Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Older voters more likely to back legalisation of cannabis for

135

Comments

  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941
    Thankfully with the new twitter limit it can all be enclosed within one tweet.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,789
    RobD said:

    Thankfully with the new twitter limit it can all be enclosed within one tweet.
    From the document, there's no sign that the EU's backstop for Northern Ireland is in doubt.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 24,968
    AndyJS said:

    O/T

    "The bargaining power story, however, has a simple and plausible explanation: globalization, operating mainly through corporate-orchestrated labor arbitrage—in the form of offshoring jobs to foreign workers or importing immigrants to compete with native workers—weakened the bargaining power of immobile native workers in the developed democracies. Employers’ use of a transnational “reserve army of labor” to discipline wage earners, together with the decline of private-sector unions and the transformation of political parties from grassroots organizations into brands purchased by rich donors and lobbies, is more than adequate to explain how the well-paid, highly unionized national proletariats of the 1960s were replaced on both sides of the Atlantic by the “precariats” of today. Had there been, say, 100 percent tariffs and zero immigration from the 1970s onward, there might be fewer auto workers in the United States thanks to automation, but they would probably be very well paid indeed. And in the absence of immigration, tight labor markets almost certainly would have boosted the wages of janitors, construction workers, health care aides, and others in purely domestic service industries, with the costs to working-class consumers of those services offset to some degree by higher workingclass wages in general."

    https://americanaffairsjournal.org/2018/05/classless-utopia-versus-class-compromise/

    It has also put upward pressure on housing costs so helping to reduce home ownership.

    Trickle down has been replaced by trickle up.
  • anothernickanothernick Posts: 3,547

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Of course rubbish given the Commons gas already voted to leave the Customs Union and Single Market
    That has nothing to do with 'no deal' in March 2019 as you surely must realise.
    Of course it does as the Commons has decided the maximum deal May can agree with the EU is a Canada style FTA essentially, close to the Canada Plus FTA May actually wants
    The withdrawal agreement is not that deal - it only deals with an orderly divorce process but will not contain an FTA. The no deal scenario is a disorderly exit in March 2019.
    But if there is no withdrawal agreement by December it's very hard to see how a disorderly exit could be avoided whatever parliament did. How could 650 MPs agree something in 3 months which has eluded the government for nearly 3 years?
    Parliament asks for an extension of Article 50.
    I don't think we can be certain that the EU would agree to that. For how long and what strategy would be in place to continue negotiations? The UK is quite incapable of deciding what relationship it wants with the EU and if we got into a no deal position the various factions would become even more entrenched and divisions even more bitter.
    A disorderly Brexit is also bad for the EU and several EU countries in particular.
    Certainly. But they are better prepared than the UK. If parliament prostrated itself and asked for an extension to article 50 the EU would be likely to impose terms that would be very hard for MPs to take - continued budget contributions at the current level, guarantes on the Irish border, citizens rights etc etc. It would be the most humiliating event for the UK since the loss of the American colonies and the political consequences would be very severe for all involved.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 24,968
    Compared to the cricket an unexciting Tesco Strawberry score of eight today:

    Perthshire
    Fife
    Nottinghamshire
    Staffordshire
    Herefordshire
    Cambridgeshire
    Surrey
    Kent

    The only change from yesterday being the return of Perthshire.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941

    RobD said:

    twitter.com/nick_gutteridge/status/1009124998051704834

    Thankfully with the new twitter limit it can all be enclosed within one tweet.
    From the document, there's no sign that the EU's backstop for Northern Ireland is in doubt.
    You mean the EU's annexation of part of the UK?
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950
    I agree with other posters who have noted the degeneration of this site and the endless mean spirited frankly off putting content of all too many posts.

    Can we therefore please stop talking about the fucking cricket. It is as boring as fuck and doesn’t do this site or the contributors any favours.
  • JonnyJimmyJonnyJimmy Posts: 2,548

    Mr. Borough, that does highlight a potential pitfall of legalisation. Legal cannabis would have to be softer, but making/getting the harder stuff would probably still be very easy, and the softer stuff might encourage more people to go down that road.

    Hard to assess, though.

    Lord Monson suggests making skunk Class A, and legalizing and regulating normal cannabis.

    3/4 of the patients in one major acute mental ward had been users of skunk or spice apparently.
    "Skunk OR SPICE"

    So how many on skunk? Because spice is NOT marijuana. It's a bullshit stat without that.
    Spice is (one of) the reason(s) we should legalise marijuana. I've known 2 people who have tried the 'legal highs' like spice and other stuff because they couldn't get marijuana at the time and they had horrific experiences, people who have tried some other illegal drugs as well.

    People seem to think it is a cheap legal weed when from what I've heard the stuff is utterly toxic.
    Spot on again.

    It's nice to agree with you on something for once ;)
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 113,981
    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    twitter.com/nick_gutteridge/status/1009124998051704834

    Thankfully with the new twitter limit it can all be enclosed within one tweet.
    From the document, there's no sign that the EU's backstop for Northern Ireland is in doubt.
    You mean the EU's annexation of part of the UK?
    Technically it was a part of Ireland until we annexed because the Bishop of Rome and his sky fairy said we should take it.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,789
    TOPPING said:

    I agree with other posters who have noted the degeneration of this site and the endless mean spirited frankly off putting content of all too many posts.

    Can we therefore please stop talking about the fucking cricket. It is as boring as fuck and doesn’t do this site or the contributors any favours.

    More UDI, less ODI.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 24,968
    Am I the only PBer who preferred it when ODIs were more like Test matches rather than slogathons ?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6XgoUwFq0RA
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 113,981

    Mr. Borough, that does highlight a potential pitfall of legalisation. Legal cannabis would have to be softer, but making/getting the harder stuff would probably still be very easy, and the softer stuff might encourage more people to go down that road.

    Hard to assess, though.

    Lord Monson suggests making skunk Class A, and legalizing and regulating normal cannabis.

    3/4 of the patients in one major acute mental ward had been users of skunk or spice apparently.
    "Skunk OR SPICE"

    So how many on skunk? Because spice is NOT marijuana. It's a bullshit stat without that.
    Spice is (one of) the reason(s) we should legalise marijuana. I've known 2 people who have tried the 'legal highs' like spice and other stuff because they couldn't get marijuana at the time and they had horrific experiences, people who have tried some other illegal drugs as well.

    People seem to think it is a cheap legal weed when from what I've heard the stuff is utterly toxic.
    SPICE really scares me.

    In the centre of Manchester it is a real problem, it like the Walking Dead some days.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,590
    Run rate got to Head’s head....
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,789
    Trump says he will cancel foreign aid to countries that send immigrants to the US.
    https://twitter.com/megwagner/status/1009120830578679808
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950
    edited June 2018

    TOPPING said:

    I agree with other posters who have noted the degeneration of this site and the endless mean spirited frankly off putting content of all too many posts.

    Can we therefore please stop talking about the fucking cricket. It is as boring as fuck and doesn’t do this site or the contributors any favours.

    More UDI, less ODI.
    LOL exactly I preferred it when we were pondering the imminent armed uprising and secession across the water.

    Edit: your comment won PB today btw.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 113,981

    TOPPING said:

    I agree with other posters who have noted the degeneration of this site and the endless mean spirited frankly off putting content of all too many posts.

    Can we therefore please stop talking about the fucking cricket. It is as boring as fuck and doesn’t do this site or the contributors any favours.

    More UDI, less ODI.
    Today's UDI posts were probably the funniest thing on PB since we had 'rich as creases Huhne'
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,724

    Nigelb said:

    England are useless, this is a return to the bad old days.

    England didn't score a boundary off the bat in the last four overs and four balls.

    If only you had been there to cheer them on....

    Australia are not going to win. Usually, it’s easier to chase, but uninhibited batting isn’t mentally possible against a target of 480 plus.
    I don’t think they’ll get even close, and Rashid should be salivating.
    This is the worst cricket attendance choice since my mate decided not to go to the fourth day of the 2005 Edgbaston Ashes test since he thought it was all over.

    I'll be there at Old Trafford on Sunday.

    I might even get to the Riverside on Thursday.
    Do you ever do any work?
    I'm very lucky that I have to schedule meetings at cricket matches.
    How convenient....imagine if you had relocated to Paris...
    It is 50/50 that I end up getting relocated to Germany, thanks Brexiteers.

    Paris is what three hours away from Lord's and The Oval.
    Plus Customs and Passport control post Brexit!
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,590

    Nigelb said:

    England are useless, this is a return to the bad old days.

    England didn't score a boundary off the bat in the last four overs and four balls.

    If only you had been there to cheer them on....

    Australia are not going to win. Usually, it’s easier to chase, but uninhibited batting isn’t mentally possible against a target of 480 plus.
    I don’t think they’ll get even close, and Rashid should be salivating.
    This is the worst cricket attendance choice since my mate decided not to go to the fourth day of the 2005 Edgbaston Ashes test since he thought it was all over...
    I feel for you.

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,719
    edited June 2018
    Pulpstar said:

    More campaign spirit being kept to by Trump. Will it help him in mid terms
    Technically it won't help Trump at all in the midterms as he is not up for re election only Representatives and Senators and Governors are and Trump does not have a close relationship with the establishment GOP leadership to put it mildly
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,074
    TOPPING said:

    I agree with other posters who have noted the degeneration of this site and the endless mean spirited frankly off putting content of all too many posts.

    Can we therefore please stop talking about the fucking cricket. It is as boring as fuck and doesn’t do this site or the contributors any favours.

    Can we add football to the list, please.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,082

    1/2

    There is a large correlation causation argument people sometimes miss in their argument.

    Just as many of those with mental health problems will have tried weed, they will also smoked tobacco and consumed alcohol.

    I imagine those with mental health problems are attracted to such things, they are often people with bad childhoods and people who have grown up in poor environments. Many people with far better lives like to escape/unwind/enjoy themselves with these things people who have suffered will be far more attracted to them.

    Alcohol isn't a good example as it does cause mental illness but (as far as I know) tobacco doesn't, yet you would probably find a high correlation between smokers and those with mental health problems.

