Cannabis Re-Classified

[Phil D. Rolls]

After many years of debate and listening to people who know, the government degraded cannabis to a class C drug.

Two,or so, years on (my memory isn't what it was) they decide to reclassify it to class C. Not in response to any hard evidence that there are more problems now than before being downgraded - but because there is a a "public concern".

What public concern? The only concern I have dedtected has been media and politico driven pesh about the potency of skunk. There is absolutely no evidence to say that psychiatric wards are filling up with people who have fried their brains on the stuff.

So what if it's a stronger variety? Whisky is stronger than beer, so the way you use it is different.

Once again drug policy is formulated on the basis of, well no real basis at all.

Presumably, if enough members of the public write to Jacqui Smith and say that hanging should be brought back, that will be all it takes?

A cowardly, politically motivated move, which panders to ignorance, and does nothing to tackle the impact that the "war on drugs" has had on our society.

All it's going to do is force the price up, and force people to buy inferior product. If the government were really concerned about the health impact of drug taking, they'd make good quality gear accessible to all, and remove the need for people to buy soap bar laced with god knows what.

[CropleyWasGod]

.

. If the government were really concerned about the health impact of drug taking, they'd make good quality gear accessible to all, and remove the need for people to buy soap bar laced with god knows what.

I have been saying this for years, FR. However, we both know the chance of any politician actually taking this on is on a one way ticket to lampoonery.

[basehibby]

Agreed - it's a pathetic reactionary excuse for a policy which seems to be based on a misguided populism rather than anything else.

It seems to go hand in hand with the sanctimonious hectoring tone of Alisdair Darling's budget too.

I don't see it making much difference to the amount of people taking the drug - it will however make a difference to police priorities and provide them with an additional workload to add to all the paperwork they've had dumped on them in recent years.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Agreed - it's a pathetic reactionary excuse for a policy which seems to be based on a misguided populism rather than anything else.

It seems to go hand in hand with the sanctimonious hectoring tone of Alisdair Darling's budget too.

I don't see it making much difference to the amount of people taking the drug - it will however make a difference to police priorities and provide them with an additional workload to add to all the paperwork they've had dumped on them in recent years.

That is it in a nutshell - nobody actually gives a toss about it these days, other than readers of the Sunday Post, who will still swallow the "Reefer Madness" scaremongering.

My feeling is that this is just another example of a hapless government, devoid of any ideas, thinking they are scoring some points. When in fact cannabis use is not really an issue for anyone.

When you consider the fact that just about every corner shop, tobacconist and supermarket sells king size cigarette papers, it is pretty clear that cannabis use is pretty much mainstream these days.

I'd have thought the best policy in combatting drug use, if that's what you want to do, is education. However, when the message that is going out is clearly flawed, and ill thought out, all you do is confuse people further.

So, a kid thinks "the government says all drugs are bad, yet my folks have smoked weed for years, and as far as I can see it hasn't done any harm - so the authorities don't know what they are on about".

Can you blame him for then thinking that the messages he hears about hard drugs are equally bogus?

[steakbake]

That is it in a nutshell - nobody actually gives a toss about it these days, other than readers of the Sunday Post, who will still swallow the "Reefer Madness" scaremongering.

My feeling is that this is just another example of a hapless government, devoid of any ideas, thinking they are scoring some points. When in fact cannabis use is not really an issue for anyone.

When you consider the fact that just about every corner shop, tobacconist and supermarket sells king size cigarette papers, it is pretty clear that cannabis use is pretty much mainstream these days.

I'd have thought the best policy in combatting drug use, if that's what you want to do, is education. However, when the message that is going out is clearly flawed, and ill thought out, all you do is confuse people further.

So, a kid thinks "the government says all drugs are bad, yet my folks have smoked weed for years, and as far as I can see it hasn't done any harm - so the authorities don't know what they are on about".

Can you blame him for then thinking that the messages he hears about hard drugs are equally bogus?


