California, Proposition 19, freeing the weed !

[no_akira]

California are on the verge of total legalization of marijuana and as the Americans never do anything by halves. It will be very interesting to see how this pans out. How big business and marketing take it on ?

http://yeson19.com/

It's not my bag as I find the smell a bit offensive but I have enjoyed it when i've been in the company of Asian friends as it is there bag as they don't drink. I liked the no hangover part the next day.

But to me its more about the freedom of choice part. Also I find it too much hassle to go driving the streets of Balsell Heath looking for a gapped toothed Rasta for an eighth of dubious quality.

But I think in these times of enforced leisure (no jobs) governments of the world are looking for a relatively costless "soma" * as TV and the Internet aren't quite enough. Governments really don't like rioting in the streets, like those crazy French.

[Soma = a happy drug, dished out to the masses in Aldious Huxley's, "Brave New World"]

[beabert]

I knew many who smoked it heavily, and they were all not 'quiet right in the head'. There is no conclusive proof that is causes mental disorders, but experiencing how they are; i wouldnt want is legalised.

In truth those same people properly took a lot of other stuff too.

[maviczap]

Don't expect any change here, we can't even sort out alchohol misuse

[thulfi]

Cannabis being illegal doesn't make less people inclined to take it. More do it here and in France than in the Netherlands.

About a month ago I came back from California where I'd stayed for about 6 weeks. It's astonishing how many people:

A. Smoke weed
B. 'Know a friend' that has a medical marijuana licence.

Everyone I spoke to there says it's already practically legal, all they need to do now is make the money from it go to the right people.

Couple of pics I took when walking down Santa Monica pier.
http://img835.imageshack.us/img835/1562/img0119w.jpghttp://img714.imageshack.us/img714/2284/img0118p.jpg



They literally recruit. The more the docs prescribe marijuana the more they make out of it. 'Back pain, insomnia, depression, glaucoma'...it's an endless list of problems that pretty much anybody could blag and get away with a card.

I'm confused though, does this proposition exempt it from Federal law? Because although it may be legal by state, the Feds can come along and confiscate the weed, as they have done to a few dispensaries in California previously.

[no_akira]

A good point that was made by an American researcher on utube was that it needs to be legalised not because it is harmless but because (skunk) is harmfull (schizophrenia, especially young black teens born in August !).
Most things that are harmfull end up being licensed, taxed and controlled.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KLy150NR_U&feature=related

Like Gin in the 17th century.
Don't expect any change here, we can't even sort out alchohol misuse

This is the point i'm trying to make I think governments are gearing up for a reversal on their stance on this for lots of reason. But mainly cost in policing a hypocritical & nonscience law and not earning any revenue in return.

[maviczap]

A good point that was made by an American researcher on utube was that it needs to be legalised not because it is harmless but because (skunk) is harmfull (schizophrenia, especially young black teens born in August !).
Most things that are harmfull end up being licensed, taxed and controlled.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KLy150NR_U&feature=related

Like Gin in the 17th century.

Well trying to control the production of skunk in this country would be very hard given the number of farms being detected in rented properties. Almost one a week in my neck of the woods and one was found down my street being looked after by some nice Vietnamese illegal immigrants.

[dizzyblonde]

Arnie must be getting soft ;-)

[Dave20046]

Arnie must be getting soft ;-)

Arnie used to smoke the stuff while he trained.

[Sid Squid]

I knew many who smoked it heavily, and they were all not 'quiet right in the head'. There is no conclusive proof that is causes mental disorders, but experiencing how they are; i wouldnt want is legalised.
Agree in part, but then again there are people who abuse alcohol and suffer for it as does society around them. I don't see a difference.

[beabert]

Agree in part, but then again there are people who abuse alcohol and suffer for it as does society around them. I don't see a difference.

Agree, but id happily see alcohol banned too lol, infact id rather it banned than 'weed'

[Sid Squid]

A fair argument, on an entirely objective basis it's difficult to argue for different laws on the drugs which are presently legal; tobacco, alcohol. Over those on the drugs which presently aren't.

An utterly objective mind would treat them all the same, whether that be that they are all legal or illegal.

[Daimo]

As I stated in the other post.

As a former smoker of 10 years of the herb, I can fully assure you that MOST full working weed smoking citizens would rather pay for it and get it legally (esp if we had Amsterdam style coffeshops) than having to meet some dodgy chavvy dealer down a backstreet on the hush.

Its the jobless chavy types that give it a bad reputation, hanging on streets, enticing criminals (is that the weed though??).

All my £40k+ earning 29/30 year olds who smoke it would rather get it legally than scrimp with some dodgy folk.

Is weed addictive? No. Tobacco that goes in it is though, as is the routine. Does it cause physcological problems? No. There is usually an underlying issue.

I only gave it up due to cost and having to meet dodgy people, hassle of waiting around. I'd love to be simple able to pop to a coffee shop on a lazy sunday, give a few quid to a business, have a coffee, read a paper, and have a smoke legally.

The police will never win the war on weed, work with it, make it legal, sell it and control the stream strength, and profit. Use the funds to put back into the economy and generate millions, if not billions per year.

[beabert]

A fair argument, on an entirely objective basis it's difficult to argue for different laws on the drugs which are presently legal; tobacco, alcohol. Over those on the drugs which presently aren't.

An utterly objective mind would treat them all the same, whether that be that they are all legal or illegal.

Yes, ban the lot haha, but where do you draw the line, caffiene out too?

[thulfi]

Is weed addictive? No. Tobacco that goes in it is though, as is the routine. Does it cause physcological problems? No. There is usually an underlying issue.

It may not contain nicotine, but cannabis can certainly become psychologically addictive.

Also, weed is dangerous in those who are susceptible to mental illness. Without smoking, many of these people may never go on to develop a mental problem, whereas those that are susceptible but do smoke substantially increase their risk of developing a psychotic episode/s or schizophrenia.

Also, because cannabis is smoked up as a rollie with a self-designed roach, the amount of carcinogenic crud that enters the lungs is far greater than cigarettes which have a proper filter. (Although there is some indication that the thc in cannabis may actually have protective effects against cancer). Either way, still gonna get bronchitis, copd, etc much sooner by smoking more rollies than cigarettes.

Nonetheless, alcohol and cigarettes each kill way more than cannabis. (interesting chart below)
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_sSAD42j7iiM/R6eHY-I9GOI/AAAAAAAAAAY/6SpaccmeTwo/s320/380px-Rational_scale_to_assess_the_harm_of_drugs_%28mean _physical_harm_and_mean_dependence%29.svg.png

If the only result of making drugs illegal is giving the criminals the money, the government zilch (if not spending money), and the users poor quality drugs that may have been up someone's backside at some point, then what is the pooiiint:smt091!! It makes no difference to the demand, just skanks up the supply.

[maviczap]

If the only result of making drugs illegal is giving the criminals the money, the government zilch (if not spending money), and the users poor quality drugs that may have been up someone's backside at some point, then what is the pooiiint:smt091!! It makes no difference to the demand, just skanks up the supply.

Even if it was legallised and tax as suggested, the tax would be on a similar level to tobacco. Therefore no one would want to pay the prohibitively high taxes and would look for a cheaper supply, thus smuggling of the product would still continue and control of the strength and quality would still be impossible.

Counterfeit cigarettes smuggled in contain some really nasty substances which shouldn't be there, but because they're countfeit there's no quality control.

Thinking that legalising and taxing the product will solve all the problems is too simplistic.

UK govenment is not going to go down this path, as its already declassified and then reclassified back to class B.

