You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > 'Harmless'
November 23 2024 10.43pm

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

'Harmless'

Previous Topic | Next Topic


Page 2 of 9 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 >

  

nickgusset Flag Shizzlehurst 16 Feb 15 9.49pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 16 Feb 2015 9.40pm

Quote dougster at 16 Feb 2015 5.44pm

There are so many variables and different studies supporting both ends of the argument, but I believe momentum is building behind legalisation.


I believe it is a fact cannabis can be a trigger for mental illness, which is what this serves to highlight. I don't think any reasonable person would have denied that prior to this study. Despite that, the benefits of cannabis being legalised or decriminilised, in my view at least, far outweigh the negatives for society as a whole. Some will always fall victim to misuse, but that can said of any substance consumed by man.

I noted a new organisation, describing themselves as a political party, has launched, calling themselves "CISTA", Cannabis Is Safer Than Alcohol. Could that be the start of a movement? I doubt it, but change is coming and would be welcomed by me, despite this report.


Instances of psychosis in the population haven't increased significantly, or proportionally to the increased levels of cannabis use in society - Which suggests that whilst a correlational effect is at work, it isn't a strong causal factor - especially given the studies focus on very high quantity abusers (who are drawn from a psychiatric pool).

Its also particually note worthy that psychiatry doesn't regard schizophrenia as generally being caused by environmental factors (and certainly not by environmental factors exclusively), often focusing on genetic and biological casual factors.

So whilst the studies author is keen to push the idea of a causal relationship, its worth noting that this is generally completely against the trend of psychiatry regarding epidemiological factors.

Likely as not, heavy substance abuse, is more consistent with the development of disorders such as schizophrenia, rather than causal. Certainly, you would expect instances of autopsies to show some organic brain tissue damage as a result of cannabis use resulting in schizophrenia.



[Link]

Funnily enough I've just read this article on correlation and causation.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
jamiemartin721 Flag Reading 16 Feb 15 11.00pm

Quote nickgusset at 16 Feb 2015 9.49pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 16 Feb 2015 9.40pm

Quote dougster at 16 Feb 2015 5.44pm

There are so many variables and different studies supporting both ends of the argument, but I believe momentum is building behind legalisation.


I believe it is a fact cannabis can be a trigger for mental illness, which is what this serves to highlight. I don't think any reasonable person would have denied that prior to this study. Despite that, the benefits of cannabis being legalised or decriminilised, in my view at least, far outweigh the negatives for society as a whole. Some will always fall victim to misuse, but that can said of any substance consumed by man.

I noted a new organisation, describing themselves as a political party, has launched, calling themselves "CISTA", Cannabis Is Safer Than Alcohol. Could that be the start of a movement? I doubt it, but change is coming and would be welcomed by me, despite this report.


Instances of psychosis in the population haven't increased significantly, or proportionally to the increased levels of cannabis use in society - Which suggests that whilst a correlational effect is at work, it isn't a strong causal factor - especially given the studies focus on very high quantity abusers (who are drawn from a psychiatric pool).

Its also particually note worthy that psychiatry doesn't regard schizophrenia as generally being caused by environmental factors (and certainly not by environmental factors exclusively), often focusing on genetic and biological casual factors.

So whilst the studies author is keen to push the idea of a causal relationship, its worth noting that this is generally completely against the trend of psychiatry regarding epidemiological factors.

Likely as not, heavy substance abuse, is more consistent with the development of disorders such as schizophrenia, rather than causal. Certainly, you would expect instances of autopsies to show some organic brain tissue damage as a result of cannabis use resulting in schizophrenia.



[Link]

Funnily enough I've just read this article on correlation and causation.

With a link to the spurious correlations website. Never to be underestimated.

 


"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
Seth Flag On a pale blue dot 17 Feb 15 12.15am Send a Private Message to Seth Add Seth as a friend

For once the US is leading the way in a sensible rethinking and reconfiguration of cannabis laws.

For once we're not following the US's example.

Typical that on this one important issue, where our laws are so demonstrably counterproductive, hideously expensive and horrendously ill-conceived, we fail to take our lead from what America is doing.

