Regular readers will recall the confused mess that is this government’s cannabis policy. There has been a drop in cannabis consumption since it was downgraded from Class B to C, but nevertheless they want to put it back up to Class B again. Yes, we know all about the argument that what you ingest is entirely your business, it …
I asked John Major about this in the early 90s
And his department sent me some interesting documents.
Basically, cannabis is not illegal in this country because it's harmful. It's illegal because we are signatories on international agreements which say we will keep it illegal.
The schizophrenia stuff merely diverts attention away from the fact that we don't have the power to legalize cannabis in our own country.
Although a nice side-effect is that it makes sure that shmokers constantly have to "debate" their drug "abuse" with their parents and/or SOs who read about it in the papers and become "concerned". (Funny that my wife "knows" that cannabis causes schizophrenia but she doesn't know who John McCain is ...)
myself and many of my friends have been smoking 1/2 their lives. ok, so im lazy... well i have been since i was 12 so thats not the pot then ;)
i hardly drink yet my chosen vice (much less harmful than alcohol) is now deemed to be as bad for you as speed!
it just gives such bollocks signals from the government. im perfectly able to do all kinds of dangerous things - yet not allowed to do something that only mentalists should beware of.
why am i allowed to grow an oak tree but not a cannabis plant?
i read (in the guardian?) a few weeks ago that number of deaths directly attributable to alcohol and tobacco was estimated to be around 150,000 per annum in the UK.
contrastingly, the UN figure for deaths directly attributable to cannabis was...
hypocrisy/pandering to the brewers, distillers and cigarette manufacturers?
think of all that money and time wasted on policing, rehabiliation, looking after victims of robbery could be saved and out to good use (never mind the tax that could be raised if sales were licensed) if they just did the sensible thing.. or at least the halfway sensible and allowed people to grow their own. after all, its a naturally occuring plant, with a lethal dose somewhere in the same region as that of chocolate, and i can see no reason other than purely political to ban it.
even my old man, approaching his 80's agrees.
obviously he doesn't read the daily mail enough
I'd love to see a report that compares booze to cannabis? that would be a good read and those that say it leads on to harder drugs what a crock of crap i bet alcohol leads on to harder drugs more than cannabis ever did, just go into a toliet in a pub at the weekend? all that booze in the pub is what makes 'em go in there not the spliff they had to unwind after work.
No i'm sorry to say but i think in 1000 years time if where all still here they maybe looking at these times as the freedom crushing times they are like to live in (and it was a Labour goverment that started the suppression of freedom, go figure).....and its getting worse.....last politician to leave the interment camps please turn off the lights.
Mines the coat with ID176485934832 - Anachist
Operation Shock and Draw
"there's not in fact one reason against the legalisation of the damn stuff and the increase in liberty and freedom that would result."
Look, these findings do argue against the reclassification, and if they bear up to further study then yes, we should certainly consider legalisation.
However, smoking pot doesn't really make you any more free, and such wild hyperbole just makes you look a bit of a moron.
Minus that sentence, it was an excellent article.
Seems a rational study. Like it will make any difference to the Government though. So I'll continue feeling like a criminal and feeling paranoid (haha) about making weekly pickups outside a pub, being unsure the quality of what I'm smoking, all because the Government won't pull it's finger out and tax the thing. Maybe it will be easier just to back to cigarettes (80,000 UK deaths a year) and alcohol (55,000 deaths a year plus violence, stabbings, STDs etc.).
*PS I pulled those figures out my butt but I don't think they're a million miles off, I'll stand corrected if someone does the research!
/goes off for a joint and a good philosophy book
i was going to leave a comment...
but by the time i got here i'd forgotten what it was.
damn short term memory loss!
who am i again?
yay for green!
Hooray I get to keep on kaning the herb and i wont go nuts....... wibble!
Well I have been smokin for years and had no probs other than a knackered memory. Its about time there was sensible input on cannabis use, you cant OD on it (A whitey isnt an OD by the way) and it doesnt make you violent (just lazy and stupid). Unlike alcohol......
The government should licence it to be sold to over 18's then they can tax the cr@p outta it and make a tasty profit just like with cigs and bboze.
The tokers win, and the government wins.
Sorted, I should be PM!
Flame cos im sure there will be the odd daily mail reader who will be incenced by this lol.
Ah well, England is not the only country where they are backpedaling .In, of all places, the Netherlands, legalization, and even the current relaxed status quo, are also under fire.
