It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Should Cannabis laws be reversed?

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 22 2007 @ 10:19 PM
link   
Hey. I haven't posted for a long time, but this was an interesting news item to me.

news.bbc.co.uk...

Basically Gordon Brown has asked for a review of the drug's classification, as they look at revising the U K's drugs strategy.

What does everyone think of this? Cannabis has had a review just 2 years ago under Charles Clarke who asked for further study into the potency and patterns of cannabis but recommended no change.

I just wonder how it's going to work. If you upgrade it again, drug users will just be fined or thrown into jails which are already overcrowded, and the drug dealers will just keep selling and find more customers.




posted on Jul, 23 2007 @ 01:55 AM
link   


Should Cannabis laws be reversed?S


NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!

Brown is just trying to score political points with the reactionary Mail readers of middle England, who, despite probably all having smoke it at University, will scream blue bloody murder if anyone else has a spliff.

And this is the same Government that legalised 24hr drinking!

What is going through their heads? Seriously?

If we can drink ourselves to death, they by jove, I want to be able to smoke a bit of weed every now and then as well!

The Media and politicians don't have a clue what they are on about either. One of the funniest quotes I see bandied about is

"With the emergence of stronger, more potent cannabis, known as "Skunk"...."

Er, excuse me, Mr Mail Reader person, Skunk is just another name for herbal cannabis, as opposed to "solid" or "hash" for cannabis resin. You call it Skunk because it smells. It just shows the crass ignorance that those in power have about this debate.

Although, it has to be said, I don't expect a re-classification. The Police, for one, don't give a hoot about it and have been saying for years it should be legalised.



posted on Jul, 23 2007 @ 02:48 AM
link   

A review by the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs a year after cannabis was downgraded recommended no change.

www.mirror.co.uk...

Kind of says it all for me. I wonder if the same will happen again?
Though I’d be surprised given what former home office minister Charles Clark said about Brown being a control freak!! Of course he wants to control us the public, with legislation, the only problem is it doesn’t work.
But if the Labour government wants to chuck more people into overcrowded prison for selling cannabis then that’s fine by me, just providing they don’t catch my dealer as they’re especially nice people.

The way I see it who cares? It doesn’t matter what the law says, the stuff still lights. And providing I don’t get the death penalty I don’t care either. Looking on the bright side it’s about time the stuff had a price rise as £25 an eighth (ten for solid) isn’t really enough in my view, I mean I know it sounds a lot if you don’t smoke dope, but actually it’s cheaper to get stoned than it is drunk (well for me and most people I know).
My only advice is don’t overdo it because you can get reasonably stoned every night and no one suspects a thing, but if you did that with alcohol (Labours preferred mind blowing drug given the way taxes against income have remained relatively low on it) then everyone would know something was wrong (for a start you’d soon be an alcoholic).

However if my dealer gets arrested and if they go to prison I will not be a happy bunny. It’s great arresting people who sell evil hardcore stuff like crack or heroin, or even just arresting nasty little chavs because they’re nasty little chavs, but to arrest some of nicest people you can meet, who are just trying to escape stacking too many shelves; ah!! give me a brake! But thankly it hasn’t happened yet.

I think Brown didn’t do cannabis at university because he’s a loser. He said it was because when he was at university the drugs culture hadn’t really taken of, but that just shows you how insecure about being a loser he really was as they’re almost certainly would have been one, just that probably, no one was stupid enough to invite him into it since he probably would have said: “I am going to report you to the nearest local authority as that’s against the law, and against my own personal theory on how to run an economically productive society”

