DrAlexanderTobacco Posted February 4, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 Also... When I've smoked it before I will NEVER drive because I just can't be bothered. The car is all the way outside and I have enough biscuits here in the house and the sofa is plenty comfortable enough OH LOOK! Mallrats is on TV. Snoogans. Poopytrips Link to post Share on other sites
Skarclaw Posted February 4, 2014 Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 give it at least 2 hours after smoking before I drive - get a lil bit paranoid so I think my driving is actually pretty good as I hover EXACTLY on 30mph. Weed and alcohol v different when it comes to driving. Good article from David Nutt on the issue : http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/27/drug-driving-alcohol-policy-pubs-motorway Link to post Share on other sites
Nickona Posted February 4, 2014 Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 breathing smoke into lungs isn't great but not as bad as regular tobacco usage - in any case I think a 20% tax as in Colorado would go some lengths to mitigate this. Likewise the existence of the NHS shouldn't really decide all choices of health. I think obesity will be a bigger (lol) problem then cannabis smoking. Also take into account medical marijuana which could save the NHS alot in treatment options, and also provide respite for people that don't currently have that option I never said it was as bad as tobacco all I am saying is that it is still bad. I also agree with you on obesity. I personally think that any "self inflicted illness" such as operations from obesity or lung cancer from smoking should be paid for by the patient and not the tax payer. I think the NHS as its expected to help everyone the consequence on it should be very much considered. There is addiction addiction and there is habitual addiction. Alcohol is one of the few drugs that can have lethal withdrawal symptoms. I've lived with an alcoholic and I know some pretty heavy stoners - different kettle of fish completely Like I said it does not have actively addictive substances in it and my point was not about the effects of the addiction but that fact that people can still fairly easily be addicted to weed so to say its not addictive at all if wrong Tackling drug sales (not just weed) comes at massive, massive expense. The drug law as it currently stands is also racist (compare crack and powered cocaine in the US) and has led to overuse of the stop and search law which has devastated relations between the plod on the street and your average urban dwelling "yoof". As for regulated suppliers - I expect that would work as it would in Colorado. The clue is in its nickname - cannabis is not hard to cultivate at all. As for people buying - as long as there is regulation or taxation there will be black market. In the first month Colorado retailers generated $1.24 million in tax. As for the slippery smoke - do you think kids don't already smoke it? Most dealers don't follow the challenge 21 scheme haha. I'm sorry bit how is drug law racist? I do not buy one bit that stop and search laws are racist in the slightest. In New York during the whole debate regarding stop and search about 90% of crime was committed by African-Americans and Hispanics. Also those two groups tend to live in poorer areas where there is more crime so naturally police officers trying to effectively police will stop people who are statistically more likely to be involved. Its a similar situation in England (obviously not the quoted 90% figure before anyone mentions that) With regards to kids I know they can already do things they shouldn't be able to but the difference is making it acceptable to do so which ligalising it would do in some respects. I'm still not convinced there will be some massive tax benefit in the long run as the previous dealers are likely going to be able to undercut the legit suppliers as they don't nee to add the tax on Re driving, while roadside drug detection kits aren't available yet they are being developed. In the meantime sobriety tests are used as it's already illegal to drive while highAs for the health effects IMO more research is needed, particularly into the mental health of long term users as while there is some evidence of links to conditions like schizophrenia, little is really knownLastly I doubt any of this will happen as any government announcing it as a policy would be committing political suicide I do agree that so much more research is needed. I also think the 'pro-weed lobby', for want of a better term, need to have an entire plan sorted out with all the surrounding legislation etc rather than just say it should be legal and leave the details to someone else Think how much money it would save the UK prison system. It was what, £40K a year per prisoner a few years ago. Think how many people could have early release on BS MJ charges and how much that would save us. Hundreds of thousands. Millions? Maybe. Think how much time would be freed up for police to tackle proper crime and not wasting time on paperwork on MJ. If you want to get onto reducing prison costs the ability to deport foreign criminals rather than keep them in our prison system would probably save a lot more. And in the UK people only normally see jail time for supplying it or possession in large quantities and normally a "cannabis warning" is issued for small amounts for personal use. Link to post Share on other sites
scorch Posted February 4, 2014 Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 ARNIES IS RIFE WITH POTHEADS! I wouldn't call myself a pothead. Haven't smoked it in about 4 years, and even that was at a festival - not out in the real world. Link to post Share on other sites
