I didn't watch it. I don't watch TV. TV is a form of entertainment escapism that affects short term memory, logical analysis, alertness and can cause long term physical or psychological damage to those who watch it. TV should be banned immediately.
If you missed it, this sums it up pretty well: http://www.independent.co.uk/life-s...an-any-other-drug-expert-claims-10084082.html
Cannabis is not proactively policed and generally anyone found with it will probably be cautioned or warned. I see it as a line in the sand. Just because it's not actively policed should we as society give up with it. Some forces have got rid of their traffic departments so do not actively police speeding offences. Do we give up on speed limits because of this and everyone does it plus TV such as Top Gear says it's OK? Under age smoking isn't policed. 14 year old smoking legal spliffs will be the same. If it was just the person having a spiff at home I would have no issues but they do go out, drive a car and crash. It therefore does affect others. I've been to a prang where the driver got the munchies after a couple of spliffs and put his car into the garage wall. Also where a driver, just back from Europe, had a few spliffs and drove on he right hand side of the road head on into an on coming car because he was not concentrating. This drug/driving does concern me a lot. After all, every camper festival I've been to I've smelt cannabis then I bet they then drive home. Scary stuff. As I've already put, I see it as a line in the sand that isn't really policed, it's just there.
I respect your views There's no argument from me, driving while impaired is wrong. Regardless of whether some thing is legal or not idiot's will still do it I hear what you are saying about drivers on drugs but I'm sure you have seen just as many accidents from drunk drivers and a fair few from sober drivers who have just been plain reckless or on their phone? Idiots will always be idiots I heard something on the radio the other day and I think police now have a way to test for drugs on the road side? Hearing that cannabis is not actively policed only compounds things and sends mixed messages .....its bad enough that it should be illegal but not bad enough that we will prosecute ? Im in a job where there is zero tolerance for drugs and alcohol and they carry out tests on employees ...I'm in a reasonably high position, have a mortgage wife and kids so have too much to loose by breaking the rules! Never the less it still irks me that I live in a society where I am not allowed to make the choice to use cannabis in the privacy of my own home on a Friday night
The research on cannabis and driving is interesting. It does impair motor skills slightly but, as it heightens the senses, the stoned driver tends to compensate by being more careful - the exact opposite of alcohol which causes a tendency to feel overly confident and take greater risks. I'm not condoning driving under the influence of any kind of drug, but I think it's fair to say that compared to drink driving, the effects of cannabis are relatively innocuous. From my own observations I'd hazard a guess that driving whilst on the phone is likely to be just as risky. In any case, I don't see what bearing it has on the overall legality of the drug.
I decided to take along a 'baggie and a bong' to one of the shows last year....had an interesting evening as the weed is home grown by my apprentice, and it's a bit stronger than an old boy like me is used to...! It doesn't help that i gave up smoking, so just use the bong ....0 to 60 in 6 seconds as it were.... Sat around the camp fire with the munchies....ate so many dry roast peanuts that I had my first ever nut allergy and woke up feeling slightly odd with a very swollen face! Not what I was expecting... A good way to recreate the 'giggle grass' of yesteryear is to make hash cakes....easier to sneak into events too... I really must grow up one day.....
As you say, idiots will always be idiots. Unfortunately society needs some form of protection from their excess. Anyway, have a pleasant Friday night bud. (I would do a smiley thing but he computer says 'no'.)
Lol....it will just be a small glass of red wine in front of the telly for me sadly unless the law changes
I've been here for 20yrs since I left school ...I'm a bit institutionalised as I've got a decent wage pension and leave .....and a wife, kids, mortgage and an old Vw to support lol
Jesus this argument gets right on my tits. How about people consider this - in the ABSENCE of alcohol or tobacco - the argument for legalisation of cannabis falls completely on it's arse. It's got bog all to do with morals - it's got everything to do with taking responsibility of your own s**t, and not making it the concern of others. I've yet to see any evidence of people high (or having consumed a certain amount of booze) functioning fully and responsibly - if they want to do that in their own homes, fine, but legalising it mean it does not stay in people's homes does it. For the record, I hate p1ssed people too.
How would you know? How would you go about detecting a person who was high and functioning fully and responsibly? How would you know if a guy sitting quietly on a bench in a park reading a book was high or not? Or that couple walking their dog down the beach? What behaviour do you think people who are high on cannabis exhibit?
