Cannabis laws to be strengthened(reclassified)

[Incognitas]

Talk about confusing the British public and wasting public money on an advisory body specifically set up by the government to look into drugs and their usage.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7386889.stm

[Zeph]

Yep OUR money spent on an advisory board whos advice has now been IGNORED!

[zinglebarb]

Well new weed is pretty potent I cant handle it lol

[TraxData]

Originally Posted by zinglebarb

Well new weed is pretty potent I cant handle it lol

Not worth messing about with anyway, known a few people to get HPPD because of drugs (yes, including weed, static vision/visual snow)...

[RizzyKing]

This is all about GB attempting to look like he can be tough on something other then tax and will have sod all impact on day to day affairs just a complete waste of everyone concerned time and effort.

[Enuff]

Maybe alcohol should be made a class A or C substance? Just look how dangerous that is. Tobacco too.

[homealone]

I thought this article was quite good

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...edicalresearch

To return cannabis to class B will do nothing except double the maximum sentence for possession, to five years. Since this sentence is almost never used, the effect of next week's announcement will be zero.

In some ways I believe the current situation is due to the success of HM Customs etc in preventing the smuggling into the uk of the 'traditional' sources of cannabis, prevalent e.g. during the 1970's - mostly resin, rather than 'grass'. They all suffered from the same problems, they were bulky relative to the overall value, compared to heroin & cocaine, & also smelly, so hard to conceal from sniffer dogs.

So along comes modern genetics technology that enables the plants characteristics to be selectively 'tailored', making them easier to grow 'at home', while raising the levels of the 'active ingredients'.

- however that is increasingly being exploited by organised crime & there are almost daily news reports of large scale 'factory' operations producing the drug, rather than a few people 'growing their own'. In my opinion increasing the classification to 'B' from 'C' will not change this one iota.

I would suggest that spending money on educating the young people most vulnerable to the potential psychological effects as to exactly what the facts are, especially when words like 'lethal' are being bandied about, would be money better spent than on locking people up - the 'reefer madness' headlines of the late sixties only made the cannabis users at that time laugh ( well giggle a bit, anyway ).

The risk is, imo, that the same might happen now, when arguably there may be more truth in some of the reports of increased incidence of psychosis in cannabis users.

- one problem there being that there isn't just one kind of 'skunk', there are several, each with different profiles regarding the active ingredients they contain. There was a TV documentary recently that highlighted how very different the effect of smoking the different varieties could be, in terms of how 'high' or 'low' the sensation of being stoned was perceived by the user - some were reported to be much more likely to induce feelings of anxiety or even paranoia, than others.

Which makes it even more nonsensical to ignore the advisory body, in my opinion, as seeming to go for a 'lock more people' up strategy is ignoring the complexity of the problem.

[bopdude]

Originally Posted by Zeph

Yep OUR money spent on an advisory board whos advice has now been IGNORED!

That made me smile when I heard the copper on about it on a show last night IIRC. He basically said along the lines of, we didn't listen to the government when they relaxed the laws, why bother listening now, if that's the attitude, now wonder we are where we are

[danielf]

The advisory body was never supposed to suggest keeping it as class C. When it became apparent they would, they were told that their decision should be as much about the scientific evidence as about 'the signal it sends out'. Basically, the government told them what the outcome should be, but the advisory committee decided to stick with the facts. So, Gordon was left only one option, which was to ignore the committee.

Edit: Here's the article from a few months ago.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle3156255.ece

The advisory council, which rejected a previous attempt to reclassify cannabis in 2006, has been told to take into account public attitudes to cannabis as well as the medical evidence of its harm in reaching its conclusion.

Ms Smith wants the council to acknowledge the signal that the reclassification of cannabis from Class B to Class C in 2004 sent to the public, including the perception that the drug was harmless and even legal.

What good is an advisory committee if you tell them what to decide?

[papa smurf]

to me this is just another case of new reinvented labour with there finger firmly off the pulse, they dont listen to the people ,they ignore there own advisory body ,its the same old thing ,ignore the facts and nanny the public ,this will be just another nail in there coffin cant wait till there gone.

[Matt D]

So...

Changing it to a Class C a few years back didn't cause cannabis use to increase... it has actually been decreasing.

There is no evidence of any strong causal link between cannabis use & psychotic illness.

Cannabis is less harmful than Class B drugs.

The Government's own ACMD said it should stay a Class C.

etc....



But, oh no, we have another stupid decision, by a stupid Government...change it back to a B




I liked this quote on the BBC story:

Originally Posted by Labour MP Chris Mullin

The government should follow the advice of the experts rather than that of the tabloids.

While the following on the BBC story should I think be corrected as marked:

Originally Posted by BBC News

She [Jacqui Smith] added that the government's change of heart - which is subject to parliamentary approval - was..."relentless drivel".

Ha, & it always makes me laugh when they say it's a "gateway drug" which leads users to then try heroin & other hard drugs..

IIRC, various studies & reports have found that to be utter rubbish, including the Police Foundation's Runciman Report.

