Smoking - tobacco and cannabis

[0BRIAN WOODHEADI,m here in franceddMMyyyy0Falseen-USI,m here in franceTrue]

"the latter being legalised"would mrs outcast get a tax refund

[Mistral]

Mistral, was the conversation with the 15 year olds open enough to suss out whether they were smoking tobacco along with the cannabis? (even though they said smoking cigs was stupid).

Yes, it was. Yes they were ("pas moi personellement madame, vous comprennez") No, I don't get the logic either and I did point it out.

 

[Plato comes homePlato]

Hi mirth over this one caused me to back-wash my spring roll into the bottle of whisky I was downing as I read..

"Aside from that, smoking any kind of dope in quantity has a tendancy to turn you into a boring hippy who talks about skinning and bong construction techniques :-) "..how true!! I love that guy ..is that leary's photo?

The only people who think dope  buzzards are unaffected are themselves. Nothing like seeing your 50 year old host reaching for a joint because the telecom bill arrives. The eyes and throats distinguish the user and as does the paranoia and failure to deal with reality realistically. "The Primal Scream" made comment that persons who hasd undergone successful PT were unaffected bu cannabis...thus raising the question of psychosis and other states of mind. There may be argument for controlled use but I recall a chap said to be the most knowledgeable on the planet of cannabis (No not the 'unaffected" O'Leary) saying that far better drugs were available for anything claimed of cannabis. On that medical argument why don't we legalise heroin because Morphine has a strong medical history. Why is my doctor banned from admin of drugs...his pethadine addiction.Don't give us  any more 'garbage in gravy' over the boring but troubling  post 60's demand to use drugs and the facile excuses for it...even though I realise the CIA was in partnership with Norriega in the cultivation and supply of******aine ..into the USA also.... and that drugs play a huge part in CIA and Mossad ruination of humans.

Awareness...nice to see kids running through a pall of stinking cannabis smoke when their parents take them along to parties.., quietens them down I guess. Drug use is  a cult entry  and the users  really are an infantile and cunning lot but dangerous and destructive too.

This "drags you onto" ? stuff is so boring after all these years. Its patently obvious that drug users create problems and have problems pertinent to their drug use. Cannabis smokers often go onto harder drugs or use it on the way back down but that connection may not be the effect of the drug per-se but the psychology it meets. It was long said 'Heroin is non addictive...it doesn't grow nodes on your brain"...yes well the test of addiction to anything not essential to the body is 'can you give it up right now'..not "when you feel like it ". 

One of my beautiful girlfriends (lover, some 20 years ago ) was committed for 3 years for armed robbery seeking heroin. I had no idea when I met her, she was from a wealthy family with every advantage but cleaned out her mother's expensive jewellery and delivered heroin in the Benz of a major Australian company director whose son (the dad didn't know) was an addict and drove her to the drops.  A student of mine did 15 years for an armed holdup of a bank (with an unloaded weaon) to buy drugs. That's three of millions. Manly police station was recently highly publicised over running a major drug network...anyone jailed ??..not on your nelly! Please don't give us this drugs are good stuff, stuff.

I have seen the horrors and paid the price of my son's predominently pot abuse(ie any use is abuse) since some a/h gave him some cannabis resin to eat when he was 13 and he later collapsed  and was in hospital in a very odd state but nevertheless was addicted since. At 30 he cut down a bit, by then I was almost destitute emotionally and financially owing to the dead beat mind that accompanied the change of a beautiful 13 year old with an iq of probably over 145 into a 16 year old horror. Excuses for smoking pot and eating hashies etc etc generally come back to pointing the finger at examples of other legalised drugs in society...well what the hell has that to do with having even MORE accepted!!...and I add that people don't always drink to alter consciousness but cannabis users do. That's not the whole story of course....any views.

[Tresco]

You hint at your sons problems being a lot more complex than you are letting on here. Telling part (and that's fair enough) of his unfinished and sad story alongside that of armed robbers, people who can't open a bill without lighting up a spliff etc, well, it reads a bit wierdly to me.

People the world over have always used drugs. I thought my father was the only person in the world who thought drug use started in the 1960's ("I blame the Beatles!").

'nice to see kids running through a pall of stinking cannabis smoke when their parents take them along to parties'

You must go to very different parties to me. 

tresco

[Cjb]

"and I add that people don't always drink to alter consciousness but cannabis users do. That's not the whole story of course....any views."