Habakure Posted February 4, 2014 Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 Slippery slop that "self inflicted illness". My father had lung cancer, lung sent off for testing and wow. It was caused not by nicotine (which didn't help) but by tiny bits of wood and also plastics. Most lung cancer patients come from the industrial industry and trades. Those poor *swear word* get the stigma of "it's your own fault" when it was a hazard created by their career choice. My stance? Legalise it. But I garuantee you, the criminal element won't go away. Just look at cheap cigs and booze. Both legal but still there's still criminal elements with both (and in some cases dangerous booze/cigs). Link to post Share on other sites
Skarclaw Posted February 4, 2014 Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 With reference to stop and search - here is a report from the Equality and Human Rights Commission 2013: http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/news/2013/november/new-research-shows-slow-improvement-in-police-use-of-stop-and-search/ "The results show that black people were six times as likely as white people to be stopped and searched by the police in England and Wales under S.1. People from Asian or other ethnic groups were around twice as likely to be stopped and searched as white people. Under S.60, black people were 29 times as likely as white people to be stopped and searched and Asian or other ethnic minorities were nearly six times as likely to be stopped and searched. " Another (2004) from the Metropoliton Police Authority: http://policeauthority.org/metropolitan/downloads/stop-search/stop-search-report-2004.pdf From the conclusion: "248. The compelling statistical evidence of stop and search practice in London shows that minorities are disproportionality targeted by the police. 249. The steady and dramatic increases in the levels of disproportionality in stop and search rates suggest that race, ethnicity and religion are a decisive factor. 250. The current increases in disproportionate stop and search rates has raised community concerns about a return to uglier periods in London’s history when overt racism was common police practice. " And from the intro bit which spells out the issue quite well I think (emphasis mine): "The Scrutiny Panel heard powerful evidence from many community witnesses with regard to its huge negative impact. The Scrutiny Panel was told that present practice has increased the level of distrust in our police. It has created deeper racial tensions and antagonism against the police. It has increased the level of cynicism regarding the law. It has increased the level of scepticism about police officer credibility. It has trampled on the rights of too many Londoners. It has cut off valuable sources of community information and criminal intelligence. It has a detrimental effect on the increasing difficulty faced by police in doing the basics of their already difficult job. And despite this, the recent increase in stops and search practice has spread police resources even thinner. In summary, current stop and search practice appears to the Scrutiny Panel to be a use of scarce police resources that might make policing more difficult. " Home Secretary doesn't seem to a be fan either: http://www.theguardian.com/law/2013/sep/10/theresa-may-police-stop-search cheers Link to post Share on other sites
AceOfSkulls Posted February 4, 2014 Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 I would legalise, but i would legalise other drugs too. My main worry is the myths around weed, as well as general miss use. Legalisation wouldnt stop missuse or crime, it would just release the police to chase real criminals. Weed is harmfull - it has carcenogens and most people mix it with tobacco which is way worse and you arent using a filter either. Regardless of cancer rates attributed, its still true. It is addictive - but only "mentally", then anything is . cannabis psychosis is real, true facts and its brutally ugly. Pot exaserbates mental ilness, can trigger episodes ect (but all drugs do). Legalisation wont stop crime - because no doubt any legal source would be taxed like crazy and dealers would just focus on those who cant buy it , i.e. children/young people. Legal weed would alao be most likely processed with chemicals like tobacco. Link to post Share on other sites
hitmanNo2 Posted February 4, 2014 Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 People are still buying from dealers in the US as it's cheaper and you don't have to make yourself aware to the government. As you say, there will always be a market for it until forever. You may as well tax and regulate anything and everything to the best of your ability otherwise it just money lining the pockets of organized crime. Link to post Share on other sites
AceOfSkulls Posted February 4, 2014 Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 Yep , i remember when you could buy magic mushrooms in shops. You could still buy them much cheaper off dealers but you didnt know species wise what they were. Another point; with designer drugs today, pot analogs are way worse than pot itself. Link to post Share on other sites
FireKnife Posted February 4, 2014 Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 In times like these I turn to 1930s propaganda about the dangers of weed. Trust me if you haven't seen the following take the time out of your day to watch it, you will laugh so much at the completely mis-aligned views and ideas this gives: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ny5SUdLIBV4 After watching this you will feel the need to legalise it just so you can light up while watching it again (and yes it is real bar the colourised version which has just been updated to make it even funkier) . 'FireKnife' Link to post Share on other sites
Skarclaw Posted February 4, 2014 Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 Yep , i remember when you could buy magic mushrooms in shops. You could still buy them much cheaper off dealers but you didnt know species wise what they were. Another point; with designer drugs today, pot analogs are way worse than pot itself. Wasn't Demi Moore on some of that crazy *suitcase*? fireknife are you expecting us to watch all one hour eight minutes of reefer madness? I think not Link to post Share on other sites