    The issueof whether psychiatric disease preceeds or arises from drug use is an interesting question, but the evidence as assessed by the Psychiatrists is that the drug use comes first:

    https://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/mentalhealthinfo/problems/alcoholanddrugs/cannabisandmentalhealth.aspx?theme=mobile

    People may want cannabis to be innocuous to themselves and to society, but it isn't.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    edited June 2018

    Am I the only PBer who preferred it when ODIs were more like Test matches rather than slogathons ?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6XgoUwFq0RA

    No. Low scoring matches are usually more exciting. Of course it was 60 overs each in those days. When I started watching it was 55 overs.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Compared to the cricket an unexciting Tesco Strawberry score of eight today:

    Perthshire
    Fife
    Nottinghamshire
    Staffordshire
    Herefordshire
    Cambridgeshire
    Surrey
    Kent

    The only change from yesterday being the return of Perthshire.

    15% growth isn’t unexciting!
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 3,840

    Mr. Borough, that does highlight a potential pitfall of legalisation. Legal cannabis would have to be softer, but making/getting the harder stuff would probably still be very easy, and the softer stuff might encourage more people to go down that road.

    Hard to assess, though.

    Lord Monson suggests making skunk Class A, and legalizing and regulating normal cannabis.

    3/4 of the patients in one major acute mental ward had been users of skunk or spice apparently.
    "Skunk OR SPICE"

    So how many on skunk? Because spice is NOT marijuana. It's a bullshit stat without that.
    Spice is (one of) the reason(s) we should legalise marijuana. I've known 2 people who have tried the 'legal highs' like spice and other stuff because they couldn't get marijuana at the time and they had horrific experiences, people who have tried some other illegal drugs as well.

    People seem to think it is a cheap legal weed when from what I've heard the stuff is utterly toxic.
    Spot on again.

    It's nice to agree with you on something for once ;)
    Haha, thank you to be honest I think a lot of the problems to do with legislation are based on a complete lack of understanding, even this whole super skunk thing seems something of a propaganda weapon rather than based on any actual understanding. My suspicion, call me paranoid, was that it is an attempt to differentiate it from the weed some people smoked, or knew people who smoked back in the 70's and 80's and such. We should try to assuage people's fears but legislation should be based on results and not how it might look in newspaper headlines.

    Also in regards to the medical marijuana thing there are people with incredibly debilitating conditions that need it now, the fact it isn't good for teenagers is neither here nor there, I wouldn't suggest that we start telling GPs to supply everybody with marijuana for their conditions but people who have constant seizures like this boy or other videos I have seen should be allowed it right now regardless of other effects it could have the benefits far out way the costs.

    I know from personal experience it can provide pain relief, although it was only in one specific circumstance rather than all pain but those people in constant pain, especially those who are already adults would be better off taking marijuana than harder pain medications.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395

    2/2

    Most people see little harm in cannabis, so they see little harm in an illegal drug, this not only leads to people dismissing the government's advice as if they are wrong on this why not other things. It also normalises going to a drug dealer for many people, some of whom will either directly get you harder drugs or help set you up with people who can.

    It isn't a gateway drug in terms of you use it and that makes you want to use others more, any more than a smoker or a drinker progresses to harder drugs because those drugs make them want to, it is in terms of opening up the world of illegal drugs to people. If you take out the softest part that a lot of people have sympathy with you make the step up to illegal drugs a lot bigger.

    If most people see little harm in it, why have our elected representatives decided to make it illegal for many decades?
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 24,968
    Charles said:

    Compared to the cricket an unexciting Tesco Strawberry score of eight today:

    Perthshire
    Fife
    Nottinghamshire
    Staffordshire
    Herefordshire
    Cambridgeshire
    Surrey
    Kent

    The only change from yesterday being the return of Perthshire.

    15% growth isn’t unexciting!
    A reversion to the mean score with no new locations is pretty unexciting.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941
    edited June 2018
    AndyJS said:

    2/2

    Most people see little harm in cannabis, so they see little harm in an illegal drug, this not only leads to people dismissing the government's advice as if they are wrong on this why not other things. It also normalises going to a drug dealer for many people, some of whom will either directly get you harder drugs or help set you up with people who can.

    It isn't a gateway drug in terms of you use it and that makes you want to use others more, any more than a smoker or a drinker progresses to harder drugs because those drugs make them want to, it is in terms of opening up the world of illegal drugs to people. If you take out the softest part that a lot of people have sympathy with you make the step up to illegal drugs a lot bigger.

    If most people see little harm in it, why have our elected representatives decided to make it illegal for many decades?
    Most people are dumb and don't know what's good for them. See smoking in the early 20th century.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,724
    RobD said:

    AndyJS said:

    2/2

    Most people see little harm in cannabis, so they see little harm in an illegal drug, this not only leads to people dismissing the government's advice as if they are wrong on this why not other things. It also normalises going to a drug dealer for many people, some of whom will either directly get you harder drugs or help set you up with people who can.

    It isn't a gateway drug in terms of you use it and that makes you want to use others more, any more than a smoker or a drinker progresses to harder drugs because those drugs make them want to, it is in terms of opening up the world of illegal drugs to people. If you take out the softest part that a lot of people have sympathy with you make the step up to illegal drugs a lot bigger.

    If most people see little harm in it, why have our elected representatives decided to make it illegal for many decades?
    Most people are dumb and don't know what's good for them. See smoking in the early 20th century.
    It's not a question of being 'dumb' its more a question of information and culture. I'm sure that if alcohol had been inroduced to West Europeans (inc. the British) in the early 1900's it would have been much more strictly conrolled than it was. or is.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,780

    Am I the only PBer who preferred it when ODIs were more like Test matches rather than slogathons ?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6XgoUwFq0RA

    I wouldn't want every ODI to be like this. Bowlers need something too for a proper game. But the odd exceptional game like this is fun. The lucky crowd is going to see in excess of 700 runs today, maybe even 800 hundred.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    AndyJS said:

    2/2

    Most people see little harm in cannabis, so they see little harm in an illegal drug, this not only leads to people dismissing the government's advice as if they are wrong on this why not other things. It also normalises going to a drug dealer for many people, some of whom will either directly get you harder drugs or help set you up with people who can.

    It isn't a gateway drug in terms of you use it and that makes you want to use others more, any more than a smoker or a drinker progresses to harder drugs because those drugs make them want to, it is in terms of opening up the world of illegal drugs to people. If you take out the softest part that a lot of people have sympathy with you make the step up to illegal drugs a lot bigger.

    If most people see little harm in it, why have our elected representatives decided to make it illegal for many decades?
    Weren't there some polls for many years showing that most people would prefer a restoration of the death penalty? Politicians don't always do what most people want.
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 3,840
    Foxy said:

    1/2

    There is a large correlation causation argument people sometimes miss in their argument.

    Just as many of those with mental health problems will have tried weed, they will also smoked tobacco and consumed alcohol.

    I imagine those with mental health problems are attracted to such things, they are often people with bad childhoods and people who have grown up in poor environments. Many people with far better lives like to escape/unwind/enjoy themselves with these things people who have suffered will be far more attracted to them.

    Alcohol isn't a good example as it does cause mental illness but (as far as I know) tobacco doesn't, yet you would probably find a high correlation between smokers and those with mental health problems.

    The issueof whether psychiatric disease preceeds or arises from drug use is an interesting question, but the evidence as assessed by the Psychiatrists is that the drug use comes first:

    https://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/mentalhealthinfo/problems/alcoholanddrugs/cannabisandmentalhealth.aspx?theme=mobile

    People may want cannabis to be innocuous to themselves and to society, but it isn't.
    Even in the article itself "It is also known that not everyone who uses cannabis, even at a young age, develops a psychotic illness. The available research shows that those who have a family history of a psychotic illness, or those who have certain characteristics such as schizotypal personality, or possibly have certain types of genes, may increase the risk of developing a psychotic illness following the regular use of strong cannabis."

    Which sort of backs up what I was saying somewhat, those with a disposition towards mental illness also have a disposition towards marijuana, weed and cigarettes.

    There isn't anything in the article I disagree with, because the article itself just concentrates heavily on correlation, I have not said that there isn't correlation, my whole post was built on the fact there is.

    As to children, which seems to be the part which has the most proof, nobody is suggesting we sell marijuana to children. I certainly haven't.

    We shouldn't sell marijuana to children we shouldn't let children drive cars we shouldn't let children fly planes and we shouldn't let children have drink alcohol but that that isn't a good argument against not allowing adults to do those things. In fact the current regime probably helps children get marijuana more easily than a legalised system. Protecting children is probably an argument for legalisation rather than against.

    What we need is good arguments against it being legal for adults and there seem to be less of them than arguments for it being legal for adults.

  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,540
    Didn’t get the memo:

    (Reuters) - The new head of Europe's police agency urged Brexit negotiators on Tuesday to find a path "one way or another" to allow it to continue its work with Britain after it leaves the bloc.

    Catherine De Bolle, who replaced British diplomat Rob Wainwright as the head of Europol in May, stressed the importance of information-sharing with the UK, one of the world's leading crime-fighting and intelligence powers.

    "We will need cooperation in one way or another with the United Kingdom. If we don't have this cooperation, it will become difficult," de Bolle - a former head of Belgium's police force - told reporters at Europol's headquarters.



    https://uk.mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUKKBN1JF2EH
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453

    It's not a question of being 'dumb' its more a question of information and culture. I'm sure that if alcohol had been inroduced to West Europeans (inc. the British) in the early 1900's it would have been much more strictly conrolled than it was. or is.

    The Americans tried that...
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 3,840
    AndyJS said:

    2/2

    Most people see little harm in cannabis, so they see little harm in an illegal drug, this not only leads to people dismissing the government's advice as if they are wrong on this why not other things. It also normalises going to a drug dealer for many people, some of whom will either directly get you harder drugs or help set you up with people who can.

    It isn't a gateway drug in terms of you use it and that makes you want to use others more, any more than a smoker or a drinker progresses to harder drugs because those drugs make them want to, it is in terms of opening up the world of illegal drugs to people. If you take out the softest part that a lot of people have sympathy with you make the step up to illegal drugs a lot bigger.

    If most people see little harm in it, why have our elected representatives decided to make it illegal for many decades?
    Good point, I should have said younger people, although I imagine it is becoming a majority view.
  • JonnyJimmyJonnyJimmy Posts: 2,548



    Haha, thank you to be honest I think a lot of the problems to do with legislation are based on a complete lack of understanding, even this whole super skunk thing seems something of a propaganda weapon rather than based on any actual understanding. My suspicion, call me paranoid, was that it is an attempt to differentiate it from the weed some people smoked, or knew people who smoked back in the 70's and 80's and such. We should try to assuage people's fears but legislation should be based on results and not how it might look in newspaper headlines.