Neither is it going to allow the sale of hash produced in Afganistan to be sold, where the proceeds of the sale could ultimately return to people who fund flying lessons for extreamists or to buy bullets to shoot at our guys :thumbdown:

[no_akira]

I dont know if anybody watched the Horizon program about the 'Weed' from about 2 years ago. It was a scientific look into the drug. The program covered most angles. What it did highlight is that the government is concerned by the effect it (skunk) has on the young developing teenage brain, (possible reason for legislation and control - remove skunk out of the market place on health grounds). Or add a premium to it and make it 21+ only.

Theres a firm in shropshire somewhere with a big warehouse full of the weed who have been granted a license to research the stuff. Possibly sponsored by big pharma companies. But what they found was that in the old traditional weed (pre skunk) there is actually an anti-psycotic chemical in equal concentrations to the psycotic part, therefore they cancel each other out (THC / CBD). However in skunk its all THC !

This firm had also developed a nebulizer type device for getting HI without smoking ! Cool.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/may/01/drugsandalcohol.drugs

Its funny because this "economic forces" on the weed market reminds me of the motorbike market of the last 15 years. The "power to weight ratio" is fine when its a work in progress but it soon out classed the abilities of the general rider. Especially the "return to biking with a few extra pounds" brigade. You'd go into the dealers and it was all pocket rockets. On the streets its all skunk !

How many bikers do you know who bought Blades rode them when they were young & enthusiatic and feeling brave and then quietly put them in the garage to gather dust like some dark and dirty secret. I know at least 2 ex bikers that fall into this category. I think this is also the reason you come across so many low mileage Blades - ha ha ha !

The way I see it a weed market selling lower strength, less psycotic traditional Thia's et al could be a good thing.

[beabert]

It may not contain nicotine, but cannabis can certainly become psychologically addictive.

Also, weed is dangerous in those who are susceptible to mental illness. Without smoking, many of these people may never go on to develop a mental problem, whereas those that are susceptible but do smoke substantially increase their risk of developing a psychotic episode/s or schizophrenia.

Also, because cannabis is smoked up as a rollie with a self-designed roach, the amount of carcinogenic crud that enters the lungs is far greater than cigarettes which have a proper filter. (Although there is some indication that the thc in cannabis may actually have protective effects against cancer). Either way, still gonna get bronchitis, copd, etc much sooner by smoking more rollies than cigarettes.

Nonetheless, alcohol and cigarettes each kill way more than cannabis. (interesting chart below)
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_sSAD42j7iiM/R6eHY-I9GOI/AAAAAAAAAAY/6SpaccmeTwo/s320/380px-Rational_scale_to_assess_the_harm_of_drugs_%28mean _physical_harm_and_mean_dependence%29.svg.png

If the only result of making drugs illegal is giving the criminals the money, the government zilch (if not spending money), and the users poor quality drugs that may have been up someone's backside at some point, then what is the pooiiint:smt091!! It makes no difference to the demand, just skanks up the supply.

A perfect visual example on why to avoid sleeping tablets at all costs!!!! Ecstasy and lsd seems the way to go lol.

[husky03]

Weed pros-the smell, makes you eat, gives you giggles,you appreciate music more,you get the big pink fluffly cloud bubble jacket feeling.

Weed cons-imoa physcologically(sp) it is addictive,Broncial problems,it robs you of the desire to move.

i've seen both sides of the coin regarding this one , will it be legalised here?-i doubt it because when we go down that road it will only be a matter of time before the calls for other controlled drugs to follow the same path.

Question i'd ask those that wish to see it legalised is would you be happy with your son/daughter getting stoned on a regular basis??-i wouldn't

[tactcom7]

What is the difference between weed and skunk?

[beabert]

Taken from wiki

"Skunk" refers to several named strains of potent cannabis, grown through selective breeding and often hydroponics. It is a cross-breed of Cannabis sativa and C. indica (although other strains of this mix exist in abundance). Skunk cannabis potency ranges usually from 6% to 15% and rarely as high as 20%. The average THC level in coffee shops in the Netherlands is about 18–19%.[117]

[no_akira]

Agree, but id happily see alcohol banned too lol, infact id rather it banned than 'weed'

I'm assuming beabert your young & carefree. Life is about phases that make you have to reassess your opinions. Here is my current situation. I've get 2 young toddlers that are up at 6:30 or 7'ish on a good day (everyday!) along with a few times bed shifting in the night. This basically knackers your sleep pattern. What i've found over the last year is that I can cope with this sleep loss for about 10 - 20 days but at some point I need to reset the system and have a good sleep. Alcohol has traditionally been the reset option of choice but in my case I suffer terrible hangovers so a no go. Currently i'm using zopiclone sleeping tablets, 4 tablets every few months. Just for those days when the insomnia cycle is building. Problems is leaving Zopiclone tablet in the house is a danger in itself. That why they only give you 4 at a time.

I dont know if you seen much about "Hilly Billy Heroin" in the states but its causes real problems and deaths (stops the heart in your sleep due to it being a related drug to aneathetics)

I low dose weed could potentially fill this gap without the risks.

I remember seeing that whisky is one of the top selling brands in the UK. I don't drink it but alot of people must. I can only assume its the self medicating older generation.

[beabert]

I'm assuming beabert your young & carefree. Life is about phases that make you have to reassess your opinions. Here is my current situation. I've get 2 young toddlers that are up at 6:30 or 7'ish on a good day (everyday!) along with a few times bed shifting in the night. This basically knackers your sleep pattern. What i've found over the last year is that I can cope with this sleep loss for about 10 - 20 days but at some point I need to reset the system and have a good sleep. Alcohol has traditionally been the reset option of choice but in my case I suffer terrible hangovers so a no go. Currently i'm using zopiclone sleeping tablets, 4 tablets every few months. Just for those days when the insomnia cycle is building. Problems is leaving Zopiclone tablet in the house is a danger in itself. That why they only give you 4 at a time.

I dont know if you seen much about "Hilly Billy Heroin" in the states but its causes real problems and deaths (stops the heart in your sleep due to it being a related drug to aneathetics)

I low dose weed could potentially fill this gap without the risks.

I remember seeing that whisky is one of the top selling brands in the UK. I don't drink it but alot of people must. I can only assume its the self medicating older generation.

Not care free, from my experiences it does more harm than good. I would never dream of having children either, ban them too :D

Be careful with those tablets.

[maviczap]

What is the difference between weed and skunk?

Weed wasn't strong enough for some, so they invented skunk, special brew/white lightning for the pot heads

[thulfi]

Even if it was legallised and tax as suggested, the tax would be on a similar level to tobacco. Therefore no one would want to pay the prohibitively high taxes and would look for a cheaper supply, thus smuggling of the product would still continue and control of the strength and quality would still be impossible.

Counterfeit cigarettes smuggled in contain some really nasty substances which shouldn't be there, but because they're countfeit there's no quality control.

Thinking that legalising and taxing the product will solve all the problems is too simplistic.

No it won't solve all the problems, but put it this way, imagine if alcohol and cigarettes were fully illegal. The government make about £6bn in Alcohol revenue a year (£2bn profit) and £10bn in Tobacco revenue a year. That would be a lot of money down the pan, with money wasted to enforce it's prohibition.

I don't know anybody who seeks alcohol/tobacco illegally. I've seen UK border patrol shows where they search trucks coming in and seize all the illegal cigarettes/alcohol containers that try and find there way into the country.

The same would happen with cannabis. I mean do you seek cheaper smuggled alternatives of booze or baccy? Don't think anyone does, and I doubt this would happen with cannabis.

