Cannabis - Time for a re-think?

[Roger Mexico]

17 minutes ago, Barlow said:

Society simply won't function if it is addled on weed.

I don't think anyone is suggesting it should be compulsory.

Though sometimes I look at the news and wonder if I'm the only one not on something.

[Neil Down]

42 minutes ago, Barlow said:

Which succinctly provides answers:

 

 

 

Society simply won't function if it is addled on weed.

I'll expand for the breath baters:

Someone explained in an earlier thread (was it you Quilp?) how they would have a joint when working on a construction site, it was how they operated and there were others that did the same. Maybe such as this would explain why the Promenade and other such projects take so long, and mistakes are made. It would certainly explain a lot, and you only have to read the promenade thread to see what I mean. Oh, and I am noit just suggesting the lads on site, what about the office workers and designers? Spliffers too? 

Another prominent poster explained that they liked a joint before they went to work and they were aware of others that did the same - teachers, accountants etc and even - god forbid - a couple of advocates. This didn't surprise me one iota.

It explains a lot.

Now that maybe just a handful and apparently they do ok. But as I said in that thread, would there be such a self-righteous air if the list had included surgeons, dentists, and big decision makers.

Perhaps it does.

Again it would explain a lot.

A society can't function if it is weed-addled. It is as simple as that. 

 

 

 

 

 

You've not explained much there really. One or two on here participated. What about the specific questions I asked, alcohol v weed

[quilp]

15 minutes ago, Barlow said:

Society simply won't function if it is addled on weed.

Reefer Madness. So you think if weed was available to all then there'd be such an uptake amongst the population that society would collapse? 

15 minutes ago, Barlow said:

Someone explained in an earlier thread (was it you Quilp?) how they would have a joint when working on a construction site, it was how they operated and there were others that did the same. Maybe such as this would explain why the Promenade and other such projects take so long, and mistakes are made. It would certainly explain a lot, and you only have to read the promenade thread to see what I mean.

This is a joke, right? You obviously believe that even sensible use of cannabis puts the user in some sort of stuporious, semi-catatonic state? There is a massive difference between use and abuse, of any substance.

15 minutes ago, Barlow said:

Oh, and I am noit just suggesting the lads on site, what about the office workers and designers? Spliffers too?

What about them? Well, I know of office-workers, and I suppose some site workers, who daily indulge in cocaine and amphetamine use. The psychological effects of both these substances, and the so-called, "legal highs", I would say are a far greater 'unknown.' 

15 minutes ago, Barlow said:

Another prominent poster explained that they liked a joint before they went to work and they were aware of others that did the same - teachers, accountants etc and even - god forbid - a couple of advocates. This didn't surprise me one iota.

It explains a lot.

What does it explain? Sounds like you're catastrophising, creating an extremely false dilemma, especially your use of "god forbid - a couple of advocates" What made you single them out?

15 minutes ago, Barlow said:

Now that maybe just a handful and apparently they do ok. But as I said in that thread, would there be such a self-righteous air if the list had included surgeons, dentists, and big decision makers.

Perhaps it does.

Again it would explain a lot.

Again, what does it explain? Be specific instead of creating an entirely false dilemma. You can rest uneasy that any list would contain surgeons, dentists and "big decision makers." Though I suspect weed wouldn't necessarily be their drug of choice and of course, alcohol must be included in that calamitous list of yours.

15 minutes ago, Barlow said:

A society can't function if it is weed-addled. It is as simple as that. 

There you go again with the ill-informed Reefer Madness. All you've done in your post is display your utter ignorance of drug use. It's people like you who are the darlings of the 'lock them up brigade'.

I'll repeat- there is a massive difference between use and abuse. Did society collapse in the Netherlands when they decriminalised Cannabis? A big NO to that. Dutch consumption of weed actually dropped, especially amongst the young. Probably because the mystique was removed. In the US, various states have legalised recreational use of weed, have those States become a "weed-addled" euphorian failure? NO! They use the tax-dollars gained from weed sales to finance many social problems, including addiction services for other drugs, including the dreadful and frequently deadly opiate scandal, on the rise in the US. Legalised sales have also removed much of the criminality from the organised crime market.

Ah fuck it. Wallow in your ignorance. 