The reason? Not a failure of the policy (report after report shows that it succeeded in separating the distribution circuits of cannabis and heavier substances), but relative localized problems in the border cities (Roosendaal, Maastricht) where stoned Belgians and French that have heavily restricted policies in their own country, pave the streets.
However that kind of problem is not unique, and pretty normal for a semi-legalized drug. it's the same with the problems that e.g. Swedes that go to Estonia or Finland cause, in their quest for cheap alcohol.
Well, that's good news then.
Drugs are bad. And if you do drugs you're bad. 'Cause drugs are bad. Mmmkay.
"Thus there really is no logical leg for the government to stand upon in its reclassification of cannabis: there's not in fact one reason against the legalisation of the damn stuff and the increase in liberty and freedom that would result."
Of course there is. I refer you to your own words at the start of the article:
"that someone, somewhere, might be enjoying themselves and that this situation cannot be allowed to continue."
Enojying oneself? What an absurd concept. Don'tcha know that enjoying oneself is providing assistance to 'terrists'? Anyone who wants to have fun is obviously an outright bastard who might as well spit on the flag and send dismembered kittens to 'Our Boys In Iraq' (TM The Sun).
Far out man.
I did inhale
On a business trip to California a friend I met had grown some excellent buds. Everyone agreed they were 'the best shit' they had ever smoked. However for a week or so afterwards I did notice that words were on the tip of my tongue. This maybe was a mild memory loss effect but it was noticable and due to the smoking.
It was annoying enough for me not to want it to happen again.
cool, so it's just puritanical bullsh!t, then! (like everyone mostly suspected all along..)
it should be pointed out that, so i heard, the asset recovery agency (the ARA), can get ahold of class B assets, but not class C and that that was one of the main reasons behind reverting it back class B. nice eh?
indeed, we have yet to fully understand the benfits of hemp and weed..well, er, apart from that fact that a firin' up a great big spliff after me evenin' dinner, makes me feel REAL GOOD!
GO, cos we can all skin up, now!
p.s. stuff and nonsense: http://www.eupeople.net/forum
on related matters
I welcome the new analysis, science can so easily subverted into fuelling the propaganda war, just through selective funding, fear of exposure etc. Downgrading cannabis was the ONLY good thing Blair did. We now need to address the supply chain, it is not reasonable to expect the market demand to be met solely by criminal. How about treating the growing of a few plants much like home-brewing of beer, its legal as long as you don't sell it.... ?
Oh, and btw, if you like the odd puff, have you tried Salvia Divinorum? Its legal (for now) and OMG its the most wonderful 8 minutes you will ever spend, in a good setting, with e.g. "move on up" playing. Put hand in pocket and go for the 20x or 35x extract, take one lungful only and hold it.
No surprise here
Good. That's about as surprising as finding out that bears go to the toilet in the woods sometimes.
I used to work with people with a range of mental illnesses, and Schizophrenics were the most common. During that time, I formed the very strong impression that many regular tokers were not in the grips of drug-induced illnesses, it was more self-medication than anything else.
To be clear, I could not say that cannabis helped to alleviate any clinical symptoms directly, but I can guarantee you that it helped some users cope with the symptoms better. One client I worked with was prone to bouts of violence, during which we could either let him have a pint and a fight, tranquilise him to the point of unconsciousness and let him sleep for a couple of days, or we could turn a blind eye while he had a spliff, knocked off the Times crossword and then went to work as normal. Which do we think is better for everyone?
Purely anecdotal of course, I'm no pathologist.
We need proper studies like this to counter the misinformation in a lot of the media - they keep assuming that "link" means "cannabis use causes illness", when most of the "link" evidence is actually that it's the other way round.
Mine's the one with a Cheech and Chong video and a great big fat spliff in the pocket (can you hear the voices too?)
Just legalise it
would make the world a safer place.
I would open a coffee house, with good internet access and food, a place to chill away from the recession.
In fact it could turn the economy around, reduce the amount of alcohol related problems, free up some space in the legal system.
Aren't most of the anti cannabis league dead by now, not sure if anyone would see this as a negative any more, pretty much everyone has toked, sure the 60s lot are a bunch of hypocrites, but they are fickle enough to turn on a dime bag.
What have you been smoking, Tim?
It's hard to know where to begin with Tim's articles. They quite often go along sensibly for a couple of steps before shooting off on a tangent and denying the previous steps ever happened.
