Re: Officers 'mistook tomatoes for cannabis'


"sobriquet" <dohduhdah@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1184458954.760746.47590@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On 15 jul, 00:32, "Mark Whiteley" <mark.whitele...@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
"sobriquet" <dohduh...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:1184426703.465369.167520@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx





On 13 jul, 12:43, "Mark Whiteley" <mark.whitele...@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
"Phil Stovell" <p...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:pan.2007.07.13.09.02.14.919213@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 09:45:00 +0100, Claude wrote:

In article <pan.2007.07.13.06.56.01.808...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
p...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Phil Stovell) wrote:

*From:* Phil Stovell <p...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> *Date:* Fri, 13 Jul
2007
07:56:02 +0100

On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 00:58:00 +0100, Claude wrote:

In article <pan.2007.07.12.11.48.35.14...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
p...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Phil Stovell) wrote:

*From:* Phil Stovell <p...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> *Date:* Thu, 12 Jul
2007
12:48:36 +0100

On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 11:30:00 +0100, Claude wrote:

Have you *ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER* that anyone has ever gone
to prison
in the UK for 12 months, for a 1971 MDA offence of growing
*ONE*
cannabis plant.

None at all :-).

EXACTLY. If I ever let you away with your typical nonsense it is
because I
am too busy with real work.

At least that's written down in the MDA. It's written down that
cannabis
is not significantly stronger than 30 years ago - except in the
anti-weed
tabloid press and bandwagon Tories.
We agree, I have told them ad nauseam-edited version follows
********************
Continued reference to a huge increase in the strength of cannabis
is
destroying the credibility of those in the Conservative Party who
speak
about such matters. Recent press reports quote IDS (and today Mr
Cameron),
doing just that. It will be electorally damaging because there is
a
very
large constituency of voters (ex and current users) who know it is
largely
nonsense. Yes there is some strong cannabis about, there has always
(in
the last 37 years of my studying the subject) been, strong cannabis
in
the
UK. Sadly the Conservatives majoring on strength, is a failure to
deal
with the most important issue-early & continuous use.

I repeat, the increased damage from cannabis is mainly as a result
of
changes in:

1. Age of first use.

2. Frequency of use.

The idea that cannabis is substantially stronger stemmed originally
from
the US where the dominant product in use was herbal cannabis
(marijuana).
There, the idea is certainly true, but even they only speak (very
recently- )of a 3 times increase. The super-strength idea has been
taken
up in the UK as not much more than an eye catching newspaper
headline
and
by people who know no better.

In the UK and western europe the dominant cannabis product has been
resin
(hashish). This was actually stronger typically in the 70s than it
is
now
because of the origin, mainly then, in South West Asia (Pakistan &
Afghan
black). Herbal cannabis was quite difficult to sell in the 70s in
the
UK
because it was weak.

It *IS TRUE* that selected herbal cannabis grown in the UK & the
Netherlands (Nederweit) is getting stronger, as it is getting
stronger
it
is gaining more acceptability. It is also gaining acceptability
because
some of the resin available is of very poor quality now and there
is
increased enforcement in Morocco. South West Asian Heroin is not so
available, traffickers there are now concentrating on heroin
supply.

Whatever the strength of the cannabis used, there is an element of
"self
titration" when cannabis is used, so strength ALONE may not create
quite
the problem Tory party spokesmen are saying.

Finally, it is my opinion that the relevant ratio of THC and CBD ie
the
relationship/ratio between these two substances) may be a relevant
factor
in mental problems. That supposition needs more research but there
is
some
academic collateral for the idea.

Blimey! We agree, except in what to do about it.

You beat me to it !! As you say the difference's come in how to
handle
it
not in the overall facts. At least our resident prohibtionist keeps
his
integrity and honesty intact and hasn't fallen into the tabloid crap.
To
be
fair he keeps to the truth and his opinions of how to handle it might
vary
but he is entitled to them. Even though we sometimes diss him with
regards
to his views on alcohol. It's all good fun !!!

--
Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet
weergeven -

- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven -- Tekst uit
oorspronkelijk
bericht niet weergeven -

- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven -

But lets keep in mind Claude is a major hypocrite for condoning a
lethal drug like alcohol and condemning
a far less hazardous drug like cannabis.
Claude is a fascist because he fundamentally denies people the right
to govern over their own body and mind and relegates this right
to the government.
Are people entitled to have an opinion that conflicts with basic human
rights? In my opinion, they are not. I think having an opinion that
denies other people basic human rights is criminal. Like having the
opinion for instance that certain minorities like Jews, homosexuals or
cannabis consumers should be criminalized or worse.

