By the way Bernie I think your tactic of arguing the man and not the point is a bit off... Furthermorte try not to take yourself so seriously... after all it was you who started this thread about wanting some government to allow all and sundry to fry their brains without let or hindrance.
By the way I am 100% certain that NO british government is going to legalise pot in the next 20 years or so.
Your message is garbage. Not you, but what you write. Like Wolfie and Astrocat, you haven't taken the trouble to read and think about what I've said before penning your stupid and irrelevant contribution.
I've said several times now that I'm not calling for legalisation: I don't think it's realistic and I'm not at all sure it's desirable.
I don't understand what you mean about taking myself too seriously: isn't that an attack on me rather than on what I'm saying? In any case, this is a serious subject, and I want a serious discussion. What's wrong with that?
I've said several times now that I'm not calling for legalisation
As I understand it you want some of the legislation to be stripped away, i.e. possession of the stuff decriminalised. That's pretty much the same as legalisation in most people's minds.
Therefore possession should be decriminalised, and home production by adults tolerated as home brewing of beer is tolerated, while buying and selling should be illegal.
I wonder what possible reason you could have for growing cannabis in your own home, more like that you want to sell it on to some underage miscreant bent on doing doing harm no doubt.
You talk about other peoples intelligence bernie, but you are as see through as a glass window pane.
More importantly if you do want to legalise the use of this drug to this extent, then I presume you are already enjoying the benefits in your home of growing it.
All you fear is the consequences of doing something that is illegal, in order to persue this desire you want us all to put up with the crap that comes with it, and all the rubbish you spout to defend your actions.
As I have said though what people want to do within their own homes is not of my concern, however it never stays there, because you always want the nod and agreement of the public and the law to support your desires. Tough!! it is not going to happen. Ever, except amongst those junkies who nod their heads in tandem with glazed eyes and brains.
IDS is right, Cannabis is an extremely dangerous drug, especially if uncontrolled and used with abandonment in a recreational aspect.
I wonder what possible reason you could have for growing cannabis in your own home, more like that you want to sell it on to some underage miscreant bent on doing doing harm no doubt.
As I understand it, you have been on the receiving end from people who may or may not have been on cannabis. I'm sorry about that, but what makes you think cannabis had anything to do with their behaviour?
But what makes you think cannabis had anything to do with their behaviour?
Thanks Dave for this question.
There was a place locally where they used to hang out and use cannabis, you would find the plastic bottle and large pieces of foil burnt with with pin prick holes, a neighbour commented on this because he thought it was cocaine, but the Community Police officer stated it was indeed cannabis inhaled in a way to increase its potency.
Because I am not altogether sure I will leave the foil to others to decide. But Cannabis was identified as being a major factor in their behaviour.
It was so visible that everyone could see, then after about an hour or so they would come out and either throw stones at windows, usually the school ones. However they never left it at that. They would tear down anything they could get their hands on.
Interestingly enough this behaviour only occurred after a session in which a group of them were involved. There was no doubt in either the police or others in our community that their behaviour was down to drug (cannabis)(Bong) usage.
Cannabis tends to make people paranoid and thus unlikely to break the law unnecessarily. It also makes people rather passive. Of the hundreds of people I've seen on cannabis, I've never seen any become more aggressive.
Your guess that they were smoking crack implies you would assume crack was to blame. If they were inhaling glue, would that make glue to blame? If they had computer game mags, would that be to blame?
All of these things are used by wretched people to forget their wretched lives. It's a shame that people are like this and that others are harmed. But the drug isn't necessarily part of the problem. It's generally self-medication.
It often makes kids think school is a waste of time so the cannabis may have indirectly had an effect.
I read a story in my local people recently about a gang of young people, boys and girls, who had been terrorising the residents of a particular little street in one of our coastal towns. Many of the residents were elderly, retired people. It was said that these children were completely out of control, with no respect for persons, property, or the police.
The article was in the section entitled "100 years ago today", and described events in 1907.