Control of strength and quality would be far better if it's legal - never pefect, but better than it is now.

[maviczap]

I mean do you seek cheaper smuggled alternatives of booze or baccy? Don't think anyone does, and I doubt this would happen with cannabis.

Control of strength and quality would be far better if it's legal - never pefect, but better than it is now.

Sorry but a lot of people do seek out cheaper baccy and cigarettes, you just don't mix in the right crowds :rolleyes:

Here's 10million seized not so long ago

http://www.eadt.co.uk/news/massive_cigarette_smuggling_plot_foiled_at_felixst owe_1_649732

This is a regular occurance at Felixstowe, and they are British brands for sale on the UK market,

Forget about the small loads you've seen seized on the UK Border programme, that's small fry compared to container loads found in the major ports around the UK.

With a packet of 20 ciggies costing about £7 in the shops now, a carton of 200 counterfeit ciggies will cost you between £15 - £20, so do the sums and see why so many ciggies are smuggled into the UK :rolleyes:

A tax on cannabis would reap a big tax windfall, but such and easily grown natural product would still be smuggled, because the tax levied would be on a similar level as tobacco

[beabert]

Sorry but a lot of people do seek out cheaper baccy and cigarettes, you just don't mix in the right crowds :rolleyes:

Here's 10million seized not so long ago

http://www.eadt.co.uk/news/massive_cigarette_smuggling_plot_foiled_at_felixst owe_1_649732

This is a regular occurance at Felixstowe, and they are British brands for sale on the UK market,

Forget about the small loads you've seen seized on the UK Border programme, that's small fry compared to container loads found in the major ports around the UK.

With a packet of 20 ciggies costing about £7 in the shops now, a carton of 200 counterfeit ciggies will cost you between £15 - £20, so do the sums and see why so many ciggies are smuggled into the UK :rolleyes:

A tax on cannabis would reap a big tax windfall, but such and easily grown natural product would still be smuggled, because the tax levied would be on a similar level as tobacco

I agree ^^ i know off ppl doing just that.

[tactcom7]

Oh right ok thanks for clearing that up for me.

[maviczap]

The most liberal weed country in the world Holland still hasn't fully legalised it. Its allowed to be sold in the coffee shops, but only up to certain amounts and only so much can be stored on the premisis. The Dutch aren't bothered about personal use amounts, which is the case here pretty much.:rolleyes:

But even the Dutch seize cannabis in commercial quantities as its still illegal to import cannabis into Holland and these are the supplies for the coffee shops, where else do you think they get their stock from. :rolleyes:

There's no legal way of them getting their supply. That's Holland, way ahead of the UK in their control of cannabis :rolleyes:

As far as I was aware the number of coffee shops was being reduced and more tightly controlled, as the majority of Dutch folk don't partake, its all for the tourists :rolleyes:

[thulfi]

Sorry but a lot of people do seek out cheaper baccy and cigarettes, you just don't mix in the right crowds :rolleyes:

sorry yeh I know, who wouldn't seek chepaer alternatives, my point is I don't of any 'dealers' that sell booze/fags on the side roads like cannabis for example.

Smuggled goods will always be the nature of a free market economy, and isn't really an argument against legalising something. Cannabis is still getting smuggled now isn't it, and a higher percentage here use it than they do in Holland.

Amsterdam may still import their cannabis, but because they sell it in shops, the supply is forced to be of a higher quality than it is here. Here you get what you're given by the dealer (which is what his dealer got given, etc), you don't choose the strain.

There are so many coffeeshops there selling different types of weed, that quality control develops naturally due to the higher competition, regardless of where it is coming from, so essentially the shop keepers seek out the best suppliers who will keep the customers happy and make them more money.

Also the trained eye/nose of a weed smoker/shop seller will spot poor quality weed much easier than a 24/7 shop owner being able to tell if a whole crate of Marlbro lights is poor quality fags.


With a packet of 20 ciggies costing about £7 in the shops now, a carton of 200 counterfeit ciggies will cost you between £15 - £20, so do the sums and see why so many ciggies are smuggled into the UK :rolleyes:

I don't follow this though. Maybe I just don't know, but are you saying that the average joe like me/you can buy these cigarettes or is it the shop owners that buy 'em? I thought most consumers prefer quality not quantity - well I don't know about ciggy smokers but pot heads defo do.

[maviczap]

I don't follow this though. Maybe I just don't know, but are you saying that the average joe like me/you can buy these cigarettes or is it the shop owners that buy 'em? I thought most consumers prefer quality not quantity - well I don't know about ciggy smokers but pot heads defo do.

In a word yes, you can if you know where? Pubs & shops (under the counter) boot sales but all illegal.

Poor ciggie smokers probably would prefer top quality ciggies, but like your pot heads have to get what they can, tough luck I say, no sympathy here :p

I'm all for medical uses for cannabis, but as I said before we can't control alchohol, so no chance with anything else :smt070

[metalhead19]

Question i'd ask those that wish to see it legalised is would you be happy with your son/daughter getting stoned on a regular basis??-i wouldn't

Im not disagreeing with you, but would you be happy with your son/daughter getting drunk on a regular basis? Probably not to the same extent as you would if they got stoned. But if weed was treated the same as alcohol (legal) would you still feel the same?

[yorkie_chris]

A fair argument, on an entirely objective basis it's difficult to argue for different laws on the drugs which are presently legal; tobacco, alcohol. Over those on the drugs which presently aren't.

An utterly objective mind would treat them all the same, whether that be that they are all legal or illegal.

No an objective mind would have to accept that people like drugs and compare the social issues and potential for revenue in them.


I don't know anybody who seeks alcohol/tobacco illegally.

When I smoked I was always really gutted to have to pay full price for tobacco, £5 for 50g (now £11 for same amount here!) for some imported from somewhere with more sensible tax levels seemed more fair. Hardly as illegal as trying to buy crack but is that what you mean?

[thulfi]

When I smoked I was always really gutted to have to pay full price for tobacco, £5 for 50g (now £11 for same amount here!) for some imported from somewhere with more sensible tax levels seemed more fair. Hardly as illegal as trying to buy crack but is that what you mean?

I guess I was meaning this

sorry yeh I know, who wouldn't seek chepaer alternatives, my point is I don't of any 'dealers' that sell booze/fags on the side roads like cannabis for example.

What kind of place was it where you bought these cheaper fags?

I mean I really had no idea about how much smuggling went all til recently, but it surely it must be the case that people have bought these cheaper poor quality ciggys from a normal newsagent without even knowing about it.

[maviczap]

I mean I really had no idea about how much smuggling went all til recently, but it surely it must be the case that people have bought these cheaper poor quality ciggys from a normal newsagent without even knowing about it.

Quite possibly, as the packaging on the counterfeit ones is every bit as good as the originals except for the quality control, so contain sawdust, dust, dirt, heavy metals, you name it its in there

[yorkie_chris]

What kind of place was it where you bought these cheaper fags?

I mean I really had no idea about how much smuggling went all til recently, but it surely it must be the case that people have bought these cheaper poor quality ciggys from a normal newsagent without even knowing about it.

The same sort of people who casually sell weed TBH... under the counter at newsagents is pretty common but I think most common is people bringing some back from their holidays.

TBH smoking rollies you can tell if it is some odd stuff... and would not buy same again, maybe tailor mades are different but most of it was just brought in from foreign parts and exactly same stuff as here just 1/3rd the price.

Smuggling has been going on as long as taxation has, I wouldn't think it hardly worth enforcing compared to the ills of smuggling harder stuff.