My point with regard to alcohol, was not to condone cannabis use, but to highlight the dangers of alcohol. On several occasions I've listened to an inebriated person waxing lyrical about the dangers of cannabis, completely oblivious to the fact that they were high on a dangerous drug themselves!! When cannabis use begins to: turn town centres into no go areas; account for 2/3 of A&E weekend admissions; cause violence in the home etc....... I'll perhaps change my slant on this one.

I find it very hypocritical that as a society we condemn the use of cannabis, when the affects of alcohol on the population are far more dangerous and far reaching. Then again we need only look at the influence of the Drinks Industry Lobby!!

Why is cannabis so much more potent than before?

Who is responsible for regulating product potency and sales??

[Teamedup]

I would legalise many things. For these lesser substances, let us stop paying huge ressources on trying to catch the drug dealers and drug barons,and get the tax. I'd legalise bordellos too.

 

That is what I said. I would have more trust in companies selling official soft drugs than illegal dealers. Although it would need to be well monitored. I am more than well aware that the lousy tabac companies have added things to ciggies over the years to keep people accro.

[Iceni]

I gather that the illegal drug taken most is Ecstacy - and it is known to alter the brain in a permanent way with only a few doses and the changes are cumulative. It does kill a few people but the amount used every week and the total number of deaths probably make it safer than paracetamol which you can buy over the counter.

I agree with TU, legalise it all. If people want to kill themselves they will - drugs are easy to get - anywhere - as Miki says. I would love to see numbers of deaths and crimes split into illegal and legal drugs including cigarettes and booze, I am sure it would be an eye opener.

[Hegs]

I'm all for legalizing them - the problem is the question has gone way beyond a legalize or prohibit question. For years now the commonly used drugs are accepted or ignored by the police unless an accident or death occurs, or some plonker starts winding them up. Fair play.

Drugs are in themselves morally neutral and the restrictions cause more problems than the drugs - but I don't know how you cope with the social consequences of regular usage which are just plain sad.

I think its essential that somehow legalization doesn't send a signal that these things are in any way safe, or to be played around with, or to be used day-to-day.

>and it is known to alter the brain in a permanent way with only a few doses and the changes are cumulative

I wonder what sort of early dementia this is going to cause, I am sure it is likely.

>It does kill a few people but the amount used every week

It is my understanding that most immediate ecstacy deaths are actually due to drinking too much water causing brain swelling, an overreaction to dehydration occuring in hot sweaty club environments.

[vrooje<BR>Cheers,<br>-Brooke<BR><br><B><A TARGET=blank HREF="http:www.experienceburgundy.com">http:www.experienceburgundy.com<A><B>]

Legalizing cannabis and legalizing other drugs are completely different things.

The argument that cannabis is a "gateway drug" to other, harsher things could probably be weakened quite a bit by legalization.

Legalizing ecstasy, a drug which eventually causes the brain to cease production of serotonin (a chemical that makes you happy), is not a good idea. E is not in the same class as MJ, plain and simple. Although ecstasy is widely available at many clubs, it can cause severe permanent harm not associated with the dehydration effects previously mentioned. Cannabis doesn't do that, as far as I know.

I'm not an expert on this but I know that cannabis is just NOT the same as cocaine, heroin, ecstasy, or other drugs. It's probably a little worse than alcohol, but not by much.

Maybe it's a North American perspective, but I'm frankly shocked that anyone would consider legalizing any drugs harder than cannabis. I never tried drugs as a teenager because I have always been mindful of the long-term and didn't want to get arrested. I wonder what would have happened if those drugs were legal and even easier to get than they already were.

[SaligoBay]

<<Cannabis doesn't do that, as far as I know.>>

The anti-cannabis campaign running in France just now suggests that regular use does have long-term dangers, including schizophrenia.

Maybe that's the modern breeds that people have been talking about?

 

[Dick Smith]

I think that has been true of all types, but a fact denied by supporters of legalisation. There have also been research findings that cannabis is, in susceptible people, quite intensely carcinogenic, even more so than tobacco.

[Weedon]

Quite why anybody finds it neccesary take artificial stimulants by smoking it, injecting it or sticking it up their noses baffles me.  I just cannot see how anyones life can be enhanced by any of these practices and to attempt to justify it by legalising any of it is just tosh.

I have never tried any of it, never wanted to and never will do and anybody who uses such rubbish I am in contempt of.

