Should cannabis be legal

[Hodge]

Originally posted by Sidla

If people wouldn't try cannabis even if it were legal, why would they vote to legalise it?

 

Because it's an absurd law? I really don't think whether or not somebody partakes in smoking plays a huge part in the argument - what I mean by that is, just because somebody doesn't smoke it, it doesn't necessarily mean they're apathetic about the subject and the effects of legalisation. Or, taking the question from another angle – just because somebody doesn’t smoke it, it doesn’t automatically put them in the “it should never be legalised” category. I know many people who don't smoke Cannabis, and have no intentions of smoking it - legal or not - but they certainly take an interest in the subject, and would like to see it legalised.

 

There are many things I don’t actually do, but take an active interest in the subject regardless. I don’t drive, for example – I’ve never even sat behind the wheel of a car, and have no intentions of doing so. However, that doesn’t stop me from taking an interest, or being concerned about things which may affect a wide spectrum of people.

[neeeeeeeeeek]

BECAUSE THE LAW DOES NOT WORK. Lots of people can see that there is NO benefit from it being banned and that millions of pounds are wasted trying to uphold a pointless law! and no I don't smoke.

[Cyclone]

that's rhetorical right?

I have opinions on many things, some of which I do and others I don't. I don't think the law should necessarily make my way the only way though.

Does that make sense, I prefer when possible people to have the choice, rather than being forced into the same choice as me.

 

Originally posted by Sidla

If people wouldn't try cannabis even if it were legal, why would they vote to legalise it?

 

Similarly, if people don't smoke tobacco, would they vote to have it banned?

[Sidla]

That wasn't really what I was pressing at. I just find it fairly ironic that the government seem to be leaning towards baning smoking in public, yet at the same time decriminalising cannabis with people talking about legalising it.

 

I've just been on my customary dog walk to the shop, and on the way back I saw a couple of youths, no older than 15, lurking in the bushes with the smell of cannabis in the air. While it didn't surprise me in the slightest, I feel slightly saddened that someone would supply children with cannabis. When I was that age, I didn't know anyone who had smoked cannabis, yet these days it's not uncommon to see young gangs of youths smoking a spliff. I can only blame the decriminalisation of the drug for this, and to be blunt, I think it is sending out the wrong message.

[Cyclone]

i'd rather see it legalised, then banned from smoking in public enclosed spaces along with tobacco.

When I was at comprehensive 10 years ago I could have named at least a handful of people that smoked it, and since i wasn't one of them, that was just public knowledge. I think you'd need to go back 50 or more years to find it unusual for some 15 year olds to be experimenting with something.

[neeeeeeeeeek]

Get a grip Sidla, You honestly blame the recent softer stance on on those kids smoking? Then I guess the same kids must be drinking because of it. Next you will be saying all the Heroin addicts only started to smoke because of that! Do you honestly think those kids would have said 'Oh No. I won't smoke that splif because it's against the law' and now they suddenly say 'Oh, that's still illegal but it's lower priority so I will smoke it'

Jeeeez.

:loopy:

[Phanerothyme]

Originally posted by Sidla

That wasn't really what I was pressing at. I just find it fairly ironic that the government seem to be leaning towards baning smoking in public, yet at the same time decriminalising cannabis with people talking about legalising it.

 

I've just been on my customary dog walk to the shop, and on the way back I saw a couple of youths, no older than 15, lurking in the bushes with the smell of cannabis in the air. While it didn't surprise me in the slightest, I feel slightly saddened that someone would supply children with cannabis. When I was that age, I didn't know anyone who had smoked cannabis, yet these days it's not uncommon to see young gangs of youths smoking a spliff. I can only blame the decriminalisation of the drug for this, and to be blunt, I think it is sending out the wrong message.

