http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Cannabis/

Damn straight.


-Annikk

The US really needs to look at this. Alcohol is so much worse than pot any day.

The trouble is that bud has a worse reputation than alcohol, despite the fact that drunk drivers kill more americans per year than gun violence. Its a matter of social conditioning- its more socially acceptable to be drunk than stoned.

They tried to outlaw alcohol. It didn't work very well. The government just doesn't want to change its position on pot. It's mostly because of hard headed 80 year old mean that think they know best. It probably won't be for another 20 years, when those foggies are out of office, before this starts getting looked at seriously.

I guess they're worried legalizing pot might set a bad example to kids. Sure marijuana is as bad if not better than alcohol but changing something from illegal to legal may send the message to people that 'It's okay or even encouraged to smoke pot'.

Just my 2cents.

It could. But is that really a problem? I don't smoke pot, nor have I ever tried it, but I have yet to see a study showing any real side effects other than making you hungry and lazy.

As long as pot smokers respect the non-smokers, I don't see a huge problem. Pot smokers will spike; that's a given. But in due time, when the novelty has worn off, they'll decrease. As far as I know, pot is not addicting like smoking and drinking is.

sum durids is likes to smoke http://i.thottbot.com/en/Interface/Icons/INV_Misc_Herb_18.jpg ^_^


-Annikk

http://www.pm.gov.uk/output/Page13948.asp

:<


-Annikk

I have to interject my medical, as well as social and personal, opinions here.

Medically, marijuana is addictive, as are alcohol and caffeine and nicotine and many other substances that are legal and socially acceptable (more or less). That pot is addictive is a medical fact; please research the medical literature if you disagree.

Clearly, societally,we are willing to allow individuals the right to use addictive and mind-altering substances, and on that point there is a clear double standard here that seems driven my a religious "moral majority" that is oblivious to its hypocrisy.

From a personal standpoint, I couldn't care less if people smoke pot. I never have done it, but I plan to try it when I retire and don't have to worry about having my medical license suspended when my urinalysis comes back positive. What I do object to, rather strongly, is allowing people to smoke pot, or tobacco, or rabbit grass or anything else, in public. Aside from being horribly offensive personally, smoking is unhealthy, expensive, hazardous to the environment, entirely unproductive, and confers all it's risks to anyone within 20 feet or in the same room as the offender. It also sets a terrible example for the next generation(s) that we should all hope will have a better tomorrow than we have had today.

I recognize I have strong opinions in this regard, and apologize if my straightforward vocalization of them has been offensive to anyone. Unfortunately, I have this same conversation every day with young people in the emergency room who don't have emphysema (yet).

BTW, next time you want to take a smoke break, go outside and hug a tree instead. You're a druid for Chrissakes!

I only smoke while sitting in the branches of a tree.

It keeps me out of the "2nd hand smoke" zone for those who dno't care for it.

Of course, flicking my butt at anyone who coughs because they are around me gets me into trouble....

I have to interject my medical, as well as social and personal, opinions here.
Medically, marijuana is addictive, as are alcohol and caffeine and nicotine ...

I fully agree with what you say. Only a small correction: Marijuana does not induce a physical dependency, whereas nicotine, alcohol and other hard drugs do.
However, as all other drugs, it can create a very strong psychological dependency, which is often as bad as the physiological one.

As Abies says. The terms to describe addictive qualities are at best clumsy, but there is a distinction to be made; alcohol and nicotine are chemically addictive, marijuana is not. However, prolonged use of marijuana can make a user crave the sensation of being stoned. And so it can be said to be psychologically addictive.


Unfortunately, I have this same conversation every day with young people in the emergency room who don't have emphysema (yet).

There is a lot of conflicting evidence here.
On the one hand studies have shown marijuana to be considerably more carcinogenic than tobacco. However this can be misleading; smoking 20 cigarettes a day is fairly average for a smoker, but you won't find many people smoking 20 pure marijuana joints to themselves every day..

As for the medical risks; nobody has ever died from smoking marijuana - there isn't a single case in recorded medical history. It's simply not toxic enough, _it_could_not_kill_you.
The LD50 for marijuana has been estimated to be an individuals own body weight, however obviously there isn't any practical way to verify this. Chocolate is technically poisonous and a far smaller amount of chocolate would be needed to kill you than of marijuana.

