http://www.ukcia.org/forum/list.php?3 EN Fri, 10 Jun 2011 13:24:32 -0700 Fri, 10 Jun 2011 13:24:32 -0700 Cannabis in general Phorum 5.1.25 60 http://www.ukcia.org/forum/read.php?3,19888,19930#msg-19930 tokerdesigner
I commend your energy and conviction. Conspirqacy theories are NOT out of place. However not alcohol but tobacckgo should be your main point. Here are some starters:

"A $igarette or two" helps embolden some who have drunk too much, and want to get their car safely home from a dubious neighborhood, to "drive under the influence"-- too bad researchers (who have their academic position, tenure, etc. to protect) and politicians (whose opponent in the next election can get all kinds of help from Big 2WackGo both listed and unlisted) have not wanted to get involved in tracing down how many "drunk driving accidents" are actually co-authored by tobacckgo.

"A $igarette or two" can help an angry drunk get their mind together and remember to bring the gun along.

"Side stream smoke" in a bar or at a party can desensitize drinkers so they forget when they've had too many-- see #1 and #2.

$igarette smoking is the ultimate violence against oneself (though the companies add hundreds of unlisted drugs to the tobacckgo to make it seem "milder" so you don't notice the impact) and desensitize a potentially violent person to the damage they may do unto others.

The tragedy of Holland is that they haven't paid enough attention to the role of tobacckgo in distorting the behavior of the cannabis tourists, so that among other things they drink too much and commit mayhem attributed to the cannabis. I have been to Amsterdam some time ago and saw a group roll a joint with up to two grams (2000 mg) of tobacckgo and a bit of hashish, and pass it around, talking meanwhile about how they are smoking hashish.

Check the entries about cannabis and hashish in the Dutch language Wikipedia (NL:WP) and you will find uncited, speculative statements that the English word "joint" means a joining together of cannabis and tobacco. (This kind of thing is normally not allowed on Wikipedia but it goes to show how much clout Big 2WackGo has worldwide.) So Holland has a ways to go before they can be taken as a model of how to use cannabis.]]> Cannabis in general http://www.ukcia.org/forum/read.php?3,19888,19930#msg-19930 Fri, 10 Jun 2011 13:24:32 -0700 http://www.ukcia.org/forum/read.php?3,19888,19929#msg-19929 AltheaM Cannabis in general http://www.ukcia.org/forum/read.php?3,19888,19929#msg-19929 Thu, 09 Jun 2011 01:54:54 -0700 http://www.ukcia.org/forum/read.php?3,19888,19928#msg-19928 dealwis Cannabis in general http://www.ukcia.org/forum/read.php?3,19888,19928#msg-19928 Thu, 09 Jun 2011 00:54:15 -0700 http://www.ukcia.org/forum/read.php?3,19888,19895#msg-19895 Derek do i spy an advertisement with my little eye?[/quote]

Not any more you don't!

Sorry, that one slipped through.

Derek]]> Cannabis in general http://www.ukcia.org/forum/read.php?3,19888,19895#msg-19895 Fri, 13 May 2011 10:06:36 -0700 http://www.ukcia.org/forum/read.php?3,19888,19893#msg-19893 CheeseLord Cannabis in general http://www.ukcia.org/forum/read.php?3,19888,19893#msg-19893 Fri, 13 May 2011 08:46:39 -0700 http://www.ukcia.org/forum/read.php?3,19888,19889#msg-19889 Arthur
Hopefully someone can come up with something better, using the harm reduction argument and others?]]> Cannabis in general http://www.ukcia.org/forum/read.php?3,19888,19889#msg-19889 Sat, 07 May 2011 14:59:57 -0700 http://www.ukcia.org/forum/read.php?3,19888,19888#msg-19888 Arthur
We cannot pretend cannabis doesn't make anyone "paranoid". It does. I think it's a mistake to say it has anti-psychotic properties on the front page, if you are going to make claims like this you should cite reliable sources, it almost smacks of a "negative astroturfing" campaign with the goal of discrediting cannabis legalisation. Of course, most of us who experience this paranoia can critically judge our own thoughts and therefore find it relatively easy to rationalize away these sort of thoughts, but it would be churlish to assume there are people who can't and I don't know of any study that says otherwise?