 


"You can feel the stadium jumping. The stadium is actually physically moving up and down"
FA Cup MOTD 24/4/16

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
Stirlingsays Flag 17 Feb 15 12.51am Send a Private Message to Stirlingsays Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add Stirlingsays as a friend

I fall down on the side of keeping it illegal.

There are well worn counter arguments to every 'pro' argument.

I've had to teach this issue a couple of times when covering for 'ethics'.....There arr plenty of arguments on both sides ....like abortion it tends to divide minds....And people become very certain that their belief on the issue is the right one...It often comes across to me as having more to do with their personal or family culture.

I could live with them legalizing all drugs....without really agreeing with it....But as long as the state takes a position.

Edited by Stirlingsays (17 Feb 2015 12.51am)

 


'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
Seth Flag On a pale blue dot 17 Feb 15 1.32am Send a Private Message to Seth Add Seth as a friend

Quote Stirlingsays at 17 Feb 2015 12.51am

I could live with them legalizing all drugs....But as long as the state takes a position.


Yes, if the state's position is evidence-based, focused on regulation, quality control and harm reduction, then I totally agree.

 


"You can feel the stadium jumping. The stadium is actually physically moving up and down"
FA Cup MOTD 24/4/16

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
matt_himself Flag Matataland 17 Feb 15 5.23am Send a Private Message to matt_himself Add matt_himself as a friend

A guide to being a 'stoner':

[Link]

Don't do it kids.

Edited by matt_himself (17 Feb 2015 5.25am)

 


"That was fun and to round off the day, I am off to steal a charity collection box and then desecrate a place of worship.” - Smokey, The Selhurst Arms, 26/02/02

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
jamiemartin721 Flag Reading 17 Feb 15 7.34am

Quote Seth at 17 Feb 2015 1.32am

Quote Stirlingsays at 17 Feb 2015 12.51am

I could live with them legalizing all drugs....But as long as the state takes a position.


Yes, if the state's position is evidence-based, focused on regulation, quality control and harm reduction, then I totally agree.

Generally states could do a lot worse than take an evidence based focus on all kinds of policy, rather than whats popular with voters.


 


"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
Stirlingsays Flag 17 Feb 15 1.17pm Send a Private Message to Stirlingsays Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add Stirlingsays as a friend

Quote Seth at 17 Feb 2015 1.32am

Quote Stirlingsays at 17 Feb 2015 12.51am

I could live with them legalizing all drugs....But as long as the state takes a position.


Yes, if the state's position is evidence-based, focused on regulation, quality control and harm reduction, then I totally agree.


'Evidence based'....Whose's evidecne? Different sets of evidence will show different things. Which set of evidence is accurate? You get your 'picks' you gets your choice.

'focused on regulation, quality control'......Why do you think that regulating the distribution of drugs means that the black market won't undercut it?

What makes you believe that we won't continue to have the same problem? All you are doing is driving down the price.....The racket still continues unless you make it practically free....Just because the official stuff is safer it doesn't mean that a significant number of people will continue to use either cheaper non regulated drugs or something more dangerous because it's new.

'Harm reduction'.....That also depends upon a definition....If you increase the number of users by legalising then you might be increasing the harm overall but just making it safer for those more committed drug takers.

Edited by Stirlingsays (17 Feb 2015 3.27pm)

 


'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
dannyh Flag wherever I lay my hat....... 17 Feb 15 1.28pm Send a Private Message to dannyh Add dannyh as a friend

I think moderation is the key here, sounds a bit obvious and thats maybe because it is, if you drink loads you'll be an tramp fuel drinking alcoholic who dies of liver/kidney failure.

If you smoke loads of mental Skunk everyday, you'll end up taking a long walk of a short pier (so to speak).

The elephant in the room in this topic is self control or more lack of it. Also the reasons behind alcoholism or drug dependancey are normally to do with the individuals own lot in life.

 


"It's not the bullet that's got my name on it that concerns me; it's all them other ones flyin' around marked 'To Whom It May Concern.'"