Then there's the numerous medical benefits of marijuana. It has been recognised as an effective remedy for chronic pain disorders, it gives relief from the nausea associated with chemotherapy, and some studies have even shown that smoking marijuana reduces your risk of getting cancer as it kills off old cells that could potentially become cancerous.

There's a substantial body of evidence to suggest that smoking marijuana can actually increase your lifespan. A study performed by Dr. Vera Ruben on Rastafarians in Jamaica from 1968 to 1974 helped to show this. The Rastafarians lived up in the hills and were the poorest people in Jamaica. Everyone expected them to have the shortest lives but instead they had the longest lives. They smoked pot morning, noon and night. This study cost $6,000,000.00 and was an extremely comprehensive study. If the same study was done today it would cost approximately $125,000,000.00.
[source (http://www.lca-uk.org/lcaforum/viewtopic.php?t=7941)]

Marijuana is actually a slur of the plant's real name; Hemp. It was dubbed Marijuana by US government officials to give it an association with Mexicans; slurring one word with the racist imaginings of another.

Growing hemp is illegal in all forms in the US, even strains that do not have any psychoactive properties. Instead hemp products such as clothing, plastics, paper and ethanol must be imported to the US.

Lets deal with each of these in turn. Fabrics; many years ago a cotton farmer in the US was growing cotton to be used for making rope for ships. Nearby lived another farmer who grew hemp, and the two of them were in direct competition.
The cotton farmer discovered that, under certain growing conditions, hemp can be made to have psychoactive properties. In an effort to get rid of the competition, he started a propaganda campaign making use of voodoo pharmacology (the idea that drugs inherently make you lose control of your actions, and cause you to do bad, evil things). With a few words in the right ears, the state declared it to be illegal, and the epic campaign of misinformation began.

Plastics and ethanol. The petrochemical industry has long opposed the legalisation of hemp because hemp seeds can be used to make oil, which can be refined into plastics or used as ethanol; a cheap source of fuel.
Ethanol creates far less pollution than the oil we drill for in the world's oceans, and it's an infinitely sustainable resource (whereas oil that forms underground takes thousands of years to be formed).
In 1941, Henry Ford built a car made entirely from Hemp. The body and interior were all made of plastics and fabrics created from hemp, and the car ran on ethanol derived solely from hemp seed. He went on record saying he envisioned a day when all cars would be made from hemp, and run on ethanol. Only the engine of his car was not made from hemp; it was made from metal.
Ford ran the car for a thousand miles, and were unable to produce a mark on a white glove wiped on the inside of the exhaust pipe.

Paper.
The "paperless office" is a reality for only a tiny percentage of the world's companies. Creating paper from trees is a difficult process, requiring the use of many chemicals in order to make the wood pulp sufficiently malleable to make paper. In addition the destruction of the world's forests puts the world's climate in danger, and the global warming has been acknowledged as "unequivocal" by scores of leading studies.
Hemp can be used to make extremely fine paper at a fraction of the cost of making paper from wood. No chemicals are required to make paper from hemp. The quality of the paper made from hemp varies from moderately to vastly superior to paper made from wood. If we made all our paper from hemp, it would be a significant help to reducing global warming as well as preserving vast tracts of forests and the resulting variety of wildlife that relies on those forests for survival.
Species are made extinct every day as a direct result of our insistence on using wood for our paper needs.

When harvesting a field of hemp, the roots and buds are typically left to fall back into the earth, as only the long, tall stalks of the plant are useful for paper-making purposes. Because the majority of nutrients in the plant are stored in the roots and bud, most of these nutrients are returned to the earth. There is historical evidence to show that farmers even plant hemp on ground that has become tired and worn from livestock, in order than it can be made fertile again.

The oldest paper known to man, thousands of years old, is made from 100% hemp.

Hemp clothes us, gives us paper, fuel, medicine, not to mention the safest, least addictive and least socially aggravating drug on the planet, particularly when compared with the likes of alcohol. Throughout the history of humanity it has thrown its lot in with us, and it's only in the last 100 years that there has been any doubt as to its usefulness.

