@"the higher the dose you take

, the more likely you are to have an unpleasant trip" - I disagree. I always found the complete opposite. Lower doses leave you able to dwell on the relatively unpleasant physical sensations (notably during the first hour, say), which very hign doses transcend.

Why are doctors so afraid of prescribing pleasure?

In my opinion, it's because, before WW1 they would, for a price, come round the house and exorcise the wife and rid her of excess anxieties etc. by causing her to release the pent-up vapours that are the result of not being able to ejaculate. These were released during "hysterical paroxysms", brought about by all manner of patented inventions that bear a striking resemblance to today's vibrators.

They were a bit embarrassed about that, pissing on your shoes and telling you its raining.

Anyway, the fundamental issue for me is one of liberty. I do not see a need nor a right to prohibit consenting adults in private from doing whatever they choose.

"isn't the Food/Air thing 'Physical Dependence' rather than a Physical Addiction as such?"

Dunno, but I certainly get shocking withdrawal symptoms.

"feel like you're losing your mind, dying, or that the world is out to get you"

This is fairly typical everyday fare at work for me at the moment.

You're shooting your own argument in the foot here

"And yes, before anyone mentions alcohol - if it was discovered tommorow it would be Class A within a week and with good reason."

Yes. And we would have another banned substance, inexpensive and easy to transport, which would cause another lost battle in the War Against Drugs, which would in turn harm the society much more than alcohol itself, by giving loads of money to criminal gangs and law enforcement agencies, and putting at risk the lives of consumers and the general public.

It has happened before, you know. The Prohibition and the ban on cannabis are pretty good examples, but not, by far, the only ones.

"And you can't legalise something on the basis that people are only permitted to use it at home and not drive their car or go out for a day afterwards - it won't happen"

If breathalysers work, the same concept should work for ant other drug and any period of time. Set a maximum limit of drug in the bloodstream or in the breath, choose a testing method and use it. Not such a big deal.

A Passionate Prescription for Excited Contentment aka Satisfaction

"Why are doctors so afraid of prescribing pleasure?" .... bonkers Posted Wednesday 25th January 2012 17:42 GMT

Ever been to an orgy, bonkers ...... they're addictive.

alternatively

we could continue to criminalize people and hurl literally billions of pounds into the shitter every year "fighting" drugs and losing.

But no, your way is clearly far more rational...

Actually sport is a cure for some people. The natural production of endorphins during physical exertion can have a very positive emotional effect... it's just that the people most likely to benefit are usually suffering the sort of depression that destroys their ability to motivate themselves to act on such things.

@Giles

After getting addicted to to prescribed painkillers, I started ingesting cannabis as the 'safer' option. Doctor admitted it will have reduced withdrawals substantially, warned me of the dangers and left me to it.

I stopped because I applied for a job that required a drugs test, but as a consequence get to spend each day in agony whilst I wait to hear back (and I've pretty much reached the conclusion that I don't think I can sustain this, so probably won't be taking the job/test anyway).

Personally I'd like to see the medicinal uses of cannabis investigated by the UK, on a evidence based policy basis (as opposed to the policy based evidence system we have now).

I've never felt bad about my 'little habit' and frankly never will. The law is the law, but I can quite safely state that based on the depression I went through before getting good pain relief and the hell I went through when addicted (which led to more depression), had I not started self-medicating there's a good chance I'd not be here to post this.

Try going through the hell of addiction to 'safe' and legal prescription painkillers, they use cannabis non-stop for 8 months and go cold turkey. _Then_ perhaps you might want to think about what's being asked for here.

I think you're talking about recreational use (the article is about medicinal use though), so;

People do go to extremes but that can be said for anything. Boy racers can do a hell of a lot of harm, do you want to take cars away from everyone?

Have a proper look at the history of the 'war on drugs'. Towards the end of the 1800's Britain undertook a study to see if there was an issue with cannabis and decided that there was very little needed to be done. In the 1920's substances began to be banned and have largely stayed that way.

It's also probably worth noting that the Home Office (in essence a police agency) have been given a role normally given to the equivalents of the Department of Health in other countries. The HO staunchly refuse to enter into any discussion (as Prof. Nutt found out the hard way) and often give differing views on simple questions (Search Home Office, Schengen Agreement Cannabis Use). They also got a mild warning from the EU when they tried to misrepresent the meaning of the Schengen Treaty with regard to the carriage of controlled substances across borders for _medicinal_ purposes.

Two things

"Which is fine, but there's the people who would take loads of mushrooms and those who drink numerous pints almost all week."

I hate to disappoint those people, but mushrooms generate tolerance more quickly than any other psychedelic. It is biochemically impossible to trip day after day.