    Also in regards to the medical marijuana thing there are people with incredibly debilitating conditions that need it now, the fact it isn't good for teenagers is neither here nor there, I wouldn't suggest that we start telling GPs to supply everybody with marijuana for their conditions but people who have constant seizures like this boy or other videos I have seen should be allowed it right now regardless of other effects it could have the benefits far out way the costs.

    I know from personal experience it can provide pain relief, although it was only in one specific circumstance rather than all pain but those people in constant pain, especially those who are already adults would be better off taking marijuana than harder pain medications.

    One of my mates' dad has MS and he hasn't found anything as effective as strong marijuana for the symptoms.

    I often hear the argument that it hasn't been proved effective in clinical trials; how many clinical trials have been done? This isn't like the homeopathy bullshit; THC and CBD are real drugs that have actual effects. The law truly is an ass if it's prevented testing of these drugs, while we've been wasting money doing tests on sugar pills.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,082

    Mr. Borough, that does highlight a potential pitfall of legalisation. Legal cannabis would have to be softer, but making/getting the harder stuff would probably still be very easy, and the softer stuff might encourage more people to go down that road.

    Hard to assess, though.

    Lord Monson suggests making skunk Class A, and legalizing and regulating normal cannabis.

    3/4 of the patients in one major acute mental ward had been users of skunk or spice apparently.
    "Skunk OR SPICE"

    So how many on skunk? Because spice is NOT marijuana. It's a bullshit stat without that.
    Spice is (one of) the reason(s) we should legalise marijuana. I've known 2 people who have tried the 'legal highs' like spice and other stuff because they couldn't get marijuana at the time and they had horrific experiences, people who have tried some other illegal drugs as well.

    People seem to think it is a cheap legal weed when from what I've heard the stuff is utterly toxic.
    Spot on again.

    It's nice to agree with you on something for once ;)
    Haha, thank you to be honest I think a lot of the problems to do with legislation are based on a complete lack of understanding, even this whole super skunk thing seems something of a propaganda weapon rather than based on any actual understanding. My suspicion, call me paranoid, was that it is an attempt to differentiate it from the weed some people smoked, or knew people who smoked back in the 70's and 80's and such. We should try to assuage people's fears but legislation should be based on results and not how it might look in newspaper headlines.

    Also in regards to the medical marijuana thing there are people with incredibly debilitating conditions that need it now, the fact it isn't good for teenagers is neither here nor there, I wouldn't suggest that we start telling GPs to supply everybody with marijuana for their conditions but people who have constant seizures like this boy or other videos I have seen should be allowed it right now regardless of other effects it could have the benefits far out way the costs.

    I know from personal experience it can provide pain relief, although it was only in one specific circumstance rather than all pain but those people in constant pain, especially those who are already adults would be better off taking marijuana than harder pain medications.
    Heroin, and more recently Oxycontin, were introduced as low side effect alternatives for other drugs. Time showed that to be untrue. Lets wait for proper trials and assessment, as we do for other pharmaceuticals.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,780
    And that's the match (for those interested).
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,074
    Foxy said:

    1/2

    There is a large correlation causation argument people sometimes miss in their argument.

    Just as many of those with mental health problems will have tried weed, they will also smoked tobacco and consumed alcohol.

    I imagine those with mental health problems are attracted to such things, they are often people with bad childhoods and people who have grown up in poor environments. Many people with far better lives like to escape/unwind/enjoy themselves with these things people who have suffered will be far more attracted to them.

    Alcohol isn't a good example as it does cause mental illness but (as far as I know) tobacco doesn't, yet you would probably find a high correlation between smokers and those with mental health problems.

    The issueof whether psychiatric disease preceeds or arises from drug use is an interesting question, but the evidence as assessed by the Psychiatrists is that the drug use comes first:

    https://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/mentalhealthinfo/problems/alcoholanddrugs/cannabisandmentalhealth.aspx?theme=mobile

    People may want cannabis to be innocuous to themselves and to society, but it isn't.
    Thank you. I made this point yesterday evening and was roundly poo-poohed for my pains.

    I despair when I read people like The Jezziah saying that the effect on a few teenagers is “neither here nor there”. Try seeing what its effect is like on your teenager. Psychosis is not pretty.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    In fairness, the rebels are claiming she deceived them, while she presumably feels she went above and beyond in trying to keep them on board. If the Lords felt her, in her eyes, olive branch was not enough, then she probably should hold firm.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 60,004
    On the meaningful vote looks like TM is standing firm and Grieve seems to have caused great anger by saying he would 'collapse the government'

    Hope TM succeeds in facing him down
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,590

    Foxy said:

    1/2

    There is a large correlation causation argument people sometimes miss in their argument.

    Just as many of those with mental health problems will have tried weed, they will also smoked tobacco and consumed alcohol.

    I imagine those with mental health problems are attracted to such things, they are often people with bad childhoods and people who have grown up in poor environments. Many people with far better lives like to escape/unwind/enjoy themselves with these things people who have suffered will be far more attracted to them.

    Alcohol isn't a good example as it does cause mental illness but (as far as I know) tobacco doesn't, yet you would probably find a high correlation between smokers and those with mental health problems.

    The issueof whether psychiatric disease preceeds or arises from drug use is an interesting question, but the evidence as assessed by the Psychiatrists is that the drug use comes first:

    https://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/mentalhealthinfo/problems/alcoholanddrugs/cannabisandmentalhealth.aspx?theme=mobile

    People may want cannabis to be innocuous to themselves and to society, but it isn't.
    Even in the article itself "It is also known that not everyone who uses cannabis, even at a young age, develops a psychotic illness. The available research shows that those who have a family history of a psychotic illness, or those who have certain characteristics such as schizotypal personality, or possibly have certain types of genes, may increase the risk of developing a psychotic illness following the regular use of strong cannabis."

    Which sort of backs up what I was saying somewhat, those with a disposition towards mental illness also have a disposition towards marijuana, weed and cigarettes.

    There isn't anything in the article I disagree with, because the article itself just concentrates heavily on correlation, I have not said that there isn't correlation, my whole post was built on the fact there is.

    As to children, which seems to be the part which has the most proof, nobody is suggesting we sell marijuana to children. I certainly haven't.

    We shouldn't sell marijuana to children we shouldn't let children drive cars we shouldn't let children fly planes and we shouldn't let children have drink alcohol but that that isn't a good argument against not allowing adults to do those things. In fact the current regime probably helps children get marijuana more easily than a legalised system. Protecting children is probably an argument for legalisation rather than against.

    What we need is good arguments against it being legal for adults and there seem to be less of them than arguments for it being legal for adults.

    Agreed.
  • ElliotElliot Posts: 1,516
    kle4 said:

    In fairness, the rebels are claiming she deceived them, while she presumably feels she went above and beyond in trying to keep them on board. If the Lords felt her, in her eyes, olive branch was not enough, then she probably should hold firm.
    Barnier and the EU are already being over aggressive and Grieve is just trying to encourage them further. If they end up giving a take it or leave it deal that's clearly unacceptable to the UK, it will be Grieve's fault when we crash out.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,590
    Cyclefree said:

    Foxy said:

    1/2

    There is a large correlation causation argument people sometimes miss in their argument.

    Just as many of those with mental health problems will have tried weed, they will also smoked tobacco and consumed alcohol.

    I imagine those with mental health problems are attracted to such things, they are often people with bad childhoods and people who have grown up in poor environments. Many people with far better lives like to escape/unwind/enjoy themselves with these things people who have suffered will be far more attracted to them.

    Alcohol isn't a good example as it does cause mental illness but (as far as I know) tobacco doesn't, yet you would probably find a high correlation between smokers and those with mental health problems.

    The issueof whether psychiatric disease preceeds or arises from drug use is an interesting question, but the evidence as assessed by the Psychiatrists is that the drug use comes first:

    https://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/mentalhealthinfo/problems/alcoholanddrugs/cannabisandmentalhealth.aspx?theme=mobile

    People may want cannabis to be innocuous to themselves and to society, but it isn't.
    Thank you. I made this point yesterday evening and was roundly poo-poohed for my pains.

    I despair when I read people like The Jezziah saying that the effect on a few teenagers is “neither here nor there”. Try seeing what its effect is like on your teenager. Psychosis is not pretty.
    Can’t believe I’m defending The Jezz against your strawmanning, but I am.
    His point “In fact the current regime probably helps children get marijuana more easily than a legalised system...” is quite clear on why it’s “neither here not there”.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    Foxy said:

    Mr. Borough, that does highlight a potential pitfall of legalisation. Legal cannabis would have to be softer, but making/getting the harder stuff would probably still be very easy, and the softer stuff might encourage more people to go down that road.

    Hard to assess, though.

    Lord Monson suggests making skunk Class A, and legalizing and regulating normal cannabis.

    3/4 of the patients in one major acute mental ward had been users of skunk or spice apparently.
    "Skunk OR SPICE"

    So how many on skunk? Because spice is NOT marijuana. It's a bullshit stat without that.
    Spice is (one of) the reason(s) we should legalise marijuana. I've known 2 people who have tried the 'legal highs' like spice and other stuff because they couldn't get marijuana at the time and they had horrific experiences, people who have tried some other illegal drugs as well.

    People seem to think it is a cheap legal weed when from what I've heard the stuff is utterly toxic.
    Spot on again.

    It's nice to agree with you on something for once ;)
    Haha, thank you to be honest I think a lot of the problems to do with legislation are based on a complete lack of understanding, even this whole super skunk thing seems something of a propaganda weapon rather than based on any actual understanding. My suspicion, call me paranoid, was that it is an attempt to differentiate it from the weed some people smoked, or knew people who smoked back in the 70's and 80's and such. We should try to assuage people's fears but legislation should be based on results and not how it might look in newspaper headlines.

    Also in regards to the medical marijuana thing there are people with incredibly debilitating conditions that need it now, the fact it isn't good for teenagers is neither here nor there, I wouldn't suggest that we start telling GPs to supply everybody with marijuana for their conditions but people who have constant seizures like this boy or other
    Heroin, and more recently Oxycontin, were introduced as low side effect alternatives for other drugs. Time showed that to be untrue. Lets wait for proper trials and assessment, as we do for other pharmaceuticals.
    How long a wait? I'm getting a lot of vibes that no amount of study will truly be enough. Haven't they has medical marijuana for yonks in the US, have no studies been done? This isn't a suggestion which has come from nowhere simply because people like getting high after all.
  • ElliotElliot Posts: 1,516

    Trump says he will cancel foreign aid to countries that send immigrants to the US.
    https://twitter.com/megwagner/status/1009120830578679808

    4 year old kids put in cages for weeks without anyone they know. Trump is a disgusting human being and the people that voted for him are scum.
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 3,840
    edited June 2018
    Foxy said:

    Also in regards to the medical marijuana thing there are people with incredibly debilitating conditions that need it now, the fact it isn't good for teenagers is neither here nor there, I wouldn't suggest that we start telling GPs to supply everybody with marijuana for their conditions but people who have constant seizures like this boy or other videos I have seen should be allowed it right now regardless of other effects it could have the benefits far out way the costs.