So where has this doubt come from?
Following opposition from cotton farmers, the petrochemical industry, and the timber industry, Richard Nixon siezed upon the state demonisation of hemp in 1971 and declared "The War on Drugs" - by all accounts a spectacular failure (heroin is 800 times cheaper now than it was BEFORE the war on drugs... go figure). At the head of this political agenda was marijuana. It was created as a way to distract the public from a questionable war overseas (Vietnam) with a war apparently much closer to home. Since then it has been seen as a surefire vote winner and has been upheld by every single American president since then. The propaganda, misinformation and downright lies that have been spread as a result of this are enough to boggle the mind.





The truth is that there _is_ a danger to marijuana, and that danger is this: Marijuana makes you ok with being bored.
If you're ok with being bored, your sense of ambitiousness suffers, and you might not achieve all in life that you otherwise might.


Avearis, I agree completely with your stance that nobody should be forced into a situation whereby they are exposed to a substance against their will.
I have no desire to be exposed to the people who are dangerously intoxicated with alcohol. Likewise, I respect the rights of everyone else not to be exposed to marijuana.

I do however take objection to the idea that I can't do what I like with my own body. With my own mind, even, because that's what we're really talking about here - the simplest definition of a drug is "A mind altering substance". To control your own mind - a pretty basic human right, you would think..?
But no. Society has to protect me, apparently, and prevent me from making my own mistakes. Regardless of all the above evidence, and whether you believe it or not, it all comes down to this:

I feel very strongly that nobody should be able to tell me what I can and cannot do to my own body, and my own mind (provided, of course, it affects no-one else who doesn't wish to be affected by it).

However strongly you feel about the subject, I can assure you my own feelings are stronger. ;)


-Annikk (admin feel free to delete my post if you feel I've stepped over the line here..)

In the timeless words of Captain Jack Sparrow, "You need a girl, mate."

Seriously, as I stated, I have no issue with people becoming intoxicated on marijuana as long as I don't have to be around their second hand smoke (from any source). I believe in a person's right to choose implicitly. Still, I also believe in some public and consumer protections that form the basis for the criminalization of many of the substances we consider illegal now. Whether "hemp" or booze or Diet Coke or a pack of Camels exceeds that threshold is a matter of individual opinion, but collective law. Unfortunately, you have found yourself on the outside of the collective, public opinion in this regard (as have I), and I know that's frustrating.

Your arguments are not entirely correct (for example, paper isn't generated from receding Amazonian forests, it's made from Southern short-leafed pine which is farmed for the production of "pulpwood"), but are generally well formed and accurate. I won't belabor the point :deadhorse by going through an itemized list (I have a girl- three in fact, and one boy), but suffice it to say your arguements are fundamentally sound. I wish you all the luck in the world getting "hemp" legalized, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

Yea, I'm not holding my breath either. :| There are probably holes in some of the things I have written, but - to take the paper example - the sentiment is pretty much the same.

The problem is that most people are opposed to legalisation because of the misinformation that has been spread. So the best thing for now is to try to educate people on it, and try to undo some of the damage to hemp's image that has been done over the years.




-Annikk

I quoted this for falseness

"Paper.
The "paperless office" is a reality for only a tiny percentage of the world's companies. Creating paper from trees is a difficult process, requiring the use of many chemicals in order to make the wood pulp sufficiently malleable to make paper. In addition the destruction of the world's forests puts the world's climate in danger, and the global warming has been acknowledged as "unequivocal" by scores of leading studies.
Hemp can be used to make extremely fine paper at a fraction of the cost of making paper from wood. No chemicals are required to make paper from hemp. The quality of the paper made from hemp varies from moderately to vastly superior to paper made from wood. If we made all our paper from hemp, it would be a significant help to reducing global warming as well as preserving vast tracts of forests and the resulting variety of wildlife that relies on those forests for survival.
Species are made extinct every day as a direct result of our insistence on using wood for our paper needs.