I've taken shrooms once or twice a year for most of my adult life, and they helped me snap out of a crippling depression, so call me Patient Zero. That's all I want to do. They're intense and sometimes scary, just like any other psychedelic. And just like any other psychedelic, a lot of people have one bad experience and never want to touch them again.

I've been addicted to cigarettes. No one can be addicted to shrooms, especially not depressed people who are prone to bad trips in the first place. If you don't know this then you've obviously never used them and your opinion just doesn't count for much, sorry.

So, you must be a lazy lard ass based on your statements.

Thanks for the clarification on that.

Ideally, you will just take your stupid coat and GO.

@boltar

Thus speaks the man who has never tried anything more "exciting" than what he's allowed to; alcohol, but probably not cigarettes... your life must be a roller-coaster ride of thrills and excitement.

"Dopehead losers" are probably responsible for more science, art, music and literature than you'd like to imagine, from Samual Taylor Coleridge to Jim Morrison (though many died young because of the drugs, you have to kind of wonder whether their contributions would have been as pronounced without them). Seriously, have you idea how many people you've written off as "dopehead losers"?

However, what's being talked about is medical legalisation not shroom shops on every corner for people to get mullered...

... and weirdly I am an addict and have no qualms about admitting it, nicotine. Frankly I'd be quite happy if tobacco was banned tomorrow; once I'd gotten over the withdrawal I'd save myself a packet - and laugh my arse off when the government discovers a(nother) £10 billion shortfall in its budget and all you sanctimonious prigs suddenly find you're paying more tax.

@CD001

"Thus speaks the man who has never tried anything more "exciting" than what he's allowed to"

You have no idea what I've done in my life. I've probably been to more places and done more exiting things that someone like you who's idea of "fun" is probably sitting on his sofa in a bedsit getting stoned.

"Samual Taylor Coleridge to Jim Morrison"

Seriously, is that lot the best you can come up with? Get back to me with some serious candidates, not a fscking poet and a druggy muso.

@boltar

-----

Seriously, is that lot the best you can come up with? Get back to me with some serious candidates, not a fscking poet and a druggy muso.

-----

Why? You're obviously less cultured than the yoghurt in my fridge; they were just a couple of easy examples, do your own research or remain ignorant; the problem is yours, not mine.

Nice to know you actually bothered to read my post though - or rather not - I stated my addiction was nicotine. I did far more when I was younger but hey - that's the only fecker that's stuck me with an addiction.

So sitting around my flat getting stoned... not so much. Still, if it came to cannabis, which used to just make me laugh, hug people and eat Mars bars... or alcohol, which makes me withdrawn, maudlin and in excess violently sick with a hangover and upset stomach that can last for a couple of days ... I know which I'd rather be able to buy in the pub.

-----

You have no idea what I've done in my life.

-----

No, but probably only things other people have told you it's OK to do... I doubt you've ever done anything I'd consider even remotely outré to be honest.

@Mephistro

"Yes, but those other crimes aren't mostly 'victimless crimes', "

You might want to check out the number of robberies and muggings that are down to druggies trying to get money for a fix.

"ou're obviously less cultured than the yoghurt in my fridge; they were just a couple of easy examples"

There arn't many examples. Not of people who've made a real difference such as Einstein or Hawking. Arty farty types are irrelevant.

"No, but probably only things other people have told you it's OK to do"

I do what I want , and one thing I don't do is follow the bleating sheep. "Baa, try this weed man , its great. Yeah , baa baa , give me a smoke baa baa baa". Now those sorts of people are tragic.

Likewise

I've been a CFS ("yuppie flu" as it used be called) sufferer for 7 years now, together with a serious back injury (sustained at work) - the pain is substantial. 100mg Tramadol and 60mg Codeine every 4 hours didn't even allow me to work most days. I use a wheelchair for distances over 100 metres.

Initially, when diagnosed with CFS I was "prescribed" a holiday by my GP - anywhere would do he said. The wife chose Morocco, so off we went, taxis everywhere, mid-upmarket hotels etc (I wasn't very mobile so had to flash the cash to move around)

Suffering from a infected tooth nerve, I had to make use of a local dentist, being 6 hours from a city. Before he gave me a rather expert Root Canal Operation, he weighed me and gave me a few lumps of sticky chocolate balls to consume before and afterwards, one every 8 hours, but take none of my other prescription painkillers. They killed ALL my pain. It turns out they were "Majuun" balls, sticky cannabis and chocolate made into sweets. I was amazed at the analgesic effect. I felt no high, woozy or drunk feeling,

Returning home, (after taking my last "dose" on the airport road) had around 2 days of pain relief from my back injury (spinal fusion 1999 and 2000) and my CFS waned in severity for around a fortnight. I felt great again. My GP was amused and pleased, but not surprised. Subsequent holidays to Portugal and Spain have produced similar effects from oral cannabis. It's much less of a problem buying it and possessing it than in Morocco).