THE FACTS verses POLITICS
This cannabis paranoia has arisen partly because evidence proves that if you smoke the stuff you run the risk of going hay-wire. However the chances of you going haywire aren’t exactly high in the first place. For example only 1.1 percent of the U.S population has schizophrenia www.nimh.nih.gov... So if cannabis increases you’re chances of getting it by quote: Cannabis seems to increase that risk by between 300% and 1000% www.schizophrenia.com...
Then that gives a whole generation which is more than 90% sane. But it gets better: Even if you develop mental illness from cannabis most illnesses occur as just brief episodes which are corrected when the brain has kicked out all the THC (active ingredient).
An interesting thing about cannabis is that unlike alcohol which gets you high at the expense of killing brain cells, cannabis does not. Cannabis gets you far happier at the expense of blocking certain information routes in your brain, however unlike poisoned brain cells (which obviously remain dead) the neurons in time become unblocked (once you quit for a brief period).
On The Downside: During the time they’re blocked you’re brain discovers new ways to send information around itself, these new routes aren’t always a good idea, and hence mental illness. So you can smoke cannabis, trigger a mental illness, then find it takes ages to put it back in its box (even after you’re body is cleansed of it). However this is a nightmare scenario which is very rare. In fact it’s thought that most people who end up like this would have gone crazy at some point in they’re lives anyway (or at least had a very high chance). This makes them a small minority.

The moral of the story: Don’t get stoned for days on end or like the majority of you’re life, as this is asking you’re brain to develop new information routes when it doesn’t really know what it’s doing, and can’t really be assed to do a proper job anyway. Also this is a bad way of living as you won’t be assed to do a proper job either. It will seem cool for a while, but you’ll probably get the sack, or at least sleep in too much because you’ve been doing too much. However if you have a bad attitude to work it’s easy to cast this aside and just smoke some more. This is pathetic. As (eventually) you’ll get very depressed as both you’re mind and brain will realise you’re not doing very much in life, and when you cut down too rapidly you’ll get even more depressed as you’ll feel as bad as you’re situation is.

Obviously the thing to do is to have (one way or another) a cannabis brake and sort yourself out, ideally you don’t want to get yourself into that situation in the first place (it’s the penalty for being too self-indulgent).
However some “stupid” people don’t realise this and carry on smoking in they’re pathetic misery. Some try other drugs. Now a “cannabis slump” as I call it has got to be the worst time to try other drugs, but you can see some peoples logic “I'm feeling depressed because I'm not doing anything with my life, but I’ll blame the cannabis for not getting me high enough, and therefore try something else as well, to make it feel alright” Bravo morons.
Generally you should never mix drugs (even if they’re already inside your system). But to mix drugs when you’re feeling down is kind of asking you’re brain to do something wrong. And hence I believe that’s why so many cannabis users have mental illness, cannabis no doubt has a risk even if you did nothing else, but the fact is most cannabis users have done other drugs, and they’ve done those when they’ve had cannabis in they’re system even if they felt alright at the time.

Me: I’ve more or less only done two drugs: Cannabis and mushrooms. And the number of times I’ve done mushrooms has been very few indeed (they’re completely different, but dare I suggest a infinitely higher poker game if you took them on a regular basis). I believe with mushrooms you want to space usages with months. However I'm someone who likes to play it safe rather than sorry with drugs, otherwise I wouldn’t do them at all. But I do weed because I’ve got common sense, and people who’ve given me good advice. Frankly smoking cannabis can be a way to greatly improve you’re “living standards” but there are rules.

As for governments rules: crack down on those nasty Chav types as it’s buying cannabis from these people (unprepared) that will make you wish you never tried it. And if they randomly come across you, and if they have friends with them, then the problem has just multiplied. This is what once happened to me, and it’s amazing how long they can remember you, and where in town one of them might bump into you. I don’t know how far away I was from taking the law into my own hands (big time) (due to stress and fear) however the problem has more or less melted away now as I'm in quite a neat army of good friends; but then I'm lucky.

[edit on 090705 by Liberal1984]



posted on Jul, 23 2007 @ 05:25 AM
link   

I think Brown didn’t do cannabis at university because he’s a loser.


Hah, that's the most funniest quote I've read for awhile. He may be the Prime Minister but he's still a loser.



posted on Jul, 23 2007 @ 06:36 AM
link   
I didn't even realize it was recently downgraded in the U.K.