 

I agree wholeheartedly with that. The biggest problem here is not drug use but the clearly insane drug laws that state, amongst other things:

 

a) barbiturates are less dangerous than mescaline

b) LSD-25 is more dangerous than temazepam

c) magic mushrooms are safe until dry, when they miraculously become as dangerous as crack cocaine.

d) speed is less dangerous than ketamine hydrochloride.

e) there are illegal drugs that don't yet exist.

 

This makes it very difficult for anyone looking into the legality of drugs to take the law seriously, when it appears to be based on utter nonsense.

 

The whole system of classification and prohibition is a crock, and needs to be rewritten from the ground up. I'm not suggesting an absence of drug law, just some drug law that is:

 

a) proportionate (i.e the negative effects of the penalties for using a prohibited drug should not outweigh those of using the drug itself)

 

b) grounded in reality, not the aggregated fears of 150 years of politically motivated scaremongering and scapegoating. Drug law with stated aims and a clear basis in ongoing research would be a start.

 

c) sane and liberal - gives people the choice, and minimises harm.

[dillinger]

Weed was pretty much outlawed because the americans didn't like the mexicans who came into america. mexicans had been smoking weed since years back too. america generally started a smear campaign.

[Phanerothyme]

there's also the paper connection. The hemp industry and the timber industry were in direct competition. This was the age where newspapers ruled as the mass media, and the consumption of paper was already colossal.

 

I'm not so sure it's a conspiracy, so much as a suffused suspicion of those who willingly enter 'illegitimate' states of mind through the ingestion of psychoactives.

 

The most exhaustive study of cannabis and cannabis use ever undertaken stated that:

Mental Effects

 

In respect to the alleged mental effects of the drugs, the Commission have come to the conclusion that the moderate use of hemp drugs produces no injurious effects on the mind. It may indeed be accepted that in the case of specially marked neurotic diathesis, even the moderate use may produce mental injury. For the slightest mental stimulation or excitement may have that effect in such cases. But putting aside these quite exceptional cases, the moderate use of these drugs produces no mental injury. It is otherwise with the excessive use. Excessive use indicates and intensifies mental instability (1:264).

 

Moral Effects

 

In regard to the moral effects of the drugs, the Commission are of opinion that their moderate use produces no moral injury whatever. There is no adequate ground for believing that it injuriously affects the character of the consumer. Excessive consumption, on the other hand, both indicates and intensifies moral weakness or depravity (1:264).

 

Of course, this was written before the dangers of smoking were fully known and people still sent children up chimneys (probably) (1894).

 

What would today's independent commission reveal? Why will few politicans recognise that the current laws are an embarassment to any modern liberal democracy? Not that they are unique in the world, but this is where we live, and we have the power to change them.

[Foxxx]

Originally posted by dillinger

Weed was pretty much outlawed because the americans didn't like the mexicans who came into america. mexicans had been smoking weed since years back too. america generally started a smear campaign.

 

Anyone who's watched Howard Marks, Mr Nice will know the story behind cannabis becoming illegal and it still makes me laugh. It was first banned in the UK in 1928 after South African and Egyptian delegates at an international conference about opium (in Geneva) persuaded other countries that cannabis drove people mad!

 

The conference was held because opium was becoming a problem. They thought that Opium, a very addictive drug (but relatively harmless by today's standards) was once widely used by the Chinese, when the Chinese started to immigrate to the United States, they brought opium with them. They used opium to induce a trance-like state which helped make boring, repetitive tasks more interesting and also because it numbs the mind to pain and exhaustion. Since they were such good workers, the Chinese held a lot of jobs in the highly competitive industrial work-place. Even before the Great Depression, when millions of jobs disappeared overnight, the White Americans began to resent this, and Chinese became hated among the White working class, and one of the easiest things to focus these feelings on was the foreign and mysterious practice of using opium.

 

Anyway, after opium had been discussed Dr. El Guindy, Egyptian delegate stands up and says the following (I've cut some out as it's a long speech):

 

We must next consider the effects which are produced by the use of hashish and distinguish between:

 

(1) Acute hashishism, and

 

(2) Chronic hashishism.

