Legalising cannabis

[Onnie]

I was having a discussion about whether cannabis should be legalised in this country. Personally I think it would send the wrong message to our kids since this dangerous drug kills many people every day. I mean, it's just NOT the same drug we older parents used to smoke in the 60s. This insidious genetically engineered Skunk is different from the regular cannabis and is up to 60 x more potent. For some people all it takes is one puff and they descend into schizophrenia and a life dependent on the care of the mental health system. We need to save our children from this evil drug which is arguably almost as bad as heroin for many vulnerable people.

What do you think? Do you think we owe it to our kids to keep it banned to protect them from the dangers of this drug? Or do you think we should just allow our children to be victimized by drug dealers handing out Skunk like sweets? My brother in law unfortunately fell victim to the drug and has spent the last 3 years in hospital completely unable to fend for himself and if the government had actually tackled the problem and decided to shoot drug dealers and imprison anyone in possession of any amount of the drug for say at least 18 months, he might be still his old self. I think the government needs to start increasing penalties for possession and dealing as a matter of urgency. Personally I would like to see longer prison sentences and better drug education. Perhaps if children were to be shown videos and photographs of destitute, homeless people who got that way because of cannabis they might think twice before accepting that first free joint from the dealer from the local estate.

By the way sorry if this is in the wrong section but I didn't know where else to put it.

I agree it's nasty stuff but it's already illegal and that didn't help your BIL. Better education on the impact of drug addiction has merit, certainly. Shooting drug-dealers is a ridiculous suggestion. I'm more of the opinion that regulation and control is better than prohibition, which only seems to benefit the traders & make drug-dealing a lucrative enterprise maintained by violent criminality which spreads out to the rest of society. We'd still have people who had a problem with drugs in the same way that people have addiction problems with cigarettes or alcohol. But possibly we wouldn't have the gangland culture that goes with it.

I see no reason why alcohol should be legal but cannabis should be illegal. I think alcohol is a far more dangerous drug, as do leading experts such as Professor David Nutt . I think cannabis should be legal, regulated and taxed.

I must admit I was wasn't exactly being 100% serious about shooting drug dealers lol. However I think we need stiffer penalties. They need to be locked up for a minimum of say 10 years, especially if they supply to our impressionable children.

I wonder how we ended up with the genetically modified super Skunk that we see on the streets today? What happened to regular cannabis?

If we legalise cannabis then what's next? ByTheSea you say that alcohol shouldn't be legal, that's fair enough, however why add to the problem by making cannabis, another drug, legal? Why add to our problems? Don't you think that legalising cannabis sends completely the wrong message to our youth? As far as I'm concerned Prof Nutt has his own agenda and is not taken seriously by many in the medical field since he promotes criminality.

I think the main message prohibition sends out is the one about 'forbidden fruit'. People are attracted to anything that isn't allowed. We also seem to be inconsistent in how we classify what is or isn't dangerous so I'm not surprised it doesn't get taken seriously. Modified skunk is presumably out there because there is no FDA, NICE or other industry regulator dictating which cultivars are or are not safe.

As for 'problems' I think we have to be more honest about what the problems are. The heavy drinking culture problem in the UK is problematic and there are a few smugglers and counterfeiters in operation. But we don't have gangs knifing and shooting each other over who controls the vodka supplies.

What evidence is there that the cannabis of today is significantly stronger than the cannabis of the 60s or 70s? I don't think there is actually any. I can't seem to find any at all actually.

Skunk is cannabis, isn't it? They are one and the same. And who is doing the genetic engineering? Surely that's just a myth? 'Skunk' is just a name used by the media to refer to all herbal cannabis when in reality it's just the name of a specific strain of cannabis, of which there are many.

Is this not all the case? I would love to hear your opinions.

Also if cannabis causes schizophrenia then why is the rate of schizophrenia amongst the population in countries where cannabis use is common no higher than in countries where cannabis use is extremely rare? Any why is the rate of schizophrenia pretty much the same now as it's always been if the cannabis is much stronger today?

These are all legitimate questions that I would love answered.

Weren't you the one originally saying skunk was stronger and genetically engineered? I'm sure, even if it's not genetically modified, it's perfectly possible to breed a cannabis cultivar that has more active ingredient than another through traditional selection methods and relatively cheap technology. And does your schizophrenia point mean that you're now in favour of legalisation? From what I understand, if someone has a propensity to mental health problems, any artificial stimulant can have a bad reaction. Alcohol is a well-known depressant, for example

Yes but I was only repeating what I had read in the media, like pretty much anyone else does all the time. I would prefer to get to the truth instead though.

They say, or do a pretty good job of at least implying that 'Skunk' (a misnomer as said) is genetically engineered.

Traditional selection methods have been used by farmers of landrace strains for many years, but that is nothing new. Ganja (i.e. not hashish) strains native to regions close to the equator produces weed with extremely high levels of THC and has done for hundreds, if not thousands of years as far as I know, so I'm a bit confused about the whole issue really. I read one thing and another that seems to contradict reality.

Cannabis isn't a stimulant or a depressant in the classical sense like amphetamines or alcohol respectively for example. It may make you feel hyper or sleepy, but it doesn't have that effect on the central nervous system. It doesn't play with the dopamine system like many dopaminergic drugs do which can cause or exacerbate mental health issues such as schizophrenia.

Oh and by the way, the fact that alcohol is a depressant does not mean that it causes you to feel depressed in mood. It might do that but that's not what a CNS depressant is. I'm not sure if that's what you meant.

Am I in favour of legalisation? I don't know. I keep changing my mind. Maybe I have schizophrenia lol

Onnie, I didn't say alcohol should be illegal; I said cannabis should be legal as it is less dangerous than alcohol, which is legal.

Alcohol, nicotine and most other drugs, operate in a similar way i.e. creating an chemical 'high' which wears off and causes the user to feel low - a depressant effect. In certain users, their response to the depressive part of the cycle is to alleviate the low mood by using the substance again. That's what sets up the conditions for dependency.

^that's still not what a depressant is. Take a look at Wikipedia for an idea.

Oh yeah, what you're referring to by the way is called a 'come-down'.

Come-down, depressant ... think it's a moot point really.

Okay fair enough.

Cannabis like all narcotics is a very difficult industry to licence, control and tax. Just look at Holland where rather than a drop in drug related crime it's an increase.

Narcotics unlike alcohol and tobacco are a different industry altogether. We get homemade booze hitting the streets and plenty of smuggled foreign cigarettes but in narcotics it's a different attitude and culture.

^ what evidence do you have to prove that drug related crime increased when they started turning a blind eye to it? What about Portugal?

MIDDLE ENGLAND SHOULD JUST CHILL OUT!

I mean honestly all you hear off non smokers are these ridiculous facts AHEM! from the daily mail etc.... get some real facts next time you have a glass of wine, have a toke too.

The truth is that there is a lot of smoke (excuse the pun) and mirrors about drug control. My suspicion is that it isn't the drug itself which is the problem, but the criminality of drugs. At the moment, there is no quality control, no licencing and no purchasing restrictions at all. Consequently, the supply of drugs remains with law breakers. In essence, this leads to a perverse situation where in most towns and cities across the country, once last orders has been called, it is easier to get hold of heroin, cocaine and cannabis than it is to get a pint of beer.

I believe that were the supply of all drugs to become not just decriminalised but legalised and sold in registered premises, quality control could be implemented, drug turf wars would be eradicated, taxation could be levied and the more potent strains of drug, such as skunk, could be controlled.