Here's the nub of the matter: if you place a priceless Ming vase at the top of some stairs and some numpty comes along and knocks it over, is that the fault of the numpty or the vase-arranger? Similarly, if someone is pre-disposed to mental illness, is it the fault of cannabis that it acted as the trigger when the person might otherwise have continued on happily without trouble? I would suggest both are equally the problem; there's no need to pick a single cause. Tim tries to play down the role of the weed but it's a somewhat selective view.
There's also a contradiction in the suggestion that warnings on marijuana would be appropriate, ignoring the fact that mental illness, by definition, often leaves a person incapable of making informed, rational decisions.
Maybe I'm just biased. Without exception, everyone I know who still smokes has .... erm .... issues. Of course, perhaps they would have anyway, but those who have given up are noticeably more in-touch with reality. Maybe I'm just biased. Or maybe I'm informed.
But does it make you dopey?
I used to teach basic IT. One student was a heavy user; I had to set thr 'doubleclick' speed on his computer to the slowest possible value and even the he missed the second click most of the time!
"contrastingly, the UN figure for deaths directly attributable to cannabis was...
Rubbish. How about a link from the UN (not some sourceless pro-drug site) to back that up? Why would they even bother measuring such a figure?
There are plenty of road deaths caused by people driving while high they just generally get lumped in with other DUI stats.
Tokers have known this for years
The 'war on drugs' should really be named the 'war on freedom'.
One of the main reasons that cannabis (and certain other drugs) are illegal is that it provides a base point for the idea that the state can tell an individual what they can and cannot do with their own body and mind.
This has been sustained over many, many years by a campaign of lies, and disinformation.
A prime example of this can be seen here : http://i38.tinypic.com/103c0w4.png
Cannabis being turned into heroin? I's like to see that being done. Maybe someone could turn this block of lead I have into gold as well?
Cannabis is indeed a gateway to harder and more dangerous drugs. It's extremely common for cannabis users to later become addicted to nicotine.
Don't code and smoke
For an IT angle: have you read code written by a pot-head? It might work (after a fashion) but its indecipherable. Coding and smoking pot don't mix :)
Mine's the sensible jacket with the leather elbow patches.
To the AC...
who pointed out that having a toke doesn't make you any freer, the point is that *being able to have a toke without fear of hassle* makes us all freer, whether we choose to indulge or not.
I've been in a mental hospital (as a patient), and the schizophrenics and those suffering from psychotic episodes generally used to self medicate on anything that was available - much as polar bears like myself tend to do (alcohol and a bit of smoke in my case).
Correlation is not causation, and a truly sane policy would legalise and tax cannabis in the same way as alcohol - I'd rather smoke than wreck my liver, any day of the week.
Mine's the one with the king-size Rizlas and a nice few buds in the pocket.
Wasting of police time and resource
There are criminals out there committing real crimes, decriminalising cannabis would save police a great deal of time and free them to pursue said real criminals. Yet the argument would remain that profits from drug trafficking/dealing fuel other more nasty crimes such as terrorist funding and forced prostitution. There is a solution to this, simply allow the cultivation of cannabis for personal use. If dealing remained illegal it would give the police an avenue by which they could eliminate the diversion of profits from cannabis sales into more objectionable criminal activities.
The ignorance of the masses regarding cannabis use along with misleading propaganda allows a relatively harmless drug such as cannabis to be deemed nasty and socially destructive. Whilst the use of genuinely destructive drugs such as alcohol to be socially acceptable.
Considering the amount of NHS resource given to treating the victims of alcohol abuse, the victims of alcohol related violence and the cost of policing city centers during pub and club closing times, I would have thought it would be more socially responsible for our government to encourage cannabis usage as an alternative to getting pissed and breaking someones face in a fit of alcohol induced rage.
It would be interesting to find out if the cost of policing and treating alcohol related crimes and injuries exceeds the tax income from alcohol sales. There is no choice here, resource has to be expended to protect society from socially irresponsible drinkers. Where is the benefit to society of busting someone for smoking a spliff on a park bench?
Mr Worstall can write a decent article when he's not out of his skull on his usual libertarian free-market pixie-dust.
Never mind, there is a cast iron effect of cannabis that will result in it still being banned: it gives you the munchies. There is even a drug, rimonabant, that blocks a subset of cannabinoid receptors and helps you lose weight to bolster the science (rimonabant makes you suicidal though).
So there you have it, instead of banning it to save us from schizophrenia they will ban it to prevent obesity. Easy, and supported by such august bodies as the British Heart Foundation no doubt.
However nice to see the most likely of the scenarios wrt schizophrenia finally proven, thanks for the report.
