Canabis farms

[SammyQ]

Weed is certainly less harmful than many drugs.

Triton, untrue.

Cannabis is writ small by many who have not become fully conversant with - particularly - its long-term or character-changing aspects. May I most respectfully ask you to do some more research?
I can, I think, see your point in that acid, meth, etc etc are immediate and more marked in their effect, but cannabinoids (hash, spice et al) though more immediately 'mellow', are just as dangerous - in a wider, more sustained sense.

 

[TRITON]

. May I most respectfully ask you to do some more research?

I think 30 years of smoking the stuff is research enough.

 

[SammyQ]

I think 30 years of smoking the stuff is research enough

Triton, I have eaten bacon for 67 years. That does not make me a pig farmer.

 

[TRITON]

Triton, I have eaten bacon for 67 years. That does not make me a pig farmer.

So what is your experience of it ? medical, addiction help, social work ?

 

[Cobbs]

What makes everyone think it'll be cheaper if legalised. If its still price prohibitive, then the likelihood of continued criminality to fund a habit will still be there.

There's no guarantee that it will be, but if everyone had the right to grow their own, then it's likely. Also of course, it's the risk of being caught that increases the prices the criminals charge.

Cobbs, I may have misread or misunderstood your original post, if so apologies , as from the quoted post directly above, we may actually have more in common than I thought. Gathering the accumumulated opinions above, I take your point re alcohol; tobacco (which the industry knew for decades was carcinogenic, addictive etc etc, but deliberately suppressed research showing this) could be added and I have to say, taxes raised from both are a considerable sum each year. Rhetorically speaking, I wonder how much of baccy and booze taxation goes directly to fund 'support services' for lung cancer, alcoholism etc? It would be informative and useful to see empirical figures.

Having broadly agreed with your principle, I would most respectfully propose that we are talking about two very different sets of 'industries':

a) Tobacco and alcohol producers have moved on (in some first world countries) from the shady advertising, poteen making, etc of the nineteen-thirties and -forties and could - with one eye closed - be considered to be "mainstream" today with available accounts, share holders' meetings, yada. yada.
b) Drug provision, as in cannabis, heroin, crystal meth, and derivatives, is certainly NOT as 'visible' and as accountable as those of a). Its 'executives' are emphatically not identifiable to shareholders(!) and as such, are not sub judice until caught!

I fully agree, it would be lovely, in a utopian world, to skim off a percentage of the revenue generated from drug use to fund the rectification of the problems caused by it. [One could cynically say, those problems would not occur if the drugs were unavailable, so there would be no need to garner said funds, no statistics about drug-related crime and so on?]

Returning to a) vs b) above, given the entrenched criminological inverstment in drugs, are you realistic to ask that we 'legalise' them? I wonder if it would simply make life easier for the Pablo Escobars and José Rodríguez Gachas of this world to operate, massively manipulating the market with their already established supply lines continuing to operate 'under the counter' augmenting the "legal and scrutinised" open network that your idea would create. We would then have the unlovely connundrum of: "how can you tell illegal spliffs from legal ones?".

"I realise I'm not going to change your mind on this, but neither will you change mine." Please do not assume I am a bigot; I 'spoke' from the heart, having experienced much from 37 years in one of the caring industries. I am certainly open to my ideas and position being challenged; one is never too old to learn or be corrected. Empirical evidence is everything. If you present something I have mis-interpreted, and I can see it to be so, I will, of course, publicly recant and move on the beter informed for it.

I would argue that the fact of being prohibited is the very thing that has led to the increase in potency of cannabis over the years. In the 70's we had sinsemilla hit the market - all of a sudden you had a boost in the potency of any given weight, due to the lack of seeds. Along came skunk and its relatives, which made a smaller amount yet more potent. If the plant had been legal all that time, I'm not sure the incentives would have been there for these "improvements". A similar effect can be seen in the opiates at the moment, with fentanyl, being so much more potent that traditional opium or heroin and therefore so much easier to move around. Crack too, back in the day was similar in that respect. If all these things were taken under control and out of the bad boys' hands, where would be the incentive for this increase in potency? It's not happened with alcohol or tobacco, that I'm aware of. (Please don't think that I'd advocating for the use of either, though I do enjoy a drink now and then.)

