was up at 8) and I've made it through about 10, and that's with me smoking on and off pretty much all day. And I'll get up for work at 6:30 in the morning and go to work just like everyone else, just as I have every day for the last 17 years - we're not all wasters, and I'd say there's no more wasters who get stoned every day than there is alcoholics who spend their day occupying park benches shouting at people.
"Without free speech no search for truth is possible... no discovery of truth is useful... Better a thousandfold abuse of free speech than denial of free speech. The abuse dies in a day, but the denial slays the life of the people, and entombs the hope of the race." - Charles Bradlaugh.
Originally posted by Asarualim: It's never been in any doubt that skunk is stronger than solid so I'm not sure why you're comparing them - and as you've admitted, you don't know whether skunk is actually stronger than it used to be, whereas I am casting doubt that it has based on testimony of everyone I know that smokes
i never made any claim to be comparing skunk now with in the past. rather the potency of thee 'average' smoke over time. but then, since you appear to be a serious smoker, perhaps you wouldn't know.
quote:
I'm guessing you're not a smoker. Smoking skunk is fairly self limiting, when you've had enough you've had enough. there's only so much you can take in with each drag, so overloading a spliff is just wasting it as the excess is just burnt off without getting anywhere near your lungs.
well, quite a few assumptions there.... 'self limiting'and 'waste' might be concepts that are meaningful to you, but i've come across plenty of people who don't approach their drug use in quite such an organised fashion.
quote:
The only proof is that it can exacerbate mental illness in those already susceptible, or with a family history
i'm afraid research isn't quite that clear cut.
quote:
I've been up and smoking since first thing this morning (Glastonbury tickets went on sale at 9 so I was up at 8) and I've made it through about 10, and that's with me smoking on and off pretty much all day.
well good for you. would you consider yourself an addict?
Originally posted by miz'd: i never made any claim to be comparing skunk now with in the past. rather the potency of thee 'average' smoke over time. but then, since you appear to be a serious smoker, perhaps you wouldn't know.
Yes you did. You said - "Its certainly true that 'skunk' is a lot more potent than strains that used to be around"
That's literally "comparing skunk now with in the past" and it's this I'm contesting on the basis I've explained above.
And what does me being a serious smoker have to do with whether or not I know the relative strength of skunk over time. If anything, surely that would put me in a better position than you who doesn't smoke to guage such a thing.
quote:
well, quite a few assumptions there.... 'self limiting'and 'waste' might be concepts that are meaningful to you, but i've come across plenty of people who don't approach their drug use in quite such an organised fashion.
Not assumptions, facts. If you fully load up a spliff you'll get no more stoned than if you loaded it up less generously. Just because these concepts aren't meaningful to others doesn't mean they're not true.
quote:
i'm afraid research isn't quite that clear cut.
The only research that is clear cut is that it can tip susceptible people over the edge, just as alcohol, or some traumatic event can. all other research is so far inconclusive.
quote:
well good for you. would you consider yourself an addict?
No, not at all because it's not physically addictive - I just enjoy being stoned. I can go without out it and I have done on several occassions for various periods of time, and I've recently packed in smoking cigarettes without much bother too so I'm not even addicted to tobacco. Sorry if I don't comply to some pre-conceived stereotype you might have in your mind of a dribbling junkie, crippled by addiction, but I don't go to Grange Hill you know.
So, who are thse people you know who can manage to smoke 30 spliffs a day?
"Without free speech no search for truth is possible... no discovery of truth is useful... Better a thousandfold abuse of free speech than denial of free speech. The abuse dies in a day, but the denial slays the life of the people, and entombs the hope of the race." - Charles Bradlaugh.
Originally posted by Asarualim: Yes you did. You said - "Its certainly true that 'skunk' is a lot more potent than strains that used to be around"
and *you* assumed that meant i was comparing strains of skunk, whereas i was actually meaning more broadly 'different strains available'. i then clarified that by citing the active ingredient percentage of different strains including weed, hash and skunk. please don't get aggressive with me over the assumptions *you* made. perhaps you've blown a few too many brain cells to be able to comrehend that I am not party to your mental processes, nor you to mine, and I do not necessarily mean what you assume.
quote:
you who doesn't smoke
please show where i have ever stated my smoking or non smoking habits.
quote:
Not assumptions, facts. If you fully load up a spliff you'll get no more stoned than if you loaded it up less generously. Just because these concepts aren't meaningful to others doesn't mean they're not true.
there is no need for you to repeat yourself, perhaps just to re-read what i actually said. which is that regardless of 'the facts' people's consumption is not always driven by them.
quote:
The only research that is clear cut is that it can tip susceptible people over the edge,
this is tautological as in many cases 'susceptibility' can only be shown after the event. research is indeed inconclusive. however inconclusive is not the same as a negative correlation.
quote:
I just enjoy being stoned.
evidently. many people enjoy being drunk. but taking a drink at 8am isn't something i consider unproblematic.
quote:
Sorry if I don't comply to some pre-conceived stereotype you might have in your mind of a dribbling junkie, crippled by addiction, but I don't go to Grange Hill you know.
well, you *weren't* complying with any sterotype as my original comments were never aimed at you since you had not even posted on the thread at that point.however you are now demonstrating several traits that i consider to be indicative of an aggressive addict.
chill out man.
you can never demonstrate that excessive consumption of any drug is NOT potentially harmful (which was all my original comments indicated)so why bother trying, and i am not in favour of punitive legislation. indeed i don't give a stuff how much you smoke.
Originally posted by roros: Is Gordon Brown right to be considering raising cannabis to a "Class B" classified drug,due to concerns about higher strains of the drug such as "skunk". Or is it just media panic and scare-mongering for a relatively unharmful drug?
There are two issues here. One: is cannabis harmful? The answer is yes. And there has been some new evidence accumulating recently about this. The second issue is: should drugs be illegal? The answer -I think- is: no. The rationale for my answer (and I'd like to mention that I don't do drugs, with the exception of alcohol -in moderation),is that the criminal activities associated with drug traffic have become a far more serious problem than the health consequences of drug use. The illegalization of drugs is responsible for crime and corruption. And governments spend billions fighting it -uselessly. The answer is -I think- to legalize drugs -all kinds. And when they become legal, their quality should be controlled.
Milan, at the risk of also agreeing with leafar/ddmel (heaven forbid) I agree with you. The basic principle of the law should be to protect members of society from each other not from themselves. The government should do everything it can to warn against drug use and assist people in recovery but has no business telling us what we can and can't do to ourselves. The costs to society in fighting this pointless, unwinable war are immense. Ben Elton makes this case very well in 'high society'.
