Feeds

back to article Lords told to listen to science on cannabis

A group of scientists has urged the House of Lords to listen to scientific advice rather than the ranting of Home Secretary Jacqui Smith and reject her proposal to change the classification of cannabis from C to B. In a letter to the Guardian, eight leading scientists call on the Lords to back an amendment tabled by Baroness …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

STOP DOING DRUGS!

...there is not enough for everyone!

0
0
Anonymous Coward

@yossarianuk

you need to switch your supplier mate, i havent seen grit weed for at least a year now

0
0

People making sense?

Oh my god, I have to watch this story.

0
0
Paris Hilton

@Jimmy.

'Since when has being a man-hating ignoramus been seen as a qualification for high ministerial office in this country?'

I *think* the 'man-hating' bit was added fairly recently.

Paris, cos, you know, yeah, umm, dude, yeah, is that mars bar mine?

0
0
Stop

@By Anonymous Coward Posted Tuesday 25th November 2008 13:16 GMT

Are you equating a crime of violence against another person with someone smoking cannabis in their own home to unwind at the end of a hard day at work? I'd also suggest you shot yourself in the foot by suggesting your hypothetical reformed rapist had become a born-again Christian.

0
0
CTG
Boffin

@AC: Leading Scientists?

Actually, Bob May *is* a nerdy boffin genius who is an expert in every field. He is one of, if not the greatest epidemiologists ever, although he actually started out as a pure mathematician. If the li'l Aussie battler says it is so, you'd better believe him.

0
0
RW
Thumb Up

Re: If they listened to scientific advice (Anon Coward 11:25 GMT)

"Half the illegal substances would be legalised, tobacco would be banned immediately and UK faith schools would be prohibited from teaching creationism as scientific. Never gonna happen though."

You're too timid by half, Mr. Anon Coward. After giving the matter much thought, I have concluded that the only viable approach is full legalization of *all* recreational intoxicants, no exceptions. The present approach is utterly broken; it causes nothing but evil results. To wit:

1. No one who wants to use any drug has the slightest difficulty acquiring the stuff. Thus the law is brought into disrepute.

2. Users are at the mercies of producers and dealers, and can never be sure about the identity, purity, and potency of whatever it is they enjoy getting high on.

3. The real addicts end up committing petty crimes to pay for their habits, to say nothing of the sad women prostituting themselves to pay for their next fix. Legalize all intoxicants, give them free to certified addicts and guess what? You could leave your front door unlocked.

4. The money that organized crime derives from the drug trade has utterly corrupted any number of countries. Plus there are those with a vested interest in keeping the present system of prohibition unchanged: cops, the incarceration industry, mafia dons, sleazebag politicians. You may be sure that the louder a politician squeals about the evils of drugs, the more money they're being paid by gangsters. [Hello, Wakkyjakky!]

5. Police manpower is diverted to drug law enforcement when it could be used to combat more serious menaces.

6. Drug law enforcement becomes a vehicle to justify further Stasi-fication of many countries.

7. Mankind, from its earliest days and quite likely before that, has always sought to get as stoned as possible as often as possible. You simply can't fight human nature.

I'm quite sure every El Reg reader can add other points to this list of "the evils caused by the prohibition of most intoxicants."

Yes, legalize even the dangerously addictive drugs like crack and meth.

I used to propose all this as a way of stirring up the shit, but one day I paid attention to what I was saying and realized that it may all sorts of sense.

Spread the word.

0
0
Happy

Cannabis is a facilitating drug.

As an ex long-term user of this drug, my conclusion must be that our bureaucracy and government must have located the mother-lode.

From my experience and observations, over a 35 year period, I have noticed that cannabis is a facilitator.

After all, the name hash is derived from the Arab word assassin and the first place that hash was in general use was amongst a group of secret warriors, who were better and more efficient killers if fired up with a dose of this substance.

So, if one is prone to, or good at sitting on a sofa, giggling and babbling… a joint is just the thing to make one better at that. The munchies is another expression of this idea... we need food, sweet food and we need it now... lots of it.

Or, if one has a dodgy personality, like a bit of paranoia, a joint will make one more so.

If one is an artist or musician, the chances are, things will come into one’s consciousness that would never have done so without the holy smoke.

