The government and cannabis...

this isnt why it is illegal, it was illegalised because of associated health risks- it is still steered away from by the medical councils because although it may relive the pain of patients in hospitals the risks of destabilising them is too great... also it contains twice the tar blah blah...

the price thing is utter bolox, marijuana is the most lucrative crop in north america - far outstripping anything else, phillip morris already have boxes with 'marijuana' and 'marijuana free' print on them... they are waiting for legalization and when it comes they will control everything... think how powerful the lobbyists in america are now.... you think theyre gonna sell it cheap?

then you'll be longing for the days when you had the your pretty little image of some happy little man in the atlas mountains merrily picking away and popping it in a little bag for you fresh as a daisy...

hell, imo pills make people less agressive and friendly and also that people on E pose a lesser threat regarding crime and violence than alcohol...

its hardly a grounds to legalize it though

so far the opinions ive read in this thread for legalising it are all completley self centred and based on personal gain with no wider consideration.

im not thinking just about myself, im thinking about ALL the stoners

Get you!

Why would anyone buy from US companies or US controlled companies when they could import directly from the source countries... i'm sure the US doesn't control all the cannabis around the world... why is it cheaper in Holland? Where do they import it from because i'm sure they can't grow it all themselves? What America does is not relevant to Europe... we have very deep seated contacts and affiliations in areas such as the Middle East and i'm sure these would come into play. We would have the opportunity to import far cheaper cannabis... the price the government would dictate is another thing.

The associated health risks are not why its illegal, it is politics. There were no considerable known health risks when it was criminalised in the early part of last century. Health may be a significant factor now, but back then it was down mainly to politics.

On your last point, surely the crime associated is a very significant factor... a persons health should be their own decision as you can smoke, eat harmful foods do extreme activities... all with higher death tolls. Ecstacy and cannabis are not associated with violent crime other than the people who distribute them. Alcohol is far more dangerous in that respect.

Heres some stuff for ya'll... This is very pro cannabis and doesn't explain the certain or potential dangers of cannabis, which I don't dispute and admit they should certainly be taken into account... There are a lot of juicy facts in here tho...

Cannabis is a plant that grows much like corn or wheat, not some powdered drug produced in a clandestine laboratory. It has many other uses besides being the lowest risk recreational substance used in society.

The stalk of the plant, known as "Hemp", contains fiber and hurds and is a sustainable, environmentally friendly, renewable, natural resource.

The flowers contain a mild psychoactive ingredient called THC (tetrahydrocannabinol). When the flowers or "buds" are dried and smoked they are more commonly referred to as "Marijuana".


People from middle teens, to seniors, in all walks of life, in every country around the globe. Yes, even doctors, lawyers, judges, police and politicians!

Cannabis produces a feeling of well being, promotes the facilitation of interpersonal behavior, and reduces aggressive behavior. In other words, it usually makes people happy, sociable and peaceful.

No. Cannabis produces no withdrawal symptoms no matter how heavily it is smoked. It is habit forming (psychologically addictive), but not physically addictive.

For a drug to be physically addictive, it must be reinforcing, produce withdrawal symptoms, and produce tolerance. Marijuana is reinforcing, because it feels good, but it does not do the other two things.

Caffeine, nicotine and alcohol are all physically addictive.

No. Cannabis is nontoxic. No deaths from a cannabis overdose have ever been verified. It has been estimated that one would have to smoke eight hundred cannabis cigarettes to induce a fatal reaction, and even then one would probably receive a lethal dose of carbon monoxide first.

No. This is known as the “gateway” or “stepping stone” theory. That by trying cannabis, it will lead to the use of heroine, cocaine or other dangerous substances. Fact is, caffeine, tobacco, and alcohol are the first drugs to be encountered during adolescence, as these are legal and more readily available. People who use hard drugs do so of their own choice whether or not they have tried cannabis.

Cannabis is usually ranked among the top medicines, called “panaceas”, a word which means “cure-all”. The therapeutic potential of cannabis includes: treating multiple sclerosis, asthma & breathing difficulties, alcoholism, glaucoma, AIDS, epilepsy, migraine headaches & severe pain, as well as being an antiarthritic, antidepressant & anticonvulsant. It can be used to control inflammation, and for relief of nausea in cancer treatment patients. This is just a sampling of the medicinal properties this plant has to offer.

Hemp Stalks and Hemp Seed have vast industrial applications. See the chart below for a quick overview of hemp’s incredible potential.

Prohibition began when cannabis / hemp was made illegal under the name "marijuana" in the Opium and Narcotic Drug Act of 1923. It was a decision based on misinformation, sensationalism and public manipulation that effects us to this day.