[TheTeapot]

5 minutes ago, Neil Down said:

 What about the specific questions I asked, alcohol v weed

It's a silly question really. Pointless. It's not an either or thing. Personally I find one compliments the other.

[doc.fixit]

Quilp said it all! Use versus abuse

 The continued and admired abuse of alcohol is one of the biggest causes of social problems the world over, closely followed by the criminal activity trying to avoid the ancient and draconion drug use laws. The third biggest problem seems to be the abuse of prescription drugs both in the profit that is made on them and by the unwanted side effects of some of them.

[Neil Down]

30 minutes ago, TheTeapot said:

It's a silly question really. Pointless. It's not an either or thing. Personally I find one compliments the other.

If you'd bother to read the post, it wasn't an "either or" question

[Barlow]

4 hours ago, Neil Down said:

1. How many times have the police attended locations where alcohol has been the prime mover on violent crime

2. How many times have the police attended locations where cannabis has been the prime mover on violent crime

1. Don't know, lots I suppose Is this relevant?

2. Don't know. Not too many. Is this relevant?

The alcohol v Cannabis question doesn't help. Apples and bananas. Two wrongs don't make a right, or something like that.

I am not a proponent for alcohol. It's not as if it is compulsory for a society to be cannabis or alcohol.

Edited December 3, 2020 by Barlow

[Neil Down]

1 minute ago, Barlow said:

1. Don't know, lots I suppose Is this relevant?

2. Don't know. Not too many. Is this relevant?

The alcohol v Cannabis question doesn't help. Apples and bananas. Two wrongs don't make a right, or something like that.

I am not a proponent for alcohol. It's not as if it is compulsory for a society to be cannabis or alcohol.

do you open your mouth just to change feet?

[quilp]

2 minutes ago, Barlow said:

1. Don't know, lots I suppose Is this relevant?

2. Don't know. Not too many. Is this relevant?

The alcohol v Cannabis question doesn't help.

It does matter when social harm is factored in. It is surely obvious to you that news stories involving violent behaviour locally more than usually involve alcohol. On the rare occasion where a drunk and violent offender has been found to be in possession of cannabis is purely incidental. My source tells me that during lockdown the Island has seen a proliferation of Xanax, Valium (diazepam) Pregabalin and other pharmaceutical preparations, easily obtained via the internet, being indulged in. This I find alarming...

[The Phantom]

Joe Rogan had a pretty funny (and relevant) skit about looking after his young daughters whilst stoned.

"It might make me a little more paranoid about their safety and want more hugs - surely both of these are good things?" 

[TheTeapot]

So here's a thing. Laurence of Hooperville is having a little go at getting this Island freed from its restrained methodist past and pushing gently for a more progressive future. From the next Tynwald Order Paper...

https://www.tynwald.org.im/business/opqp/opqp/2020-PP-0213.pdf

[The Dog's Dangly Bits]

Good on Big H I say.

[Apple]

1 hour 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.

 

I disagree. Different books and songs etc may be written instead. I don't think Shakespeare used it.

 

1 hour ago, Roxanne said:

Cannabis isn't a gateway drug  Trauma is the gateway. Cannabis helps. 

The use of cannabis for those with mental health problems and severe mental illness can and does often exacerbate symptoms, sometimes increasing risks to themselves and /or those around them. 

This though is only about the medicinal use, not the decriminalisation of all use. If that is what is being proposed then a whole new government department will need to be setup for government oversight of the import, growth, use, quality, etc etc. Leaving it all up to users to govern it's use will lead to problems. 

[quilp]

No department needed, I'll advise, oversee and test all the products for free. 

[yootalkin2me]

47 minutes ago, Apple said:

I disagree. Different books and songs etc may be written instead. I don't think Shakespeare used it.

 

The use of cannabis for those with mental health problems and severe mental illness can and does often exacerbate symptoms, sometimes increasing risks to themselves and /or those around them. 

This though is only about the medicinal use, not the decriminalisation of all use. If that is what is being proposed then a whole new government department will need to be setup for government oversight of the import, growth, use, quality, etc etc. Leaving it all up to users to govern it's use will lead to problems. 

Ypu don't half write a load of shite.

Edited December 3, 2020 by yootalkin2me