Cannabis - Time for a re-think?

[Apple]

10 hours ago, yootalkin2me said:

Ypu don't half write a load of shite.

I defer to anyone who has expertise and knowledge of addictive substances and their uses such as demonstrated by these comments. Takes the discussion to a different level.

Such insight.

[quilp]

5 hours ago, Apple said:

It is not as simple as that though is it.

Obviously not but the current prohibition laws also complicate matters.

5 hours ago, Apple said:

As attested to here previously that many people use it on the island I wonder how many drive under it's influence.

Probably quite a few. The effects on driving ability whilst under the 'influence' of cannabis is a grey area. Ability to safely control a motor vehicle could be based on a reaction test, a simple, purposely-designed piece of software to measure reaction times as opposed to blood levels. Police surgeons in the past were often consulted on whether a person was considered fit to drive. Cops in the US routinely carry out sobriety tests on drivers they suspect might be intoxicated. 

5 hours ago, Apple said:

Its influence and impact on mental health and mental illness is being overlooked on this thread, as it usually is.

Some studies have shown that cannabis acts as a catalyst for underlying mental health conditions like borderline personality disorders, schizophrenia and complex anxiety syndromes. Exacerbating already established symptoms which existed in the person from an early age but went unnoticed or written off as being harmless, eccentric behaviour. I've met people who should never have experimented with any drugs, including, and mostly with, alcohol, casualities of their own insensible actions and dare I say, decadent bent. Some people have their first experience of cannabis and know instantly they'll never feel the need to use it again. Their personality isn't geared for it, usually sane individuals with a strong sense of self-awareness. And let's not leave out those damaged by prescribed anti-psychotics, anti-depressants, benzodiazipines and of course the dreaded opiates, synthetic or otherwise. I've met a lot of those people over the years. But at the same time, most cannabis users I've met carry on with their lives as normal, their only problematic scenarios are when they encounter the law. There's no doubt in my mind that cannabis is addictive, and a small number of users develop withdrawal symptoms when their stash runs out, but this is nothing on the scale experienced by coke, skag and meth-heads who will kill for the resources that will provide their next hit. Thankfully, this Island has not seen a proliferation of such deviancy. Not yet, anyway.

5 hours ago, Apple said:

Let's face it, won't happen in the UK, won't happen here.

Unfortunately, you're probably correct on recreational use and availability but I hold out hope that for medicinal reasons legislation will change for the benefit of MS sufferers, people with complex regional pain syndrome, Parkinsonism and a myriad of other debilitating conditions. It's not just stoner's who want to appreciate the benefits that cannabis can bring.

Any local consultation and discussion of a change in the legislation regarding cannabis for medicinal purposes requires a good deal of sensible, lateral thinking.

[Neil Down]

12 hours ago, TheTeapot said:

Absolutely. Charge people £200 for home grow licence, limited by floor space, plant quantity, whatever, agree to be of good character or lose it, be aware that similar to a gun permit it should be secure and could be subject to random inspection. Totally into it. 

 

Good character bit could be done without to a certain extent. If they were to go by police checks, the number of weed smokers who have criminal records would make it impossible for them to get a licence

[Neil Down]

11 hours ago, Boo Gay'n said:

My contribution, for what it is worth, is this.  Medicinal grade cannabis is in short supply globally and commands a high price.  We live on an island (you may have noticed) so security is relatively easy to provide.  I am sure that we could also manage "good manufacturing practices".  Manx farming - other than the gentleman bull farmers like Mr Toad - is not in a good place.  So...why not allow the farming of the weed for medicinal purposes?  I honestly believe that it could be the next e-gaming for our economy.  We would need to accept the erection of some greenhouses here and there (shock, horror) but little else of any note.  Why hesitate?

The sad thing is - and I know that this for a fact - we have the law to do this, but the Boy Vampire has been sitting on the fence for over two years.  Why?

Because he's an idiot

[wrighty]

26 minutes ago, Neil Down said:

Because he's an idiot

Not sure it helps to reduce everything to "X doesn't agree with my position therefore he's an idiot".  There are as many, if not more, people against legalisation of cannabis as for it.  As a politician he's going to be gauging public opinion and treading a fine line between upsetting the pro camp on the one side with the antis on the other.

 

[Neil Down]

9 minutes ago, wrighty said:

Not sure it helps to reduce everything to "X doesn't agree with my position therefore he's an idiot".  There are as many, if not more, people against legalisation of cannabis as for it.  As a politician he's going to be gauging public opinion and treading a fine line between upsetting the pro camp on the one side with the antis on the other.

 

It's my opinion wrighty, nothing else. I have had dealings with him when he was a Douglas councilor. Talks a lot but not a lot of action afterwards. He appears to have brought that skill set with him.

As for your "stats", I would suggest there are far more people who couldn't care less. What I have noticed is that the pro camp seem to be full of people who do a bit of research whilst the anti camp appear to be full of "drugs are bad for you" types. Again, just my opinion

[TheTeapot]

50 minutes ago, Neil Down said:

Good character bit could be done without to a certain extent. If they were to go by police checks, the number of weed smokers who have criminal records would make it impossible for them to get a licence

What I meant by the good character bit was less about your past, and more about the future. Thus, if you have a home grow licence but go and get hammered and put a shopping trolley through the window of Boots on a Saturday night, or whatever, then you can expect to lose your licence and everything that goes with it.