 

Taken in small doses, hashish at first produces an agreeable inebriation, a sensation of well-being and a desire to smile; the mind is stimulated. A slightly stronger dose brings a feeling of oppression and of discomfort. There follows a kind of hilarious and noisy delirium in persons of a cheerful disposition, but the delirium takes a violent form in persons of violent character. It should be noted that the behaviour under the influence of the delirium is always related to the character of an individual. The state of inebriation or delirium is followed by slumber, which is usually peaceful but sometimes broken by nightmares. The awakening is not unpleasant; there is a slight feeling of fatigue, but it soon passes.

 

Hashish absorbed in large doses produces a furious delirium and strong physical agitation; it predisposes to acts of violence and produces a characteristic strident laugh. This condition is followed by a veritable stupor, which cannot be called sleep. Great fatigue is felt on awakening, and the feeling of depression may last for several days.

 

The habitual use of hashish brings on chronic hashishism.

 

The countenance of the addict becomes gloomy, his eye is wild and the expression of his face stupid. He is silent; has no muscular power; suffers from physical ailments, heart troubles, digestive troubles, etc.; his intellectual faculties gradually weaken and the whole organism decays. The addict very frequently becomes neurasthenic and, eventually, insane.

 

In general, the absorption of hashish produces hallucinations, illusions as to time and place, fits of trembling, and convulsions.

 

A person under the influence of hashish presents symptoms very similar to those of hysteria.

 

From the therapeutic point of view, science has not made much use of hashish with good results. It has, however, been administered with some success in certain cases of delirium tremens.

 

Taken thus occasionally and in small doses, hashish perhaps does not offer much danger, but there is always the risk that once a person begins to take it, he will continue. He acquires the habit and becomes addicted to the drug, and, once this has happened, it is very difficult to escape. Notwithstanding the humiliations and penalties inflicted on addicts in Egypt, they always return to their vice. They are known as "hashashees," which is a term of reproach in our country, and they are regarded as useless derelicts.

 

Chronic hashishism is extremely serious, since hashish is a toxic substance, a poison against which no effective antidote is known. It exercises a sedative and hypnotic effect, and is prescribed in the following doses:

 

The extract, from 0.015 gr. to 0.06 gr.

The tincture, from 5 to 15 drops.

Generally speaking, hashish is not very much used in medical practice, and its results are a matter of controversy.

In view of the great danger involved by the consumption of hashish, special measures have been taken by the Egyptian Government.

 

The illicit use of hashish is the principal cause of most of the cases of insanity occurring in Egypt. In support of this contention, it may be observed that there are three times as many cases of mental alienation among men as among women, and it is an established fact that men are much more addicted to hashish than women. (In Europe, on the contrary, it is significant that a greater proportion of cases of insanity occur among women than among men.)

 

Generally speaking, the proportion of cases of insanity caused by the use of hashish varies from 3 to 60 percent of the total number of cases occurring in Egypt.

 

At the conclusion of M. El Guindy's speech, Dr. Sze expressed the approval of the Chinese Delegation of the proposal that the Conference should do what it could to remove the danger threatened to humanity by this drug. Mr. Porter in behalf of the American Delegation declared:

 

The very carefully prepared statement of the Delegate of Egypt, together with my own knowledge on the subject, have satisfied me that we are under an obligation in this Conference to do everything we can to assist the Egyptian and Turkish people to rid themselves of this vice. We are asking them to help us to destroy the vice of opium, coca leaves and their derivatives, and I believe that this is a good time to practise a little reciprocity. They have their troubles and we have ours, and I can see no reason why this Conference, aided as it is by the distinguished men on Sub-Committee F, should not deal with this question. Happily, as I understand it, no question of revenue is involved. That fact ought to make the solution muche easier.

 

 

 

Oh this makes me laugh, how wrong could they be!!!! And so it was made illegal, due to some bloke who was talking out of his a**e!