I don't want all drugs legalised currently. Does this make me a fascist??
I
certainly don't view myself as one !! Heroin is a dangerous substance,
crack is even worse. I wouldn't want them available in cafe's on street
corners. Maybe you could dish it out from a pharmacy.

For addictive drugs like those I think it's a bit of a different
discussion since people who use them can be argued not to use them out
of their own free will.
But at a fundamental level, it's a question of whether or not people
have the right to become addicted to something, whether it's an
addiction to sports, gambling, sex or heroin. Do we, as a society,
allow addiction or do we overrule
this kind of behavior and start interfering with people's individual
freedom at the point where it can be argued they are no longer in
control over their own behavior?
For me, fascism amounts to unjust interference with people's
lifestyle, and the degree to which interference is justified can be
debated. The government can decide that homosexuality is an
undesirable aberration from the norm and decide to lock people up,
simply because they happen to deviate from the norm with respect to
their sexual preference. Is that fascistic? Well, in my opinion it is.
Similarly, it's fascistic from my perspective if the government
decides that people who happen to prefer cannabis instead of alcohol
are criminals and should be locked up.
Why should the government have the right to criminalize people for
behavior that primarily affects themselves? Can the government lock
people up for self-mutilation?
Another discussion is whether or not this approach of criminalization,
in order to discourage or prevent undesirable behavior, is an
effective one. I think in the case of heroin or other addictive
substances, there are more sensible approaches which might be more
effective that don't necessarily involve criminalizing people.

While I support the legalization of ALL drugs, that doesn't mean I
think they should all become legalized overnight and there should be
no regulation whatsoever. Only in case of cannabis I think it can be
argued there is no reason whatsoever why it can't be legalized
overnight (though I'm still in favor of regulation of cannabis similar
to how alcohol and tobacco are regulated). For more serious
psychedelics, like shrooms, LSD, etc., I think a gradual transition
would be better, with a campaign to educate people about the risks
with the eventual objective of allowing free access by well-informed
adults to psychedelics.
Up to this point, we're talking about drugs that people take out of
free will, where addiction is not an issue and the case for people's
right to decide for themselves whether or not to use these substances
(despite these substances having a considerable risk for people's
mental health) is fairly strong.
For addictive drugs like cocaine, meth, heroin, crack, etc. I think an
even more cautious approach is justified, but the eventual goal can be
free access to these drugs for well-informed adults all the same.
Because, I think people have the right to govern their own mind and
body and that includes the right to harm themselves, to allow
themselves to become addicted, etc. and besides, I think that
criminalization is not an appropriate approach towards discouraging
selfdestructive behavior.

Agreed, criminalising is not the way to go and what's more doesn't work
addicts go in get clean come out take drugs. I would be happy to try
something like you describe a gradual move towards regulation. When we look
at the 1900 very few people took pure refined substances. Most took these
drugs in a dilute form i suspect the people had a fair bit of knowledge on
how to use drugs like many of the users today. The rest of society would be
ill equipped to deal with it and strong education programs would have to be
set up too



What if number of users didn't just go back to pre prohibition levels,
but
in fact far surpassed them. How would we be able to pay for it?? We are
unable to support our elderly people as it is today. We need all the
workers
we can get.

Quite the contrary, people need to stop working for a while and think
what the hell they are doing to their environment. A lack of
productivity is the least of our problems these days. We should think
about a better way to distribute the wealth and guarantee equal
opportunities for all people as best as we can.
We should also think about the nature of a government and what
governments are allowed and expected to do. Because at the moment the
government seems little more than an extension of multinational
corporations. We should have a government that protects basic human
rights rather than a government that infringes upon them and the
government should be completely transparent and accountable. Also,
from my anarchistic political conviction, I think a government should
strive to make itself redundant by emancipating people up to the point
where a government is no longer needed and people have achieved a
level of awareness where they realize they should respect other
people's freedom if they expect others to respect theirs. Awareness is
the ultimate basis for both freedom and responsibility and I think
there is an analogy between parents having the responsibility to
educate their offspring up to the point where they are responsible for
their own actions and the government educating its citizens up to the
point where they become self-governing.
With contemporary information communication technology we can actually
achieve a huge leap in the proliferation of knowledge as it comes out
of scientific endeavors and we can permanently eradicate religious
delusions, war, poverty, etc.