[Sid Squid]

Yes, ban the lot haha, but where do you draw the line, caffiene out too?
Exactly, what's OK and what isn't? - I'm not suggesting I know the answer, but I'm pretty sure that the substances that are presently legal and those that aren't and why probably don't make much logistical sense.

There's one thing that I do find deeply offensive which is lawmakers dictating what drugs are and aren't legal whilst taking drugs subsidised by your tax money.
Which is otherwise known as drinking in the commons bar - way cheaper that spending your own money, (including the significant amounts of tax), in the pub.

[thulfi]

There's one thing that I do find deeply offensive which is lawmakers dictating what drugs are and aren't legal whilst taking drugs subsidised by your tax money. .

This proves that exact point.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8334774.stm

ridiculous!

[beabert]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-11665560

Tobacco and cocaine are judged to be equally harmful, while ecstasy and LSD are among the least damaging.

That earlier scatter graph looks to be accurate. If i ever try anything ill have a go with LSd lol

[Milky Bar Kid]

Ha Eccies and LSD least damaging....that's because on LSD you die from jumping out a window....lol!

I personally don't like cannabis because I have watched family members and friends mental health deteriorate - in almost exactly the same way with the paranoia and things. I have also watched people who use cannabis to try and escape their problems end up moving onto to harder drugs and ruining their lives.

Almost every single heroin addict I have ever spoken to (which is quite a lot) has told me that their downfall was cannabis. That's not me saying that everyone who smokes cannabis is gonna end up on heroin, not saying that at all, however, it is a stepping stone for people with the right problems and things.

Drugs legislation will never be perfect. It is impossible to legislate it in order to keep everyone happy.

[no_akira]

Almost every single heroin addict I have ever spoken to (which is quite a lot) has told me that their downfall was cannabis.

With the same reasoning you could argue that it could have started even before cannabis with plain old cigarettes and alcohol, to a person who is sensitive to stimulants.

Heroin is special case, a drug with an addictive quality way above all the others. I always think of John Lennon, a man with the world at his feet and yet had a go at the 'H' when it was in vogue (like 'E's & ohms to my generation) and ten years later was still on it !

The real problem is that when you go to score from a dealer, they quickly spot the young lads / lasses that keep coming back and then its in there own interest to move them onto Herion. To dealers Herion is a wonder product, plentiful, cheap, highly addictive, a golden ticket.

sleepy eyed teenage stoner; "got any gear mate ?"

dealer; "No go Joe, there's bit off a drought on at the mo, got loads of 'H' and its only £5 a wrap"

[Milky Bar Kid]

With the same reasoning you could argue that it could have started even before cannabis with plain old cigarettes and alcohol, to a person who is sensitive to stimulants.

Heroin is special case, a drug with an addictive quality way above all the others. I always think of John Lennon, a man with the world at his feet and yet had a go at the 'H' when it was in vogue (like 'E's & ohms to my generation) and ten years later was still on it !

The real problem is that when you go to score from a dealer, they quickly spot the young lads / lasses that keep coming back and then its in there own interest to move them onto Herion. To dealers Herion is a wonder product, plentiful, cheap, highly addictive, a golden ticket.

sleepy eyed teenage stoner; "got any gear mate ?"

dealer; "No go Joe, there is bit off a drought on at the mo, got loads of 'H' and its only £5 a wrap"

I wasn't arguing anything, you have misquoted me slightly by excluding the part where I said I am not saying that happens to everyone who smokes cannabis!!!

And how can you use that reasoning? You are assuming that they did indeed smoke cigarettes and drink alcohol prior to that. It's something I take an interest in, I always like to ask the co-operative ones what happened and how they ended up where they are and most are very frank and open about it, if you are frank and open with them. Most tend to have started smoking the odd joint and then it just spirals out of control.

I do see what you are saying though and I realise that dealers are a big problem for pushing, although I don't think their tactics are always as nice as you imply!

[thulfi]

Most people I know who smoke weed drank alcohol first. What does that make alcohol?

MBK, you really have to know the proportion of cannabis users that go on to do harder drugs like heroin to be able to say whether or not cannabis is a significant gateway drug. I don't think those figures are out there.

[yorkie_chris]

I have also watched people who use cannabis to try and escape their problems end up moving onto to harder drugs and ruining their lives.

Surely then it's the fact that they were nutters in the first place then that cause them to start on hard drugs... not the cannabis.

[Milky Bar Kid]

That's not me saying that everyone who smokes cannabis is gonna end up on heroin, not saying that at all, however, it is a stepping stone for people with the right problems and things

Most people I know who smoke weed drank alcohol first. What does that make alcohol?

MBK, you really have to know the proportion of cannabis users that go on to do harder drugs like heroin to be able to say whether or not cannabis is a significant gateway drug. I don't think those figures are out there.

Ok, where there did I say it was a gateway drug?

I specifically made the point that it is a stepping stone for CERTAIN people. Many variables in it.

And why do I need to know the figure of people using cannabis when almost every heroin user I have ever spoken to has point blank told me, cannabis was their downfall?

Whilst the percentage of cannabis users who move onto harder drugs is unknown, I am going from anecdotal evidence from those on the harder drugs and I would say about 90% of heroin addicts I have dealt with have told me that cannabis was their "stepping stone". Their words not mine.

I don't personally agree with legalising cannabis, I can see there are some pros but for me, if we can't control alcohol use, we wouldn't be able to control cannabis use effectively.:smt102

Like I said, drugs legislation will never be perfect and there will always be arguments for and against different drugs.

[beabert]

Ha Eccies and LSD least damaging....that's because on LSD you die from jumping out a window....lol!

I personally don't like cannabis because I have watched family members and friends mental health deteriorate - in almost exactly the same way with the paranoia and things. I have also watched people who use cannabis to try and escape their problems end up moving onto to harder drugs and ruining their lives.

Almost every single heroin addict I have ever spoken to (which is quite a lot) has told me that their downfall was cannabis. That's not me saying that everyone who smokes cannabis is gonna end up on heroin, not saying that at all, however, it is a stepping stone for people with the right problems and things.

Drugs legislation will never be perfect. It is impossible to legislate it in order to keep everyone happy.

+1

[thulfi]

Ok, where there did I say it was a gateway drug?

I specifically made the point that it is a stepping stone for CERTAIN people.


ie a gateway drug.


And why do I need to know the figure of people using cannabis when almost every heroin user I have ever spoken to has point blank told me, cannabis was their downfall?

Whilst the percentage of cannabis users who move onto harder drugs is unknown, I am going from anecdotal evidence from those on the harder drugs and I would say about 90% of heroin addicts I have dealt with have told me that cannabis was their "stepping stone". Their words not mine.


Because lets say the percentage of cannabis users that go on to heroin is 0.1% or lets say it's 50%. There's a massive difference there which sheds a whole different light onto the effect of this drug in acting as a 'stepping stone' for harder drugs.

Just because 90% of the heroin users you've dealth with have done cannabis, doesn't mean too much. What percentage of the pot heads you deal with did alcohol first?

[maviczap]

Like I said, drugs legislation will never be perfect and there will always be arguments for and against different drugs.

Big +1 on this

[Milky Bar Kid]

ie a gateway drug.



Because lets say the percentage of cannabis users that go on to heroin is 0.1% or lets say it's 50%. There's a massive difference there which sheds a whole different light onto the effect of this drug in acting as a 'stepping stone' for harder drugs.

Just because 90% of the heroin users you've dealth with have done cannabis, doesn't mean too much. What percentage of the pot heads you deal with did alcohol first?

