june gloom on 26/3/2010 at 15:39
If we legalize it, we can commercialize it.
BUY CAPTAIN PANCHO- ONLY $15 A POUND
More, by commercializing and regulating it, then the gene-enhanced stuff that Kolya's wringing his hands over would be considered equivalent to, say, 190-proof Everclear (which, for reference, is illegal in Ohio but perfectly available in Kentucky, as I discovered one day a few years ago shortly before my decision to stop drinking.)
scumble on 26/3/2010 at 15:41
Quote Posted by Rug Burn Junky
The biggest problem with weed is that the uptight sanctimonious twats who need it most are exactly the type who never smoke it.
Perhaps we can start a movement to get mandatory prescriptions for them.
zombe on 26/3/2010 at 15:49
Quote Posted by Kolya
A few years ago (okay, more than just a few) I would have agreed with the "Legalise it!" crowd, but I've seen way too many young men in my generation with severe psychological problems that could clearly be traced to a naive usage of the extremely potent (gene engineered) weed that is being sold here which they were smoking day by day.
That is why legalization is good - it gets that kind of junk out of the market.
SD on 26/3/2010 at 15:56
For what it's worth, that "super-skunk" cannabis is essentially a myth.
Today's "gene-enhanced" (or as we would call it if we weren't trying to scaremonger, "selectively bred") cannabis of today is only around 50% stronger on average than the pot of the 60s. And it's far less potent than the hashish that was everywhere back then too.
Kolya on 26/3/2010 at 16:21
Quote Posted by SD
And since the psychological problems alleged to be linked to the use of stronger strains of cannabis (such as schizophrenia) have remained stable over time, I'm going to dismiss your claimed cause as fiction. Hope this is okay.
Here you go: (
http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/abstract/178/2/116) People with major mental illnesses such as schizophrenia are especially vulnerable in that cannabis generally provokes relapse and aggravates existing symptoms.
Here's another: (
http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0165032706002229) Use of cannabis at baseline increased the risk for manic symptoms during follow-up
All this really took was to enter "cannabis psychological effects" into google. I personally don't think the existence of this study proves or disproves what I have witnessed.
But since we're playing this game, indulge me as well, and show me a study that suggests that
"the psychological problems alleged to be linked to the use of stronger strains of cannabis (such as schizophrenia) have remained stable over time".
Because the doctors I spoke to (in the late 90s) were just planning to build a new psychiatric ward for all the recreational drug users. Probably every nurse in every hospital can tell you a story about some dopehead who thought he had a heart attack when it was just a bit too much self-observation that had led him on a bad trip. Sounds hilarious, I know. But as I said, it can shove someone with a pre-existing condition over the edge.
Now get this: I'm not even sure whether it should be legalised or not. All I know is that the "Legalise it!"-crowd has never acknowledged potential health effects (other than positive of course), because for them it''s become an ideological battle that started with the 60s counter culture. For that and for the effects I've witnessed happening to people myself I cannot agree with them.
demagogue on 26/3/2010 at 16:26
Quote Posted by SD
Whether it's more or less harmful than alcohol or tobacco is irrelevant if you believe, as I do, that individuals should have sovereignty over their own bodies.
There's still the issue of knowledge that always goes with consent. People should really know what they are actually consenting to if we're going to take it seriously as a clear individual decision about what they want to do with their bodies. I don't mean in the small details, but on the whole, how much harm are they really doing over time...
That's why I'm not opposed to some soft-paternalism where the gov't informs people about effects ... labels, public campaigns, selling methods ... or directs its use away from certain vulnerable groups -- under 18. They can tweak people's choice-making in favor of socially-good ends, and that's not as bad as outright banning and hard-paternalism of making the choice for them. But that usually works best when it's really concerned about helping people make good decisions about what's really best for them (decisions people either make for themselves or even tweaking it a little in the direction of social good for people not investing much thought into it), and doesn't become a proxy for just injecting politics into it.
I'm not sure that point is very controversial, though. Just looking at how people react to laws already out there, it seems most people think that's reasonable.
DDL on 26/3/2010 at 17:07
One of the key problems with the "Cannabis causes schizophrenia" theory is separating cause from effect: does the weed cause the problems, or are people who already have the problems simply more likely to smoke weed?
Statistically, the incidence of schizophrenia has remained fairly static, whereas weed useage and weed strenth has (I believe) fluctuated fairly substantially. The two do not correlate terribly neatly.
Namdrol on 26/3/2010 at 17:20
I am that fuck up which all anti drug legislation is trying to prevent.
I made taking drugs my mission in life.
My point and purpose was getting off my fucking head.
In the late '80s I got myself really screwed and got a smack habit which took over 10 yrs to escape.
I sold drugs in large quantities for many years and lived and saw not nice things
The clichéd lost, middle class junkie.
So I've thought a little bit about drug use.
Why does someone choose to take a mind altering substance?
Why does someone make a choice they've been told can destroy them and their life?
And once making that choice, carry on while their life, health and everything they have ever loved goes floating away?
I'm obviously not talking about weed. I'm talking about proper drugs, heroin or methamphetamine.
It's this point you have to get your head around if you want to start talking about drug legislation.
What compels people to deliberately do something that can destroy them?
What drives and links addiction and the desire for intoxication?
The sort of person who deliberately chooses to break societies rules, is not well adjusted by that societies definition.
So if you want to talk about people fucking up on pot, I would say it's (partially) a self selecting group of nutters!!
Aja on 26/3/2010 at 19:52
Quote Posted by Kolya
Probably every nurse in every hospital can tell you a story about some dopehead who thought he had a heart attack when it was just a bit too much self-observation that had led him on a bad trip.
This actually happened to me once, a long time ago. Thought my heart was going to explode, they were watching Clockwork Orange, and I was
intensely unhappy... and it took me several days to get back to normal (lingering anxiety and all that). But I certainly overdid it, and the subsequent few times have been benign. And most people I know have never had any problems with it. But based on my own experiences, I can certainly understand how someone with a preexisting psychological condition could be affected, possibly severely, depending on the dosage.
Briareos H on 26/3/2010 at 20:02
SD's just living in a happy bubble of inkhorn, wealthy suburb smoking. Fragile people do get messed up with the stuff. Doesn't mean they have no understanding of what's happening, and what happens after marks the difference between strong people and the others.
