California, Proposition 19, freeing the weed !

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.

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".

Originally Posted by Owenski

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

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

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 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.

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.

Originally Posted by no_akira

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.

Originally Posted by no_akira

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.