Much more importantly, like some other illegal substances, it's much less dangerous than alcohol. Alcohol kills so many people each year, and causes so much cost to both government and law enforcement, it's seen as a socially acceptable drug despite this, some people don't even refer to it as a drug, yet we criminalize substances which don't cause this behaviour at all, and others which do it far more infrequently. The government, perhaps pointedly, doesn't refer to it as a drug, government leaflets, including those targeted at offenders, refer to "Alcohol & Drugs, this is rather bizarre when you consider the large numbers of heroin users who also drink, surely if heroin was in a completely different league to alcohol the heroin addicts who refer themselves or are referred to government run/backed treatment programs wouldn't bother with it and would just save their money for heroin. If this were the case, the treatment programs wouldn't breathalyse people picking up methadone prescriptions, yet they are, every time they attend these programs. Programs that are only allowed to prescribe (methadone, a class-A drug when possessing illegally) And that's HEROIN. The drug perceived to be the big bad one by the general public, on the face of it alcohol deserves a position in the class A drugs list, except we all know there are far more people who can use alcohol and never develop a problem with it. The same is true for many other drugs, including cannabis. Those MPs who admit to using it in the past and then voice the opinion it should remain illegal are a good example of this.

The "drug war" is something of a joke, I'm sure most of us who have ever been convicted of being in possession of an illegal substance are aware if you want something you can drop into any city in Briton, and have obtained ("scored") any of the common illegal drugs within an hour; I don't think I'm exaggerating when I say it's easier to find Heroin than it is cannabis.

Here's a little work of fiction before continuing:

The government is involved in the drug trade and using it as a back-door method of collecting extra tax revenue. Rumour has it that other departments don't even know about it. This department is able to issue passports, create identities, create official secrets, has men in both high and low places throughout the police and prison authorities to whom they can turn any time they want and transfer prisoners somewhere else, at which point they are removed from circulation and records without even so much as a trace. These men in place do their job in the interest of national security. Nothing further is ever said about it.

Of course, this doesn't happen in real life. Our government doesn't do things like supply people drugs. The american government doesn't either. Except, it already has, it's a matter of public record and they admit it happened. Have a look for "MKULTRA", for example on Wikipedia, then check the references at the bottom and among the references are GOVERNMENT web sites confirming this is true. From the "United States Printing Office" no less. Then have a look at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_experimentation_in_the_United_States

But this was of course America and is History. They would never do such things now, they have admitted they made mistakes. We can't assume that this isn't true, nor should we assume it is. They did it before, the people didn't know they were doing it at the time and for all we know they could be doing it again or even STILL doing it, having never stopped.

It's just a conspiracy theory. But there is actually no strong evidence to say it does not happen, notwithstanding that it's much harder to prove a negative than a positive, we do have evidence they are capable of it. What evidence? They've done it before.

There's no reason to assume our government is involved in this. Nor is there any reason to assume they are not involved in this trade.

Quite an outlandish notion, yet the government doesn't seem to be able to offer any solid evidence for practical reasons why they allow alcohol and not cannabis A move to ban alcohol would be deeply unpopular with British public, it's no joke when it's referred to as "the opiate of the masses". This seems like a sensible reason, from a politicians perspective to retain the legality of alcohol. But what good reason to assume legalising them would be so unpopular other than fear of Murdoch's newspapers and the reaction they might provoke in the more suggestible members of the public?

Of course, there is no evidence to support this, as it was just a work of fiction. You have to start searching around for works of fiction to explain a position when you consider the following:

Alcohol and cannabis for many people produce unpleasant effects when used in combination. Alcohol kills tens of thousands of people every year and extracts a huge cost from society in alcohol related crimes, traffic accidents, through the NHS, through street cleaning services, throughout work days lost through hangovers, really it's hard to think of any section of society it doesn't have a cost in. Have you ever seen a gang of rowdy people high on cannabis after a football match brawling with one another? How about drunk on alcohol?

From a simple, rational, practical, pragmatic point of view when looking solely at society, and not considering any political motivations, for the sake of harm reduction it just makes sense economically and socially. You don't need a grand scientific review to observe peoples behaviour on alcohol and cannabis and come to realise this is a glaringly simple truth, but by all means, if we must, we could try it, see what the economic data says after 10 years and if it isn't working out, go back to the old way.

Or are the politicians WE elected too spineless and self-serving to actually do this? Are they putting political considerations before the cost to society? Will one of our right honourable politicians PLEASE consider this proposition and ask yourself this very question, then remember at least once and maybe it's still true, you went into politics because you wanted to serve your country and do what's best for the people who believed in you. Do the right thing, don't do what you think will save your own neck, maybe you know other politicians who are in the job to improve our nation? It would be hard to dismiss a group of you, you would have lots of popular support, the BBC could be asked to make sure it includes the viewpoints of RESPECTABLE members of society who agree that cannabis should be legalised in the interests of neutrality, rather than only fringe members of society that the general public can't connect with? If they didn't that would be bias, we all know the BBC isn't supposed to be biased.

Can someone PLEASE just do the right thing. You will die knowing you made a difference, and made a practical change for the good, effecting everyone. You are the only one who can do this. Just think about it for a while.]]> Cannabis in general http://www.ukcia.org/forum/read.php?3,19888,19888#msg-19888 Sat, 07 May 2011 14:51:21 -0700