My only problem with cannabis is that it is too hard to get hold of. :yawn:

[Betty Boop]

My only problem with cannabis is that it is too hard to get hold of. :yawn:Really? :smokin

[jakki]

My brother in law has to do a 3 monthly trip up from Essex to obtain the stuff. He suffers from acute arthrits and maintains its the only thing that gives him relief

[steakbake]

Really? :smokin

Yup. :brickwall hahahaha

[Mike777]

My brother in law has to do a 3 monthly trip up from Essex to obtain the stuff. He suffers from acute arthrits and maintains its the only thing that gives him relief

If it makes it easier i can post it to him...

[Haymaker]

Weed "might" make some people have problems and its illegal


Alcohol... well... at least its taxed eh?

[Loobrush]

It's ridiculous. I don't smoke anymore but why the government are WASTING THEIR TIME on this rubbish is beyond me. Haven't they got more important things to think about than persecuting harmless stoners? :brickwall

[Phil D. Rolls]

It's ridiculous. I don't smoke anymore but why the government are WASTING THEIR TIME on this rubbish is beyond me. Haven't they got more important things to think about than persecuting harmless stoners? :brickwall

A "soft" target - they will gain a few approving nods, but as it has so little affect on the vast majority of society, it will soon be forgotten.

Most of the stoners, have forgotten already.

[Pete]

The people who make these decisions obviously don't live in the real world.

The police must be tearing their hair out. Their orders must go along the lines of:
"Right lads, Forget about catching paedos and tanked up neds...we're concentrating all our efforts on guys with a few ounces in their pocket and kerb-crawlers".

Again, it's egos before the real needs of the people.

[Onceinawhile]

id love to know what their reasoning for it is. they did a survey, it showed no proof of turning you mental and recommended keeping the drug as class c. the government didnt like it so commisioned a second survey - guess what, same result. ah **** it we'll put it back up anyway. madness.

given that in holland its easily obtainable they should all be psychotic shouldnt they? be interesting to see if hollands mental hospitals have had a huge influx recently or not

[Brando7]

I'm surprised the goverment hasn't legalised the stuff yet then fired tax it

[Phil D. Rolls]

id love to know what their reasoning for it is. they did a survey, it showed no proof of turning you mental and recommended keeping the drug as class c. the government didnt like it so commisioned a second survey - guess what, same result. ah **** it we'll put it back up anyway. madness.

given that in holland its easily obtainable they should all be psychotic shouldnt they? be interesting to see if hollands mental hospitals have had a huge influx recently or not

Firstly, psychosis is a rare condition. Second the number of cases where a clear link between the use of cannabis and psychosis is a small percentage of a small number.

Third, if everyone smokes weed, no-one will want to join the army, and say Britain was to be involved in a war that is going to last many years, the army will need recruits.

Nixon did the same thing in the 60s.

[Betty Boop]

Ho ho, Jackie Smith- Hypocrite of the highest order! http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2007/07/19/do1906.xml :bitchy:

[sleeping giant]

What public concern? The only concern I have dedtected has been media and politico driven pesh about the potency of skunk. There is absolutely no evidence to say that psychiatric wards are filling up with people who have fried their brains on the stuff.

.
That old chestnut eh ?
Skunk WAS very potent 15 years ago. Things have rapidly moved on since then.

Skunk:greengrin
Give me Hindi Kush anyday of the week.

Skunk is like what Leb used to be. A disapointment:greengrin

[Betty Boop]

That old chestnut eh ?
Skunk WAS very potent 15 years ago. Things have rapidly moved on since then.

Skunk:greengrin
Give me Hindi Kush anyday of the week.

Skunk is like what Leb used to be. A disapointment:greengrinHindi Kush? Sounds delicious! :drool:

[Storar]

Can't beat the inconsistency of the general public:rolleyes:

[-Jonesy-]

And just when i thought the quality of street buds was improving from last year:grr:

[Onceinawhile]

i notice canada are softening their stance on it and are decriminalising it, also looking to make it legal.