BernieR on this thread, which you take so seriously but in fact is a huge waste of time, you seem to have insulted and pee'd off most of the regular contributors.
Well if that is what you want to do you are welcome.. I will not bother to respond to you anymore.
Bernie, I guess you can find all sorts of things to justify yourself, and you will continue to do so. I dont think like Jonjii though, I think you do need to be responded to.
However, the thread probably is just a waste of time as no government in their right mind would ever give you what you want.
It may not even be allowed for medical arguments where there is a case to answer for.
However, David, as I said I do not know what this foil was, all I know it was large pieces with very small near pin prick holes in burnt into it. The police were called in umpteen times by the neighbourhood, because of aggressive violence and intimidatory behaviour.
But none the less at a public meeting they informed us that the end result for this behaviour was indeed caused by cannabis resin. The bottle (bong) and foil as they described it were used to enhance the effect of the drug and thus making the episodes of violence more likely.
I must admit though I would like to really know what the foil in this case was used for and how it was used.
To our knowledge no glue was used nor any "violent games" either in fact there was not even a copy of the "Daily Mail" to be found :)
But one thing was for sure the whole community suffered hell from this.
I wonder though what Bernie would think if a group of middle aged decent people decided enough was enough, arm themselves to the teeth and kick the living daylights out of them and those who affected others like this. I heard it talked about often enough, but many people are just too law abiding.
I never did get to find out the cost to the taxpayers of those events, but aside from the personal upset I bet it would have run into at least a hundred thousand pounds. Probably insignificant but if that is reflected across the country.
However, David, as I said I do not know what this foil was, all I know it was large pieces with very small near pin prick holes in burnt into it.
From what I know of drug paraphernalia, I suspect it would have been used to nest the cannabis in the 'bong' whilst the airholes allow the active ingredients to be drawn through, sometimes through water.
These water bongs are popular because they're slightly more interesting than pipes and possibly mistaken idea that they are better for your lungs.
Quote:
But none the less at a public meeting they informed us that the end result for this behaviour was indeed caused by cannabis resin. The bottle (bong) and foil as they described it were used to enhance the effect of the drug and thus making the episodes of violence more likely.
Then the police were almost certainly guilty of misinformation. If they are this ignorant across the country, that's something to be concerned about.
Bongs do not enhance the effect of the drug - they probably reduce it marginally - most organic molecules are slightly soluble in water.
Spliffs do tend to burn off cannabis when not being smoked (as well as all the consequences of smoking tobacco).
I have suggested restrained use of drug testing in schools for those suspected of being stoned in lessons. I'm not exactly sure what punishment they should suffer - possibly the usual kind of humiliation in front of peers that school teachers are infamous for.
I have suggested restrained use of drug testing in schools for those suspected of being stoned in lessons. I'm not exactly sure what punishment they should suffer - possibly the usual kind of humiliation in front of peers that school teachers are infamous for.
Trouble is that the teachers were and remain afraid of these youngsters so the possibility of changing things seem remote.
But your idea is none the less a good one.
Well Canvas, I guess people are interested because it is an interesting subject. Millions of people in this country use the stuff, and the stupid laws we are talking about make criminals of them, people who are otherwise law-abiding, decent members of society.
And I can't think of another area of legislation where the politicians are determined to base health policy and criminal law on demonstrably false information, I think that is interesting in itself. I listened to Any Questions recently, the entire panel were in agreement that there is a new threat from cannabis, that it is more dangerous than it used to be, and yet we have seen in this discussion that that is cobblers, to use the term favoured by the Royal Mail.
I hope some of the 19,000 readers may be motivated to give their opinion to the consulatative body, which you can do quite easily through the Home Office's website. Note that the government's own consultation is itself based on the false premise of a new threat from cannabis, thereby ignoring the advice of their own Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs.
Finally, note the appearance of a recent report on cannabis potency from respected sources, which says it may have doubled in strength, although that may not itself matter, since people will simply use half as much.