Yeh, I get what you are saying, but I don't think you are getting exactly what I am meaning. It's difficult to explain on here.

Just like to point out they themselves say it was the stepping stone, not me.

I shall ponder on this and think of how to explain what I am meaning, brain too tired just now!

[dizzyblonde]

Smoking pot leads to Heroin addiction.....biggest crock of sh1te I've ever heard.

The problem is your genetic make up, to wether you have addictive tendencies.

ooooo might be shocking to you lot on here, but I used to wake up to a joint, smoke joints all day and have a maaaahooooooosive bifta before bedtime. SO hate me for it, there you have it, fall out with me and make me feel shameful, but in no way have I ever used harder, and much more loathsome drugs.
I don't smoke even a cigarette these days, haven't for six years, nor do I drink a massive amount of alcohol.
As for it making you into a depressive state...well these days I have much more issues with depression than I ever did when I smoked pot all day...and its not a delayed reaction to it, because I stopped smoking that not long before I gave up fags.


As before its only a stepping stone if you already have the genes within for addiction. I obviously don't have those genes. I don't scowl and look down on those who smoke pot, entirely hypocritical, if they want to, then fine, no issue to me. Those who dislike pot smokers and scorn, should damn well butt out and leave their thoughts to themselves.

[Dave20046]

Yeh, I get what you are saying, but I don't think you are getting exactly what I am meaning. It's difficult to explain on here.

Just like to point out they themselves say it was the stepping stone, not me.

I shall ponder on this and think of how to explain what I am meaning, brain too tired just now!

I reckon it's the person, not the drug. Smackheads will get high on anything, it's just the odds are, amongst other things, they will have started with cannabis - one of the most readily available drugs.
I can imagine a baghead sort not being able to get hold of any, so needing the next thing they can get off their face with be it white lightning, cannabis, pills, glue. But I couldn't imagine the folk daimo refers to thinking "ah what the hell it's friday, I'm going to go shoot up and pass out behind lidl"

[no_akira]

It's funny as much as I pour cold water on the 'cannibis as a gateway' using our current awareness about drugs. From a personal point of view I kinda understand what the junkies mean, cannibis and the way it effects us is very different to cigs & alcohol and because of this its an introduction to the world and potential of hard drugs. Its the only drug i've been exposed to (very limited, never even had a 'E') that can give me 'stoned feeling flash backs' when you smell it more so than 'cigarette smoke in hot countrys' or peculating strong coffee. Somehow even just the smell seems to trigger feeling receptors in the brain.

The narrator (Dr John Marsden) of the Horizon programme ("Cannibis: The Evil Weed" - 12 Feb 2009) went into this at the start, its all to do with humans coming from seaweed way back in the evolutionary chain.

But at the end of the day all the more reason for legalise.

[beabert]

ie a gateway drug.

Just because 90% of the heroin users you've dealth with have done cannabis, doesn't mean too much. What percentage of the pot heads you deal with did alcohol first?

But going to buy alcohol doesn't bring you into regular contact with people with access to heroin though. Where as visiting a dealer does, and the opportunity and temptation is there, thats the gateway.

Most canabis users wont end up trying heroin, but nearly all heroin users are likely to have started with weed, i personally know many that did.

Legalising it may help many from progressing on to more harmful drugs, but its likely a very small percentage that do anyway.

[dizzyblonde]

No it leads to carpentry as stated by mr Leary here. Just to lighten the tone a bit

v=68vv1sIyaMs&feature=related

WOW that must be some proper heavy **** man, its so heavy the whole of that link is clouds of white:rolleyes:


in other words it don't work;)

[maviczap]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68vv1sIyaMs&feature=related

Don't know why it didn't work

Tis funny

[dizzyblonde]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68vv1sIyaMs&feature=related

Don't know why it didn't work

Tis funny


bloody hell not seen that in a few years!

NiQuil?? must be Nytol(nightnurse??) that stuffs the worst stuff for people getting hooked on it!

[Sally]

Alcohol and baccy aren't step on drugs, I am proof of that... ;)

Even if I don't have a choice about it, I like my job :)

[yorkie_chris]

And why do I need to know the figure of people using cannabis when almost every heroin user I have ever spoken to has point blank told me, cannabis was their downfall?

I'd question the impartiality of the source TBH... trying to blame their own problems on something else perchance... probably the same psychological reasons why so many find it so hard to stop "it's not my fault!" etc.

[Milky Bar Kid]

Smoking pot leads to Heroin addiction.....biggest crock of sh1te I've ever heard.

OK firstly, that's not exactly what I am saying here Dizz.

The problem is your genetic make up, to wether you have addictive tendencies.

I agree this is a huge part of things and I do believe there is such a thing as an addictive gene. That being said, I don't think that is the sole variable that would lead a person onto heroin. Diamorphine is addictive to most who use it. There are very, very few people who have used it once and managed to never, ever use it again. If you are weak willed, or need somewhere to take solace from problems and it's offered to you, then you are down that path.

ooooo might be shocking to you lot on here, but I used to wake up to a joint, smoke joints all day and have a maaaahooooooosive bifta before bedtime. Hardly the crime of the century Dizz, and certainly doesn't shock me. SO hate me for it, there you have it, fall out with me and make me feel shameful, but in no way have I ever used harder, and much more loathsome drugs.
I don't smoke even a cigarette these days, haven't for six years, nor do I drink a massive amount of alcohol.
As for it making you into a depressive state...well these days I have much more issues with depression than I ever did when I smoked pot all day...and its not a delayed reaction to it, because I stopped smoking that not long before I gave up fags. Have to say though, most people with psychological problems related to cannabis suffer them after they stop using. Not at all saying that you have psychological problems due to cannabis misuse, far from it. I don't know if they have found a definitive link to it yet, or if it is just that the people who have been using cannabis have psych problems before that hadn't manifested themselves.


As before its only a stepping stone if you already have the genes within for addiction. I obviously don't have those genes. I don't scowl and look down on those who smoke pot, entirely hypocritical, if they want to, then fine, no issue to me. Those who dislike pot smokers and scorn, should damn well butt out and leave their thoughts to themselves. I don't dislike pot smokers, and I don't scorn. Don't like my nose being rubbed in it though, for obvious reasons. But everyone on here is entitled to an opinion Lou, whether you agree with it or not.

I do find it interesting though that cannabis is legalised in Holland and yet it is mainly tourists who use it.

[Milky Bar Kid]

I'd question the impartiality of the source TBH... trying to blame their own problems on something else perchance... probably the same psychological reasons why so many find it so hard to stop "it's not my fault!" etc.

Yeh, see what you mean but it's normally a pretty frank discussion I have. There are no other ears, just me and them and I tend to find a lot of the users are really honest with me about how they ended up where they were. Don't really get a lot of the "it's not my fault" from them, tends to be more "i was an idiot to get involved in that scene and I should've listened to my parents" etc.

[Daimo]

:lol: Leads onto harder drugs my rear end... EXACTLY what the police sargent who pulled me in in my early 20's said. Ironically, I went on to work for one of the UK's largest law firms after, and i've never done anything harder.

I know a LOT of weed smokers, not one of them does anything harder. In fact, most had popped an e before smoking a joint.

So a crock of poop, written by someone who's read a paper and come to the same conclusion.

Oh, as for mental issues after giving up, also another load of poop. Half the above mentioned smokers who "grew out of it" have carried on to lead good law abiding lives. Im not going mad, if anything, im more sane now. But thats only because im more clear headed and active opposed to being monged and relaxed.

tbh, the worst part about it for me was waking up in the morning tired, and not being able to be recall certain things. But I smoked a lot of it.