    I know from personal experience it can provide pain relief, although it was only in one specific circumstance rather than all pain but those people in constant pain, especially those who are already adults would be better off taking marijuana than harder pain medications.
    Heroin, and more recently Oxycontin, were introduced as low side effect alternatives for other drugs. Time showed that to be untrue. Lets wait for proper trials and assessment, as we do for other pharmaceuticals.
    I'm not talking about kids with a mild headache, I'm talking about JonnyJimmys friends dad above, or someone with crippling pain who may well be suicidal or at least having to take some incredible pain medication that would kill his quality of life (and probably him) anyway.

    If 40 years of using it heavily has the potential to trigger a psychosis that was already there I'm pretty sure he'll happily take the risk. Chances are he will be dead before any negative effects kick in. Why not let people whose lives are greatly affected otherwise not get what they need now on the basis of a long term unknown.

    Many of these people don't have a long term anyway. Many of those that do and remember I am talking about the worst cases would take the absolute worst of the possible long terms consequences to have an actual quality of life now, in many cases they would instead have to take medication that we know would cause damage far quicker than any potential risk from marijuana.

    It seems cruel and without reason. I think the argument against recreational marijuana is wrong but the argument against medical marijuana for the worst cases is non existent, these people need help now.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,082
    kle4 said:

    Foxy said:

    Mr. Borough, that does highlight a potential pitfall of legalisation. Legal cannabis would have to be softer, but making/getting the harder stuff would probably still be very easy, and the softer stuff might encourage more people to go down that road.

    Hard to assess, though.

    Lord Monson suggests making skunk Class A, and legalizing and regulating normal cannabis.

    3/4 of the patients in one major acute mental ward had been users of skunk or spice apparently.
    "Skunk OR SPICE"

    So how many on skunk? Because spice is NOT marijuana. It's a bullshit stat without that.
    Spice is (one of) the reason(s) we should legalise marijuana. I've known 2 people who have tried the 'legal highs' like spice and other stuff because they couldn't get marijuana at the time and they had horrific experiences, people who have tried some other illegal drugs as well.

    People seem to think it is a cheap legal weed when from what I've heard the stuff is utterly toxic.
    Spot on again.

    It's nice to agree with you on something for once ;)
    Haha, thank you to be honest I think a lot of the problems

    Also in regards to the medical marijuana thing there are people with incredibly debilitating conditions that need it now, the fact it isn't good for teenagers is neither here nor there, I wouldn't suggest that we start telling GPs to supply everybody with marijuana for their conditions but people who have constant seizures like this boy or other
    Heroin, and more recently Oxycontin, were introduced as low side effect alternatives for other drugs. Time showed that to be untrue. Lets wait for proper trials and assessment, as we do for other pharmaceuticals.
    How long a wait? I'm getting a lot of vibes that no amount of study will truly be enough. Haven't they has medical marijuana for yonks in the US, have no studies been done? This isn't a suggestion which has come from nowhere simply because people like getting high after all.
    Same amount of trials as any other pharmaceutical being introduced. It is the mechanism to prevent another Thalidomide type tragedy.

    If not for cannabis, and just introduced willy nilly, why test anything?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408

    Foxy said:

    1/2

    There is a large correlation causation argument people sometimes miss in their argument.

    Just as many of those with mental health problems will have tried weed, they will also smoked tobacco and consumed alcohol.

    I imagine those with mental health problems are attracted to such things, they are often people with bad childhoods and people who have grown up in poor environments. Many people with far better lives like to escape/unwind/enjoy themselves with these things people who have suffered will be far more attracted to them.

    Alcohol isn't a good example as it does cause mental illness but (as far as I know) tobacco doesn't, yet you would probably find a high correlation between smokers and those with mental health problems.

    The issueof whether psychiatric disease preceeds or arises from drug use is an interesting question, but the evidence as assessed by the Psychiatrists is that the drug use comes first:

    https://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/mentalhealthinfo/problems/alcoholanddrugs/cannabisandmentalhealth.aspx?theme=mobile

    People may want cannabis to be innocuous to themselves and to society, but it isn't.
    As to children, which seems to be the part which has the most proof, nobody is suggesting we sell marijuana to children. I certainly haven't.

    We shouldn't sell marijuana to children we shouldn't let children drive cars we shouldn't let children fly planes and we shouldn't let children have drink alcohol but that that isn't a good argument against not allowing adults to do those things. In fact the current regime probably helps children get marijuana more easily than a legalised system. Protecting children is probably an argument for legalisation rather than against.
    "Think of the children" is one of the weakest arguments in this debate for the reasons you give, it's very silly in fact . It's so weak it undermines other arguments which might well be more valid, which no one wants. Harm to adults is relevant but harm to young people, who certainly could get hold of weed whether it was legal or not, if they are the focus it looks like the same old scare tactics which do not work.
  • JonnyJimmyJonnyJimmy Posts: 2,548
    Cyclefree said:

    Foxy said:

    1/2

    There is a large correlation causation argument people sometimes miss in their argument.

    Just as many of those with mental health problems will have tried weed, they will also smoked tobacco and consumed alcohol.

    I imagine those with mental health problems are attracted to such things, they are often people with bad childhoods and people who have grown up in poor environments. Many people with far better lives like to escape/unwind/enjoy themselves with these things people who have suffered will be far more attracted to them.

    Alcohol isn't a good example as it does cause mental illness but (as far as I know) tobacco doesn't, yet you would probably find a high correlation between smokers and those with mental health problems.

    The issueof whether psychiatric disease preceeds or arises from drug use is an interesting question, but the evidence as assessed by the Psychiatrists is that the drug use comes first:

    https://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/mentalhealthinfo/problems/alcoholanddrugs/cannabisandmentalhealth.aspx?theme=mobile

    People may want cannabis to be innocuous to themselves and to society, but it isn't.
    Thank you. I made this point yesterday evening and was roundly poo-poohed for my pains.

    I despair when I read people like The Jezziah saying that the effect on a few teenagers is “neither here nor there”. Try seeing what its effect is like on your teenager. Psychosis is not pretty.
    My mum believed I was psychotic when she found out I was smoking weed. I wasn't, I just acted seemingly strangely to try to stop her finding out. Her suspicion was fuelled by stories in the Mail.

    I definitely comsidered her a bit psychotic during that episode.

    Now that I've got much better at hiding it from her, she doesnt think I'm psychotic at all - even though I'm stoned more often now. And she's certainly become less psychotic too.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,780
    Cyclefree said:

    Foxy said:

    1/2

    There is a large correlation causation argument people sometimes miss in their argument.

    Just as many of those with mental health problems will have tried weed, they will also smoked tobacco and consumed alcohol.

    I imagine those with mental health problems are attracted to such things, they are often people with bad childhoods and people who have grown up in poor environments. Many people with far better lives like to escape/unwind/enjoy themselves with these things people who have suffered will be far more attracted to them.

    Alcohol isn't a good example as it does cause mental illness but (as far as I know) tobacco doesn't, yet you would probably find a high correlation between smokers and those with mental health problems.

    The issueof whether psychiatric disease preceeds or arises from drug use is an interesting question, but the evidence as assessed by the Psychiatrists is that the drug use comes first:

    https://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/mentalhealthinfo/problems/alcoholanddrugs/cannabisandmentalhealth.aspx?theme=mobile

    People may want cannabis to be innocuous to themselves and to society, but it isn't.
    Thank you. I made this point yesterday evening and was roundly poo-poohed for my pains.

    I despair when I read people like The Jezziah saying that the effect on a few teenagers is “neither here nor there”. Try seeing what its effect is like on your teenager. Psychosis is not pretty.
    I don't believe cannabis to be harmless. That was not my point. The point is that making it illegal is not stopping young people from taking an entirely unregulated and unsafe version of the product.

    I refer again to the Portuguese experience. It was not simply that drugs were made legal, it was that the resources previously used in the criminal justice system were diverted to medical assistance, counselling, treatment of the underlying conditions that often led to drug use, frequently mental illness or PTSD and to help for those who wanted to become clean. Legalisation is not a solution in itself. But it is a part of the solution.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    Foxy said:

    kle4 said:

    Foxy said:

    Mr. Borough, that does highlight a potential pitfall of legalisation. Legal cannabis would have to be softer, but making/getting the harder stuff would probably still be very easy, and the softer stuff might encourage more people to go down that road.

    Hard to assess, though.

    Lord Monson suggests making skunk Class A, and legalizing and regulating normal cannabis.

    3/4 of the patients in one major acute mental ward had been users of skunk or spice apparently.
    "Skunk OR SPICE"

    So how many on skunk? Because spice is NOT marijuana. It's a bullshit stat without that.
    Spice is (one of) the reason(s) we should legalise marijuana. I've known 2 people who have tried the 'legal highs' like spice and other stuff because they couldn't get marijuana at the time and they had horrific experiences, people who have tried some other illegal drugs as well.

    People seem to think it is a cheap legal weed when from what I've heard the stuff is utterly toxic.
    Spot on again.

    It's nice to agree with you on something for once ;)
    Haha, thank you to be honest I think a lot of the problems

    Also in regards to the medical marijuana thing there are people with incredibly debilitating conditions that need it now, the fact it isn't good for teenagers is neither here nor there, I wouldn't suggest that we start telling GPs to supply everybody with marijuana for their conditions but people who have constant seizures like this boy or other
    Heroin, and more recently Oxycontin, were introduced as low side effect alternatives for other drugs. Time showed that to be untrue. Lets wait for proper trials and assessment, as we do for other pharmaceuticals.
    How long a wait? I'm getting a lot of vibes that no amount of study will truly be enough. Haven't they has medical marijuana for yonks in the US, have no studies been done? This isn't a suggestion which has come from nowhere simply because people like getting high after all.
    Same amount of trials as any other pharmaceutical being introduced. It is the mechanism to prevent another Thalidomide type tragedy.

