Cannabis festival '420'

[muz379]

I would be very surprised if cannabis is not legal in this country within 10 years' time.

Interesting , I feel the opposite and would be suprised if it is legalised in 10 years .

Agreed with you on that matter, but by not being subject to the strictures stated in the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, they are not items that can be said to be illegal. There are gradual moves afoot to ensure the marketing of certain commercially-based tobacco products such as cigarettes are being affected by means of plain packaging with graphic health warnings and also by the recent legal insistence that these products should not now be displayed on public view in retail establishments. Paracetamol tablets were once readily made commercially available for retail sale in canisters of large quantities but these days, a package size of 16 tablets seems to be the norm in retail establishments. One might well ask what medical advice was sought which led to this size of packaging now being the accepted norm. Penicillin, to the best of my knowledge, is not a readily available product sold in retail establishments where misuse of it by members of the general public can be a source of a medical emergency.

Have you any personal views on the medical affects of so-called "legal highs" and how do you see the law that could well govern such products being changed to bring these products into the remit and strictures legally governed legislation?

I am not speaking for or against the matter of pain alleviation by the use of any of the types of a cannabis-based derivative, but strictly on how matters are reflected by the laws of the Statute Book are said to be at this present moment in time.

Whilst Cannabis is controlled under the misuse of drugs act the actual classification it finds itself in and therefore its position on the list of police priorities is a political decision that is sometimes make in such a way that it departs from the expert advice given to the decion makers .

As for illegality - Alcohol is perfectly legal but I think we can pretty much agree that society has real problems with misuse of alcohol . Somethings legality does not stop it being misused . I know someone who was addicted to co-codomol which are available over the counter with minimal controls on sale .

As for legal highs , Personally I think its a difficult one to legislate on because a lot of them like the so called "plant food" are substances that have perfectly legitimate uses so controlling the substances could unfairly penalize legitimate users . I personally think the people that have died from these legal highs are just proving that natural selection does very much exist . If you are prepared to put something into your body that has warning labels all other stating that it is not for human consumption then you have what is coming to you .

 

[MCR247]

No, it's because you need 4 standard size Rizlas and packet of 20 fags to make a decent size joint.

Although I'd definitely advise against using cigarettes instead of rolling tobacco...

 

[DaleCooper]

Although I'd definitely advise against using cigarettes instead of rolling tobacco...

I actually preffered cigarettes over rolling tobacco, not sure why, perhaps things were different 40 years ago.

 

[DownSouth]

How many of the examples that you cite in the first part of your posting shewn above are said to be classified as being in categories A, B or C under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971?

If both sides of politics were bought and paid for by the Cannabis industry like they are by the Tobacco, Alcohol and Pharmaceutical industries, it wouldn't be classified either.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The news story suggested though that last year many people openly smoked it at the event and the police took no action . Just found that quite interesting in itself that people openly broke the law and faced no action for this .

The lack of advertising it on the behalf of the organisers may give them a fair shot at declining responsibility or at least making a prosecution difficult/expensive enough that the police would deem it as not in the public interest to push through.

 

[muz379]

The lack of advertising it on the behalf of the organisers may give them a fair shot at declining responsibility or at least making a prosecution difficult/expensive enough that the police would deem it as not in the public interest to push through.

I didn't mean the police should have taken action against the organizers . I was more referring the police turning a blind eye to people attending the event that where at the time smoking cannabis .

Here a prosecution and the public interest test would not really be relevant the normal course of action for someone in possession of cannabis is a street caution unless they have sufficient quantity in their possession to arouse suspicion that they may be dealing and they dont just have it for personal use .

I understand to a point why they didnt - they would need a lot of resources to deal with it in case things got out of hand

I just found it interesting

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

If both sides of politics were bought and paid for by the Cannabis industry like they are by the Tobacco, Alcohol and Pharmaceutical industries, it wouldn't be classified either.

Who do you name as the prime movers of "the Cannabis industry"?

What percentage of those would be members of the criminal fraternity?