For my last analogy, if one is a fascistic home secretary or prime minister who’s entire output is inane, insane and idealistic rubbish, a few joints will make one completely incoherent. My considered conclusion, Wakkyjakky is a pothead and is suffering from all of the above… including a dose of the munchies… fat cow.

Oh by the way, I was always a cynical fellow with libertarian tendencies; I can’t think what pot has done for me. Anyway, as an ex afficionado, (so, no longer prone to any of the above), I couldn't give a flying f**k what this evil bint does or says, I am just going to ignore her deliberations and keep a wry smile on my face while she digs her own and NULAB's grave.

0
0
Flame

@AC on Tuesday 25th November 2008 13:57 GMT

"The flame icon is there because your implication that the use of any illegal substance is some sort of moral failure is offensive."

Wouldn't breaking the law, no matter how much you disagree with it, no matter how stupid you believe it to be, constitute a moral failure by definition?

In any case, they won't legalise drugs because:

1) The USA won't let them;

2) They proit too much from bribes paid by drug overlords.

0
0
Gold badge
Stop

@this

"(i've seen graphs - so they must be real science)"

I see. Do you work for one of the "big four" consultancies or the Civil Service by any chance? I can't think of anywhere else that facts and pretty pictures are freely interchangeable.

0
0
Flame

@Moral AC

"Wouldn't breaking the law, no matter how much you disagree with it, no matter how stupid you believe it to be, constitute a moral failure by definition?"

Some of us believe it is our moral duty to break immoral laws such as those that limit what people can and can' do with their own bodies.

0
0

Government never suceeded in reducing cannabis use

People smoke less dope nowadays because dope is a more "serious" drug. Their used to be a nice choice of different types of hashish available to suit the occasion , and grass was rare. When grass was available it was nice light-headed stuff like thai stick. All of this was imported and home-grown was a nerdy hobby that rarely yielded anything worth smoking. When engineered varieties such as skunk, purple haze and northern lights became available to grow in Britain, the pressure to endure the risk of importing cannabis was released. However, these varieties were not only hugely stronger if effect than many of the imported types of cannabis, but the British grower never learned how to make hashish. The hashish that was available was nasty pressed "slate rocky" that had been tampered with and often had the essential oils removed with solvents and sold separately to make more profits. Weak slate was sometimes treated with pharmaceuticals to trick the gullible into thinking they were getting stoned. This started the decline of the casual smoker. A joint of skunk was just too strong and harsh and unpleasant a high for many hashish smokers, so they stopped. Of course many smokers liked the stronger new weed, and as the body rapidly mounts a resistance to THC, those who persevered found it not too strong to keep smoking casually. It is also important to remember that following the ban on smoking in public places, many people have given up cigarette smoking. The casual cannabis smoker might be reluctant to continue smoking joints as the tobacco in the spliff maintains the addiction to cigarettes, while smoking cannabis from a pipe or bong yields a much stronger high that might not always be appropriate for the smoker at the time.

Whatever your tastes, the fact remains that the government did nothing whatsoever to trigger the decline in cannabis smoking, ironically it was the availability of types of cannabis itself that did this, its analogous to all beer disappearing from the shops to be replaced by nothing but vodka.

As far as reclassification goes, if you smoke the odd spliff you will be fine, if you drink the odd pint you will be fine. If you drink a bottle of vodka every night you will probably die of alcohol related disease, if you smoke an eighth of skunk every night, you may go a bit potty or (rarely) develop throat cancer.

0
0

It's a load of bollocks

If the state will pay to have a mental's cock chopped off and fake tits jammed in him then why the fuck can't I smoke a joint.

0
0
Paris Hilton

we are still losing the war on drugs

with all the resources available to the worlds greatest economies, it is not possible to curb the instinct of people to grab a few leaves, dry them and toke them up. Are our armed forces really that stupid or is it just the law that is that stupid. Only YOU can decide.

0
0
Happy

we need food, sweet food and we need it now... lots of it.

Curlywurlies a speciality.

Now then ... I was going to say something really tfffffft profound haaaaaaaaaaaaaa but I'm damned if I can tffffffft haaaaaaaaaaaaaa remember - oh yes - it's above... ;o)

0
0

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.