No strong feelings either way really.

weedon

[letrangere]

Talking of drugs, has anyone ever tried to give up caffeine?  I did two years ago, suddenly cut out my 3 or 4 strong (fresh leaf) cups of daily Darjeeling (don't drink coffee) and, boy, did I get withdrawal symptoms.  Shakes, dry throat, thought about cups of tea all morning from the moment I woke up until lunchtime.  Took me about 3 to 4 months to get over. 

Also talking of drugs, did anyone see our old friend Nouvel Observateur last week and the article on "les ados et le cannabis?".  Makes interesting reading.  Comparing tabac, alcool and cannabis useage amongst 18 year old boys the figures are 37%, 22% and 21% respectively.  For girls it was 34, 7 & 7.  Only 7% of 18 year old women in France drink regularly?  Now there's a cultural difference if I ever I saw one.

M

[Hegs]

>I think that has been true of all types, but a fact denied by supporters of legalisation. There have also been research >findings that cannabis is, in susceptible people, quite intensely carcinogenic, even more so than tobacco.

This is too simplistic. I support legalization, I also believe even soft drugs are far from harmless and in fact are quite dangerous. I do not see why the fact they are harmful should necessarily cause their banning.

>I just cannot see how anyones life can be enhanced by any of these practices and to attempt to justify it by legalising

>any of it is just tosh.

If you cannot understand why people do it then how can you ever believe you have any kind of answer to the problem?

The problem is kids are young adults are very good at detecting hypocracy and inconsistent thinking, which current policy exhibits in bucketloads. Prohibition is causing more problems than the drugs themselves, is completely ineffective anyway in stopping the drugs getting through, and has resulted in a loss of authority for the police and the law.

It is my firm opinion that drugs can be controlled much more effectively in a legalized environment via tax or prescription where appropriate.

What exactly is it you fear would happen if drugs were legalized? Do you believe they would be handed out on the street for free?

[Dick Smith]

I'm not sure why being harmful means they shouldn't be banned, if that's what you mean. Though I accept that if alcohol was invented today it would be banned instantly.

I have a real problem with soft drugs at the moment, and that is not the drugs themselves, I can happily accept that for most people they are harmless (though I have close knowledge of someone who WAS harmed - in fact two, one by the drugs and one by the way they robbed him of the drive to finish his education), but the people who supply them are not - and I did teach a young man who was killed by a rival trader at the age of 17 for selling 'off his patch' and another who attempted suicide after he got into debt to a dealer who sent him to sell at a local primary school - true story, nice people. Those nice people are not going to fold up their tents and drift away into the night if you legalise one part of their range - the evidence at the moment is that as the price of 'hard' drugs goes down they become more used, at least in London. So if you lose the cannabis market - push crack or heroin. It is in the interests of drug sellers to addict users, that is why sellers (or givers-away) of loose joints have been known to lace them with crack, and then give them away free near schools. I confronted some 50-something friends of mine about this, but their response was that they got their dope from 'ever such a nice man'. Yes, of course...

The trouble is that Hegs and others may be very reasonable and have logic on their side - but none of their plans addresses the fact that drugs are supplied by criminals, and little bit of kif isn't how they make big money, it just operates as a market opener. And what seems sensible to an adult doesn't apply to a 12-year old.

[Hegs]

Dick,

What you are describing is what is supposedly happening right now with drugs being illegal. How does anything you've said make any case against drugs being legalized?

>The trouble is that Hegs and others may be very reasonable and have logic on their side

> but none of their plans addresses the fact that drugs are supplied by criminals

Nonsense, that is the whole point of legalizing the drugs. Why would anyone get their drugs from a criminal when they could get a guaranteed quality from a legal seller? This is the sort of thing chief policemen seem to be recommending, e.g. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/1603415.stm

[vrooje<BR>Cheers,<br>-Brooke<BR><br><B><A TARGET=blank HREF="http:www.experienceburgundy.com">http:www.experienceburgundy.com<A><B>]

Hegs,

What drugs do you mean when you talk about legalization? All drugs? As in, I can just drop by the pharmacy and pick up some heroin?

[Hegs]

>What drugs do you mean when you talk about legalization? All drugs? As in, I can just drop by the pharmacy and pick up >some heroin?