Well, how about the simple experiment they had on the show where 30% of people experienced short term memory loss....as I said earlier, on the tube in rush hour, how do you think that would manifest itself? On the motorway or school run, how about the person administering your grandmas drugs, or my dogs vet? I'll turn it around as bluntly I don't have to defend my position. What positive contribution do you think having whatever % of people might choose to be high would make day to day to our society as a whole? What, other than their own selfish needs, do you think would make the world a better place for us all? And here's the rub, positioning short term social experiments from around the world as perfectly reasonable in our society is so scientifically lazy it's embarrassing. What impact do the pro lobby think the growing evidence of mental wellbeing issues canabis causes will make on our health service and society as a whole, given that its a society not unknown for its excesses? Of course, they won't be responsible or possibly able to pick up the pieces themselves eh.
Don't forget, skunk is what is generally available now, not the mellow stuff that people have fuzzy memories of. Skunk stinks. It seems to be the drug of choice for countless teenagers and smelling someone's 'aura' before you see them on their way to school is a handy reminder of why it needs to be controlled. This isn't about adults choices it's about what a cheap (compared to other substances) and easily available drug does to communities and kids who are already struggling in a school system. I I'm in a daily situation where I smell skunk on the clothes and hair of a child who's 3, the parents 'choice' that the child has no say in.
To debunk the pro legalisation argument for once and all: Whenever you see the sentence: "Canabis should be legalised because the law does not stop people doing it, and it criminalises people that are otherwise perfectly law abiding; canabis has far fewer negatives on a persons behaviour than alcohol". Replace the word 'canabis' with the word paedophile, and the word 'alcohol' with the word murder. When you take the alcohol bit out of the argument its a house of cards. I don't want say a nurse that administers the drugs wrongly and kills people due to being high's punishment to be a HR issue, as he didn't break any laws.
Skunk is a problem wholly born of the illegality of what was a relatively hard to get and usually fairly mild drug. Before skunk it had to be imported which allowed a degree of control dependent of the efforts of Customs and Excise and that smugglers took risk - they had to pass it in front of the noses of they that were looking for it. Forcing it underground when it was made illegal relatively recently (in a historical sense) eventually led to strains that can be grown in the market place. Part of the goal of these strains was to be as strong as possible per ounce/gram to reduce the size of the stash/room needed to grow/further reduce the chances of getting caught. All these goals laid out as problems to be overcome by the "other side of the arguement". Epic fail in the persuit not of the good of the citizens of this country, but to win votes. And so it carries on.
And they say cannabis makes you paranoid Comparing the argument to a paedo/murderers is hardly going to debunk the pro views In places where it has been legslized such as some states in america or in Holland your fears have not happened, their societies have not collapsed I know several people in similar jobs you mention, they have a smoke at the weekend and don't go to work smashed out of their heads, they have been smoking it probably for 20yrs and they are very good at there jobs and highly respected .....but you never hear about that sort of thing in the paper
I thought I'd 'ask Frank' but nowhere does it say that it heightened your spider-senses and gave you the reaction time of Lewis Hamilton to make you a careful driver. http://www.talktofrank.com/drug/cannabis I'm more concerned with the hallucinogenic effects and slowing down time. It does have a bearing on the overall legality of a substance as people do stupid things when under the influence of any substance. Do we really need another?
I wish they'd legalise the medical stuff I could probably come off most of my blood pressure drugs. The medical type of cannabis has the THC's removed.
THIS - I utterly agree with - no issue whatsover with breaking the cartel of the big drug companies. And from what I can see, most states have decriminalised it for that purpose - people are then extrapolating this as 'proof' it has no effect. Again - NON Science. @Diddymen - my point about murderer's is to debunk the argument and try and frame it where it belongs - is it a good idea to make taking cannabis lawful, and thus most people using it in whatever manner they want, are untouchable? If this is such a good idea - why do we have to tolerate emotive counters such as 'the collapse of society' - I've not proposed that. We have no pedigree in this country of being able to handle these things to non excess - and have to tolerate city centres full of idiots, violent crime directly related to alcohol through the roof. Cannabis might not make you violent - but what exactly does it enhance and hinder - and would these effects be better than simply taking nothing? The argument (though I acknowledge @zed post as being of relevance) should be - what positive effect will this have on the rest of us, why is it a good idea for those of us that don't use it? Laws are mostly in place to protect the people not wanting to break them after all. I'll open the bidding - from the askfrank website - Cannabis may cause feelings of anxiety, suspicion, panic and paranoia. Yep - that's exactly what I want in my society.....