If we were to take a little trip into fantasy land and imagine that chocolate were to be outlawed tomorrow, or caffeine, I would imagine the black market price for either would skyrocket and someone somewhere would start looking into breeding more potent strains. Those "someones" would almost certainly be of a rather nasty bent and we'd see the whole prohibited circus kick off once more.

I have the utmost respect for that rare individual who has never tried any drug, and for those who have but felt it wasn't for them, but they are the tiny minority.

I wouldn't presume to know you well enough to call you a bigot, your views are different to mine, that's all, but if you have worked all those years in the caring profession, does it not strike you that you may be seeing all the worst case scenarios and not seeing all those people who use drugs harmlessly and suffer no ill effects?

 

[Spectric]

Deregulating would lead to a downward spiral in cost which would make the availability much greater with no quality control. I have seen the result of starting with canabis which leads onto much stronger drugs.

This is like safety, some people are just never going to be safe no mater what you do and will find a way to injury, hence the darwin awards so if someone wants to have a short life of drug abuse and a slow death then you will not stop them, only the reaper waiting at the other end will. You see the problem with smoking, people still smoke even with all the medical information at there finger tips and most of us will know someone with COPD who is slowly drowning in their own fluids yet people still smoke which is nothing more than stupidity.

The fact remains that if people want to use drugs, they will, they always have. It makes no sense whatsoever to gift huge amounts of money to the criminal underclass who exploit that tendency.

At the moment the junkies contribute nothing to VAT or tax because the money goes to the gangs and we have a large additional problem of drug related crime so if you cannot stop the junkies then you at least want to get some returns rather than just lose, lose. One solution would be to make certain drugs legal on the understanding that the NHS will only provide you with pain relief and palative care, nothing else and this will reduce the value of these drugs so many junkies will be like kids in a sweet shop and just reach the end point much quicker.

 

[TRITON]

junkies

Also known as "people' Fellow man. Who are in this turmoil due to circumstances.

 

[Jacob]

Triton, untrue.

Cannabis is writ small by many who have not become fully conversant with - particularly - its long-term or character-changing aspects. May I most respectfully ask you to do some more research?

You need to do a little more research yourself.

I can, I think, see your point in that acid, meth, etc etc are immediate and more marked in their effect, but cannabinoids (hash, spice et al) though more immediately 'mellow', are just as dangerous - in a wider, more sustained sense.

Can you show the research on this, or is it just off the top of your head?
PS should say - I'm not interested in drugs myself, never bought or sought any - except once in Tangiers when some local lads persuaded us to buy a huge bag of kif, which we duly brought back to UK in all innocence - this was early 60's and nobody knew much about it.
I reckon 1966 was the year it took off.
I did smoke the occasional joint when offered, as everybody seemed to be at in the 70s. Did grow some for a laugh and had a bumper crop which got given away, bit by bit. Tried it myself - a harmless diversion and I liked the dreams!
OTOH I smoked tobacco for years and had a struggle giving up. Still knocking back the odd alcoholic drink, but in moderation (arguably!). Had LSD once - never again!
I'd say I'm fairly conversant with it, including knowing cases amongst friends where illness and sometimes death ensued. Tobacco the worst by far.

 

[Cobbs]

This is like safety, some people are just never going to be safe no mater what you do and will find a way to injury, hence the darwin awards so if someone wants to have a short life of drug abuse and a slow death then you will not stop them, only the reaper waiting at the other end will. You see the problem with smoking, people still smoke even with all the medical information at there finger tips and most of us will know someone with COPD who is slowly drowning in their own fluids yet people still smoke which is nothing more than stupidity.


At the moment the junkies contribute nothing to VAT or tax because the money goes to the gangs and we have a large additional problem of drug related crime so if you cannot stop the junkies then you at least want to get some returns rather than just lose, lose. One solution would be to make certain drugs legal on the understanding that the NHS will only provide you with pain relief and palative care, nothing else and this will reduce the value of these drugs so many junkies will be like kids in a sweet shop and just reach the end point much quicker.

The "junkies" that are addicted to tobacco, nicotine and caffeine do.

 

[artie]

Some interesting viewpoints.

