Dubstepforum.com

didnt the david nutt thing happen before government changed?

MilkyPirate wrote:didnt the david nutt thing happen before government changed?

Yeah but they're capitalising on it... the media have made everyone think they've discredited science (they haven't at all haven't dealt with the evidence and logic of the original evidence-based stance) so it's given the Tory's free reign to bullshit as they see fit to get away with

The government aren't stupid they know what's good for the country (!) but it's a catch 22 - I personally don't like cannabis and know for a fact from several personable experiences it excaberates mental health problems, anyone that says they can handle it is brave or plain stupid...as far as the implications of society if it were legalised I don't care for the "for" argument much as I don't smoke it much at all but the against argument is that legalisation would rid streets of dealers, good thing surely people capitalising on peoples' misfortunes imo BUT the government have to tread carefully as there are different grades of cannabis.. skunk and the stronger types should just all be gathered and destoyed in a big fire imo and great if the locals get high off the fumes. But the more herbal types are beneficial for pain relief and general anxiety. So I'm on the fence for once without knowing the whole thing ..

[quote="jaydot"]The government aren't stupid they know what's good for the country (!)[quote]

You are correct in thinking the government aren't stupid, yet I fear that it is you that are stupid thinking they act for the good of the country!

For instance:
The Tory hegemony in government between 1979 and 1997 saw a very large decline in the standards of living for the average person while in that time the GDP of the UK increased and the gap between the top and bottom earners grew massively... That is to say, the country got richer on the whole but the majority of its inhabitants got poorer! (New) Labour weren't much better, if at all.

The government knew this, yet did nothing about it. In fact, Thatcher actually encouraged everyone to "work for themselves" and got rid of any safeguards to stop exploitation (actively attacking the unions) at the same time as deregulating the financial industry that got us in to the mess we are in today - this rhetoric and ideology of individualism ignores the workings of the economic system to create a game of 'divide and conquer' that allowed corporations to monopolise everything and screw the average person over.

So now we have this scenario:

There is a lot of evidence for reclassifying drug laws...
...but this is at odds with the Conservative's message of "all drugs are bad and everyone who does them should go to jail"...
...so the solution is drop the need to consider evidence!

This is not new as:

The Chancellor's Autumn Statement was released to outline how to deal with the current economic crisis....
...analysts said the strategy would put 100,000 extra children below the povert line (in addition to the 1/3 that are already classified as such)...
...David Cameron subsequently announces that child poverty will no longer be measured as an indicator of economic performance.

I hope you're beginning to see a pattern emerging!

jaydot wrote:the government have to tread carefully as there are different grades of cannabis.. skunk and the stronger types should just all be gathered and destoyed in a big fire imo and great if the locals get high off the fumes. But the more herbal types are beneficial for pain relief and general anxiety. So I'm on the fence for once without knowing the whole thing ..

skunk is often mentioned recently as a kind of last-ditch attempt to justify prohibition, but the argument doesn't hold water. let's suppose, for the sake of argument, that skunk is far more dangerous. the switch to skunk, which has happened in the last few years (though we don't know how great this switch has been, because all the stats are wildly inaccurate, because of prohibition) is an accidental consequence of the UK authorities' greater success in reducing imports of cannabis, which has led to more production in the UK, where production methods tend to be different (due to climate). the authorities took many years to even notice this was happening. that is how little control there is when something is a "controlled substance": none. if it was legal, they could regulate how it's produced, packaged, sold; they could also put more tax on more harmful forms. compare tobacco: there are detailed regulations, and because it's legal, they are generally obeyed.

jaydot wrote:the government have to tread carefully as there are different grades of cannabis.. skunk and the stronger types should just all be gathered and destoyed in a big fire imo and great if the locals get high off the fumes. But the more herbal types are beneficial for pain relief and general anxiety. So I'm on the fence for once without knowing the whole thing ..

tyger wrote:skunk is often mentioned recently as a kind of last-ditch attempt to justify prohibition, but the argument doesn't hold water. let's suppose, for the sake of argument, that skunk is far more dangerous. the switch to skunk, which has happened in the last few years (though we don't know how great this switch has been, because all the stats are wildly inaccurate, because of prohibition) is an accidental consequence of the UK authorities' greater success in reducing imports of cannabis, which has led to more production in the UK, where production methods tend to be different (due to climate). the authorities took many years to even notice this was happening. that is how little control there is when something is a "controlled substance": none. if it was legal, they could regulate how it's produced, packaged, sold; they could also put more tax on more harmful forms. compare tobacco: there are detailed regulations, and because it's legal, they are generally obeyed.

Apart from agreeing with this in the main, trying to use cannabis' increasing strength as a reason for prohibition is flawed in other ways. The difference in strength between a standard hash and a good weed is less than the difference between wine and beer, I don't drink the same volume of wine as I would do of beer. People aren't talking about prohibiting wine because drinking 4 pints of it will make you significantly more drunk than 4 pints of beer. We either accept that people can self regulate or we don't.

I'm also pretty sure that the levels of THC at 13-16% are found naturally occuring, a lot of cannabis breeding seems to be about merging and managing the various qualities of different strains rather than just a race to be the strongest. There are hash and weed out there with higher THC content but they haven't become the dominant strains in the same way we consume less whisky than we do wine.

That said I'm still conflicted about legalisation because of certain concerns I have with the capitalisation of the market for weed. The UK (and Ireland) is very different to the Netherlands and I'm not sure we would see the same kind of policy work here. We're talking larger numbers we're talking an pretty entrenched criminal enterprise generating a ton of money. Ideally we'd be left with a large number of small producers but I'm not sure that happens.

