|
5 registered (wohlandr, Chris628, 3 invisible),
59
Guests and
40
Spiders online. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
38574 Members
55 Forums
183200 Topics
1648790 Posts
Max Online: 1054 @ 07/29/08 07:31 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
31
|
|
|
|
#1287298 - 03/19/07 02:12 AM
Re: UK: Skunk is dangerous?
[Re: puff_tuff]
|
Enthusiast
Registered: 02/24/07
Posts: 326
Loc: London, UK.
|
Quote:
The real dangers of skunk do not change my mind about legalisation. Indeed, I now think full legalisation to be more important, so that there can be sensible education about the possible dangers. We can never, ever hope to give out clear, straightforward educational messages about drugs while they remain illegal. We have no chance of ever controlling how drugs are sold and who they are sold to. Illegality drives the drug trade underground, exposing users to drugs - not just cannabis - of fluctuating strength and dubious origin, randomly dangerous in their inconsistencies.
Out of all of the nonsense published by the Independent, this is perhaps the only paragraph that I can agree with.
The rest is absolute hysteria and claptrap.
The bottom line is children should not be smoking. Since alcohol (and cigarettes from October 2007) can only be purchased legally by 18 year olds, this perhaps could be the age that one could purchase cannabis. Thus, avoiding the risks in damaging the development of a youngster's brain, which is purported to be causing mental illnesses.
However, why do/are children smoking pot in the UK in the first place?
What seems to be overlooked is the fact that there has been a steady decline in social conduct over the years. The kids today are just simply out of control. They have no fear of discipline or of the law, vent their frustrations and live out their wicked fantasies. Are all of these youth smoking pot? I don't think so, but given the unregulated supply, they could if they wanted to and know that there would be no real consequences from doing so.
The decline in moral standards is the real cause of children going wild and insane; they can do what and get away with whatever they please. Unlike perhaps 10-20+ years ago.
In my youth, I said that I would never smoke nicotine, and once I got to university, I would investigate pot but no other drugs. I ended smoking both and trying pretty much everything, but my point is, despite having some "killer skunk" and being stoned for pretty much most of my Law degree, I still managed to get a 2.(i). I am not so sure of where I would be if I had started to smoke pot at 13.
An out of the box way of looking at what the Independent on Sunday have done this weekend is to actually progress the legalisation campaign.
Most of what has been written is about some young people's experiences with cannabis, they started at a young age - and anyone who messes with substances when they are kids is asking for trouble, thus, legalisation would to a degree prevent access to children and allow their minds to develop fully before experimenting with substances. There is currently no control over supply which gives easy access to kids.
(Rant over  )
_________________________
If I worried about what every bitch was saying, I'd never leave the house. S. Jones - SATC.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#1287301 - 03/19/07 04:45 AM
Re: Rise in users hooked on skunk cannabis
[Re: kingarthur]
|
Enthusiast
Registered: 02/24/07
Posts: 326
Loc: London, UK.
|
Quote:
I've created this area because we have a lot of new members from Europe, and specifically the UK. I thought it would be a kind gesture to welcome everyone!
You can post about any cannabis issues you face right now in Europe. Talk about the "grit weed" crisis in the UK, the crackdown on growers, the political mishandling of drug policies... anything goes. (JodieGR)
Maybe one reason....
Another reason, while reading about the global pot situation maybe riveting to some, myself included, others may only be interested in the pot situation in the region they are in...
I dunno, I think it was a kind and warm gesture to the European members. I prefer a global perspective, but others may not be so inclined..
_________________________
If I worried about what every bitch was saying, I'd never leave the house. S. Jones - SATC.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#1287303 - 03/19/07 06:03 AM
The Independent
[Re: Rudy]
|
Newshawk Extraordinaire
Registered: 04/24/00
Posts: 8068
Loc: Shuswap BC
|
The 'Schizophrenia link' is old news. The "News" in this thread is The Independent has retracted their stand on legalization, they have done more for the movement than any other organization in the UK.(When the Independent on Sunday's then editor Rosie Boycott launched a campaign to decriminalise cannabis in 1997, 16,000 people marched through central London to support it.) This is a significant blow to the legalization movement in the UK and indeed the world. The majority of the comments above (and letters) are from non-overseas members. This "news" has created news. See: Paper 'sorry' for cannabis stance / BBC
_________________________
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#1287304 - 03/19/07 06:03 AM
Re: UK: Skunk is dangerous?
[Re: Rudy]
|
Member
Registered: 01/04/07
Posts: 177
|
Quote:
Quote:
The real dangers of skunk do not change my mind about legalisation. Indeed, I now think full legalisation to be more important, so that there can be sensible education about the possible dangers. We can never, ever hope to give out clear, straightforward educational messages about drugs while they remain illegal. We have no chance of ever controlling how drugs are sold and who they are sold to. Illegality drives the drug trade underground, exposing users to drugs - not just cannabis - of fluctuating strength and dubious origin, randomly dangerous in their inconsistencies.
Out of all of the nonsense published by the Independent, this is perhaps the only paragraph that I can agree with.
The rest is absolute hysteria and claptrap.