[While my own personal experience from my youth is that the only drug it was a "gateway" to was tobacco...I blame my cigarette addiction on late-teen cannabis use...well, & my own lack of willpower.]

Originally Posted by Helen Lovejoy

Won't somebody please think of the children!

[ntluser]

Though drugs, cigarettes and alcohol can have a detrimental effect on your health there will always be people who are happy to use them and accept the risk.

The problem is that though they accept the risk for themselves it is the non-users who actually suffer.

Drugs play a big part in drug related crime, where addicts and users steal from other people to pay for their habit.

As far as cigarettes go, we all remember Roy Castle, a non-smoker dying of cancer, from passive smoking not to mention the large number of smokers dying from lung cancer.

Watching the incidents of binge drinking on the TV, it is the sober policemen, landlords and other members of the public who have to deal with their antics. Further, a fair proportion of domestic violence is alcohol-related, not to mention the number of deaths and injuries caused by drink driving.

All three substances harm the users to some degree ( whether they admit it or not) but they also harm other people affected by their actions.

Their widespread usage means that a large number of people are affected either as users or victims.

The creation of the skunk variety of cannabis means that perhaps without knowing it recreational users are moving on to harder drugs even though it's not heroin, ecstasy etc.

The ongoing problem is that because of the addictive quality of drugs, cigarettes and alcohol this situation will be with us for some time.

Maybe the only way to solve it is for the victims of users to take out civil law suits to seek redress or for users to recognize that they are addicted and to seek medical help to address the problem.

It will be interesting to see how it all turns out.

[The Hitman]

Originally Posted by ntluser

Though drugs, cigarettes and alcohol can have a detrimental effect on your health there will always be people who are happy to use them and accept the risk.

The problem is that though they accept the risk for themselves it is the non-users who actually suffer.

Drugs play a big part in drug related crime, where addicts and users steal from other people to pay for their habit.

As far as cigarettes go, we all remember Roy Castle, a non-smoker dying of cancer, from passive smoking not to mention the large number of smokers dying from lung cancer.

Watching the incidents of binge drinking on the TV, it is the sober policemen, landlords and other members of the public who have to deal with their antics. Further, a fair proportion of domestic violence is alcohol-related, not to mention the number of deaths and injuries caused by drink driving.

All three substances harm the users to some degree ( whether they admit it or not) but they also harm other people affected by their actions.

Their widespread usage means that a large number of people are affected either as users or victims.

The creation of the skunk variety of cannabis means that perhaps without knowing it recreational users are moving on to harder drugs even though it's not heroin, ecstasy etc.

The ongoing problem is that because of the addictive quality of drugs, cigarettes and alcohol this situation will be with us for some time.

Maybe the only way to solve it is for the victims of users to take out civil law suits to seek redress or for users to recognize that they are addicted and to seek medical help to address the problem.

It will be interesting to see how it all turns out.

So if the non users are effected. How? Right now im haveing a drink of brandy in my home. How am i affecting a person who does not drink. Show me the effect im haveing on this person or other people who dont drink

[homealone]

Originally Posted by ntluser

Though drugs, cigarettes and alcohol can have a detrimental effect on your health there will always be people who are happy to use them and accept the risk.

The problem is that though they accept the risk for themselves it is the non-users who actually suffer.

Drugs play a big part in drug related crime, where addicts and users steal from other people to pay for their habit.

As far as cigarettes go, we all remember Roy Castle, a non-smoker dying of cancer, from passive smoking not to mention the large number of smokers dying from lung cancer.

Watching the incidents of binge drinking on the TV, it is the sober policemen, landlords and other members of the public who have to deal with their antics. Further, a fair proportion of domestic violence is alcohol-related, not to mention the number of deaths and injuries caused by drink driving.

All three substances harm the users to some degree ( whether they admit it or not) but they also harm other people affected by their actions.

Their widespread usage means that a large number of people are affected either as users or victims.

The creation of the skunk variety of cannabis means that perhaps without knowing it recreational users are moving on to harder drugs even though it's not heroin, ecstasy etc.

The ongoing problem is that because of the addictive quality of drugs, cigarettes and alcohol this situation will be with us for some time.

Maybe the only way to solve it is for the victims of users to take out civil law suits to seek redress or for users to recognize that they are addicted and to seek medical help to address the problem.

It will be interesting to see how it all turns out.

I don't believe that the various genetic varieties of skunk are any 'harder' than previously, in terms of 'addictiveness', especially when most people are not getting the proper 'super skunk' type ???

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by The Hitman

So if the non users are effected. How? Right now im haveing a drink of brandy in my home. How am i affecting a person who does not drink. Show me the effect im haveing on this person or other people who dont drink

You're causing me mental anguish knowing what that alcohol is doing to your body

If drug use was performed in the same way as you and your brandy (ie in a home, in moderation etc), then people wouldn't have a problem with it.

Unfortunately, drink, smoking, drugs etc are not soley taken under those conditions, they spill out into public places, whether it's drunken yobs scratching every car they pass on the way home from the pub, or someone who turns to crime to pay for their drug addiction.