 

[Blamethrower]

That is exactly the attitude that prevents any progress being made, most of the politicians who are against decriminalisation have probably smoked a joint or dropped a tab sometime in their youth, they just won't admit it. I freely admit to having smoked dope and taken LSD when young as did almost everyone I knew, I'm now a healthy and respectable(ish) 61 year old.

Likewise, and a bit more besides.....

So, if you still smoked it now, would you still freely admit it?

I wasn't talking about politicians, I am talking about absolutely everyone that smokes it and smokes it now. No-one in their right mind would associate themselves with a cannabis culture as that would be "career suicide".

If my boss and anyone around me knew of my habits, I'd probably get sacked. Just can't risk that
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Who do you name as the prime movers of "the Cannabis industry"?

What percentage of those would be members of the criminal fraternity?

a) I would suggest growers and distributors

b) It would depend on if they had been caught or not


Surely anyone with any points on their driving licence is a "member of the criminal fraternity" ?

Remember, this is Britain, it's only wrong if you get caught. Moralising about whether someone is a criminal or not is just self-righteous tosh. Everyone loves to quote the rules, but no-one wants to follow the rules. Welcome to Britain

 

[DaleCooper]

Likewise, and a bit more besides.....

So, if you still smoked it now, would you still freely admit it?

I wasn't talking about politicians, I am talking about absolutely everyone that smokes it and smokes it now. No-one in their right mind would associate themselves with a cannabis culture as that would be "career suicide".

If my boss and anyone around me knew of my habits, I'd probably get sacked. Just can't risk that
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


a) I would suggest growers and distributors

b) It would depend on if they had been caught or not


Surely anyone with any points on their driving licence is a "member of the criminal fraternity" ?

Remember, this is Britain, it's only wrong if you get caught. Moralising about whether someone is a criminal or not is just self-righteous tosh. Everyone loves to quote the rules, but no-one wants to follow the rules. Welcome to Britain

What a load of hogwash, time you grew up.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Remember, this is Britain, it's only wrong if you get caught. Moralising about whether someone is a criminal or not is just self-righteous tosh. Everyone loves to quote the rules, but no-one wants to follow the rules. Welcome to Britain

If ever I wanted to see a posting that shows the prevailing laxity in Britain today and the justification for the ever-downward slope into the morass of what Aleister Crowley had in mind when he wrote his mantra of "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law" as part of his Law of Thelema, then your posting has just met that most specific requirement....:roll:

Having spent 70 years of my life in Britain, why do I need the "welcome" to which you allude in your posting. Credit me with the intelligence that I have, when making what seems to be either a cynical or patronising tone in a posting response to me...

 

[DaleCooper]

If ever I wanted to see a posting that shows the prevailing laxity in Britain today and the justification for the ever-downward slope into the morass of what Aleister Crowley had in mind when he wrote his mantra of "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law" as part of his Law of Thelema, then your posting has just met that most specific requirement....:roll:

Having spent 70 years of my life in Britain, why do I need the "welcome" to which you allude in your posting. Credit me with the intelligence that I have, when making what seems to be either a cynical or patronising tone in a posting response to me...

Don't worry about him, there always has been and always will be a minority with those views.

 

[muz379]

If ever I wanted to see a posting that shows the prevailing laxity in Britain today and the justification for the ever-downward slope into the morass of what Aleister Crowley had in mind when he wrote his mantra of "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law" as part of his Law of Thelema, then your posting has just met that most specific requirement....:roll:

Having spent 70 years of my life in Britain, why do I need the "welcome" to which you allude in your posting. Credit me with the intelligence that I have, when making what seems to be either a cynical or patronising tone in a posting response to me...

But then on the flip side just because something Is currently illegal doesn't mean things cant and shouldn't change .

I mean prior to 1967 buggery was a crime in this country and one which at some points in history has been treated as a very grave crime . Now holding attitudes about homosexuality that where the norm then could result in you being in legal trouble . Just one example of many ways in which laws can change and attitudes can shift .

It personally bugs me that a group of people that want to get together and roll a plant up and smoke it are criminalized . Meanwhile I could go out and drink a litre of poison(vodka) and end up in the hospital and its just seen as par for the course by many .