Oh bernie, you are attempting to create a constructive argument in favour of cannabis against people who are close-minded and set in their ways. Yorker's posts (from pages 1,2 and 6) contain lots of assumptions. David Cameron smoked cannabis and found out that its not bad at all. In fact, most people know cannabis is harmless and you need to consume more than your body weight of cannabis to overdose on it.
Although I join the debate late a few points I would like to convey. As a regular user of cannabis and other drugs (primarily alcohol, tobacco and various psychedelics) I would like to defend it. Although many cannabis users are dangerous knife-wielding youths who use numbers to intimidate and attack innocent people this is by no means a majority. These animals are not representative of the cannabis community and much of their violence is fueled by their lifestyle and is ridiculous to blame a substance for a problem which is clearly the way they have been brought up and events in their lifes.
For example, if you google for cannabis other than many media related articles claiming a new form of cannabis called 'Super Skunk' has hit the streets and is destroying our childrens fragile minds because of its increased potency, you will find forums for fans of cannabis. These forums contain many interesting articles and sub forums such as politics, multimedia, sports, cooking recipes, news...etc. This to me seems like many people are respectable and do not abuse the drug. I am yet to find a forum like this for alcohol or tobacco, but please point me in the right direction.
As for legalising cannabis, other than the money spent fighting the drug war, the taxes and money taken from gangs and dealers and the jobs created for the regulation and controlled sale of cannabis far outweigh the argument that maybe 1 in a million cannabis users will go psychotic. Personally, I do not feel above any other human and do not have the right to choose what they take or how much. Holland are not suffering from increased numbers of psychotics so either our UK 'Super Skunk' hasnt made it into europe yet or they can sense it and do not smoke this type.
Yorker, this is true that the bottle and tin foil was for a homemade bong and that they were probably high when committing the offenses but I dont think that is sufficient proof to say that is the reason they behave that way. When I have a smoke I like to relax, chat and do a multitude of everyday tasks which I find more entertaining (or bearable). Of course I am a criminal, but I do not hide my usage and fear no man intent on ruling over me without sufficient cause to do so.
It isn't credible that "Super Skunk" is confined to the UK fbswift, and that they don't have it or don't use it in Holland.
Holland is a centre of cannabis cultivation and breeding. The coffeeshops sell the strongest cannabis that is available, whether it's grown there under lights or imported as hashish.
If there really was a new kind of cannabis with different effects, more powerful, more psychoactive or whatever, then that kind would be specially sought out, specially grown, and specially priced. The reality is, cannabis produced from traditional varieties by traditional methods in places like Nepal has all the same effects and is just as psychoactive as the latest "skunk" hybrid grown by hydroponics.
You can easily demonstrate this for yourself, just go to Amsterdam and try the stuff. You'll see that "Skunk" and good quality traditional hashish are on sale together, for around the same price, and that the effects, positive and negative, are pretty much identical.
What interests me is that even users like yourself can believe that there is some special kind of "Super Skunk" with unique effects and presenting a new risk.
This is the result of government lying to the public. That's the standard of public education on this topic in this country, as exemplified by Iain Duncan Smith.
'For example, if you google for cannabis other than many media related articles claiming a new form of cannabis called 'Super Skunk' has hit the streets and is destroying our childrens fragile minds because of its increased potency, you will find forums for fans of cannabis.'
This does not state that I believe in this supposed 'Super Skunk' but merely states that articles created by the media will appear when you google cannabis. I know that there is stronger strains and I went to Amsterdam about 2 months ago. The strain they named 'Super Skunk' is actually not very interesting considering its only slightly stronger than white widow which is thought to be one of the best in the UK, and one of the more mild types in Amsterdam.
I am for the argument of legalisation and I struggle to comprehend that it has not been legalised yet and all this trouble has been caused. Cannabis is being used again in the same way as when it was made illegal. The government had a problem with mexican immigrants and outlawed cannabis to aid their fight to kick the mexicans out. It was never overturned and now the government cant control the gang violence created in areas all over the country by people who take various drugs. Cannabis is enjoyed by many different people from all types of backgrounds.