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
Rubin Flag 17 Feb 15 1.45pm Send a Private Message to Rubin Add Rubin as a friend

Quote TreeJr at 16 Feb 2015 5.39am

"They also concluded the use of hash, a milder form of the drug, was not associated with increased risk of psychosis."

I'm not in favour of it, just pointing it out for the sake of argument. And there are a lot of worse things out there which are legal.


This is one of the main arguments for decriminalisation/legalisation for me. It's literally impossible (from past experience) to get anything other than the modified skunk, where you have no idea what you are buying, and this is the stuff that messes with peoples heads.

Make it available through legal avenues so people have the choice, and stop the (brain) rot.

Widening it, those that most often call for heroin decriminalisation are the mother's of dead heroin addicts, as they've ended up dying from an overdose that was either unknowingly not heroin or a lot higher strength than they were normally buying.

Edited by Rubin (17 Feb 2015 1.54pm)

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
silvertop Flag Portishead 17 Feb 15 2.13pm Send a Private Message to silvertop Add silvertop as a friend

Quote We are goin up! at 16 Feb 2015 9.19am

Should be legal, as should ecstasy. Both are a lot less harmful/addictive than alcohol and smoking, as outlined by the drugs report commissioned by the government, who then sacked the guy who wrote it (forget his name) because it didn't fit in with their policy. Would also be much safer than picking up off a dealer that's mixed it with all sorts, meaning less deaths (that's what we all want right?) and would make the government a sh*t load in cash, as well as reducing street crime. What's not to like?


You are wasting your breath. The elderly genuinely believe that cannabis is the same as heroin. There is no difference in effect, addiction and deaths. Their views are fuelled by tabloid hysteria and research that proves - as Jamie says - that the sort of hash available through clandestine means is harmful. They are the most politically vociferous body in the country and their vote dictates power. Matters may advance in the next generation but not in this one. No main party can risk it.

And it is not just the elderly who are misinformed. I asked quite a senior policeman once why it would not be better to sell cannabis in Oxo cube size packages at your local tobacconist. Quality can be assured; the treasury's coffers can be enriched; as can many of the 3rd world countries where cannabis grows naturally. His answer was [and I kid you not] if people smoke cannabis, they are likely to progress to harder drugs. Huh? Most do not progress; those who do are likely to because their dealer also has a supply of more dangerous substances. If you are getting your gear from Mr Shah's corner shop, the only other substance he can line you up with is baked beans and out of date Satsuma's!

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
nickgusset Flag Shizzlehurst 17 Feb 15 2.19pm

Quote silvertop at 17 Feb 2015 2.13pm

Quote We are goin up! at 16 Feb 2015 9.19am

Should be legal, as should ecstasy. Both are a lot less harmful/addictive than alcohol and smoking, as outlined by the drugs report commissioned by the government, who then sacked the guy who wrote it (forget his name) because it didn't fit in with their policy. Would also be much safer than picking up off a dealer that's mixed it with all sorts, meaning less deaths (that's what we all want right?) and would make the government a sh*t load in cash, as well as reducing street crime. What's not to like?


You are wasting your breath. The elderly genuinely believe that cannabis is the same as heroin. There is no difference in effect, addiction and deaths. Their views are fuelled by tabloid hysteria and research that proves - as Jamie says - that the sort of hash available through clandestine means is harmful. They are the most politically vociferous body in the country and their vote dictates power. Matters may advance in the next generation but not in this one. No main party can risk it.

And it is not just the elderly who are misinformed. I asked quite a senior policeman once why it would not be better to sell cannabis in Oxo cube size packages at your local tobacconist. Quality can be assured; the treasury's coffers can be enriched; as can many of the 3rd world countries where cannabis grows naturally. His answer was [and I kid you not] if people smoke cannabis, they are likely to progress to harder drugs. Huh? Most do not progress; those who do are likely to because their dealer also has a supply of more dangerous substances. If you are getting your gear from Mr Shah's corner shop, the only other substance he can line you up with is baked beans and out of date Satsuma's!


Have you ever smoked out of date satsuma peel?

Should be outlawed.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply

  

Page 2 of 9 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > 'Harmless'