Interesting to see this article after your ridiculous bashing of New Scientist recently. I'm probably being a little Machiavellian in thinking that you feel the need to soft shoe away from that one and regain some "green cred", but still...
One thing that did strike me, though, was why didn't you take cannabis legalisation as an example of something that could be done to help the economy/increase GDP (through conversion of black market revenue into taxable revenue) instead of your fanciful notion of creating a nation of singers (ok, I know that was just an example, and I'm almost mis-characterising what you said)? While it's nice to see you debunking the hysteria over schizophrenia, it would also be nice if, as an economist, you could make an economic argument too. I'm sure I'd read that article with interest, should you choose to write it. (hint hint)
One final (pedantic) point: you still don't seem to notice the difference between "who" and "whom":
> [levels of schizophrenia are stable] or even falling, depending upon who[m] you ask
When the GDP gets too moribund...
...and the government has to look for a new statistic it can put a positive spin on, and gross happiness product (GHP) is revived, maybe incentives will change?
Smoking in moderation is fine....but smoke too much and your brain will end up like a wet sponge. I used to smoke an 8th to a 1/4th a day (sometimes more) and my brain felt like a wet sponge. I've just had about three weeks off it (longest time in about 5 years) and yes I can say I am more mentally alert, I am more active and I feel smarter.
So in short its not bad for your health, it just makes you dumber, lazier and apathetic. Remind me again why this isnt being rammed down our throats? I thought keeping the lower classes stupid, lazy and in a persistent attitude of 'BAH! I CBA!' is perfect government policy? I mean just look at TV...
But saying all that, Im a toker and always will be, I love the taste, I love the effects and I love the culture, and just as others have stated, I myself am not a big drinker, I like to smoke. And in my vast experience of the law, the average copper understands this. They really couldnt careless about cannabis - they are after the crack, the coke and the smack.
I personally like to apply something called the 'Zanzibar Test' to whether a drug should be legal; imagine a club turning out at 4am in the morning, if 3000 people emerge onto the streets high, lets say on coke - then there WILL be trouble, if they are high on weed, then there's just going to be que's for the local kebab shop!
Thats not really a valid point is it, you shouldnt drive under the influence of anything including certain legal medications. That doesnt mean that cannabis when used in the home or under "safe" conditions causes overdoses, violence etc. Thats just saying you shouldnt drive when spannered. No you shouldnt its naughty.
catch yourself saying yeahhh cosmic. and yeahhh im british. every half hour when you walk along the street after time traveling in your majical dreams. might catch a lion asleep on your living room floor.
besides that. its has nothing to do with making you a skitz
> Why would they even bother measuring such a figure?
Why would they [or the WHO or anyone else involved in formulating policy for that matter] bother measuring deaths attributable to heroin? Or alcohol? Or heart disease? I think the proper question is "why wouldn't they?"
> There are plenty of road deaths caused by people driving while high they just generally get lumped in with other DUI stats.
Since you're the one asking for supporting figures, I think it's only fair that you support this assertion with figures. Anything I've read about cannabis and driving suggests that people tend to be more risk-averse after consuming cannabis, and thus less likely to be the cause of an accident (use Google to find these, natch). But I'd like to see your supporting evidence, for the reason already given.
the only reason for the downgrade
Was because Blair wanted to go into Iraq. How else was he going to keep the masses of the left quiet? He downgraded pot so nobody could be bothered to go and protest. :)
Lets not kid ourselves, go read Jack herer's book http://www.jackherer.com/chapters.html and educate yourselves as to the reasons why cannabis is illegal, yet another great thing we can thank the great US of Assholes for.
Ahh to be an old time pot smoker...
Will the House of Lords do?
"The acute toxicity of cannabis and the cannabinoids is very low; no-one has ever died as a direct and immediate consequence of recreational or medical use (DH QQ 219 223). Official statistics record two deaths involving cannabis (and no other drug) in 1993, two in 1994 and one in 1995 (HC WA 533, 21 January 1998); but these were due to inhalation of vomit. Animal studies have shown a very large separation (by a factor of more than 10,000) between pharmacologically effective and lethal doses."
Four in 3 years in the UK is not "2, worldwide, ever", but it's unarguably pretty low.
Is it safe to drive on? No. Neither is alcohol, and you'll note that while alcohol is legal to consume, it's illegal to drive afterwards. Personally I'm not a fan of the stuff - I have friends with an unhealthy dependence on it and I'd much rather have a drink myself. But should it be banned? Given this study and the one referenced above, based on health grounds alone, probably not.