    If not for cannabis, and just introduced willy nilly, why test anything?
    I never said introduce willy nilly, you're arguing against a point not made.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,082
    kle4 said:

    Foxy said:

    kle4 said:

    Foxy said:

    Mr. Borough, that does highlight a potential pitfall of legalisation. Legal cannabis would have to be softer, but making/getting the harder stuff would probably still be very easy, and the softer stuff might encourage more people to go down that road.

    Hard to assess, though.

    Lord Monson suggests making skunk Class A, and legalizing and regulating normal cannabis.

    3/4 of the patients in one major acute mental ward had been users of skunk or spice apparently.
    "Skunk OR SPICE"

    So how many on skunk? Because spice is NOT marijuana. It's a bullshit stat without that.
    Spice is (one of) the reason(s) we should legalise marijuana. I've known 2 people who have tried the 'legal highs' like spice and other stuff because they couldn't get marijuana at the time and they had horrific experiences, people who have tried some other illegal drugs as well.

    People seem to think it is a cheap legal weed when from what I've heard the stuff is utterly toxic.
    Spot on again.

    It's nice to agree with you on something for once ;)
    Haha, thank you to be honest I think a lot of the problems

    Also in regards to the medical marijuana thing there are people with incredibly debilitating conditions that need it now, the fact it isn't good for teenagers is neither here nor there, I wouldn't suggest that we start telling GPs to supply everybody with marijuana for their conditions but people who have constant seizures like this boy or other
    Heroin, and more recently Oxycontin, were introduced as low side effect alternatives for other drugs. Time showed that to be untrue. Lets wait for proper trials and assessment, as we do for other pharmaceuticals.
    How long a wait? I'm getting a lot of vibes that no amount of study will truly be enough. Haven't they has medical marijuana for yonks in the US, have no studies been done? This isn't a suggestion which has come from nowhere simply because people like getting high after all.
    Same amount of trials as any other pharmaceutical being introduced. It is the mechanism to prevent another Thalidomide type tragedy.

    If not for cannabis, and just introduced willy nilly, why test anything?
    I never said introduce willy nilly, you're arguing against a point not made.
    Introducing without proper testing is willy nilly!
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 3,840
    Nigelb said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Foxy said:

    1/2

    There is a large correlation causation argument people sometimes miss in their argument.

    Just as many of those with mental health problems will have tried weed, they will also smoked tobacco and consumed alcohol.

    I imagine those with mental health problems are attracted to such things, they are often people with bad childhoods and people who have grown up in poor environments. Many people with far better lives like to escape/unwind/enjoy themselves with these things people who have suffered will be far more attracted to them.

    Alcohol isn't a good example as it does cause mental illness but (as far as I know) tobacco doesn't, yet you would probably find a high correlation between smokers and those with mental health problems.

    The issueof whether psychiatric disease preceeds or arises from drug use is an interesting question, but the evidence as assessed by the Psychiatrists is that the drug use comes first:

    https://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/mentalhealthinfo/problems/alcoholanddrugs/cannabisandmentalhealth.aspx?theme=mobile

    People may want cannabis to be innocuous to themselves and to society, but it isn't.
    Thank you. I made this point yesterday evening and was roundly poo-poohed for my pains.

    I despair when I read people like The Jezziah saying that the effect on a few teenagers is “neither here nor there”. Try seeing what its effect is like on your teenager. Psychosis is not pretty.
    Can’t believe I’m defending The Jezz against your strawmanning, but I am.
    His point “In fact the current regime probably helps children get marijuana more easily than a legalised system...” is quite clear on why it’s “neither here not there”.
    Exactly!

    Also my neither here nor there comment about teenagers was in regards to people with serious medical conditions being denied medical treatment. I'm not sure any woman in the mothers situation recently whose boy had seizures all the time would give a damn either about arguments saying it causes problems in some teenagers. That is absolutely no good reason to force her son to live in pain. Some people have no compassion.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,082
    DavidL said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Foxy said:

    1/2

    There is a large correlation causation argument people sometimes miss in their argument.

    Just as many of those with mental health problems will have tried weed, they will also smoked tobacco and consumed alcohol.

    I imagine those with mental health problems are attracted to such things, they are often people with bad childhoods and people who have grown up in poor environments. Many people with far better lives like to escape/unwind/enjoy themselves with these things people who have suffered will be far more attracted to them.

    Alcohol isn't a good example as it does cause mental illness but (as far as I know) tobacco doesn't, yet you would probably find a high correlation between smokers and those with mental health problems.

    The issueof whether psychiatric disease preceeds or arises from drug use is an interesting question, but the evidence as assessed by the Psychiatrists is that the drug use comes first:

    https://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/mentalhealthinfo/problems/alcoholanddrugs/cannabisandmentalhealth.aspx?theme=mobile

    People may want cannabis to be innocuous to themselves and to society, but it isn't.
    Thank you. I made this point yesterday evening and was roundly poo-poohed for my pains.

    I despair when I read people like The Jezziah saying that the effect on a few teenagers is “neither here nor there”. Try seeing what its effect is like on your teenager. Psychosis is not pretty.
    I don't believe cannabis to be harmless. That was not my point. The point is that making it illegal is not stopping young people from taking an entirely unregulated and unsafe version of the product.

    I refer again to the Portuguese experience. It was not simply that drugs were made legal, it was that the resources previously used in the criminal justice system were diverted to medical assistance, counselling, treatment of the underlying conditions that often led to drug use, frequently mental illness or PTSD and to help for those who wanted to become clean. Legalisation is not a solution in itself. But it is a part of the solution.
    The Portuguese experience is of decriminalisation, and a system of drug rehabilitation for users. It is very different to legalisation. I would not be averse to such a system.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_Portugal
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    Cyclefree said:

    Foxy said:

    1/2

    There is a large correlation causation argument people sometimes miss in their argument.

    Just as many of those with mental health problems will have tried weed, they will also smoked tobacco and consumed alcohol.

    I imagine those with mental health problems are attracted to such things, they are often people with bad childhoods and people who have grown up in poor environments. Many people with far better lives like to escape/unwind/enjoy themselves with these things people who have suffered will be far more attracted to them.

    Alcohol isn't a good example as it does cause mental illness but (as far as I know) tobacco doesn't, yet you would probably find a high correlation between smokers and those with mental health problems.

    The issueof whether psychiatric disease preceeds or arises from drug use is an interesting question, but the evidence as assessed by the Psychiatrists is that the drug use comes first:

    https://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/mentalhealthinfo/problems/alcoholanddrugs/cannabisandmentalhealth.aspx?theme=mobile

    People may want cannabis to be innocuous to themselves and to society, but it isn't.
    Thank you. I made this point yesterday evening and was roundly poo-poohed for my pains.

    I despair when I read people like The Jezziah saying that the effect on a few teenagers is “neither here nor there”. Try seeing what its effect is like on your teenager. Psychosis is not pretty.
    I'm afraid you were poo poohed because you made the point poorly and still have. If it was so clear cut as you pretend there would be no debate, since unlike alcohol it isn't something with mass use essentially grandfathered in despite being harmful in the way most consume it. Most don't use it, so have no incentive to be keen on it.

    I don't smoke pot, never have, and I know people who have who have gone on to harder drugs and suffered many problems. I'm not interested in ignoring harm so some people can get high.

    But as more places relax the rules on it, and given some of the places doing so it won't be willy nilly, the public probably need more evidence to restrict it than the 'think of the kids' stuff. Even some risk of harm may mean some people who aren't getting it should.

    It need not lead to full legalisation, but for all the wait and see arguments many saying that already seem clear it must never happen, by implication.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 60,004
    edited June 2018
    The US announces it is withdrawing from the UN Human Rights Council

    Where will this all end
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981



    Even in the article itself "It is also known that not everyone who uses cannabis, even at a young age, develops a psychotic illness. The available research shows that those who have a family history of a psychotic illness, or those who have certain characteristics such as schizotypal personality, or possibly have certain types of genes, may increase the risk of developing a psychotic illness following the regular use of strong cannabis."

    Which sort of backs up what I was saying somewhat, those with a disposition towards mental illness also have a disposition towards marijuana, weed and cigarettes.

    There isn't anything in the article I disagree with, because the article itself just concentrates heavily on correlation, I have not said that there isn't correlation, my whole post was built on the fact there is.

    As to children, which seems to be the part which has the most proof, nobody is suggesting we sell marijuana to children. I certainly haven't.

    We shouldn't sell marijuana to children we shouldn't let children drive cars we shouldn't let children fly planes and we shouldn't let children have drink alcohol but that that isn't a good argument against not allowing adults to do those things. In fact the current regime probably helps children get marijuana more easily than a legalised system. Protecting children is probably an argument for legalisation rather than against.

    What we need is good arguments against it being legal for adults and there seem to be less of them than arguments for it being legal for adults.

    "Only a minority develop problems" is an argument which misunderstands the concept of danger. Most drunk drivers get away with it, most smokers do not get lung cancer, 83% of Russian roulette players survive any given round of the game, 99% of US gun owners do not accidentally or deliberately harm or kill anybody.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 30,846
    Elliot said:

    Trump says he will cancel foreign aid to countries that send immigrants to the US.
    https://twitter.com/megwagner/status/1009120830578679808

    4 year old kids put in cages for weeks without anyone they know. Trump is a disgusting human being and the people that voted for him are scum.
    Yep.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,780
    Foxy said:

    DavidL said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Foxy said:

    1/2

    The issueof whether psychiatric disease preceeds or arises from drug use is an interesting question, but the evidence as assessed by the Psychiatrists is that the drug use comes first:

    https://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/mentalhealthinfo/problems/alcoholanddrugs/cannabisandmentalhealth.aspx?theme=mobile

    People may want cannabis to be innocuous to themselves and to society, but it isn't.
    Thank you. I made this point yesterday evening and was roundly poo-poohed for my pains.

    I despair when I read people like The Jezziah saying that the effect on a few teenagers is “neither here nor there”. Try seeing what its effect is like on your teenager. Psychosis is not pretty.
    I don't believe cannabis to be harmless. That was not my point. The point is that making it illegal is not stopping young people from taking an entirely unregulated and unsafe version of the product.

    I refer again to the Portuguese experience. It was not simply that drugs were made legal, it was that the resources previously used in the criminal justice system were diverted to medical assistance, counselling, treatment of the underlying conditions that often led to drug use, frequently mental illness or PTSD and to help for those who wanted to become clean. Legalisation is not a solution in itself. But it is a part of the solution.
    The Portuguese experience is of decriminalisation, and a system of drug rehabilitation for users. It is very different to legalisation. I would not be averse to such a system.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_Portugal
    I agree. It is a complex package of measures that together have worked. We need to try it.