When harvesting a field of hemp, the roots and buds are typically left to fall back into the earth, as only the long, tall stalks of the plant are useful for paper-making purposes. Because the majority of nutrients in the plant are stored in the roots and bud, most of these nutrients are returned to the earth. There is historical evidence to show that farmers even plant hemp on ground that has become tired and worn from livestock, in order than it can be made fertile again.

The oldest paper known to man, thousands of years old, is made from 100% hemp. END QUOTE

While hemp does make good paper and is cleaner to make paper from. Paper made from wood isn't made using old growth trees. Old growth trees and rainforest trees are cut down to be used for wood for other things but not paper. The paper industry cultivates their own forests. They plant the trees that are the most profitable to make into paper. The paper industry actually increases the amount of trees in the country. The paper company plants the trees, leaves them to grow for long stretches of time. then they cut down their trees, and plant new ones on the same land. My father's uncle was a logger and his son's do the same to this day in ohio. They cut down old growth and auction the trees to companys/individuals to use in furniture and building. Most wooded areas in the united states have trees that are between 30-50 years old. It's actually good to cut down old growth as long as new trees are planted or are let to grow on the land. This reduces the amount of disease in the trees. Some animal species also only use new growth trees for homes and breeding grounds."

If you think we are going into the rainforest and cutting down 500 year old trees to make toilet paper/boxes/newspapers you are diluded. These trees are cut down to make room for farming and to use the old rainforest hardwoods for wealthy people to use in thier homes and furniture.

Most of the oxygen created by plants on this planet is produced in the oceans. Water pollution is a far greater concern to greenhouse gas levels than cutting down a tree that was planted for the sole purpose of making paper.

I quoted this for falseness

"Paper.
The "paperless office" is a reality for only a tiny percentage of the world's companies. Creating paper from trees is a difficult process, requiring the use of many chemicals in order to make the wood pulp sufficiently malleable to make paper. In addition the destruction of the world's forests puts the world's climate in danger, and the global warming has been acknowledged as "unequivocal" by scores of leading studies.
Hemp can be used to make extremely fine paper at a fraction of the cost of making paper from wood. No chemicals are required to make paper from hemp. The quality of the paper made from hemp varies from moderately to vastly superior to paper made from wood. If we made all our paper from hemp, it would be a significant help to reducing global warming as well as preserving vast tracts of forests and the resulting variety of wildlife that relies on those forests for survival.
Species are made extinct every day as a direct result of our insistence on using wood for our paper needs.

When harvesting a field of hemp, the roots and buds are typically left to fall back into the earth, as only the long, tall stalks of the plant are useful for paper-making purposes. Because the majority of nutrients in the plant are stored in the roots and bud, most of these nutrients are returned to the earth. There is historical evidence to show that farmers even plant hemp on ground that has become tired and worn from livestock, in order than it can be made fertile again.

The oldest paper known to man, thousands of years old, is made from 100% hemp.

While hemp does make good paper and is cleaner to make paper from. Paper made from wood isn't made using old growth trees. Old growth trees and rainforest trees are cut down to be used for wood for other things but not paper. The paper industry cultivates their own forests. They plant the trees that are the most profitable to make into paper. The paper industry actually increases the amount of trees in the country. The paper company plants the trees, leaves them to grow for long stretches of time. then they cut down their trees, and plant new ones on the same land. My father's uncle was a logger and his son's do the same to this day in ohio. They cut down old growth and auction the trees to companys/individuals to use in furniture and building. Most wooded areas in the united states have trees that are between 30-50 years old. It's actually good to cut down old growth as long as new trees are planted or are let to grow on the land. This reduces the amount of disease in the trees. Some animal species also only use new growth trees for homes and breeding grounds."

If you think we are going into the rainforest and cutting down 500 year old trees to make toilet paper/boxes/newspapers you are diluded. These trees are cut down to make room for farming and to use the old rainforest hardwoods for wealthy people to use in thier homes and furniture.

Most of the oxygen created by plants on this planet is produced in the oceans. Water pollution is a far greater concern to greenhouse gas levels than cutting down a tree that was planted for the sole purpose of making paper.

Which part is false?