Check me out, im injecting morphine now... In between mugging old ladies and stealing car stereo's.

[yorkie_chris]

On a separate note there was something on the radio where some lunatic of an academic was suggesting that crack cocaine is less damaging than alcohol.

I'm going to hunt him down and offer his daughter some crack and a bacardi breezer and see which annoys him more :)

[thulfi]

Well one things for sure, if alcohol and cannabis switched roles in society (which obviously can/would never happen), im sure we'd have less car accidents, domestic violent, street brawls, etc.

Lives would be saved, and less mingers would get laid.

[Ed]

I'll stick to Prozac:rolleyes:

[thedonal]

On a separate note there was something on the radio where some lunatic of an academic was suggesting that crack cocaine is less damaging than alcohol.

I'm going to hunt him down and offer his daughter some crack and a bacardi breezer and see which annoys him more :)

The point was that certain substances cause less overall harm and if you think about it, the number of lives destroyed by crack in the UK every year is minimal, related to alcohol where the damage is vast.

The damage is caused because it is legal and socially acceptable.

Crack cocaine is a very harmful substance and very addictive. So it does seriously affect the lives of those on it and their families/dependants- but because it is stigmatised, it is less harmful overall because most people have the sense not to get involved.

[Owenski]

Firstly, good thread no bitching just discussion, are you sure you havnt all been on the green? its all far too civilised in here - boooooooooooooooooo!

Agree in part, but then again there are people who abuse alcohol and suffer for it as does society around them. I don't see a difference.

+1 - is what I'd have responded with.

As I stated in the other post.

As a former smoker of 10 years of the herb, I can fully assure you that MOST full working weed smoking citizens would rather pay for it and get it legally

+1 im not proud nor ashamed that I like to have a smoke every now and then, nothing nicer than been completely knackered after a hectic few days. Getting the dog taking her for a walk and having a smoke before shower and bed for a fantastic nights sleep. Its great too if you've been out on the beer, come home have one, wake up hang over free - excellent!

Surely then it's the fact that they were nutters in the first place then that cause them to start on hard drugs... not the cannabis.
+1000000000000
Those who use it as an escape/excuse then they're just hiding from the issues they have in the first place. For these people if it wasnt weed then it would likely be something else and in the end they'd end up in the same place.

Like Daimo said, his 40k plus friends who enjoy a smoke every now and then simarly I have friends in occupations you'd dread to think were anything other than squeeky clean. In truth they seem to be the most drug orentated people I know, doesnt change a thing. They're sucessful people and they do it all in moderation, why? becuase they're not idiots they do it for the fun not for the escape.

I reckon it's the person, not the drug. Smackheads will get high on anything, it's just the odds are, amongst other things, they will have started with cannabis - one of the most readily available drugs.
I can imagine a baghead sort not being able to get hold of any, so needing the next thing they can get off their face with be it white lightning, cannabis, pills, glue. But I couldn't imagine the folk daimo refers to thinking "ah what the hell it's friday, I'm going to go shoot up and pass out behind lidl"

my point exactly. Its the person not the chemical.

[thulfi]

The point was that certain substances cause less overall harm and if you think about it, the number of lives destroyed by crack in the UK every year is minimal, related to alcohol where the damage is vast.

The damage is caused because it is legal and socially acceptable.

Crack cocaine is a very harmful substance and very addictive. So it does seriously affect the lives of those on it and their families/dependants- but because it is stigmatised, it is less harmful overall because most people have the sense not to get involved.

But nobody could say cocaine is less harmful than alcohol, because it isn't. The reason less people die from cocaine, is because people are less inclined to go near it, because it's a more dangerous substance than alcohol (or many others).

It's like saying less people die from cyanide poisoning, so cyanide is less harmful than alcohol.

Cocaine is a much more dangerous drug than virtually most others, and if cocaine was used as much as alcohol was in society, there would be a lot more dead people.

[dizzyblonde]

:lol: Leads onto harder drugs my rear end... EXACTLY what the police sargent who pulled me in in my early 20's said. Ironically, I went on to work for one of the UK's largest law firms after, and i've never done anything harder.

I know a LOT of weed smokers, not one of them does anything harder. In fact, most had popped an e before smoking a joint.

So a crock of poop, written by someone who's read a paper and come to the same conclusion.

Oh, as for mental issues after giving up, also another load of poop. Half the above mentioned smokers who "grew out of it" have carried on to lead good law abiding lives. Im not going mad, if anything, im more sane now. But thats only because im more clear headed and active opposed to being monged and relaxed.

tbh, the worst part about it for me was waking up in the morning tired, and not being able to be recall certain things. But I smoked a lot of it.

Check me out, im injecting morphine now... In between mugging old ladies and stealing car stereo's.


Well FECK MEE, Daimo and myself actually agree about something:thumright:

[thedonal]

But nobody could say cocaine is less harmful than alcohol, because it isn't. The reason less people die from cocaine, is because people are less inclined to go near it, because it's a more dangerous substance than alcohol (or many others).

It's like saying less people die from cyanide poisoning, so cyanide is less harmful than alcohol.

Cocaine is a much more dangerous drug than virtually most others, and if cocaine was used as much as alcohol was in society, there would be a lot more dead people.

Why is cocaine physiologically more dangerous than, say alcohol or heroin?

Cocaine is VERY, VERY widely used (though on the decline). I'd say, on a physical harm basis, cocaine is probably similar to alcohol in some respects. It's more likely to cause a heart attack if too much is ingested in one go, but at the same time, alcohol poisoning is equally dangerous, not to mention the loss of control when you get hammered. Both can do a lot of damage to the liver.

One is legal (and marketed in some very insidious ways- think alcopops) and socially acceptable. The other isn't (depending on the crowds you hang around with!!).

Cocaine is WAY less addictive than opiates. And due to the purity of street cocaine these days (reportedly it's way down on the 90s, for example and even the 80s), the cutting agents (which are becoming bigger business now than the substances themselves) might be more likely to do you harm. Hence the decline of use (record hauls on our borders over recent years has also had an effect on this).

Of course cocaine is safer than cyanide. That's a completely irrelevant reference. So is any substance on the controlled list. The discussion in hand is the recreational use of substances, not comparison of popular drugs with deadly poisons.

IF cocaine were legalised (and I'm not necessarily calling for that), made to a decent, safe quality (it is used widely in many different medical products) and provided in a controlled manner (which would be more controlled than alcohol I expect), I believe that it would be less harmful than alcohol.

You would also reduce the amount of dangerous crime taken to get that substance into the hands of the public.

I will personally be very surprised if cannabis is legalised in California for two reasons-

First, the DEA are amazingly strict on drugs (the so called 'War on Drugs')- also, legalising it would be very clear evidence that they are losing this 'war'

Secondly, the USA like most countries in the world are signed up to international treaties on substance control and this might constitute a breach of such a treaty (depending on the terms of legalisation).

[beabert]

:lol: Leads onto harder drugs my rear end... EXACTLY what the police sargent who pulled me in in my early 20's said. Ironically, I went on to work for one of the UK's largest law firms after, and i've never done anything harder.

I know a LOT of weed smokers, not one of them does anything harder. In fact, most had popped an e before smoking a joint.

So a crock of poop, written by someone who's read a paper and come to the same conclusion.