    On medicines I again agree with your position. As we all too often note on this site the plural of anecdotes is not data. Before cannabis is used as a basis for medicine we need double blind trials and longitudinal studies considering side effects. But we actually have some of them already and more are in progress. I believe the Americans are to announce their results in the next few weeks.
  • ralphmalphralphmalph Posts: 2,201
    edited June 2018
    Elliot said:

    Trump says he will cancel foreign aid to countries that send immigrants to the US.
    https://twitter.com/megwagner/status/1009120830578679808

    4 year old kids put in cages for weeks without anyone they know. Trump is a disgusting human being and the people that voted for him are scum.
    What do you think of the parents the deliberately expose their children to this risk by breaking the law?
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    https://www.bbench.co.uk/single-post/2018/04/03/Cannabis-legalisation-a-polite-response

    "Why do Hitchens’ critics never address the examples of Japan, South Korea, and pre-1970s Britain? All of these countries are/were law-governed democracies, they all enforce(ed) their laws against possession, and they all have/had very low drug use. US prohibitionists on the other hand, as Hitchens has repeatedly pointed out, did not punish possession of alcohol. And this really gets to the heart of the issue. The reason the ‘War on Drugs’ has failed in Britain and elsewhere is because successive governments have failed to properly enforce their laws.

    The de facto decriminalisation of drugs in Britain is so self evident it’s amazing that only Peter Hitchens seems to be aware of it. It’s hard to believe that there’s a war currently being waged on drugs when you see someone openly rolling and smoking a joint while waiting for an early morning train to Chester in front of dozens of commuters (as I did the other week), or when you’re greeted by the smell of cannabis – and the same group of school kids smoking it – outside a tram stop on a main road (as I regularly am). As Hitchens says, ‘The police avoid arresting, the CPS avoids charging and the courts avoid punishing offenders’. And as a result, nobody gives a thought to the potential legal consequences of smoking cannabis – for all intents and purposes, and despite what our laws say, there aren’t any."
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    Foxy said:

    kle4 said:

    Foxy said:

    kle4 said:

    Foxy said:

    Mr. Borough, that does highlight a potential pitfall of legalisation. Legal cannabis would have t
    Hard to assess, though.

    Lord Monson ly.
    "Skunk OR SPICE"

    So how many on skunk? Because spice is NOT marijuana. It's a bullshit stat without that.
    Spice is (one of) the

    People seem to think it is a cheap legal weed when from what I've heard the stuff is utterly toxic.
    Spot on again.

    It's nice to agree with you on something for once ;)
    Haha, thank you to be honest I think a lot of the problems

    Also in regards to the medical marijuana thing there are people with incredibly debilitating conditions that need it now, the fact it isn't good for teenagers is neither here nor there, I wouldn't suggest that we start telling GPs to supply everybody with marijuana for their conditions but people who have constant seizures like this boy or other
    Heroin, and more recently Oxycontin, were introduced as low side effect alternatives for other drugs. Time showed that to be untrue. Lets wait for proper trials and assessment, as we do for other pharmaceuticals.
    How long a wait? I'm getting a lot of vibes that no amount e simply because people like getting high after all.
    Same amount of trials as any other pharmaceutical being introduced. It is the mechanism to prevent another Thalidomide type tragedy.

    If not for cannabis, and just introduced willy nilly, why test anything?
    I never said introduce willy nilly, you're arguing against a point not made.
    Introducing without proper testing is willy nilly!
    And I didn't say to do that either. I merely asked how long you wanted it tested for, which you answered, and what tests have been done elsewhere which have relaxed rules since I doubt they did it willy nilly. If they've already proven harm is not worth the benefits, and that widescale use is,very bad, I'd like to know why they permitted it.

    Once more, on thus debate, the anti crowd spend too much of their time on overblown statements or countering ones no one is making (eg it's dangerous to teenagers, as though most people think teens should be buying it even were it legal).

    It's why the anti side are on the defensive even though most people don't use marijuana - you overreact and undermine yourself I'm afraid doc.

    But I must be off all. Not to smoke a joint. My body is a temple (albeit an overly bulky temple).

    Night all
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,780

    Elliot said:

    Trump says he will cancel foreign aid to countries that send immigrants to the US.
    https://twitter.com/megwagner/status/1009120830578679808

    4 year old kids put in cages for weeks without anyone they know. Trump is a disgusting human being and the people that voted for him are scum.
    What do you think of the parents the deliberately expose their children to this risk by breaking the law?
    I think that the children cannot be held responsible for their stupidity/greed/ desperation. This is not just wrong, it is morally repulsive.
  • JonnyJimmyJonnyJimmy Posts: 2,548
    Ishmael_Z said:



    Even in the article itself "It is also known that not everyone who uses cannabis, even at a young age, develops a psychotic illness. The available research shows that those who have a family history of a psychotic illness, or those who have certain characteristics such as schizotypal personality, or possibly have certain types of genes, may increase the risk of developing a psychotic illness following the regular use of strong cannabis."

    Which sort of backs up what I was saying somewhat, those with a disposition towards mental illness also have a disposition towards marijuana, weed and cigarettes.

    There isn't anything in the article I disagree with, because the article itself just concentrates heavily on correlation, I have not said that there isn't correlation, my whole post was built on the fact there is.

    As to children, which seems to be the part which has the most proof, nobody is suggesting we sell marijuana to children. I certainly haven't.

    We shouldn't sell marijuana to children we shouldn't let children drive cars we shouldn't let children fly planes and we shouldn't let children have drink alcohol but that that isn't a good argument against not allowing adults to do those things. In fact the current regime probably helps children get marijuana more easily than a legalised system. Protecting children is probably an argument for legalisation rather than against.

    What we need is good arguments against it being legal for adults and there seem to be less of them than arguments for it being legal for adults.

    "Only a minority develop problems" is an argument which misunderstands the concept of danger. Most drunk drivers get away with it, most smokers do not get lung cancer, 83% of Russian roulette players survive any given round of the game, 99% of US gun owners do not accidentally or deliberately harm or kill anybody.
    The last two are ridiculous comparisons.

    How many extra people need to be made psychotic by marijuana being legalised to make legalising it an unacceptable danger?

    And are you considering the benefits of legislation to mitigate against that risk?
  • not_on_firenot_on_fire Posts: 4,340

    FPT:
    Mr. Alistair, just checked and cannabis can cause paranoia, addiction, and contribute to respiratory disease [Biological Psychology: An Introduction to Behavioral[sp] and Cognitive Neuroscience, by Rosenzweig et al].

    Alcohol causes cirrhosis of the liver, kills brain cells and encourages risk taking and violence. BAN IT NOW.

    Or, perhaps trust people to use it sensibly.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 21,725
    3-0 Russia
  • ralphmalphralphmalph Posts: 2,201
    DavidL said:

    Elliot said:

    Trump says he will cancel foreign aid to countries that send immigrants to the US.
    https://twitter.com/megwagner/status/1009120830578679808

    4 year old kids put in cages for weeks without anyone they know. Trump is a disgusting human being and the people that voted for him are scum.
    What do you think of the parents the deliberately expose their children to this risk by breaking the law?
    I think that the children cannot be held responsible for their stupidity/greed/ desperation. This is not just wrong, it is morally repulsive.
    But what is morally repulsive. Splitting up children from law breaking parents or keeping them in cages. Would it be ok to split them as long as they were housed in summer camps or with foster parents?
    Or should they just be all released parents and children with no consequence for breaking the law?
  • The_ApocalypseThe_Apocalypse Posts: 7,830
    TOPPING said:

    I agree with other posters who have noted the degeneration of this site and the endless mean spirited frankly off putting content of all too many posts.

    Can we therefore please stop talking about the fucking cricket. It is as boring as fuck and doesn’t do this site or the contributors any favours.

    Yep. Cricket must be one of the dullest sports ever.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,082

    Nigelb said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Foxy said:

    1/2

    There is a large correlation causation argument people sometimes miss in their argument.

    Just as many of those with mental health problems will have tried weed, they will also smoked tobacco and consumed alcohol.

    I imagine those with mental health problems are attracted to such things, they are often people with bad childhoods and people who have grown up in poor environments. Many people with far better lives like to escape/unwind/enjoy themselves with these things people who have suffered will be far more attracted to them.

    Alcohol isn't a good example as it does cause mental illness but (as far as I know) tobacco doesn't, yet you would probably find a high correlation between smokers and those with mental health problems.

    The issueof whether psychiatric disease preceeds or arises from drug use is an interesting question, but the evidence as assessed by the Psychiatrists is that the drug use comes first:

    https://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/mentalhealthinfo/problems/alcoholanddrugs/cannabisandmentalhealth.aspx?theme=mobile

    People may want cannabis to be innocuous to themselves and to society, but it isn't.
    Thank you. I made this point yesterday evening and was roundly poo-poohed for my pains.

    I despair when I read people like The Jezziah saying that the effect on a few teenagers is “neither here nor there”. Try seeing what its effect is like on your teenager. Psychosis is not pretty.
    Can’t believe I’m defending The Jezz against your strawmanning, but I am.
    His point “In fact the current regime probably helps children get marijuana more easily than a legalised system...” is quite clear on why it’s “neither here not there”.
    Exactly!

    Also my neither here nor there comment about teenagers was in regards to people with serious medical conditions being denied medical treatment. I'm not sure any woman in the mothers situation recently whose boy had seizures all the time would give a damn either about arguments saying it causes problems in some teenagers. That is absolutely no good reason to force her son to live in pain. Some people have no compassion.
    Pharmaceuticals can be released prior to definitive licensing on compassionate grounds, though there is a fair amount of paperwork. Just allowing anyone to use it to self medicate without a proper testing procedure is neither safe nor ethical.
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 3,840
    Ishmael_Z said:



    "Only a minority develop problems" is an argument which misunderstands the concept of danger. Most drunk drivers get away with it, most smokers do not get lung cancer, 83% of Russian roulette players survive any given round of the game, 99% of US gun owners do not accidentally or deliberately harm or kill anybody.
    If you are arguing against the medical marijuana part I would argue the dangers are actually greater the other way...

    Quite frankly I'd argue that for the recreational marijuana part as well.

    If we really wanted to help people we could pour much of the money from legalised marijuana into developing tests that identify the people who do have an underlying psychosis that marijuana (or other things) could trigger.