Cannonfodder80 Posted February 4, 2014 Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 Re the stop and search figures above, they don't take into account the ethnic populations of where those searches were carried out. If, for example a high crime area has a high percentage of black residents then I would expect the percentage of people stopped to be black. Whereas in an area where the main population is white I would expect the number of non white people stopped to be far lower, if not then the law would be being enforced in a racist way (rather than the way being racist as it doesn't state that people of X skin colour should be targeted) Link to post Share on other sites
FireKnife Posted February 4, 2014 Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 fireknife are you expecting us to watch all one hour eight minutes of reefer madness? I think not Seriously do it. You would be suprised just how much you will laugh at the typical ill informed attitudes of the 30s. Though it is best to bring some mates round, make a drinking game of it (like one drink for everytime they say 'swell') and then laugh at every single fact they get wrong. 'FireKnife' Link to post Share on other sites
Nickona Posted February 4, 2014 Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 *no point repeating it all* Without wanting to get sidetracked here but just because minorities get stopped more doesn't mean that stop and search is racist. If the advice was to "stop and seach minorities because they are all criminals" that would be racist. But it doesn't, policeman need to use their initiative and yes they have tp judge people at face value but that doesn't make it racist. Simple fact is that a lot of minorities live in poorer areas and in those poorer areas there is more crime and so it makes sense that in the areas where there is more likely to be crime people are stopped and searched Slippery slop that "self inflicted illness". My father had lung cancer, lung sent off for testing and wow. It was caused not by nicotine (which didn't help) but by tiny bits of wood and also plastics. Most lung cancer patients come from the industrial industry and trades. Those poor *swear word* get the stigma of "it's your own fault" when it was a hazard created by their career choice. My stance? Legalise it. But I garuantee you, the criminal element won't go away. Just look at cheap cigs and booze. Both legal but still there's still criminal elements with both (and in some cases dangerous booze/cigs). I see what you mean about the slippery slope but I there are ways around it (like you said the test your father had) and in many cases it is very obvious such as if a drunk driver crashes into someone he should pay for his and any victims treatment not the taxpayer But I very much agree with you and hitmanNo2 that legalising it will not stop crime as the criminal side is too well established and once its legalised I doubt the police will really be looking for dodgy dealer so it could become worse Another point; with designer drugs today, pot analogs are way worse than pot itself. Good point.. I think people assume ti will just be pure weed that is legalised but whos to say other harmful stuff doesn't get put into it Link to post Share on other sites
Skarclaw Posted February 4, 2014 Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 Though it is best to bring some mates round, make a drinking game of it and then laugh at every single fact they get wrong. wrong thread buddy.... bubble bubble Re the stop and search figures above, they don't take into account the ethnic populations of where those searches were carried out. If, for example a high crime area has a high percentage of black residents then I would expect the percentage of people stopped to be black. Whereas in an area where the main population is white I would expect the number of non white people stopped to be far lower, if not then the law would be being enforced in a racist way (rather than the way being racist as it doesn't state that people of X skin colour should be targeted) Without wanting to get sidetracked here but just because minorities get stopped more doesn't mean that stop and search is racist. If the advice was to "stop and seach minorities because they are all criminals" that would be racist. But it doesn't, policeman need to use their initiative and yes they have tp judge people at face value but that doesn't make it racist. Simple fact is that a lot of minorities live in poorer areas and in those poorer areas there is more crime and so it makes sense that in the areas where there is more likely to be crime people are stopped and searched yes they do - its stated quite clearly on page 21 of the MPA Doc, section 3.1 paras 50,51,52. The table after para 63 on page 27 also provides a breakdown of the stats by London borough Link to post Share on other sites
DrAlexanderTobacco Posted February 4, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 Good point.. I think people assume ti will just be pure weed that is legalised but whos to say other harmful stuff doesn't get put into it I think you've got it mixed around - Currently there's stuff added into weed to either make it look like you're getting more for your money, crushed glass etc. This is because grow houses aren't necessarily using the best conditions and don't give out great yields if you need to shut it down quickly. Why would legalisation mean that worse stuff is put in? You say "Who's to say", and I say the Govt. - It would be incredibly easy to regulate exactly what's legalised, i.e. the cannabis plant itself and the varying strains. Make it illegal to sell modified/contaminated products (Just as you would with food, alcohol etc) and heavily penalise those who do. Link to post Share on other sites