Oh, as for mental issues after giving up, also another load of poop. Half the above mentioned smokers who "grew out of it" have carried on to lead good law abiding lives. Im not going mad, if anything, im more sane now. But thats only because im more clear headed and active opposed to being monged and relaxed.

tbh, the worst part about it for me was waking up in the morning tired, and not being able to be recall certain things. But I smoked a lot of it.

Check me out, im injecting morphine now... In between mugging old ladies and stealing car stereo's.

You do talk some crap! lol

[no_akira]

First, the DEA are amazingly strict on drugs (the so called 'War on Drugs')- also, legalising it would be very clear evidence that they are losing this 'war'

What happens when your country is broke, 750 trillion owed to China. Idealogical wars tend to be the first to get binned. Besides they can easily argue it allows them to "concentrate" on the real hard drugs.

Secondly, the USA like most countries in the world are signed up to international treaties on substance control and this might constitute a breach of such a treaty (depending on the terms of legalisation).

Getting back to the original point at last. California has often gone its own way (think emission controls) only to be followed by other nations down the road. I think behind the scenes Western nations are gearing up for a sea change. Remember I said it first (little lie I read it in the Newscientist).

[thedonal]

Fair points. I was chatting about this topic with my Bro recently.

I do think that the whole way of managing 'controlled drugs' needs to be drastically rethought. Hell of a job though and massively multi-faceted.

If the legalisation goes ahead (which it may well), I'm sure that the DEA will be telling the INCB that it is a 'trial scheme' and that they will be 'monitoring things very closely'.

Sadly, the US has had the most destructively pig-headed attitude to drugs for a long time, much as I respect the agents and officers on the front line doing the job, the policy needs to be brought up to date. We're the same in the U of K.

[Daimo]

You do talk some crap! lol


No, I don't actually. As a former heavy user on weed, and having a good understanding of its effects as I researched a lot into it, I actually know what im talking about.

You on the other hand, should get back to reading the evening standard and the sun for your information.

Expand on what i've written that is "crap" (nice use of language btw, been to the pub?)

[thulfi]

Why is cocaine physiologically more dangerous than, say alcohol or heroin?

Cocaine is VERY, VERY widely used (though on the decline). I'd say, on a physical harm basis, cocaine is probably similar to alcohol in some respects. It's more likely to cause a heart attack if too much is ingested in one go, but at the same time, alcohol poisoning is equally dangerous, not to mention the loss of control when you get hammered. Both can do a lot of damage to the liver.

One is legal (and marketed in some very insidious ways- think alcopops) and socially acceptable. The other isn't (depending on the crowds you hang around with!!).

this


http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_sSAD42j7iiM/R6eHY-I9GOI/AAAAAAAAAAY/6SpaccmeTwo/s320/380px-Rational_scale_to_assess_the_harm_of_drugs_%28mean _physical_harm_and_mean_dependence%29.svg.png


What are you basing the thought of alcohol and cocaine being even similar when it comes to physical harm?

[Milky Bar Kid]

No, I don't actually. As a former heavy user on weed, and having a good understanding of its effects as I researched a lot into it, I actually know what im talking about.

You on the other hand, should get back to reading the evening standard and the sun for your information.

Expand on what i've written that is "crap" (nice use of language btw, been to the pub?)

Whilst your experiences are invaluable and very interesting in a discussion like this Daimo, you seem to think that only your answer is right and don't seem to be willing to accept other peoples opinions.

Not saying you have to agree with them, however, my opinion is based on PERSONAL experience and anecdotal evidence from various types of drug users, not the newspapers.

Meh, what does it matter anyway, doubt our Govt will change anything.:smt102

[thedonal]

this



What are you basing the thought of alcohol and cocaine being even similar when it comes to physical harm?

Where's that chart from? How is it measured? What do the 1, 2 and 3 breaks relate to? Looks rather arbitrary to me.

From (old) personal experience and observation, I would not class cocaine as considerably more dangerous than alcohol. Some of this can be measured in after effects, I'm sure some could be measured in long term use. Of course, this can also vary from person to person.

I could be completely wrong, but from the above mentioned personal experience, I do not believe that cocaine is seriously more dangerous than alcohol. I do know that it can turn nice guys into complete ****holes though!

[Milky Bar Kid]

Where's that chart from?

From (old) personal experience and observation, I would not class cocaine as considerably more dangerous than alcohol. Some of this can be measured in after effects, I'm sure some could be measured in long term use.

Cocaine is also not instantly addictive in the way opiates can be (heroin, for example).

Out of curiosity, is that a medically trained opinion or just an educated guess?

[Daimo]

Hold up luv, where have i said that.

I wrote a good debatable reply, and this person comes in with a pointless comment.

You have experience with people who have had problems. That to me is like say (example) a mother who's lost her child in a car crash due to them speeding. The mother then goes out and starts a campaign that speeding is dangerous. Ignoring the fact the child was probably driving far to fast in the first place.

Having that you have explained nothing about your experience really, I can only presume and make an assumption that your, or others, are looking to blame the drug, and not the individuals who may have been the cause of their own downfall. That is obviously on an assumption.

Also, all your conversations with heroin addicts, sorry but I can only laugh at them blaming a non addictive drug for them moving onto stuff like that. Utter tripe, those people have deeper physcological issues and blaming a mild drug for a stepping stone onto heroin is utter rubbish. Not one person I know (and I also can name a LOT of people) or have ever know has blamed weed for moving onto a much harder substance. Like you would trust what a heroin user has to say. Sure lets cook something up and inject ourselves. Its only a few steps from rolling a spliff isn't it :lol:

Im not saying im right, or wrong, im saying my experience, which is a lot. If someone comes back with no valid debatable argument (of which you didn't btw!), and writes a simplistic "your talk crap" comment, then I will reply in a manner that that person has to be spoken on.

But im the brain fried idiotic mindless ex drug taker.

[thedonal]

Out of curiosity, is that a medically trained opinion or just an educated guess?

It is from an educated guess. So- as stated, I could be wrong.

But I'd be curious to understand the background behind the chart too.

Following my post edit too. It is often documented that it generally takes 1 hit of heroin to cause addiction. From my personal experience and seeing a (fairly large) number of people around me, I do not believe that cocaine is instantly physiologically addictive in the same way. And regular use brings tolerance, requiring more to get a 'hit'.

That doesn't mean that people don't get addicted- many people do. Quite often, though, with coke, it's more psychologically addictive (I guess you could argue that that is also physiologically addictive- western medicine is only now starting to make the leap that mind and body are connected)

I did have a quick search for some facts to back my 'opinion' up, but sadly, much on either side of the drugs debate is very biased, so it would be hard to easily choose reliable facts.

[thulfi]

Where's that chart from?

Since you asked

Nutt, D.; King, L. A.; Saulsbury, W.; Blakemore, C. (2007). "Development of a rational scale to assess the harm of drugs of potential misuse". The Lancet 369 (9566): 1047.

[thedonal]

Since you asked

Nutt, D.; King, L. A.; Saulsbury, W.; Blakemore, C. (2007). "Development of a rational scale to assess the harm of drugs of potential misuse". The Lancet 369 (9566): 1047.

Fair enough. I stand corrected!