Key I think on cannabis is US policy, if the states allowing the medical use of cannabis stand firm and force a rethink on federal policy then I think we get a widespread review of cannabis use in Europe. At the moment I suspect that Europe is pretty beholden to the US war on drugs in latin america and aren't rushing to step out of line with them on weed.

tyger wrote:

jaydot wrote:the government have to tread carefully as there are different grades of cannabis.. skunk and the stronger types should just all be gathered and destoyed in a big fire imo and great if the locals get high off the fumes. But the more herbal types are beneficial for pain relief and general anxiety. So I'm on the fence for once without knowing the whole thing ..

skunk is often mentioned recently as a kind of last-ditch attempt to justify prohibition, but the argument doesn't hold water. let's suppose, for the sake of argument, that skunk is far more dangerous. the switch to skunk, which has happened in the last few years (though we don't know how great this switch has been, because all the stats are wildly inaccurate, because of prohibition) is an accidental consequence of the UK authorities' greater success in reducing imports of cannabis, which has led to more production in the UK, where production methods tend to be different (due to climate). the authorities took many years to even notice this was happening. that is how little control there is when something is a "controlled substance": none. if it was legal, they could regulate how it's produced, packaged, sold; they could also put more tax on more harmful forms. compare tobacco: there are detailed regulations, and because it's legal, they are generally obeyed.

I think the whole mental health issue is blown out of proportion.. if your prone to mental health issues it is shown that alcohol exacerbates the situation greatly as well..
The active ingredient that causes feels of paranoia and supposed mental health issues is the active ingredient THC but there is another ingredient Cannabinoid which counter acts the THC which gives feelings of well being and happiness.

The issue with the skunk and general strong sativa is that has a much higher ratio of THC to CBD therefore can potentially cause harm to people who are already prone to mental health issues. There has been a proven link to mental health problems related to alcohol consumption.

Final note by legalising cannabis individuals at least have the option whether to consume a sativa or indica. Indica has a higher levels of CBD giving the 'body high' greater sense of well being and helps with insomnia. At the moment the quality and product is in the hands of dealers therefore strong sativa maybe the only available product and since you have no choice you either don't smoke or take whats available.

test recordings wrote:

jaydot wrote:The government aren't stupid they know what's good for the country (!)

You are correct in thinking the government aren't stupid, yet I fear that it is you that are stupid thinking they act for the good of the country!

For instance:
The Tory hegemony in government between 1979 and 1997 saw a very large decline in the standards of living for the average person while in that time the GDP of the UK increased and the gap between the top and bottom earners grew massively... That is to say, the country got richer on the whole but the majority of its inhabitants got poorer! (New) Labour weren't much better, if at all.

The government knew this, yet did nothing about it. In fact, Thatcher actually encouraged everyone to "work for themselves" and got rid of any safeguards to stop exploitation (actively attacking the unions) at the same time as deregulating the financial industry that got us in to the mess we are in today - this rhetoric and ideology of individualism ignores the workings of the economic system to create a game of 'divide and conquer' that allowed corporations to monopolise everything and screw the average person over.

So now we have this scenario:

There is a lot of evidence for reclassifying drug laws...
...but this is at odds with the Conservative's message of "all drugs are bad and everyone who does them should go to jail"...
...so the solution is drop the need to consider evidence!

This is not new as:

The Chancellor's Autumn Statement was released to outline how to deal with the current economic crisis....
...analysts said the strategy would put 100,000 extra children below the povert line (in addition to the 1/3 that are already classified as such)...
...David Cameron subsequently announces that child poverty will no longer be measured as an indicator of economic performance.

I hope you're beginning to see a pattern emerging!

I'm rampantly anti-Tory so it's rare for me to "back up" this government. But look at a poster above me's views on it, he mentions the Americans' stance- I think a lot of Cameron's policies are there to pacify America and Europe for greater cohesion aka backing each other up in wars (I digress though here but) the UK's decision to outlaw cannabis could be used as a tool against ultimately if people cry out for it more, the government and tabloid media (the Sun, urgh) that now effectively sing from the same songsheet will always use something against the Joe Bloggs of this world (and I mean that irrespective of their "social class".. one individual or a collective of effectively youths and under 28s calling for their recreational drug to be outlawed (?) you can't beat this government and the media it works closely with.. I think secretly the government wanted the riots so they could justify them as "feral youths running amok" to twist people's arm further under 24's are slowly being scuppered in this country-all Cameron and co care about is educated, white, middle-class, Southern voters to vote him back in and anyone he can swing slyly.

scspkr99 wrote:That said I'm still conflicted about legalisation because of certain concerns I have with the capitalisation of the market for weed. The UK (and Ireland) is very different to the Netherlands and I'm not sure we would see the same kind of policy work here. We're talking larger numbers we're talking an pretty entrenched criminal enterprise generating a ton of money. Ideally we'd be left with a large number of small producers but I'm not sure that happens.

if you legalize it properly, there's no economic basis for illegal trade. the illegal price has to be high enough to cover all the extra costs and risks of trading illegally; if that comes to more than the legal, fully-taxed price, then there is no illegal trade.

(obviously if you only legalize cannabis, the traffickers still have all the other prohibited drugs.)

scspkr99 wrote:Key I think on cannabis is US policy, if the states allowing the medical use of cannabis stand firm and force a rethink on federal policy then I think we get a widespread review of cannabis use in Europe. At the moment I suspect that Europe is pretty beholden to the US war on drugs in latin america and aren't rushing to step out of line with them on weed.

yes, the US is key. there is a lot of reluctance to change policy, especially at federal government level, but growing pressures for change. the medical marijuana movement. and now also an anti-prohibition movement in mexico, which has suffered some of the worst consequences of the drug war (c. 50,000 murders since president calderon militarized the war). it may seem odd to suggest a mexican movement can influence the US, when it has always been the US telling mexico what to do, but the US is also deeply dependent on mexico.