"There are plenty of road deaths caused by people driving while high they just generally get lumped in with other DUI stats."
Well that's fine then - you can classify those as "deaths caused by cannabis" when you are willing to classify every person killed in an alcohol-based DUI as "death by alcohol poisoning".
"Similarly, if someone is pre-disposed to mental illness, is it the fault of cannabis that it acted as the trigger when the person might otherwise have continued on happily without trouble? I would suggest both are equally the problem; there's no need to pick a single cause. Tim tries to play down the role of the weed but it's a somewhat selective view."
You're missing the point. If cannabis is a "trigger" rather than the cause, then there is no justification for banning it's use entirely just to prevent the non-existant explosion in schizophrenia cases. Furthermore, the study quoted shows that using cannabis had no effect on the probability of developing schizophrenia, so Tim wasn't trying to "play down the role" of cannabis, he was pointing out the fact that it had been _eliminated_ as a cause.
"Maybe I'm just biased. Without exception, everyone I know who still smokes has .... erm .... issues. Of course, perhaps they would have anyway, but those who have given up are noticeably more in-touch with reality. Maybe I'm just biased. Or maybe I'm informed."
Ever heard of selection bias? The fourth paragraph of the article states:
"There is certainly a correlation, but we should still want to know about causation before we take any further action. For it is possible, and it is a view advanced by some (like myself last time), that those who are about to become schizophrenic dose themselves on cannabis as they are known to on alcohol and any other substance that comes to hand to still the voices."
Maybe you should get yourself "informed" about the difference between correlation and causation.
Why is it people defending the goverments position have to post as AC, do they realise their arguement is weak and not want to be attached to it?
"However, smoking pot doesn't really make you any more free, and such wild hyperbole just makes you look a bit of a moron."
What are you on about, please explain how the above can be true without also defending the following statements:
> Being allowed outside of a goverment facility doesn't make you anymore free
> Choosing what food you eat doesn't make you anymore free
> Not having to wear a tagging device doesn't make you anymore free
> Being allowed to reproduce doesn't make you anymore free.
Everytime you are denied the freedom to do something you 'are' a little less free, sometimes this sacrifice is worthwhile (especially where that freedom would negatively affect others).
legalise and tax it?
Yes it should be legalised, all this article does is really inform a lot of people who already could have taken a guess at what it says turned out to be right. Thing is, if they legalised it, it's not something you can tax, because people would just grow their own, and not buy rom the corner shop like you do ciggies. The government really don't have any motive to legalise it, save to stop the lobbyists shouting at them every five minutes.
Good article though
You cannot expect someone to maintain a hightened amount of concentration for long periods. they may start off concentrating hard enough to compensate but over time they'll revert back to a standard level. It's then they'll be a risk. When you get unscientific experiments which support the "driver will compensate for it" viewpoint like the one on top gear, they're only driving for a minute or two.
In fact the cautiousness can be detrimental, over compensating for adverse conditions, not performing emergency overtaking.
There's a fairly balanced look at studies over on the DFT site
Dumber, lazier and apathetic.
@Richard Jukes - 'So in short its not bad for your health, it just makes you dumber, lazier and apathetic.'
Shhh. If the government gets wind of that, they won't just legalise it.
They'll make it compulsory.
Too many self-interested people
1. For every scientific survey, another will have a different conclusion and most of us will ignore the ones that are inconvenient, especially if they concern our own habits.
2. My daughter was very, very, very ill. I visited her in one hospital in the North and one in the Sourth of England. I saw rather a lot of patients. I spoke to a lot of staff. My sister-in-law worked with youngsters with various problems and backgrounds from illness to just bad families, in a third area (she had to deal with a couple of suicides where the child went home for the weekend and returned at once to "harmless" cannabis, plus others with less final results). I can assure you that those who have to pick up the fallen do not agree with this "harmless" judgement and will tell you that the combination of cannabis and lager is filling the hospitals. I live in a country (not Holland) where the stuff was tolerated for a while, even being sold in shops and openly smoked on trains. I can say without a doubt that, at least in young people, smoking cannabis does them no favours. Just ask teachers trying to teach them. Even my daughter is strongly against it now.
3. As anyone with serious, practical knowledge (not as a patient) can tell you, the effects are not just loss of memory and motivation (and libido apparently, plus loss of normal dreams); people react differently, as one would expect of drugs playing with your brain chemistry and some do become violent and their judgement about the safety of working or driving under the influence is rather less reliable than that of most drinkers.