Personally : I think that possession for personal use should be legal. But for softer drugs, purchase allowed only after following a training course and passing a test, with regular refreshed courses, and only from a registered supplier. Monitoring of quantities being purchased to ensure no resale or excessive use. For harder drugs, registered addicts should be able to get their fix by prescription under medical supervision, others again by passing a course and under mentoring. Government sets prices and controls quality; tax used to control consumption.

Unregistered dealing and import should remain illegal.

>As in, I can just drop by the pharmacy and pick up some heroin?

So no, legalization does not mean unrestrained access, but control of demand by means other than criminal sentences or prison sentences (where progression to harder drugs certainly does happen).

[Dick Smith]

You might be interested in this report today on the BBC - 'Drug Doubles Mental Health Risk'

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4305783.stm

 

 

[Ex Forum Admin]

Some posts have been removed from this thread. I understand that this issue raises emotions but personal insults are not allowed on the forum. So lets keep it less personal please...

Thank you.

James

 

[Tresco]

Thanks for reinstating the thread James. It's a shame some posts were lost though.

One point I'd like to pick up on, made by Miki in a post now deleted, is that many former drug users, alcoholics, etc, devote a lot of time and energy to working in poorly funded groups which aim to help people reduce or stop taking drugs.

These people have not come to be able to do this by being held in 'contempt' by those around them, but by understanding and compassion shown previously to them by others, particularly family and friends. Thats not easy to do, but it is where the expressions 'there but for the grace...' comes in pretty handy, and very true.

No one wants young people to take drugs, lots of people have made valid points relating to this, but it is a fact that increasing numbers of young people are doing just that. It's wrong to think it could never happen to you or in your family.

tresco

[0BRIAN WOODHEADI,m here in franceddMMyyyy0Falseen-USI,m here in franceTrue]

Miki,chill man,we all post what we feel, missed the last few postings on this subject but its a forum take it as that.

[Plato comes homePlato]

I indicated psychosis re cannabis as well as the lulu's that use it thinking they are unaffected or that life is so much better for the world when eveyone is off their faces...jon me bor....forgetting the only reason they can use it is that the rest of us keep the place running whilst these pathetic evasionists us any possible excuse to stay as immature as possible. Certainly my son has pathological problems caused by the TV (never hold  a scene for more  than a second or two and entertanment industries (get off your face to enjoy the dirges posing as music)  and maybe even some DNA. I am the only one of my surfing mates alive today..all the rest are dead from drug related incidents. I never used anything and my parents at least managed 50 years without grieving my demise over cannabis ..because all but two died over cannabis..the other two brothers (only children of their family) died of heroin overdoses.(drug use holds immaturity from progressing to maturity) but it wouldn't matter if they caught fire and burnt to a crisp as a result of dope..you'd still have the pseudo intellectuals defending the stuff. I indicated the pathos of defending one drug against another in terms of adding to the quantums available..but immediately it came up again. This is a singular point that whatever examples one raises of alcohol and cigarette abuse (as opposed to use..and cannabis cannot be used without abuse even if one want to justify it on medical grounds in their last desperate effort...) WHY use that thinking as a reason to permit even MORE drugs to permeate the drowning world. It must surely be patently obvious that the sensible conclusion is to be more inhibitive BUT with constant reviews of the pressures and examples that lead people to feel a need to skip out. I don't have any problem accepting that drug abuse is Governmentally fostered, the USA is a prime example,  its users are easily manipulated and other than mantra chanting too lame brained to protest effectively ..or even bother unless their plants are at risk.

If we have a mainstream problem it is that the intelligent have capitulated power to our selfish and greedy and amoral Governments and unless we take it back we neanderthals will continue on our unswerving course of destruction...life could be good with self discipline and the willingness to say "no" we will NOT permit complete freedom and we WILL make life difficult for the entertainment parasites who bludge off addictive personalities. Wouldn't that be a shame..to have a society unlike the one we have now? We'd have to start with leaders though giving good example and since Iraq even Tony Blair has failed to be a leader. If you do not direct by exemplary example you are not a leader...absolute statement. Cheers

[Plato comes homePlato]

Re my thing on canabis...Sorry this sentence ending was dialectic or anagramatic or plain wrong "jon me bor...." should have been 'join me bro.......".

[Tresco]

Plato, I am having a bit of trouble following your posting, so i'll just stick to one small part of it.

I have never heard of anyone dying from cannabis use alone. I accept that for instance driving while under the influence of cannabis could cause a fatal accident, but you imply your friends died just from taking the drug. Can you explain please?

tresco