Id argue that the obsession with Alcohol is driving us into that morass at a much quicker rate than a few of the potheads I know would

The only real negative aspect of cannabis consumption in this country you have alluded to is the one that could be gotten rid of almost entirely by legalizing it and that is the criminal fraternity who make vasts sums of money growing and selling it .

 

[ainsworth74]

As far as I'm aware full legalisation in US States like Colorado or Washington has gone without any significant issues and is making a very tidy sum of money for the States Government in tax revenue and has driven illegal dealers out of business. Remind me why we aren't benefiting from the same boost in revenue and cut in criminal activity?

People surely aren't still worried about 'reefer madness' are they?

 

[DaleCooper]

Another advantage of legalisation is that strength and ingredients could be controlled and listed on the packaging, not very hippy (showing my age) culture I'm afraid but better than what we have now.

 

[PermitToTravel]

Although I'd definitely advise against using cigarettes instead of rolling tobacco...

I'd advise against adding any tobacco to your cannabis. It's really bad for you.

 

[TheKnightWho]

As far as I'm aware full legalisation in US States like Colorado or Washington has gone without any significant issues and is making a very tidy sum of money for the States Government in tax revenue and has driven illegal dealers out of business. Remind me why we aren't benefiting from the same boost in revenue and cut in criminal activity?

People surely aren't still worried about 'reefer madness' are they?

Exactly. Which is why I expect legalisation within 10 years.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Exactly. Which is why I expect legalisation within 10 years.

To look at another matter where the current legal system was eventually changed such as that of abortion, wearing my Devils Advocate hat, what chances does the euthanasia lobby also have of seeing their views enacted as Law on the Statute Book?

 

[DownSouth]

Who do you name as the prime movers of "the Cannabis industry"?

The same people who would be the CEOs of the cannabis equivalents of Phillip Morris and BAT if cannabis was legalised.

What percentage of those would be members of the criminal fraternity?

Probably the same percentage of tobacco and alcohol industry heavyweights who would be "members of the criminal fraternity" if their much more harmful drugs were given the same legal status as cannabis.

 

[muz379]

To look at another matter where the current legal system was eventually changed such as that of abortion, wearing my Devils Advocate hat, what chances does the euthanasia lobby also have of seeing their views enacted as Law on the Statute Book?

Euthanasia used to be a very divided issue with no clear consensus either way so politicians tended to shy away from it somewhat because there was no clear strategy to consistently win votes talking about it .

That being said as many as three quarter of brits think that assisted suicide should be legally allowed .

Personally I think in years to come we will see laws enacted that allow assisted suicide .

However I dont think that in my lifetime I will ever see laws permitting euthanasia being unilaterally carried out without the "victims" involvement.

 

[Jonny]

I'd advise against adding any tobacco to your cannabis. It's really bad for you.

Containing a load of nasties, including Polonium 210 among many others (edit: and yes, I meant tobacco). Seriously. Apparently big tobacco decided to do nothing about it because it makes the nicotine less addictive (it involved an acid wash, and the acidic version of nicotine is less addictive than the alkali one (see freebasing)).

 

[TheKnightWho]

Euthanasia used to be a very divided issue with no clear consensus either way so politicians tended to shy away from it somewhat because there was no clear strategy to consistently win votes talking about it .

That being said as many as three quarter of brits think that assisted suicide should be legally allowed .

Personally I think in years to come we will see laws enacted that allow assisted suicide .

However I dont think that in my lifetime I will ever see laws permitting euthanasia being unilaterally carried out without the "victims" involvement.

Well the latter was rather in vogue 70 years ago in certain parts of the world... And more close to home forced sterilisation was a popular tool in the 1950s and is still occasionally used today!

But aside from that detour, I expect we'll also see assisted suicide within 10 years as well.

 

[muz379]

Containing a load of nasties, including Polonium 210 among many others (edit: and yes, I meant tobacco). Seriously. Apparently big tobacco decided to do nothing about it because it makes the nicotine less addictive (it involved an acid wash, and the acidic version of nicotine is less addictive than the alkali one (see freebasing)).