I seriously doubt it will be raised, like said, this is probably just to pander to the seemingly dwindling number of people left who care.

Here in the U.S. it's still a Schedule I substance (high potential for abuse, no medicinal value); however, pure synthetic THC is Schedule II (
). I think it should be legalized and treated like alcohol, but the Schedule I label is absolutely ridiculous.

[edit on 7/23/2007 by djohnsto77]



posted on Jul, 23 2007 @ 08:34 AM
link   
What's the point of down grading or up grading cannabis )or any other drug for that matter), if the law is not going to be fully enforced.

I am in favour of the toughest possible sentences for trafficing and trading in drugs. Life or hang them seems just a little too good for people who peddle drugs.

If we are going to enforce the law, lets make it worth it. If you are caught with a banned substance, prison and if you are trading, then life.

Make it simple.



posted on Jul, 23 2007 @ 08:50 AM
link   
Dude, we're talking pot here, which is banned for no good reason at all. It's not crack or heroin for crying out loud!

Less harmful for you than tobacco or alcohol, yet still illegal. You think just because the Government says it's bad, then it should be punishable by prison, or even death?




I am in favour of the toughest possible sentences for trafficing and trading in drugs. Life or hang them seems just a little too good for people who peddle drugs.


So pub landlords and corner shop owners should be hung for peddling drugs? Alcohol and tobacco are drugs, you know.


[edit on 23/7/07 by stumason]



posted on Jul, 23 2007 @ 09:16 AM
link   
stumason, I do not disagree with the essense of your last post but Alcohol and tobacco are not illegal to use or own.

Cannabis is.

we can drive this thread very off topic if we debate the rights and wrongs on the ban on cannibas, and if it should be treated more or less harshless that crack or heroin.

If we have laws saying that cannabis is illegal, they should be enforced to the letter. And for me, the law should be harsher.

I have seen people I know move very quickly from the use of cannabis to heroin in the space of a few weeks, so will always want the harshest sentence on those peddling this and any other illegal drug.



posted on Jul, 23 2007 @ 09:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Freedom ERP
stumason, I do not disagree with the essense of your last post but Alcohol and tobacco are not illegal to use or own.

Cannabis is.

we can drive this thread very off topic if we debate the rights and wrongs on the ban on cannibas, and if it should be treated more or less harshless that crack or heroin.


It is the topic, actually. The legality of cannabis is the way it is due to 1930's law which bunched all drugs in together and cannabis copped the flak as well for a couple of reasons.


  1. It is easily grown at home. Hard for Government to tax it if people can grow it themselves
  2. The plant itself has many derivatives which, at the time, was a direct and cheaper alternative to many major industries. Big cotton for one.
  3. null



Originally posted by Freedom ERP
If we have laws saying that cannabis is illegal, they should be enforced to the letter. And for me, the law should be harsher.


So, using your logic, if alcohol was illegal, you would wholeheartedly support it regardless of the actual facts surrounding it. Just because Government said so? You would like to see people criminalised for smoking a herb that is less harmful than alcohol or tobacco?

There are no recorded deaths from an overdose, ever.

Users aren't regularly arrested on Friday or Saturday night for fighting, injuring and even killing people as a result of it's use, are they?


Originally posted by Freedom ERP
I have seen people I know move very quickly from the use of cannabis to heroin in the space of a few weeks, so will always want the harshest sentence on those peddling this and any other illegal drug.


Thats a personal choice, not the fault of cannabis. The only reason why it is viewed as a "gateway drug" is because of it's illegality. The fact you have to go to unscrupulous, underworld types to acquire it opens up the possibility of acquiring harder drugs which cause much more harm.

I know two people close to me who were heroin users. My elder sister and my ex. Neither smoked cannabis prior. It is a choice made by the individual to dabble in these substances, not the fault of cannabis. It is a weak and pathetic argument.



posted on Jul, 23 2007 @ 01:10 PM
link   
It is only a weak and pathetic argument from your view point. Not mine.