    It must be a tiny percentage when we consider that I think it is around 50% of 25-49 years old have tried weed. How many then are mentally ill that we can actually attribute to weed? (not Spice which is the devil)

  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,963

    The US announces it is withdrawing from the UN Human Rights Council

    Where will this all end

    Well, Trump withdrawing the US from the UN wouldn't shock.....
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,780

    DavidL said:

    Elliot said:

    Trump says he will cancel foreign aid to countries that send immigrants to the US.
    https://twitter.com/megwagner/status/1009120830578679808

    4 year old kids put in cages for weeks without anyone they know. Trump is a disgusting human being and the people that voted for him are scum.
    What do you think of the parents the deliberately expose their children to this risk by breaking the law?
    I think that the children cannot be held responsible for their stupidity/greed/ desperation. This is not just wrong, it is morally repulsive.
    But what is morally repulsive. Splitting up children from law breaking parents or keeping them in cages. Would it be ok to split them as long as they were housed in summer camps or with foster parents?
    Or should they just be all released parents and children with no consequence for breaking the law?
    Splitting young children up from their parents is morally repulsive unless their lawbreaking is directed at violence or want of care to the children. I am not saying that a child allows the parents to walk free from custody but it is wrong to break up families like this. He will be forced to stop in due course but the fact that he allowed this on his watch shows he is amoral and just a little bit evil.
  • The_ApocalypseThe_Apocalypse Posts: 7,830
    Elliot said:

    Trump says he will cancel foreign aid to countries that send immigrants to the US.
    https://twitter.com/megwagner/status/1009120830578679808

    4 year old kids put in cages for weeks without anyone they know. Trump is a disgusting human being and the people that voted for him are scum.
    Agreed.
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 3,840
    AndyJS said:

    https://www.bbench.co.uk/single-post/2018/04/03/Cannabis-legalisation-a-polite-response

    "Why do Hitchens’ critics never address the examples of Japan, South Korea, and pre-1970s Britain? All of these countries are/were law-governed democracies, they all enforce(ed) their laws against possession, and they all have/had very low drug use. US prohibitionists on the other hand, as Hitchens has repeatedly pointed out, did not punish possession of alcohol. And this really gets to the heart of the issue. The reason the ‘War on Drugs’ has failed in Britain and elsewhere is because successive governments have failed to properly enforce their laws.

    The de facto decriminalisation of drugs in Britain is so self evident it’s amazing that only Peter Hitchens seems to be aware of it. It’s hard to believe that there’s a war currently being waged on drugs when you see someone openly rolling and smoking a joint while waiting for an early morning train to Chester in front of dozens of commuters (as I did the other week), or when you’re greeted by the smell of cannabis – and the same group of school kids smoking it – outside a tram stop on a main road (as I regularly am). As Hitchens says, ‘The police avoid arresting, the CPS avoids charging and the courts avoid punishing offenders’. And as a result, nobody gives a thought to the potential legal consequences of smoking cannabis – for all intents and purposes, and despite what our laws say, there aren’t any."

    Me and my friends were once found with marijuana by police officers and left with the marijuana and no charges or cautions of any type and told to be more careful.

    In fairness the police have far better things to do than enforce the laws on marijuana, even if they weren't stretched in any way and had a huge boost in funding there are simply areas the police need to focus on more.

    The nights out drinking in the town centre for one.
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 3,840
    Foxy said:

    Nigelb said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Foxy said:

    1/2

    The issueof whether psychiatric disease preceeds or arises from drug use is an interesting question, but the evidence as assessed by the Psychiatrists is that the drug use comes first:

    https://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/mentalhealthinfo/problems/alcoholanddrugs/cannabisandmentalhealth.aspx?theme=mobile

    People may want cannabis to be innocuous to themselves and to society, but it isn't.
    Thank you. I made this point yesterday evening and was roundly poo-poohed for my pains.

    I despair when I read people like The Jezziah saying that the effect on a few teenagers is “neither here nor there”. Try seeing what its effect is like on your teenager. Psychosis is not pretty.
    Can’t believe I’m defending The Jezz against your strawmanning, but I am.
    His point “In fact the current regime probably helps children get marijuana more easily than a legalised system...” is quite clear on why it’s “neither here not there”.
    Exactly!

    Also my neither here nor there comment about teenagers was in regards to people with serious medical conditions being denied medical treatment. I'm not sure any woman in the mothers situation recently whose boy had seizures all the time would give a damn either about arguments saying it causes problems in some teenagers. That is absolutely no good reason to force her son to live in pain. Some people have no compassion.
    Pharmaceuticals can be released prior to definitive licensing on compassionate grounds, though there is a fair amount of paperwork. Just allowing anyone to use it to self medicate without a proper testing procedure is neither safe nor ethical.
    Not penalising, or even helping those with the most serious medical conditions acquire marijuana if it helps them go from no quality of life to some quality of life is the only ethical answer.

    I am not suggesting we start prescribing it to everyone for any condition, but for those who have an immense improvement in their lives, who go from a life not worth living to one that is, then possible long term consequences (even if it could kill which we pretty much know it can't) are just not an issue.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,165

    FPT:
    Mr. Alistair, just checked and cannabis can cause paranoia, addiction, and contribute to respiratory disease [Biological Psychology: An Introduction to Behavioral[sp] and Cognitive Neuroscience, by Rosenzweig et al].

    Alcohol causes cirrhosis of the liver, kills brain cells and encourages risk taking and violence. BAN IT NOW.

    Or, perhaps trust people to use it sensibly.
    You can drink safely in moderation (at least I think you can). A lot of people don't.

    Can you safely smoke pot (or tobacco for that matter) in moderation?

    I saw the discussion on the Daily Politics today and have sympathies with both sides of the argument. I'd be happy for it to be legalised but only in specific venues (don't they have cafes in Amsterdam for it?), but I'd then hope that the authorities would clamp down on illegal use.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,590
    edited June 2018
    Foxy said:

    Nigelb said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Foxy said:

    1/2

    There is a large correlation causation argument people sometimes miss in their argument.

    Just as many of those with mental health problems will have tried weed, they will also smoked tobacco and consumed alcohol.

    I imagine those with mental health problems are attracted to such things, they are often people with bad childhoods and people who have grown up in poor environments. Many people with far better lives like to escape/unwind/enjoy themselves with these things people who have suffered will be far more attracted to them.

    Alcohol isn't a good example as it does cause mental illness but (as far as I know) tobacco doesn't, yet you would probably find a high correlation between smokers and those with mental health problems.

    The issueof whether psychiatric disease preceeds or arises from drug use is an interesting question, but the evidence as assessed by the Psychiatrists is that the drug use comes first:

    https://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/mentalhealthinfo/problems/alcoholanddrugs/cannabisandmentalhealth.aspx?theme=mobile

    People may want cannabis to be innocuous to themselves and to society, but it isn't.
    Thank you. I made this point yesterday evening and was roundly poo-poohed for my pains.

    I despair when I read people like The Jezziah saying that the effect on a few teenagers is “neither here nor there”. Try seeing what its effect is like on your teenager. Psychosis is not pretty.
    Can’t believe I’m defending The Jezz against your strawmanning, but I am.
    His point “In fact the current regime probably helps children get marijuana more easily than a legalised system...” is quite clear on why it’s “neither here not there”.
    Exactly!

    Also my neither here nor there comment about teenagers was in regards to people with serious medical conditions being denied medical treatment. I'm not sure any woman in the mothers situation recently whose boy had seizures all the time would give a damn either about arguments saying it causes problems in some teenagers. That is absolutely no good reason to force her son to live in pain. Some people have no compassion.
    Pharmaceuticals can be released prior to definitive licensing on compassionate grounds, though there is a fair amount of paperwork. Just allowing anyone to use it to self medicate without a proper testing procedure is neither safe nor ethical.
    Except that in this case, you are talking about a substance which has been used for self medication for several millennia. Extending that to a general principle doesn’t really work.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274

    TOPPING said:

    I agree with other posters who have noted the degeneration of this site and the endless mean spirited frankly off putting content of all too many posts.

    Can we therefore please stop talking about the fucking cricket. It is as boring as fuck and doesn’t do this site or the contributors any favours.

    Yep. Cricket must be one of the dullest sports ever.
    How very dare you....nearly 500 runs in 50 overs is quite the opposite of dull...
  • saddosaddo Posts: 534
    Considering it wasn't all that long ago we were blockading China & grabbing Hong Kong to protect our heroin trade, we sure have a strange view at government level on the cannabis trade.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395

    TOPPING said:

    I agree with other posters who have noted the degeneration of this site and the endless mean spirited frankly off putting content of all too many posts.

    Can we therefore please stop talking about the fucking cricket. It is as boring as fuck and doesn’t do this site or the contributors any favours.

    Yep. Cricket must be one of the dullest sports ever.
    Golf is the dullest IMO.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,590
    edited June 2018

    TOPPING said:

    I agree with other posters who have noted the degeneration of this site and the endless mean spirited frankly off putting content of all too many posts.

    Can we therefore please stop talking about the fucking cricket. It is as boring as fuck and doesn’t do this site or the contributors any favours.

    Yep. Cricket must be one of the dullest sports ever.
    That is part of its appeal.

    (The incomprehension of those that don’t get it...)
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-5860179/Another-reason-not-update-iOS-11-4-Users-complain-software-crashes-iPhone-cameras.html

    ICrap a time it again...have apple sacked all their coders and QA and outsourced all the work to India?
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 3,840
    tlg86 said:

    FPT:
    Mr. Alistair, just checked and cannabis can cause paranoia, addiction, and contribute to respiratory disease [Biological Psychology: An Introduction to Behavioral[sp] and Cognitive Neuroscience, by Rosenzweig et al].

    Alcohol causes cirrhosis of the liver, kills brain cells and encourages risk taking and violence. BAN IT NOW.

    Or, perhaps trust people to use it sensibly.
    You can drink safely in moderation (at least I think you can). A lot of people don't.

    Can you safely smoke pot (or tobacco for that matter) in moderation?

    I saw the discussion on the Daily Politics today and have sympathies with both sides of the argument. I'd be happy for it to be legalised but only in specific venues (don't they have cafes in Amsterdam for it?), but I'd then hope that the authorities would clamp down on illegal use.
    For the vast majority of people there are less negative effects from using marijuana in moderation or heavily than alcohol.

    From hangovers to weight gain from collapsing drunk to dehydration. Outside of a psychosis correlation which involves a tiny percentage and mostly those who started heavily as children then the risks of pot are far less.