The bottom line is children should not be smoking. Since alcohol (and cigarettes from October 2007) can only be purchased legally by 18 year olds, this perhaps could be the age that one could purchase cannabis. Thus, avoiding the risks in damaging the development of a youngster's brain, which is purported to be causing mental illnesses.
However, why do/are children smoking pot in the UK in the first place?
What seems to be overlooked is the fact that there has been a steady decline in social conduct over the years. The kids today are just simply out of control. They have no fear of discipline or of the law, vent their frustrations and live out their wicked fantasies. Are all of these youth smoking pot? I don't think so, but given the unregulated supply, they could if they wanted to and know that there would be no real consequences from doing so.
The decline in moral standards is the real cause of children going wild and insane; they can do what and get away with whatever they please. Unlike perhaps 10-20+ years ago.
In my youth, I said that I would never smoke nicotine, and once I got to university, I would investigate pot but no other drugs. I ended smoking both and trying pretty much everything, but my point is, despite having some "killer skunk" and being stoned for pretty much most of my Law degree, I still managed to get a 2.(i). I am not so sure of where I would be if I had started to smoke pot at 13.
An out of the box way of looking at what the Independent on Sunday have done this weekend is to actually progress the legalisation campaign.
Most of what has been written is about some young people's experiences with cannabis, they started at a young age - and anyone who messes with substances when they are kids is asking for trouble, thus, legalisation would to a degree prevent access to children and allow their minds to develop fully before experimenting with substances. There is currently no control over supply which gives easy access to kids.
(Rant over )
couldn't agree with you more Rudy, Children should not be doing any drugs period.
THe independent article proves that heavy sustained use in adolescents causes problems surprise surprise.Heavy and prolonged use of any drug at that age including alcohol and tobacco ( has been known to cause psychosis in minors never mind death at an older age) is to be discouraged.
My main concern is that for most people reading that article they will not have the discrimination that some of us on here have.The way it was written was pure reefer madness.
THe old chestnut that skunk is stonger now than stuff available 30 years ago is nonsense I know I was there!! Hash oil then had a THC content of over 40 % twice the concentration of todays skunk never mind the Thai stick sinsemilla and nepalese temple ball.What is true is that the availability of high THC weed is greater.
I wrote to the Independent and my main point was that prohibition doesn't work.If the Government had brought in regulation back in 1998 as the Independent wanted we wouldn't have all this high THC weed on our streets but the strength could be controlled at the level the Independent wanted to decriminalise in the first place.
Also I made the point that for the vast majority of adult users cannabis use poses no health risk and many benenfits.THat point was totally ignored...reefer madness again it won't be long before they are saying smoking weed will turn you into a bat
Prohibiton is the problem not the drugs themselves
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#1287305 - 03/19/07 10:30 AM
Re: UK: Skunk is dangerous?
[Re: druidude]
|
Member
Registered: 10/27/04
Posts: 117
Loc: U.S.
|
My letter to The Independent:
RE: More potent cannabis and schizophrenia
It is sad to see the once proud Independent, a bastion of progressive thought, become just another mouth organ for prohibitionist propaganda.
All the "data" presented in these screeds only show "correlation," not "causation." Correlation being that two things happened at the same time. It is simply that many people who suffer from schizophrenia have received, or at least thought they received, relief with cannabis. That, and since cannabis use is so widespread, there will be a signficant portion of cannabis consumers in any given demographic group.
And the hysteria about the dangers of "skunk, " or "more potent cannabis" is simply another prohibitionist canard. Potency is up somewhat, due to more knowledgeable growing, but not anywhere near what prohibitionists are trumpeting.
Medicinal cannabis experts say one of the reasons smoked cannabis is more effective than synthetic cannabis in pill form is that patients are able to "titrate" their dosage. That is, they smoke just enough to get the effect they need. This happens with recreational consumers as well, of course. They are well aware there are different levels of potency in the cannabis they buy, and adjust how much they consume accordingly. This has always been the case. Consumers always knew they couldn't smoke hash like they smoke standard pot. To say that a suddenly stronger cannabis (exponentially exaggerated) is taking cannabis consumers by surprise is simply an insult to everyone's intelligence.
Do people toss down a bottle of tequila like they toss down a bottle of beer? It is ludicrous to assume that cannabis consumers are the only ones who don't know how to adjust their consumption for potency. The fact is, more potent cannabis is healthier cannabis, since the only somewhat damaging aspect of cannabis is the smoke. So, more potent cannabis only means less is smoked, thus less irritation to the lungs.
And the overarching fact of cannabis remains the same. It is non-addictive and far less harmful than alcohol. The more people switch from alcohol to cannabis, the better off those individuals, and society as a whole, will be.
I've had forty years of familiarity with the cannabis culture and of all the thousands of tokers I have known, I have NEVER heard of any developing schizophrenia OR having problems with "more potent pot."
Again, it is a sad day for the Independent. To see a paper once on the vanguard of truth, being reduced to just another propaganda rag is a large indicator of the general decline of society into dogmatic repression verging on totalitarianism.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
Moderator: BongPixie, CaliGrower, chrisbennett, Dana Larsen, Fred_the_Plumber, frmrgrl, goodster, jacob, JodieEmery, OCNORML, puff_tuff, Rudy, stinkweed
|
Previous Topic
Index