And yes, if we elected a Government on a mandate to ban alcohol, then the law should be fully enforced.

We give our Government the powers to enable laws to protect us, and the Government has decided that Cannabis is illegal so the any laws regarding the ownership and use of cannabis should be fully enforced, and if this means more prisons, so be it. We can not choose which laws we are happy to enforce. It is an all or nothing.

There is a huge amount of information, either way on the rights and wrongs on cannibas and I am sure evidence can be found to support either side.



posted on Jul, 23 2007 @ 01:13 PM
link   
Stumason You’re so spot on about the fact cannabis is illegal makes you meet people who also sell harder drugs, and some (quite naturally) for the sake of business encourage it. I had a nasty little Chav trying to sell me opium once, marketing it as "ok" if you only do it once in a while. But I didn’t go out to meet nasty people who say opium is ok, I just wanted skunk, and thankfully that’s what I came back with. Someone else; maybe it’s different?
And as I said before you should be more afraid about dealing with the wrong crowd, than whatever they sell you (unless its resign in which case it’ll most probably have Ketamin and sometimes even plastic in it).
Also you buying cannabis from the wrong crowd make’s it more worth they’re while to sell other things.

There is a gateway drug and that drug is tobacco. People who smoke tobacco are more likely to try cannabis because that’s how it’s often “served”. But to say cannabis leads to crack and heroin, is like saying eating roast beef, leads to eating baked beans. There may be a link, but they’re no way related.

FreedomERP In your own way you do actually have a point. If you wanted to ban alcohol then a way to do it well would be to imprison those who drink it and maybe execute those who trade it.
Like it or not the pragmatic truth on how to make all levels of authoritarianism (just or unjust) work is to: spy, imprison, and kill (the killing bit isn’t a mandatory part of authoritarianism, but under it’s logic it’s more pragmatic because the alternative is to effectively kill someone by making sure they spend massive chunks of they’re life behind bars, but because the “enemy” are large in number, the pragmatism preaches it would be better to kill them instead.

The difference between our belief FreedomERP is that you believe in applying the authoritarian ideals of spy, imprison and kill to cannabis.
I don’t think it’s worth it, but like applying the death penalty to car crime there’s no way you can argue it doesn’t work.
Of course it works, but thank God that in spite of that most people will still disagree with it. I don’t want a perfect society whose ideology teaches an ants nest would ultimately be a good idea.
I demand the freedom to be a human being who is the captain of they’re own ship, the sole master of they’re own fate. I would die in war for these things, and I might just have ended up dying under you’re system FreedomERP. Yet I am by no means a terrible person.
Why can't you see what that makes you’re system-logic (in spite of being workable)?



posted on Jul, 23 2007 @ 01:37 PM
link   
Just as we start to get a workable set of drug laws......


The last thing we ought to be doing is pandering to the reactionary 'something must be done' likes of the DM and their day-dreams of what they think this mythical 'middle England' is supposed to want
(a 'middle England let's remember who, if the stats are all to be believed, are largely either in a laughable state of denial about themselves or their own families or are just being completely misrepresented).

Lurid stories about "skunk" cannabis (which are all the press wants to talk about cos it is intended to separate the parental group's own experience with the herb if they dabbled in their youth) don't prove anything.
Pretending that drug use leads to psychosis (as opposed to those with psychotic instabilities & tendencies being likely to be drawn to or ending up with a lifestyle where drug use is not uncommon) is just absurd.

We don't run our society on the basis that one thousandth of one percent of people might be ar*eholes and choose to flush their life down the lav through over-use of drugs......and you don't 'need' illegal drugs to achieve that either.

In fact far from making worthwhile points it is merely a retreat into the old routine of clearly and grossly exaggerated scare stories that will just be ignored.

......as indeed will any reclassification.