4. Since when did the bad effects of, for instance, too much alcohol, smoking or fatty food justify the propagation of another problem? Just because nicotine is freely available (though being more and more restricted) why would you want to further more stuff?
5. Freedom! What would you know? Should I be free to take what I want from whom I want? To lie in a drugged or drunken stupor across bus seats or even on the pavement? Whose freedom? What about my freedom not to smell the stuff when out? Not to have to allow for idiots unaware of their mental state and not caring? I am relishing the spreading freedom of being able to eat in a restaurant or drink in a pub without choking on some nerd's cigarette smoke, brushing his ash off the chair and table and having to air my clothes for hours to get his stink out of them afterwards. Why is some inadequate person's freedom to fill his void with cannabis more important than mine to have clean air and not worry about the pothead in a car? Oh, read some real figures: several years ago it was all ready recognised that "recreational" drugs (i.e. not nedicinally necessary) are involved in a disproportionate number of accidents at work and on the road. And do not go on about responsible smoking or ingestion in your own home, unless you intend to stay there (no children in the house please) for a couple of daysafter your dose: I assume you do know it accumulates and the traces take nearly a month to clear completely from your system.
I am generally all for maximum freedom and personal responsibility. But the abiltiy of drug consumers to fool themselves is not reassuring. I could not care how great you feel on it. Perhaps I get my kicks out of dodging cars on the motorway: hardly a justification or evidence of lack of harm.
I've been smoking it for years and we're still fine
the harder drugs
weed doesnt lead nowhere. its gurlie to whiskey n ice. rock n roll and cornish pasties. all night down the pub. the working class can no longer chain smoke in standing around the pool table. see godzilla and beat his ass like arnie. and say im british again
@Too many self-interested people AC
Well done, you've just provided a lot of anecdotes and conjecture backed up by not a single fact, statistic or study.
The fact is that your anecdotes are based on experience in a hospital ad therefore your experiences self select to the catastrophic.
Not to mention you have not a shred of evidence that any of what you said was caused in any way by cannibis.
Did you consider that cannibis might be a symptom of suicidal tendencies in teenagers? That teenagers who are feeling that low, depressed and isolated may turn to drug use rather than drug-use make them that way?
No, in the same way as people in the 50s demonised rock music for making people behave a certain way, you have made a flawed assumption that weed caused the things you have seen. This study points out just how wrong you are.
And as for your right not to smell anything that offends your delicate nose - f*ck off mate. My freedom to fart trumps you right not to be nasally offended any day, or are we banning that next?
"Why is it people defending the goverments position have to post as AC, do they realise their arguement is weak and not want to be attached to it?"
It's because they've bought into the Government philosophy hook line and sinker and are therefore terrified to stand up and be counted. They honestly believe that all the people with names on these boards will band together and hunt them down like the dogs they are and stab them to death whilst wearing hoodies and screaming "infidel".
It's not cannabis that makes you paranoid, it's the fucking Government.
Oh, and it's also because their arguments are weak and they don't want to be attached to them. ;-)
>weed doesnt lead nowhere
I suspect it does, although just because it's illegal, the people you buy it off will also have other drugs, and will be willing to sell them. Legalise it and that goes away.
@AC : Too many self-interested people
(Excellent insane rant BTW
>5. Freedom! What would you know?
'Tis true, freedom has become so rare, I'm not even sure I would know.
Re: Too many self-interested people
"1. For every scientific survey, another will have a different conclusion and most of us will ignore the ones that are inconvenient, especially if they concern our own habits."
Strange that you should mention that as you've done a remarkably similar thing with anecdotal evidence, no firm facts and apparently without even reading the article.
Now may I suggest you go back to signing yourself "Outraged of Tunbridge Wells" on the Daily Wail letters page?
Deaths through cannabis
Last I heard there was only one death that had ever been directly attributed to cannabis.
Some guy got crushed under a bale of it :)
BTW, at "my daughter was ill blah blah blah" ...
1. As you are doing now, you mean?
2. Cannabis should not be available to minors; no one says it should
3. Violence and DUI are already outlawed; what causes them is hardly relevant; alcohol is a far worse offender in this respect as you well know
4. The point is to make less harmful alternatives available
- Fee fie Firefox: Mozilla's lawyers probe Dell over browser install charge
- Does Apple's iOS make you physically SICK? Try swallowing version 7.1
- Pics Indestructible Death Stars blow up planets with glowing KILL RAY
- Video Snowden: You can't trust SPOOKS with your DATA
- 166 days later: Space Station astronauts return to Earth