Most of the oxygen created by plants on this planet is produced in the oceans. Water pollution is a far greater concern to greenhouse gas levels than cutting down a tree that was planted for the sole purpose of making paper.

Because that's very much true.

I fixed it. The bold is the quote, after the bold is my reasoning.

Oh. lol

So what I said was true is what you stated? :P

Heh.

If you think we are going into the rainforest and cutting down 500 year old trees to make toilet paper/boxes/newspapers you are diluded. These trees are cut down to make room for farming and to use the old rainforest hardwoods for wealthy people to use in thier homes and furniture.

Reading over my large post earlier in the thread, it's true that I did imply that rainforests and such may be cut down to produce paper, and I implied this due to my own ignorance on the matter.

I admit I don't know all the issues surrounding the paper industry, and I'm glad you've corrected me on this one. However this is directing attention away from the real issue and the subject of this thread :>


-Annikk

Some animal species also only use new growth trees for homes and breeding grounds.
Bad statement. Very, very bad statement. Simply because, you can say the exact same thing, the other way around, and it'll still be true.

Well said! Now legalise sungrass already :p


-Annikk

/sign

There is definitely the trifecta when it comes to legalisation.

Law, religion, and health.

Law: While the law is a business and it's primary interest is in self-preservation (serve and protect my a$$!), the obstacle here is how long it stays in the system. Hardly anyone would disagee that driving under the influence of any substance which impairs your motor skills should be illegal. But what if I toked last week and Poncherello (I'm showing my age) says in his "expert professional opinion" I'm Driving Impaired. I'm screwed. Whether I'm impaired or not. Blood Alchohol level can at least be tested, but isn't definitive in whether you're convicted. But a test for THC? Good luck. A way to test for current impairment would certainly go a long way to squelching one side of the isosceles.

Religion: Not going to touch this one. But live and let live I say. That and get your head out of your arse. No answer here and only time will change dogmatic points of view. Too bad human life spans are so short in geological terms. :p

Health: Cancer being a very valid concern, this one is easy to overcome.
A) Tons of other carcinogens are legal including but not limited to tobacco. And given the profit margin in cancer treatment, I find it hard to believe there's much interest in this business called America to limit it.
B) Vaporization is an option that doesn't exist for tobacco. The bulk of the carcinogen's are in the burnt plant material. THC vaporizes at a lower temperature than the plant burns allowing one to get *most* of the benefits of THC without the carcinogens weighing in too heavily. And the "duff" can be saved and baked with to leverage the rest. Hiking brownies FTW!

It's a serious industry now, especially in Cali, Oregon, and a few other states where they have medical cards (and vending machines!!). The feds don't recognize it but they mostly have better things to do. There is always going to be dependencies whether chemical or physcological. I'm fully dependent pyschologically on my relationship with my wife. Nothing in my life is so important. I go into withdrawls sleeping in a bed alone now. I'd get over it. But it would be very hard and I'd be despondent. Chemically there is no dependency on THC and anyone who's known an alchoholic (mouthwash??) or a heroin addict knows there's a LARGE difference. There's no basis to outlaw psychologic addictions. That's only too human.

Last, there are known side effects to chronic usage. The recognition and education of these side effects should be sufficient to let people govern themselves, especially since everybody is different. But the biggest is probably loss of sexual libido, which is a real concern due to chronic use. In moderation and in the short term, it can greatly increase pleasure. But over used and as you get older, there are tons of reports of men and women where it "went off like a switch". No joke. A switch. Imagine waking up when you're 32 and suddenly not finding anything or anyone sexually appealling? Talk about scared straight. LOL And I know people this has happened to. They stop for 6 months, a year. Take vitamins and supplements. Hoping their "drug of choice" will return. There is no replacement for libido, only drugs that can help you peform. But anyone who has lost it can tell you that performance is easily tertiary to enjoyment. So as in all things, responibility and moderation are key. But I don't need legislation to tell me that. And neither should anyone else. Less laws not more. I sound like a Libertarian now. But hey if it was good enough for Thomas Jefferson, it can't be too far afield. :crazy:

Heroin is evil. It kills families.