[Owenski]

I dont want this to seem like users against the neive, but without having experianced something for your self you simply cant hope to fully understand it.
Ive experianced it, as have a former group of friends (the drugs were nothing to do with this collapsed friendship btw) but of the group there are few ingested narcotics which were not as some point swallowed/snorted/smoked. Of that group of friends 1 has circled the drain a few times but this is purely because of his personality, we were all introduced to the drugs in teh same way, we all tried the same things at the same time yet he became hooked on Ketamine, I witnessed most of his interaction with the drug and it was only after the freindship went its seperate ways that I last heard he was in hosiptal due to kidney failure (a classic side effect of ket) not exactly the best PRO DRUG argument you'll obviously agree. But then again... this guy never once touched weed so it does prove that weed isnt the "key" to harder drugs. Anyway back to this bloke, he wouldnt smoke a single thing because cigarettes were his fathers killer, what does that tell you? IMO it tells you that the addictive gene does exist, that part of a person is pre determind and it doesnt matter what your drug is, if you've an addictive/weak personality then you'll find something to hook on to.
For those who wonder about the remainder of the 8, well Im one of them and my life is pretty standard with exception to the odd spliff, 7 of them live equally normal lives, one choosing to have no drug contact at all 4 still take the odd weekend binge but mon-fri you'd never think anything less of them especially considering their jobs. 2 I never hear of anymore but the last time we spoke they too said it wasnt something they took part in anymore and the 8th is the one who could be dead now in fairness but he's only himself to blame. We all did the same stuff but it never beat us, its all about the person and nothing to do with the substance. THat is my FACTUAL based opinion based on personal experiance and based on a fairly varied group of friends, you can use that info for what you wish but I think it qualifies me pretty highly to be able to make such a statement.

[Daimo]

I concour. I have a similar situation.

One of my best friends (until only recently I may add) had everything you could want. Rented house, nice car, good job, stunning little boy and little girl, great fiancee (who im now friends with, despite knowing this boy since 11 at school). I knew he started on the sniff, started cheating etc. I went mental at him, absolutly ballistic, threatened to expose him.

It scared him, he cleaned himself up, but soon reverted back to his old ways.

A year later, he now has split up, lives with his mum and dad at 30, lost his job, lost his car license through drink driving, hardly talks to any of us, always down the pub. I've given up patience with him. He's also back on the coke, and constantly down the pub. It really sadden's me, and all my close friends (big group of close friends), but we've all given him chance after chance, and its simply too much now. He has made his lifestyle choice.

He never bought a bag of weed in his life. Had a few tokes for sure, but nothing to do with weed. Straight on what i'd call much harder stuff. Its his nature, and nothing to do with "the stepping stone drug".

[thulfi]

IMO it tells you that the addictive gene does exist, that part of a person is pre determind and it doesnt matter what your drug is, if you've an addictive/weak personality then you'll find something to hook on to.

+1. Trying to attribute this fact to one specific drug is pointless. Even if it correlates by social chance it's meaningless. This very point means such individuals are attracted to these drugs more so than others, and become more readily hooked (coupled with social dynamics). Which drug it happens to be is not relevant.

Having said that, different drugs are clearly worse than others. The gateway theory itself on the other hand is much disputed amongst the science boffs so how would we know otherwise?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gateway_theory#Cannabis

[Daimo]

The most major issue with cannabis now is the unknown streams you get.

10 years ago, the supply was more limited. Weed was weed, skunk was much harsher. These days I don't think you can actually get "weed" as so much of it is chemically enhanced when its grown. Sometimes you got weak stuff, other times it would knock you out. My partner would get really effected by some gear, and it wouldn't effect me, and vica versa. Same goes for friends. "try this, its really strong" so you'd have some and question what he/she is on about :lol:

This is where Amsterdam has it right (only be it in some coffeeshops) where the lists are detailed and explains what kind of high the particular type of cannabis your purhasing (excitable, relaxed, heavy etc). Control the types, make different types on offer and no-one needs to go any further.

All this talk, I want a smoke now :lol: But thats mental, I don't actually want one, so I wont. You know what its called??? Willpower. Some have it, some don't. I went cold turkey. Its not actually hard to do at all if you want to quit.

[no_akira]

thedonal wrote
Where's that chart from? How is it measured? What do the 1, 2 and 3 breaks relate to? Looks rather arbitrary to me.

From (old) personal experience and observation, I would not class cocaine as considerably more dangerous than alcohol. Some of this can be measured in after effects, I'm sure some could be measured in long term use. Of course, this can also vary from person to person.

I think the high position of Cocaine on the thulfi chart is down to "crack cocaine" which is as addictive or more than heroin. But because normal Coke isnt that addictive its averaged position puts it below heroin.

From a moral point i've always been very anti cocaine, never taken it even though i've been offered it and around people taking it. Whenever you get a restricted product that is ruled over by cartels there always seems to be lots of related human suffering, think coccaine, diamonds, that rare earth element that goes in your mobile phones. Also snorting dust up your nose that may only contain 5% of the actual product with the 95% being totally unknown is a little bit foolish.

When you compare weed which can't be 'cooked up' so as to last longer / have a harder hit / make the dealer more money (they have tried, skunk). You realise that labour where correct to drop it down a classification a few years back. It was only the Daily Mail readership that got it reclassified.

'Weed' is a garden weed, can be grown locally doesn't require nasty chemicals to synthesis. Its ethical and environmentally nuetral. Perhaps what legislators are really worried about is that wont be able to control production.

[thedonal]

thedonal wrote


I think the high position of Cocaine on the thulfi chart is down to "crack cocaine" which is as addictive or more than heroin. But because normal Coke isnt that addictive its averaged position puts it below heroin.

From a moral point i've always been very anti cocaine, never taken it even though i've been offered it and around people taking it. Whenever you get a restricted product that is ruled over by cartels there always seems to be lots of related human suffering, think coccaine, diamonds, that rare earth element that goes in your mobile phones. Also snorting dust up your nose that may only contain 5% of the actual product with the 95% being totally unknown is a little bit foolish.

When you compare weed which can't be 'cooked up' so as to last longer / have a harder hit / make the dealer more money (they have tried, skunk). You realise that labour where correct to drop it down a classification a few years back. It was only the Daily Mail readership that got it reclassified.

'Weed' is a garden weed, can be grown locally doesn't require nasty chemicals to synthesis. Its ethical and environmentally nuetral. Perhaps what legislators are really worried about is that wont be able to control production.

Yeah- the newspapers really do hamper social progress. That's just as insidious as the gangs running the drugs. It's just more socially acceptable. Wait- hang on a minute. Weren't we just talking about this!

I went off cannabis a long time ago- mainly because it started getting that much stronger. While I never went out and actively bought it myself, I did join in on the odd smoke quite from 20 to 10 years ago and rather enjoyed it. Anything since has ruined me very easily!

Some my brother and my friends smoke VERY strong stuff very regular. Can't be good for you in that frequent volume.

It all seems now to be quite a large waste of money, time and braincells, when there are really so many more worthwhile and valuable things to do.

[thulfi]

When you compare weed which can't be 'cooked up' so as to last longer / have a harder hit / make the dealer more money (they have tried, skunk). You realise that labour where correct to drop it down a classification a few years back. It was only the Daily Mail readership that got it reclassified.

'Weed' is a garden weed, can be grown locally doesn't require nasty chemicals to synthesis. Its ethical and environmentally nuetral. Perhaps what legislators are really worried about is that wont be able to control production.

I agree that weed probably gets 'cooked up' less than cocaine. It's much easier mixing coke with crud like washing up powder, talcum powder,etc.

Be weary mind you of the skunk that is homegrown. They add pencil shavings/glass/etc to bump up the weight.

Saw a programme recently, and apparently this is what some weed growers in the UK do; throughout the growth process, when the plant is still young, someone will come in with ground crushed glass and sprinkle it over the growing buds. The rest just grows around the glass - it may even be repeated several times. This adds to the weight, whilst giving it that THC sparkle that people look for in skunk.

Smoking glass defo can't agree well with the lungs.