The dry desert air of Morocco, however, does wonders form the CFS in itself and I spent my rest of my injury compensation money on a 6-month stay in South Morocco two years ago.

The problem is, there's drug testing at my work, so I had to resign, admitting my use in advance and now I'm on sick benefits. Great eh? Since the reclassification of cannabis I haven't dared to consume any more. That would require my carers to obtain it for me more often than not.

Ironically in the last 3 months I've become suicidal with the constant pain and hassle of the new benefits regime - so it's probably going to become an old problem soon.

Thank you, UK Goverments various and recent

Sir

Hey Boltar, have a read of this..

Does Decriminalisation Work?

You seem to be performing a lot of sweeping generalisations in your posts regarding people who partake of the female hemp plant, it makes you sound a little childish.

@Boltar

Personally I've yet to meet someone who's actually become physically dependant on MJ. You can become habitually dependant, but then people become habitually dependant on watching TV in the evenings.

I think if you actually read up, you might find you are spouting bollocks. Runcible Spoons link is a good place to start, note that the number of users _DROPPED_ when the laws were relaxed.

Similar reports have been made in some states of the US.

Try googling for casualties of the war on drugs. Have a look at the havoc wreaked by the mexican army when pursuing cartels - hint it's not those involved with the cartels having their lives pulled apart.

Prohibition simply does not work, the irony is the government calls them "controlled substances" when in reality they've given _all_ control to the black market.

I don't doubt you're right that some will continue to commit crimes to fund their habits, others won't. At the moment, anyone taking any of these substances is branded a criminal, no matter the reason why (medicinal is no longer a defence).

But then, alcoholics commit crimes too. Hell people commit crimes so they can get the latest phone, car, PC or whatever. Blaming the bad deeds of someone on a substance is ignorant and largely futile.

Why not do some proper researching for yourself, have a look at what numerous studies have shown and then compare and contrast with the governments view.

@ boltar Thursday 26th January 2012 14:09 GMT

"You might want to check out the number of robberies and muggings that are down to druggies trying to get money for a fix."

From my original post:

"Yes, but those other crimes aren't mostly 'victimless crimes', as is the case with drugs - or would be the case if you removed prohibition and its consequences from this equation."

To make my point clear: most of said robberies and muggins -and accidental deaths and even murders- are not caused by the drugs, but are a side effect of prohibition laws.

It can't be paranoia when they demonstrably are out to get you. Class A 'shrooms. Pfft!

... and ...

... please tell me his father was a Colonel.

@YTXT

Trolling FAIL

"Crucially, this exploratory study was not a clinical trial or an examination of the effect psilocybin has on people with depression. Therefore, it is not possible to say from this research whether psilocybin could have benefits for people with depression. Also, importantly, the possible harms of using this drug, either in the short or long term have not been studied here.”

Can't wait for the clinical trials to start so we can see ... oh wait, the underlying point is that the Government isn't listening and is unlikely to /*allow*/ such a trial, hence the theme of the comments.

Another point is that the excerpt of your rant that I have highlighted seems to say "Nah nah, you've not really proved anything in your experiments" whereas any tenuous link to alcohol possibly being good for you or trials on mice* that show how damaging cannabis is to humans and such is accepted and proffered by the government as if it were an absolute truth. I will hunt down examples if you require it.

* I know that some mammals have immune systems and other life systems that give a good indication of what effects may occur in humans and that as they have vastly shorter life spans; it is easier to get an impression of what long term effects may be.

miek: "the underlying point is that the Government isn't listening and is unlikely to /*allow*/ such a trial, hence the theme of the comments."

Well, the government allowed dozens of people to take psilocybin in these two trials. I agree with Prof Nutt that full clinical trials should be done, because that's how we find out whether psilocybin is useful or perhaps harmful in the long term. It's possible that psilocybin experiences could further damage the mental health of people who already have enough problems.

miek: "...any tenuous link to alcohol possibly being good for you...is accepted and proffered by the government as if it were an absolute truth."

Whataboutery is a poor way to argue. I don't know about cannabis but I think you might be confusing media reporting on alcohol consumption with government advice.

http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/alcohol/Pages/Effectsofalcohol.aspx

"...drinking alcohol is never completely safe."

The NHS has published a comprehensive guide to what's currently known about the health effects of alcohol. It's very different to what the papers say:

http://www.nhs.uk/news/2011/10October/Documents/whats_your_poison_1.0.pdf