This is one of the things that often suprises me about smoking cigarettes . Even though its got hundreds of ingredients which are very toxic and there are clear links between smoking and early death and certain types of cancer it has managed to stay legal and relatively popular

 

[PermitToTravel]

If they were seeking today to ban one of tobacco or cannabis it's quite likely they'd pick tobacco (or both)

 

[TheKnightWho]

I'm not sure. Tobacco is arguably more harmful in the long run to a person's health, although it's difficult to know because cannabis is so often mixed with tobacco and contains several carcinogens in its own right, and so the long-term effects are intertwined with tobacco use.

Even if cannabis is less harmful from a carcinogenic point of view, which is probably true but we're not certain, it's known to induce psychosis in a small but significant proportion of people, which can be very damaging to someone's mental health in a matter of a few years. Taking only the net damage to society isn't really very helpful here.

And aside from all of that, there's the issue that tobacco gives a small rush that's gone within a minute or two at the very most, whereas cannabis has effects lasting hours. Obviously alcohol is similar in this respect, but it's another factor that means it's not helpful to compare it to smoking. Indeed, although the medium by which you take the drug is different, alcohol is far more analogous both in terms of its effects and the long term (think of alcoholism as the equivalent to psychosis here).

 

[DaleCooper]

Taking only the net damage to society isn't really very helpful here.

If the net damage isn't the yardstick then presumably anything that is potentially harmful, to however small a minority, should be banned. Examples being: cars, air travel, meat, pets, sports etc. etc. etc.

(think of alcoholism as the equivalent to psychosis here).

Alcoholism is an addiction and whether cannabis is addictive or not is still a matter for debate although personally I think in the physiological sense it is not although anything pleasurable can become psychologically difficult to go without.

 

[Jonny]

Besides, it could be argued that the government is ^addicted^ to the tax revenue from cigarettes (and other tobacco products for that matter).

 

[TheKnightWho]

If the net damage isn't the yardstick then presumably anything that is potentially harmful, to however small a minority, should be banned. Examples being: cars, air travel, meat, pets, sports etc. etc. etc.



Alcoholism is an addiction and whether cannabis is addictive or not is still a matter for debate although personally I think in the physiological sense it is not although anything pleasurable can become psychologically difficult to go without.

My point is that we at least need to be careful. Cars are not systematically bad for certain people (the key issue here) except for bad drivers, and we do indeed ban particularly bad drivers from driving either by failing them their driving test or by taking away their license. Likewise, we need controls on cannabis use for people who are intrinsically more likely to be harmed by it: it's the reason why we ban children from drinking, for example. Obviously this extends to other areas as well, but the point I'm making is that there are concerns other than net damage.

And certain people are predisposed to alcoholism more than others. It's a sliding scale, just how predispositions towards psychosis are also a sliding scale. It's an analogy in that certain people are more likely to be harmed by it than others: it doesn't have to be the same in every way.

 

[muz379]

My point is that we at least need to be careful. Cars are not systematically bad for certain people (the key issue here) except for bad drivers, and we do indeed ban particularly bad drivers from driving either by failing them their driving test or by taking away their license. Likewise, we need controls on cannabis use for people who are intrinsically more likely to be harmed by it: it's the reason why we ban children from drinking, for example. Obviously this extends to other areas as well, but the point I'm making is that there are concerns other than net damage.

And certain people are predisposed to alcoholism more than others. It's a sliding scale, just how predispositions towards psychosis are also a sliding scale. It's an analogy in that certain people are more likely to be harmed by it than others: it doesn't have to be the same in every way.

but smoking tobacco is bad for everyone no exceptions but it is not banned .

In real terms what are we saying here ban cannabis use by children , id tend to agree with that if it is legal just like alcohol it should be marketed to adults only .

Arguably flying , being a passenger/driver in a car is also potentially bad for anyone because random accidents do happen even to people who are good drivers

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Are there any officially stated views on how is the use of cannabis viewed officially by all the political parties who are standing in the coming General Election?