Judge - I am the law and I'll do as I please.

[Phanerothyme]

Interesting new research on Cannabis:

Pulmonologist, Dr. Donald Tashkin from the University of California also added that one reason marijuana smoke might not be as harmful as tobacco smoke, despite containing similar noxious ingredients, may be the fact that its active ingredient, THC, has anti-inflammatory effects. “We don’t know for sure,” he said, “but a very reasonable possibility is that THC may actually interfere with the development of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.”

 

If you're going to smoke tobacco, you could do worse than mix in some weed.

 

more - http://nugs.com/article/marijuana-smokers-breathe-easy-says-the-university-of-alabama.html

[anywebsite]

You dont know the scene in the big American inner city poor areas. You're stuck in Sheffield, hardly Detroit or the south central district of Los Angeles.

 

But it'll become like that if we make anti-drug laws as harsh as they are in the USA & cut our social programs. If we follow the US example our cities in the UK will be as bad as those in the US.

 

That is what we're trying to avoid.

 

When heroin was legal there were 48 addicts in the UK, now there are about 300,000.

 

Marijuana generates a lot of money for criminal gangs. It's not all friendly neighbourhood dealers, it's an easy source of money for real criminals, just like alcohol used to be during US prohibition. It'd take a lot of the money out of being a criminal & make it a less attractive career choice if drugs were legalised.

[ferno]

David Cameron should have an enlightened view on this. His wife's great-great-something grandmother was Enid Bagnold who wrote National Velvet- remember a young Liz Taylor winning the Grand National? Bagnold was a heroin addict who never hurt anyone, never stole anything, and died peacefully in bed at 91 having led a blameless bourgeois existence.

 

Until the American prohibitionists closed him down in the 20s, Dr Willis Butler ran a famous clinic in Shreveport, Louisiana, for old soldiers and others who had become addicted to morphine after operations.

 

Among his patients, he included four doctors, two church ministers, two retired judges, an attorney, an architect, a newspaper editor, a musician from the symphony orchestra, a printer, two glass blowers and the mother of the commissioner of police. None of them showed any ill effect from the years which they spent on Dr Butler's morphine.

 

None of them died as a result of his prescriptions. And, as Dr Butler later recalled: "I never found one we could give an overdose to, even if we had wanted to.

 

I saw one man take 12 grains intravenously at one time. He stood up and said: 'There, that's just fine,' and went on about his business."

[Hairyloon]

I think licensing is a way forward. Somewhat stricter than we currently have for alcohol and tobacco, and license the user, not just the outlets.

[RootsBooster]

I think licensing is a way forward. Somewhat stricter than we currently have for alcohol and tobacco, and license the user, not just the outlets.

 

That's an interesting idea, worthy of exploring. Why do you feel it should be stricter control than alcohol and tobacco though (which, as far as we know, are more harmful than cannabis).

 

Maybe your idea should apply to all three.

[fruitisbad]

That's an interesting idea, worthy of exploring. Why do you feel it should be stricter control than alcohol and tobacco though (which, as far as we know, are more harmful than cannabis).

 

Maybe your idea should apply to all three.

 

yeah I think this would be a good middle ground. Currently at the needle exchange, a great way of harm reduction, you have to give your initials and address and they ask if you are in treatment. This point of contact is important and a fairly formal service does highlight the severity of the issue.

 

I think the anti legalise brigade imagine that if legalised there's going to be discount heroin on sale in tesco next to their tins of beans.

[Hairyloon]

I think licensing is a way forward. Somewhat stricter than we currently have for alcohol and tobacco, and license the user, not just the outlets.

That's an interesting idea, worthy of exploring. Why do you feel it should be stricter control than alcohol and tobacco though (which, as far as we know, are more harmful than cannabis).

Because it should be applied across the board: including crack and heroin.

Obviously, the terms of a heroin user's license would be much stricter than for lager.

[RootsBooster]

Because it should be applied across the board: including crack and heroin.

Obviously, the terms of a heroin user's license would be much stricter than for lager.

 

My question was "Why do you feel it (meaning cannabis) should be stricter control than alcohol and tobacco though (which, as far as we know, are more harmful than cannabis)." ...which your reply doesn't answer.

[Hairyloon]

My question was "Why do you feel it (meaning cannabis) should be stricter control than alcohol and tobacco though (which, as far as we know, are more harmful than cannabis)." ...which your reply doesn't answer.

 

Ah. My "somewhat stricter" referred to the overall licensing regime, and in specific to the user's license which should also be applied to alcohol.

I did not mean that cannabis should be more strictly controlled than alcohol.

[Cyclone]

the license for drinking alcohol is to prove that you're over 18, the same should apply for cannabis.