    Tobacco is a silly and pointless drug*, my one hope it that legal marijuana would encourage people to make pures rather than putting tobacco in, its addictive, deadly and affects your physical health in numerous ways.

    *Because it doesn't give you any kind of buzz in the same way alcohol or marijuana do. If you are killing yourself and spending lots of money you should get more out of it than a relief from needing nicotine because you've smoked previously.
  • AnneJGPAnneJGP Posts: 2,869

    AndyJS said:

    https://www.bbench.co.uk/single-post/2018/04/03/Cannabis-legalisation-a-polite-response

    "Why do Hitchens’ critics never address the examples of Japan, South Korea, and pre-1970s Britain? All of these countries are/were law-governed democracies, they all enforce(ed) their laws against possession, and they all have/had very low drug use. US prohibitionists on the other hand, as Hitchens has repeatedly pointed out, did not punish possession of alcohol. And this really gets to the heart of the issue. The reason the ‘War on Drugs’ has failed in Britain and elsewhere is because successive governments have failed to properly enforce their laws.

    The de facto decriminalisation of drugs in Britain is so self evident it’s amazing that only Peter Hitchens seems to be aware of it. It’s hard to believe that there’s a war currently being waged on drugs when you see someone openly rolling and smoking a joint while waiting for an early morning train to Chester in front of dozens of commuters (as I did the other week), or when you’re greeted by the smell of cannabis – and the same group of school kids smoking it – outside a tram stop on a main road (as I regularly am). As Hitchens says, ‘The police avoid arresting, the CPS avoids charging and the courts avoid punishing offenders’. And as a result, nobody gives a thought to the potential legal consequences of smoking cannabis – for all intents and purposes, and despite what our laws say, there aren’t any."

    Me and my friends were once found with marijuana by police officers and left with the marijuana and no charges or cautions of any type and told to be more careful.

    In fairness the police have far better things to do than enforce the laws on marijuana, even if they weren't stretched in any way and had a huge boost in funding there are simply areas the police need to focus on more.

    The nights out drinking in the town centre for one.
    I've often wondered whether there are secondary smoking effects. If you can smell it, something is going into your lungs.
  • The_ApocalypseThe_Apocalypse Posts: 7,830
    AndyJS said:

    TOPPING said:

    I agree with other posters who have noted the degeneration of this site and the endless mean spirited frankly off putting content of all too many posts.

    Can we therefore please stop talking about the fucking cricket. It is as boring as fuck and doesn’t do this site or the contributors any favours.

    Yep. Cricket must be one of the dullest sports ever.
    Golf is the dullest IMO.
    True, but cricket is definitely up there for me as well. Darts is another really dull one.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,769
    edited June 2018
    AndyJS said:

    TOPPING said:

    I agree with other posters who have noted the degeneration of this site and the endless mean spirited frankly off putting content of all too many posts.

    Can we therefore please stop talking about the fucking cricket. It is as boring as fuck and doesn’t do this site or the contributors any favours.

    Yep. Cricket must be one of the dullest sports ever.
    Golf is the dullest IMO.
    There's a really boring sport, only played by millionaires who are physically not very fit, where a bit of inflated leather is kicked around a patch of grass for 45 minutes, and everyone carefully takes aim at a fishing net in a frame and misses it by a long way because they're basically a bit useless. Then they come out and do it all over again for another 45 or 75 minutes depending on how rubbish they really are. They do a lot of play acting at pretending to be hurt when an ant bites them or something.

    Apparently some people like it but I've never quite seen the attraction.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981

    Ishmael_Z said:



    "Only a minority develop problems" is an argument which misunderstands the concept of danger. Most drunk drivers get away with it, most smokers do not get lung cancer, 83% of Russian roulette players survive any given round of the game, 99% of US gun owners do not accidentally or deliberately harm or kill anybody.
    If you are arguing against the medical marijuana part I would argue the dangers are actually greater the other way...

    Quite frankly I'd argue that for the recreational marijuana part as well.

    If we really wanted to help people we could pour much of the money from legalised marijuana into developing tests that identify the people who do have an underlying psychosis that marijuana (or other things) could trigger.

    It must be a tiny percentage when we consider that I think it is around 50% of 25-49 years old have tried weed. How many then are mentally ill that we can actually attribute to weed? (not Spice which is the devil)

    I am not arguing against the medical marijuana part, I have no idea why people find it difficult to compartmentalise medical vs recreational into completely different arguments when that is what they are. Nobody sensible thinks the fact that the NHS rightly hands out morphine by the bucketload has any bearing on the illegal heroin trade, or thinks that the fact that in hospitals people consensually cut whole limbs off other people after drugging them senseless should be generalised to justify that kind of thing outside the medical context.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,082
    saddo said:

    Considering it wasn't all that long ago we were blockading China & grabbing Hong Kong to protect our heroin trade, we sure have a strange view at government level on the cannabis trade.

    Opium. Heroin was invented late 19th Century.
  • FregglesFreggles Posts: 3,486
    O/T

    Wouldn't it have been awesome if Ed Miliband had won in 2015.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,769
    I think it's fair to say Australia are struggling here.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,769
    edited June 2018
    Freggles said:

    O/T

    Wouldn't it have been awesome if Ed Miliband had won in 2015.

    No. It would have been a bit like it is now, only with UKIP still rampaging around rather than providing us with light relief by splitting every three minutes.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,082
    Ishmael_Z said:

    Ishmael_Z said:



    "Only a minority develop problems" is an argument which misunderstands the concept of danger. Most drunk drivers get away with it, most smokers do not get lung cancer, 83% of Russian roulette players survive any given round of the game, 99% of US gun owners do not accidentally or deliberately harm or kill anybody.
    If you are arguing against the medical marijuana part I would argue the dangers are actually greater the other way...

    Quite frankly I'd argue that for the recreational marijuana part as well.

    If we really wanted to help people we could pour much of the money from legalised marijuana into developing tests that identify the people who do have an underlying psychosis that marijuana (or other things) could trigger.

    It must be a tiny percentage when we consider that I think it is around 50% of 25-49 years old have tried weed. How many then are mentally ill that we can actually attribute to weed? (not Spice which is the devil)

    I am not arguing against the medical marijuana part, I have no idea why people find it difficult to compartmentalise medical vs recreational into completely different arguments when that is what they are. Nobody sensible thinks the fact that the NHS rightly hands out morphine by the bucketload has any bearing on the illegal heroin trade, or thinks that the fact that in hospitals people consensually cut whole limbs off other people after drugging them senseless should be generalised to justify that kind of thing outside the medical context.
    Over prescription of legal opiates was a big part of fuelling the US Opiate epidemic. Addicts then shifted to illegal opiates, particularly Mexican heroin.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,074

    Nigelb said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Foxy said:

    1/2



    The issueof whether psychiatric disease preceeds or arises from drug use is an interesting question, but the evidence as assessed by the Psychiatrists is that the drug use comes first:

    https://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/mentalhealthinfo/problems/alcoholanddrugs/cannabisandmentalhealth.aspx?theme=mobile

    People may want cannabis to be innocuous to themselves and to society, but it isn't.
    Thank you. I made this point yesterday evening and was roundly poo-poohed for my pains.

    I despair when I read people like The Jezziah saying that the effect on a few teenagers is “neither here nor there”. Try seeing what its effect is like on your teenager. Psychosis is not pretty.
    Can’t believe I’m defending The Jezz against your strawmanning, but I am.
    His point “In fact the current regime probably helps children get marijuana more easily than a legalised system...” is quite clear on why it’s “neither here not there”.
    Exactly!

    Also my neither here nor there comment about teenagers was in regards to people with serious medical conditions being denied medical treatment. I'm not sure any woman in the mothers situation recently whose boy had seizures all the time would give a damn either about arguments saying it causes problems in some teenagers. That is absolutely no good reason to force her son to live in pain. Some people have no compassion.
    I have made it perfectly clear - this morning - that I have no issue with cannabis-based medecines, properly tested and regulated, being available. So don’t go around making false claims that I have no compassion. Perhaps you might understand that my concerns arise because I have seen at close quarters the effects of cannabis-induced psychosis on the ternager/young adult and their families. They too are worthy of compassion.

    I have also said that there ought to be proper studies into our drug laws and what the way forward should be and am willing to be persuaded on the basis of evidence.

    But I think far too many people on here have made up their minds that legalisation is the answer (who knew that so many were experts in this area?), that too many are a bit too willing to dismiss the harmful effects which certain types of cannabis can and do cause and that legalisation may well not alleviate that. That is a significant factor which ought to be taken into account in any review of drugs laws.

    Why this continues to be viewed as a controversial statement beats me. So I am not going to keep on repeating myself on this topic.

    If I misunderstood The Jezziah in what he said, my apologies.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,590
    Ishmael_Z said:

    Ishmael_Z said:



    "Only a minority develop problems" is an argument which misunderstands the concept of danger. Most drunk drivers get away with it, most smokers do not get lung cancer, 83% of Russian roulette players survive any given round of the game, 99% of US gun owners do not accidentally or deliberately harm or kill anybody.
    If you are arguing against the medical marijuana part I would argue the dangers are actually greater the other way...

    Quite frankly I'd argue that for the recreational marijuana part as well.

    If we really wanted to help people we could pour much of the money from legalised marijuana into developing tests that identify the people who do have an underlying psychosis that marijuana (or other things) could trigger.

    It must be a tiny percentage when we consider that I think it is around 50% of 25-49 years old have tried weed. How many then are mentally ill that we can actually attribute to weed? (not Spice which is the devil)

    I am not arguing against the medical marijuana part, I have no idea why people find it difficult to compartmentalise medical vs recreational into completely different arguments when that is what they are. Nobody sensible thinks the fact that the NHS rightly hands out morphine by the bucketload has any bearing on the illegal heroin trade, or thinks that the fact that in hospitals people consensually cut whole limbs off other people after drugging them senseless should be generalised to justify that kind of thing outside the medical context.
    Of course they are separate arguments.
    The case for medical exemptions is extremely strong; that for legalising recreational use very strong...
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,769
    Australia all out for 236, losing 7-75 to spin off 15 overs.

    Even old Alistair Campbell wasn't that good at spinning figures.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,780
    ydoethur said:

    I think it's fair to say Australia are struggling here.

    All over. That really wasn't close.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 21,725
    Freggles said:

    O/T

    Wouldn't it have been awesome if Ed Miliband had won in 2015.

    Was never going to happen as I regularly posted!!!
This discussion has been closed.