The real and only sensible approach that does the slightest bit of good is a 'harm reduction' strategy.
You can make all the many threats you can until you're blue in the face but it won't stop anybody indulging.

Frankly I hope this Gov tells the Daily Mail types where to get off, there punitive approach never did anything but waste vast amounts of money on a completely pointless & doomed so-called 'drugs war' and criminalise so many people needlessly.

The fact that home grown cannabis is a huge element of the current British 'scene' is simply evidence that this new war was lost long before it ever started.

It's an unjust law (and if you look back at when and how it was enacted the level of chicanery is ludicrous) and when laws no longer hold the consent and approval of the wider public they have to go.

....and go this will eventually.
One of the reasons for the down-grading was a sensible recognition of the fact that the law as it was was wholly unworkable.....as indeed will any newer version of it be.



posted on Jul, 24 2007 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Freedom ERP
It is only a weak and pathetic argument from your view point. Not mine.

And yes, if we elected a Government on a mandate to ban alcohol, then the law should be fully enforced.

We give our Government the powers to enable laws to protect us, and the Government has decided that Cannabis is illegal so the any laws regarding the ownership and use of cannabis should be fully enforced, and if this means more prisons, so be it. We can not choose which laws we are happy to enforce. It is an all or nothing.

There is a huge amount of information, either way on the rights and wrongs on cannibas and I am sure evidence can be found to support either side.



No Government has ever been elected with a mandate to criminalise cannabis and certainly not this Labour Government. The Tories in their last manifesto actually said they wanted to put it back into Class B and guess what, they lost the election.

If the populace actually supported the idea, you think it would of helped them. Granted, other factors were in play, but if it is such a vote winner, then why didn't anyone vote? Because they don't support it.

I didn't vote Tory in the last election for that one and only reason! I know many others who didn't as well.

Labour in fact received a boost in the polls due to the de-classification last time round. Opinion polls and the Police all showed a huge support for it.

Opinion polls now show huge support for legalisation, but Government does not seem to listen but instead panders to reactionary elements in the press and of certain sections of the public. seems they only listen to certain people instead of the majority.

So, on that, your argument is mute.

The Government would actually be supported wholesale with a legalisation, but they are scared to do so because certain press elements and interest groups would make a bloody scene about it, even though the majority either couldn't give a monkeys if people had a chuff, or actually chuff themselves.

[edit on 24/7/07 by stumason]



posted on Jul, 24 2007 @ 03:35 PM
link   
According to an early post, the law making cannibas illegal was passed in the 1930s so not many of us will have had the opportunity to vote on a Government wanting to criminalise cannabis.

If only the Tory view on upgrading cannibas was the only reason they lost the last election, David Cameron would be a very much more happy man!!

What opinion polls? And what majority?

And what a surprise, the Government not listerning to percieved public opinion.



posted on Jul, 24 2007 @ 04:12 PM
link   
There are plenty of polls out there, some detailing public response to MP admissions (apparently the Tories could enjoy a net increase of 2% in the Polls if Cameron admitted to Cannabis use), others dealing with public views on the classification.

According to ICM polls in 2004 and 2006, 64% of people supported the de-classification. 99% thought that Cannabis was a waste of police time and they should concentrate on other matters, such as drink driving, sex offences and street crime (which, funnily enough, is largely alcohol related).

Last year, when the Government released the study about all drugs and their effects, alcohol came WAY above cannabis (jn fact, cannabis was so far down the list it actually fell under legal prescription drugs), such that if they followed the placement of the order of harm with the classification, Alcohol would be a class A drug due to the harm it causes to health, society and admissions to hospital, whereas cannabis would be C at the most, but more likely legal.

If you really want me too, I could post hundreds of links.

I think it would be rather more useful for you to educate yourself on this subject as you are clearly commenting on a subject you know little about, at least with regards to public sentiment. If you are following this subject in the news, you would know all this.

Just use Google. It's all there at your fingertips.




top topics



 
1

log in

join