Skarclaw Posted February 4, 2014 Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 hmmm I'm not so sure about this whole crushed glass buisness - don't dispute that it could happen but I wouldn't be suprised if it was a bit of a myth based on what thc crystals look like up close: Link to post Share on other sites
DrAlexanderTobacco Posted February 4, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 It definitely is a thing unfortunately, my brother once got a bad bag. The dealer had messed it up and left sand at the bottom of the bag, and if you were to drag a nugget across a reflective surface like a CD you'd scratch the *suitcase* out of it. My point, though, was that legalisation will improve the safety, rather than harm it. It will enable weed to be grown in stable, clinical areas and the regulation of what can be used etc will mean that nothing nasty is mixed in. It's disingenuous to state the opposite. Link to post Share on other sites
hitmanNo2 Posted February 4, 2014 Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 I knew a guy that worked a lot of marijuana jobs in the police. Raids on grow ops, incineration of confiscated drugs and he said they did occasionally come across some with the glass beads to add weight. It was very rare though, at that time. He showed me some photos and they were definitely loose beads. You would have a to be a pretty dim dealer to do it though as word would get around your stuff is laced and goodbye loyal customers. You'd be stuck with ripping off noobs. Link to post Share on other sites
Skarclaw Posted February 4, 2014 Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 urgh nasty - will give the cd trick a go next time around! cheers Link to post Share on other sites
AceOfSkulls Posted February 4, 2014 Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 I think you've got it mixed around - Currently there's stuff added into weed to either make it look like you're getting more for your money, crushed glass etc. This is because grow houses aren't necessarily using the best conditions and don't give out great yields if you need to shut it down quickly. Why would legalisation mean that worse stuff is put in? You say "Who's to say", and I say the Govt. - It would be incredibly easy to regulate exactly what's legalised, i.e. the cannabis plant itself and the varying strains. Make it illegal to sell modified/contaminated products (Just as you would with food, alcohol etc) and heavily penalise those who do. Yea just like with alcohol *cough* knock off alcohol available in most off licenses *cough* , food *cough* horse meat *cough* and of course they will highly regulate it like they do tobacco *cough* heavy metals, cyanide, formaldehyde, solvents *cough*. That wasnt my point about analogs, though you are both right. From crushed glass, preserving solution and chemicals to "increase the high". My point was that instead of pot people are using designer drugs you can buy via the net *semi* legally. To replicate a pot high, but are way more damaging, wirh unknown long term effects. Link to post Share on other sites
Nickona Posted February 4, 2014 Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 yes they do - its stated quite clearly on page 21 of the MPA Doc, section 3.1 paras 50,51,52. The table after para 63 on page 27 also provides a breakdown of the stats by London borough Who are you replying to myself or cannonfodder? We said different things... I should clarify I said I meant bad stuff with regards to tobacco and other chemical etc not glass (what AceofSkulls said) Link to post Share on other sites
Skarclaw Posted February 4, 2014 Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 Who are you replying to myself or cannonfodder? We said different things... I should clarify I said I meant bad stuff with regards to tobacco and other chemical etc not glass (what AceofSkulls said) said different things but same applies. Its not the case that minorities get stopped more but rather that they get stopped disproportionately more Link to post Share on other sites
DrAlexanderTobacco Posted February 4, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 You raise a good point AceOfSkulls It would something that would need to be considered. I'd argue that it will be easier to put restrictions/regulations into place, as this is an industry which is currently undeveloped - i.e. not an industry that's got roots within government, hundreds of years old (Tobacco, Alcohol) - There are hardly any lobbyists to campaign against "tight" restrictions if they were ever put into place. Link to post Share on other sites
Nickona Posted February 4, 2014 Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 That still doesn't make stop and search racist.. like I said with the New York case, Its true that a lot of crime is committed by minorities (i am not saying white people don't commit crime they do) especially in densely populated, poorer urban areas where there are typically more minorities. Even if there is a disproportionately high number of migrants stopped is doesn't make stop and search racist all it means if that on average the person a policeman stops for acting suspiciously or looking suspicious is a minority, whether race is something a policeman considers is up to him and is obviously not a part of the policy. Also I am a believer in if you've got nothing to hide you've got nothing to fear, if I was a minority and was conscious and apparent racism I firstly wouldn't go around with a hood up looking suspicious etc and I would also prove to the policeman I was law abiding and cooperate to try and show that if there was any prejudice in my being stopped it was unfounded. When people complain about stop and search and claim its racist and should I find it tends to make them look rather suspicious (not directed at you Skarclaw, just speaking in generalities) Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.