Funny side note. bush hates the taliban, taliban hates heroin, bush kills taliban authority, heroin is now cheaper and easier to get. GOD DAMN EVEN CRACK HEADS KNOW NOT TO DO HEROIN, trust me I've asked them.

Worst drugs the government is dealing with now is painkillers,sedatives and muscle relaxers. They inexorably lead to cheaper street dirived opiate heroin. Look around at your neighborhoods, im sure the numbers agree.

Heroin used to be used as a treatment for toothache.

It was also used as a treatment for Methadone addicts to help wean them off it.

Now Methadone is used to wean heroin addicts off heroin.


Heroin is chemically very similar to Morphine, which is used as a powerful painkiller for extreme pain. Although heroin is highly addictive, it is not as addictive as nicotine.


"Heroin is evil. It kills families." <--- this is a dangerous statement, bordering on voodoo pharmaecology. Heroin does not MAKE people do bad things. Any actions undertaken by someone under the influence of heroin, or any other drug, are simply an expression of that individual. Alcohol and weed do not make you evil by default, and neither does heroin.


-Annikk

Vaporizers ftw.

I talked to my uncle who is some kind of big-shot lawyer about this, and his view was that the biggest obsticle to legalization is that there is no way to effectivley test whether or not someone is too impared from pot to function. As mentioned by Vika, if there were a way to determine that jimmy had smoked way too much pot to drive (and not had 1 joint a week ago), as there is with booze, people would be more accepting of legalization. The fact that there are no testable boundaries is holding politicians and law enforcement back.

Anyone who has smoked has experienced being 'too high' to do anything: pull themselves away from WoW, get off the couch, stop eating cheetos with peanut butter, drive etc. The problem lies in the fact that law enforcement has no way to effectivley distinguish the fine line between casual and gonzo. It is socially acceptable for someone to have a couple glasses of wine and drive home (even though they are technically impared, just not over the limit impared), and I feel that it would be socially acceptable for people to have a joint and drive home. Unfortunatley there is no way to distinguish between a guy that smoked 1 joint with his girlfriend after a dinner out, and the guy that just had 13 bongloads and is driving to 7-11 to get some slim jims grape jelly funyons and dr. pepper.

That being said, I believe that this should not be a national issue. Let the states decide whether or not to allow medical or general dispencaries. Many cities in CA have voted to legalize, and after a few months of shops being open, DEA comes in and smashes everything and closes them down.

I talked to my uncle who is some kind of big-shot lawyer about this, and his view was that the biggest obsticle to legalization is that there is no way to effectivley test whether or not someone is too impared from pot to function. As mentioned by Vika, if there were a way to determine that jimmy had smoked way too much pot to drive (and not had 1 joint a week ago), as there is with booze, people would be more accepting of legalization. The fact that there are no testable boundaries is holding politicians and law enforcement back.

This is very interesting, I have not come across this idea before. I guess you're right though; there really isn't any way (currently) to measure objectively how stoned a person is. Maybe figuring out a way to do that would help to usher the world closer to legalisation.


It is socially acceptable for someone to have a couple glasses of wine and drive home (even though they are technically impared, just not over the limit impared), and I feel that it would be socially acceptable for people to have a joint and drive home.

Man, it's not that way where I live (UK). In most circles the mere suggestion of driving after so much as a few wine gums is akin to announcing you have leprosy. Anti-drinking and driving messages were drilled into us even as kids. I can remember seeing the various shock-tactic "infomercial" thingies on the TV as a kid. Harsh banter ^


-Annikk

Anti-drinking and driving messages were drilled into us even as kids. I can remember seeing the various shock-tactic "infomercial" thingies on the TV as a kid. Harsh banter ^It is the same way in the states, except that everyone looks the other way when they know you are too drunk to drive. It wasn't until college (I didn't drink in HS) that I first witness this. It scared the crap out me. I still don't understand why we (US) tolerate drunk driving so much.

Unless the person is so drunk they can't stand-up, I don't think I have ever seen anyone make an effort to stop them from driving home.

I also think we make drinking (and drunkenness) out to be such a "great" thing. When it is really sort of sad. The whole "you can't have any, zero, nada fun unless you are drinking" mentality has always baffled me.