Has anyone considered that drug taking is not in itself a problem merely a visible symptom of the real problem.

A bit like western medicine which tries to alleviate the symptoms rather than tackle what causes them.

 

[Spectric]

That is the starting point, I have seen them at a local pharmacy and the drugs have just transformed them into walking shells of there former selves. The part which is hard to understand is why kill yourself so slowly, where is the fun in taking drugs. If they want to commit suicide then find a local substation and that would be fast and humane apart from the mess someone else is going to have to bag up.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

I tried cannabis a couple of times, not a huge amount but it did nothing for me (other than make my Afghan coat stink) : having said that I was given fentanyl in hospital and I didn't feel anything from that. I felt nothing from copious amounts of morphine, either. I think I'd make a very expensive junkie.
I was always somehow glad I smoked from about the age of thirteen - I knew what addiction was when my friends started messing with illicit substances, and steered clear.
I suspect that the people who have serious problems with cannabis/skunk would have serious problems with something else were they not available.
A friend a while back told the biggest problem he had was that he enjoyed the odd spliff on a Saturday night, but couldn't buy anything weak enough - all the dealers got the strongest stuff they could lay their hands on. A case for legalisation?
The argument that cannabis should remain illegal because it is dangerous to some people is illogical : alcohol should be, if that's the criterion : it affects millions more people. Alcohol causes far more (expensive) personal and social problems than cannabis ever will - and the Country picks up the tab.
There never has been "a war on drugs", we've sat on the fence for so long we've splinters in our arrses - it's time to start either executing suppliers or legalising drugs. What we're doing hasn't worked for decades and will never achieve anything.
Decriminalising drugs has worked quite well in Portugal, by the way.

 

[SammyQ]

if you have worked all those years in the caring profession, does it not strike you that you may be seeing all the worst case scenarios and not seeing all those people who use drugs harmlessly and suffer no ill effects?

Yes, superficially, that is quite possible. It all depends on your definition of "no side effects"; according to my research, refined over four decades contact with drug enforcement, Social Services and reading scientific papers, "no effects" may also be read as "no immediately visible effects". There is no drug, pharmacutical or "self-prescribed" that has "no side effects". They don't just address one aspect or symptom.
In this regard, may I quote viagra? Originally synthesised to treat hypertension and angina pectoris; it is a poster-boy for "mens' problems"; something it was never envisged as being so, but its a "side-effect"....

I am signing out on this topic. I have seen too much over the years to countenance any "recreational" or other justification for drug use. I've never smoked - I'm asthmatic -but I have "got rightly wellied" and have fatty liver disease to prove it. like I said, no drug is without side effects.

 

[Jacob]

........ I'm asthmatic -but I have "got rightly wellied" and have fatty liver disease to prove it.

Would prohibition have helped? It didn't work in the USA - people drank even more and a huge criminal culture grew up around it, just like today's drug scene.

like I said, no drug is without side effects.

Ditto foods.

 

[Lons]

I think 30 years of smoking the stuff is research enough.

That explains a lot.

 

[Adam W.]

I think 30 years of smoking the stuff is research enough.

Only 30 years, you've led a sheltered life.

 

[Lons]

It's now clear why some of you have addled brains, you have my sympathy - or perhaps not.

 

[Sachakins]

There's no guarantee that it will be, but if everyone had the right to grow their own, then it's likely. Also of course, it's the risk of being caught that increases the prices the criminals charge.

Why would everyone have a right to grow their own. If it becomes a legal substance controlled by government, there is nothing say it be allowed to be grown as a personal substance. That in itself would lead to private growers selling it on to those who can't or don't want to grow their own. Thus creating another illegal market to counteract the illegal market that there is now. So how is that going to help.

 

[Jacob]

It's now clear why some of you have addled brains, .....t.

What's your excuse then?

 

[Cobbs]

Why would everyone have a right to grow their own. If it becomes a legal substance controlled by government, there is nothing say it be allowed to be grown as a personal substance. That in itself would lead to private growers selling it on to those who can't or don't want to grow their own. Thus creating another illegal market to counteract the illegal market that there is now. So how is that going to help.

Why wouldn't people have a right to grow their own? After all, you can brew your own beer or grow your own tobacco and I don't see much of a problem occurring with those...