[wrighty]

50 minutes ago, Neil Down said:

 

As for your "stats", I would suggest there are far more people who couldn't care less. What I have noticed is that the pro camp seem to be full of people who do a bit of research whilst the anti camp appear to be full of "drugs are bad for you" types. Again, just my opinion

I don't have stats at all - I was guessing, and said he was gauging public opinion.  I agree with you - most people are fairly apathetic about cannabis, I'm one of them.  If people want to smoke it, fine by me, as long as it doesn't impact me, my family and society in general.  But I don't care enough about it to campaign one way or the other.  As for medicinal uses - I'd prefer it was properly regulated rather than users having to grow their own, but I'm sceptical about its stated benefits, and the cynic in me would say that many who claim to want it legalised for medical reasons just want to get high.  Which is fine, but be honest.

Edited December 4, 2020 by wrighty
typo

[TheTeapot]

6 minutes ago, wrighty said:

 I'm sceptical about its stated benefits, and the cynic in me would say that many who claim to want it legalised for medical reasons just want to get high.  Which is fine, but be honest.

You don't need to be cynical, that's straight up it. Take California or a number of other US states, the medical thing was just a precursor to legalisation. Obviously 'medicine' over there is a bit different, doctors just sold medical cards, just rock up at a slightly dodgy one, say 'I've got a bad back and need a card, here's some dollars' and happy days.

I don't think it is right to be in a situation where people can put pressure on their GP to get pot, it's asking for trouble. We should skip the medical step, and just legalise it.

[Apple]

5 hours ago, horatiotheturd said:

How many dfive under the influence?

Off the top of my head and based on my social circle - loads.

This undermines some of the pro arguments. We have a law that states driving under the influence of drugs is illegal but they still do it. Very responsible.

There are of course other factors - we don't know what levels of TCH bring about cognitive dysfunction, how long it stays in the blood, etc. We do not have a blood level to say what is safe, we don't even have any idea on the quality of the substances being used.

There other main issue of course is that this this proposal is being put forward by a Politician who is in my view out to capture the young voters who will think he is hip and progressive. As for money making, not so much either.

Medicinal cannabis for patients, no problem with.

Grow your owners who just want to get high without (they think) impacting on anyone else come across as selfish people who are willing to break the law for their own indulgence. Been there, done that. Grew up.

Edited December 4, 2020 by Apple

[Barlow]

19 hours ago, Roxanne said:

You know, if cannabis didn't exist, half the books wouldn't be written, half the songs wouldnt be written, half the poems wouldn't be written, half the paintings wouldn't be painted.

 

Could I respectfully say, that maybe it's half the books/songs/poems/paintings you like. I would suggest overall it is less than 10%? 5%?

There is another problem here. Lots of young people not unreasonably want to be rockstars, celebs etc. What do the stars do? (apart from having a talent, bags of charisma, lots of luck etc).

They party hard and take drugs.

I have known a few wannabes who can strum a few chords and have a reasonable school choir singing voice. So they go for the Rock 'n' Roll option in life. The easiest part about being a rock star is the taking of drugs and partying bit. So the kids end up doing that until they become a sad pastiche of what they really wanted to be. And yeah, this is where the occasional joint is a gateway. Cocaine is the big boy about town these days and you can (at least in your own head) be the best dancer in Douglas with just a snort in the bogs. The rest is history playing out in front of us. Including the heroin.

I  have seen that happen to its ultimate conclusion on a number of occasions.

 

 

 

[Roger Mexico]

3 hours ago, Apple said:

Medicinal cannabis for patients, no problem with.

Grow your owners who just want to get high without (they think) impacting on anyone else come across as selfish people who are willing to break the law for their own indulgence. Been there, done that. Grew up.

The trouble with medical-only cannabis is that it ends up putting more pressure on the healthy service (which is why GPs are wary).  As Teapot says, you're best being honest.

And if you think about it, most things that most people do is for their own indulgence, including posting on Manx Forums.  Whether it afects other people or not depends more on how they do it rather than what they do.  The 'grow your own' types clearly don't want to break the law, they want to law to change so that they can pursue their hobby.

Whether it will ever become that big a thing is another matter.  Any more than the ability to legally home brew beer (which only dates from 1963 in the UK) meant that the pubs emptied.  No doubt there would be a Cannabis Tent at the Agricultural Shows full with people having nerdy conversations, but most people will prefer a finished product for immediate consumption.

[TheTeapot]

15 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

The 'grow your own' types clearly don't want to break the law, they want to law to change so that they can pursue their hobby.

Whether it will ever become that big a thing is another matter.  Any more than the ability to legally home brew beer (which only dates from 1963 in the UK) meant that the pubs emptied.  No doubt there would be a Cannabis Tent at the Agricultural Shows full with people having nerdy conversations, but most people will prefer a finished product for immediate consumption.

That's the thing, it's not calling for the ability to grow whole warehouses of the stuff and making it some massive thing, blowing smoke in peoples faces, its about being able to grow a small amount for you to smoke at home. It's the bloody government talking about growing it on a large scale to sell for export while still criminalising teenagers. They're fucking insane.

[Neil Down]

4 hours ago, wrighty said:

I don't have stats at all - I was guessing, and said he was gauging public opinion.  I agree with you - most people are fairly apathetic about cannabis, I'm one of them.  If people want to smoke it, fine by me, as long as it doesn't impact me, my family and society in general.  But I don't care enough about it to campaign one way or the other.  As for medicinal uses - I'd prefer it was properly regulated rather than users having to grow their own, but I'm sceptical about its stated benefits, and the cynic in me would say that many who claim to want it legalised for medical reasons just want to get high.  Which is fine, but be honest.

I've never smoked or eaten cannabis but I am against the way it criminalises people. As you say, as long as nobody is getting hurt then crack on

[The Phantom]

When Moses was talking to god next to a burning bush; I wonder what that was? 

It's more ingrained in our history than a lot of people realise. 

There's been a lot of research recently to suggest that the ingestion of hallucinogenics could have been instrumental to the cognitive leap that humans made to evolve from instinctual animals. 

I mean dolphins get high on puffer fish!