Also check this out for reasons it became illegal...

as has already been said before, if thats the case ya goin to the wrong people, very dodgy people. the only reason why anybody would do anything like that is if they sell that stuff themselves. wrong people.

oh and by the way, i'm sure i've told u this before kerry, si definitely knows, please don't call my beloved resin TAC! its a nasty name and actually means a mixture of Tabacco And Cannabis. only u'z are usin it in a derogatory way which i do not appreciate

But it is a learning process... you buy the shite and eventually learn to know the difference between low quality and high quality (of which there is some) resin. I haven't had bad resin for over two years.

i just simply wouldn't go to a dealer that sells smack, no matter how much i was chokin for bong. never gotten to know a cannabis dealer that sold smack in 16 years of smokin it either. its not just the drugs u wanna be careful with if ya gonna experiment or dabble, its the people u buy them from aswell.

When I was younger I never knowingly bought from a smack dealer and certainly wouldn't have. I'm not keen on most dealers regardless of what they sell, but there are a few out there that a sound... I'm not a big weed smoker anyway, I like it every now and then but I don't feel like smoking a spliff too often

why? because the multinationals will jump on anything they can make money out of - coke selling mp3s for example... holland is a small country, create the potential of a worldwide market and youll have it being sold at every coffee republic and starbucks in the world... the multinationals have the capital that smaller dealers dont have, they will buy vast quantities of it cutting out the middleman and buying the farms - the american crop is worth 25 billion + a year... much of this is very cheap and comes from mexico, at far less cost than european prices...

but when the likes of phillip morris, bat etc get innvolved, 'source countries' wont matter...

@america not affecting europe... lookin around my room -malboro, puma, walkers, coke, ibm, microsoft, kellogs -america affects EVERYTHING given the chance... it will be a massive global trade if it becomes illegal and the multinationals will be the ones that gobble it all up...

the majority of uk cannabis comes from morroco not the middle east - although a small amout (5-9%) comes from turkey... please explain these afffiliations we have with turkey and morroco? :spangled:

it was outlawed in america due to competition between hemp farmers and coton growers...

it was re-legalised but was taxed so highly and controlled so heavily by the government that they reverted back...

we have evidence now that it leads to a "range of mental illness's" thats good enough reason for me to keep it controlled.

youd have be a moron to argue otherwise... unless uve never seen anyone become 'ollied'....

so we should legalise cannabis purely on the basis that another drug 'causes more violence' - good point

wherever ya gettin this from id say its a VERY biased source... as appears with most information on cannabis - the governments dont know the score but the "weed army" have their heads buried too far up their arse - i know of two people from uni that fit under that category..

unless they grow it themselves, how could you possibly know wether or not the person THEY get it off sells smack?

I will reply when I get back from work... tbc

aye its because back in the late 19th century/early 20th century they discovered that you could use hemp cheaply and easily to make paper, textiles - anything. all the rich americans had already bought into this whole cotton idea, had cotton farms and cotton gins and were making a shitload of money. therefore corrupt government made the substance illegal in america and like a lot of things in 10years time britain followed suit.

the other thing is if it was legalised, what is stopping you from growing your own? there would be no worries about price, you could keep cannabis plants like aspidistras. even get yer mam to water it for you. there would be no way of them taxing this and i think ness told me this and that is why the government will not legalise it.

yeah drugs fuck you up
yeah smoking fucks you up
yeah drink fucks you up

so at the end of the day its YOUR choice isn't it? so get off the fucking bandwagon of oooh drugs are bad mmm kay??

go lucy

what a heated debate eh?!

"we have evidence now that it leads to a "range of mental illness's" thats good enough reason for me to keep it controlled"

where are these peer reviewed journal articles then?

also jus cos some1 found out that in there study this was the outcome does not make it fact...

i have seen studies that conclusively 'prove' that exercise (3000-5000kcal/wk) will not effect body mass in obese people... and i've seen studies that just as conclusively prove that a loss of between 0.5-1kg will occur... which one is wrong?

neither, i know that has nothing to do with weed but it highlights how the scientific world cannot always provide us with the answers, and usually a lot of studies jus ask more questions.

the human body (and mind) is so complex and individual that we probs will never know the true physiological and psychological effects of most drugs on the body.

tv can cause psychological imbalance and behaviourial changes in some, so should that be illegal?

one suggested reason for it not being legal is there are no conclusive tests to show how much under the influence of it you are at a moment in time, and if legalised it would be illegal to drive if its over a certain limit in your system, as when some1's really stoned i think you'll agree hat they should not be driving a car.

as for legalising it making it ok to smoke in bars/public places, i can't really see that ever happening, with laws on smoking in public places getting stricter all the time (liverpool completely smoke free by 2005/2008?)

rant over :argue:

Tom, missed my point ever so slightly...

When I stated America not affecting Europe I did not mean multinationals or any relationships between Europe and the US... I was talking about where cannabis would be imported. We would be far more likely to turn to the Middle East and possibly Africa due to strong trade links and imperial history etc. America would use its own crop and also Latin Americas. This is because of geography and the US's trade and political links in that area. Not all multinationals are American, we have our own monopolies that i'm sure would take over the BRITISH cannabis trade. What they would do then is anybodies guess, but when something becomes established and common it doesn't become more expensive does it? Multinationals and govenments would make their £££ but the extent would not be comparible to the vast amount in ILLEGAL trade where more risks and more go-betweens (dealers, handlers, smugglers, growers etc) raise prices incredibly (would YOU take a tonne of cannabis down the Khyber Pass for a pittance? I think not). This is basic economics. Also, it doesn't really matter at all because all this is hypothetical and we have all thrown our opinions in but NOBODY can know exactly what would happen, all we have are theories.