In my mind the government needs to get involved if few are making if
difficult for the many. I mean as in the society i described in my last mail
where you had huge numbers of addicts relying on those working. We in the UK
seem unable to do anything cheaply. I think the last figure i saw said it
would take £17,000 per addict to provide a full provision service. It's
ridiculous considering that you could teach classes at a time on how to
inject safely. Some diabetes suffers have to inject themselves daily so it's
not like there isn't precedence. So if there is a huge drain on the rest by
any one section that's when the government get involved and should look at
how to address it IMHO anyway. Principally though they should protect human
rights

I suspect that any move toward liberalisation would be driven from Europe,
there is talk about a common drugs policy. With many states in Europe having
relaxed laws not just Holland but Germany and Italy too it is likely the UK
would have to follow suit. I'm certain that would be done on the back of
strengthening Europe's drug laws when it comes to other drugs. This would be
taken by the British public how are for soft drugs to some extent but
totally against hard drugs.

As you say psycadelics, which aren't addictive in the true sense and have
been used in spiritual journeys since man evolved, should be allowed for the
informed adult. The government has wrongly taken away some of the mystic and
spiritual aspects of man. I believe that all have the right to go on such
journeys if they desire ad it isn't at the cost of the rest of society.

To me it's all about balance, i accept that at the moment the government is
way too interfering and needs to back off. One of the man traits of humans
is survival and thus most people will always show some discretion.

Interesting mail.

M.

Huge numbers of addicts unable to work would bring this country
to it's knees. Standards of living would plummet for 'all' even those who
never took drugs. We are in a global world and our jobs could be moved
out
of the UK at any time if they couldn't find sufficient workers or the
workers were intoxicated. Drugs would be available to many many more
people
than they were in the 1900 due to globalisation and population increases.

I believe that we should have social security and the national health.

Maybe you feel it would be good news for our economic systems to fall
apart.
We would end up back in the dark ages. At best there would be a massive
underclass, those addicted to heroin. We have one already. Eventually
those
that were not addicted would get sick of funding the bill. Some addicts
would work but i fear the majority would end up on benefits as they do
today.

This is hypothetical but it could happen we just don't know how use would
increase. I would like to know people were more or less certain we would
be
in no worse a position than we are now. Currently they are not or it
would
be legal. For that we need to legalise at least one of the currently
illegal
drugs.

The risks with cannabis are far less, i support it's legalisation.
Decriminalisation wouldn't work and would only give a legal outlet for
criminals to sell other drugs. Even in Holland criminal gangs still
control
supply as it's still illegal to produce it. I'm not sure how many coffee
shops secretly produce their own thus don't really rely on the criminal
network or how many suppliers aren't involved in other crime. Thus not
criminals in the sense of terrorists. This half way measure really does
put
the money in the pockets of the International criminal gangs. Hence it
need
to be legalisation.

It may actually reduce the numbers of users of other drugs as it would
give
an outlet for those who don't like alcohol but want to indulge in some
form
of 'chemical induced' relaxation. Further we would be able to use it to
get
some idea of how numbers may pan out for other drugs if they were ever
made
legal.

It would have the potential to be the biggest social catastrophe of all
time
even bigger than prohibition.

I guess I'd just like to see how one illegal drug panned out in a legal
market before opening the floodgate. Fascist i don't think so.- Tekst uit
oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven -

- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven -




.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Officers mistook tomatoes for cannabis
    ... Continued reference to a huge increase in the strength of cannabis is ... to the government. ... I don't want all drugs legalised currently. ... are criminals and should be locked up. ...
    (uk.politics.drugs)
  • Re: Rosie Boycott in Hyde Park, 1998 (Re: Brown On Smack)
    ... Committee, the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, the ... Centre for Monitoring of Drugs and Drug Addiction, ... The argument that 'this isn't the cannabis you smoked in college/ ... Here is from the 1998 Rosie Boycott: ...
    (uk.politics.drugs)
  • Re: Awesome
    ... What is inherently 'unclean' about alcohol or cannabis? ... not the cause of the addiction. ... Some people can be functional all their lives doing these things. ... I don't need drugs to socialize, get laid or be part of the ...
    (rec.music.progressive)
  • Ireland Considers Vaccinating Against Drug Addiction
    ... Ireland Considers Vaccinating Against Drug Addiction ... The Irish government is being asked to consider a radical approach to ... "People could be vaccinated against drugs at birth as you are against ...
    (sci.med.nutrition)
  • Re: OT Civil Liberties (Was Samir Golescu)
    ... susceptibility to heroin addiction by 1.5%? ... Cannabis is regulated in Holland. ... dim view of anyone trying to sell other, harmful drugs in their stores. ... Do you know what, e.g., meth addiction is like? ...
    (rec.music.classical.recordings)