As for relationships with Morrocco and Turkey, they are irrelevant. Yes the majority of UK cannabis may come from there at the moment but the import and sale of that cannabis in the UK is illegal. IF it was legalised surely the UK would use existing trade routes and long established relationships with the many countries in the Middle East (and potentially Africa) we have had for centuries.

"so we should legalise cannabis purely on the basis that another drug 'causes more violence' - good point"

If you read my previous posts you will see that is not the only reason, there are countless arguments for and against. But while you bring it up yes, cannabis is less likely to cause violence compared to alcohol and that should be considered. I happen to lean towards the legalisation argument. However I understand that it would be naive to assume it could be legalised here any time soon. It is a process that, if if it does happen, will take time and much adjustment. A lot of serious debate and thinking will have to go into it. Relegating it to a Class C drug is the first step but decriminalisation and then legalisation are a long way off and thats probably a good thing at the moment.

You know i've seen someone become 'ollied' or 'barryied' as I like to call it And yes mental health is a very real and relevant point to be taken when assessing cannabis legislation. However, it is a minority of people who suffer these effects. As with alcohol you could produce facts and figures about associated risks but in the end what is the reality? What about the positive mental effects and the huge potential to moden medicine? The medical benifits are not in doubt. We could argue and counter-argue these points till the cows come home!

I think we agree to some extent but the points we disagree on are irrelevant in the current climate. As for most of the 'weed army' having their heads up their arses... it is mostly true, they read Howard Marks, grow dreads and spout one-sided shite. I hope you are not including our 'good friend' Linus in this group as I was always sure he told an unbiased truth! Afterall, he has sampled almost every type of weed around... he certainly never bullshits! As for Howard Marks, he is educated but he is also killing his own argument when he offers up his terrible ideas such as, in the event of cannabis legalisation in the UK, instead of selling it in say an off-licence or tobaconist or even through medical outlets, it should be sold in shops alongside tea as it it herbal :spangled: These ridiculous suggestions tarnish the legalisation argument. If legalisation were to occur, I would agree to it being heavily controlled, especially in the initial stages.

i can dream though :chill:

martin - utter twoddle- its not the 18th century!

ian - search for the repuatable journal articles that aren't written by 'stoners' or government sponserd organisations relating mental health issues to cannabis re. schitzophrenia.. you will find many- dont you watch the news btw? that quote came from the department for health... :bang:

remember im not anti weed just anti legalisation.

out of interest... (im asking) why have the the dutch changed their law on smoking weed / weed legalality back or partially back?

wtf! utter shite! 'positive mental effects' of weed? such as...

hospitals/health authorities/ government health ministries are steering well clear of weed because they know how unstable it is...

:sleep:

what about publication bias, confounding variables and selection issues?

notice the 'peer reviewed' in my post... this means that it cannot be by stoners or the like...

how do you know that the people with these mental disorders were always like that, and thats why they turned to weed in the 1st place?

most studies show that cannabis use was at a dependance level or there were other substances abused.

it can only be linked to schizophrenia pathophysiology if we consider the neurobiological hypothsis which has not been conclusively proven as yet.

studies have found that the 50% of new schizophrenic admissions were regular or dependant users, but they also found the same number were regular or dependant users of either alcohol or other substances.

conclusive? i don't think so.

maternal stress and malnutrition have been shown to be significant risk factors for schizophrenia but cannabis hasn't conclusively, and you can't jus lump schizophrenic disorders as one and say cannabis use/abuse affects them all... it is not a condition like liver disease or obesity, where there are common out comes and many common risk factors associated with those affected. (ie alcohol abuse for liver disease) it is a heterogenous disorder and its risk factors, symptoms, course and theraputic response vary widely among pateints, unlike obesity for example, where symptoms are obvious and treatment is relatively unidimentional in that dietary, behavioural and activity changes, sometimes coupled with drug intervention is prescribed and works for the vast majority of patients.

it is because of this complex nature of the condition and its pathology that you cannot jus say (as these 'studies' in the news have) xxx causes it.

i'm not saying that it is 100% safe and doesn't cause mental instability, far from it, i'm jus saying that you cannot believe everything you read, esp if its from the government (remember that the US's main drug statagies and anti-drug promotion are based on studies that show no difference in brain activity between ecstacy users and non-users - but they forgot to mention that when they were using this evidence to 'prove' ecstacy effected brain activity in both the long and short term)

and all this probs didn't make sense but it is all taken from reliable sources

btw i don't really think there is any real point in legalising it now as in a few years/decades smoking will be frowned upon as much as cannabis is now... making it pointless t do so...

:argue: