Safe Speed Forums

Are they talking about joints rolled with tobacco or pure green? What happens if you use a pipe or a bong?

_________________
Science won over religion when they started installing lightning rods on churches.

A bullet in the head would be a far cheaper option. Quite a strong deterrent effect, methinks...

_________________
Pecunia Prius Equitas et Salus

......but not realistic or in proportion

Quite realistic.
And a good deterrent.
And well in proportion.
Hands up all those who have lost a good friend, found dead on a toilet seat after shooting a mixture of heroin and sterilising tablets ?

No offence, but this is the kind of ridiculous attitude which is totally unhelpful to everyone. BottyBurp and jomukuk, are you saying that you're happy with murderers, rapists etc receiving the current punishments, but you want people who commit transactions with consenting adults to get a bullet in the head? Come on.

We need to take puritanical, moralistic and holier-than-thou tendencies out of the drug debate, just as with the road safety debate.


Thankfully I haven't. But if I did, I would recognise that he would probably have been alive if there had been a shooting gallery for him to use. Threatening him with 7 years' jail for possession obviously didn't work, so why not try the harm reduction approach?

_________________
Paul Smith: a legend.

"The freedom provided by the motor vehicle is not universally applauded, however: there are those who resent the loss of state control over individual choice that the car represents. Such people rarely admit their prejudices openly; instead, they make false or exaggerated claims about the adverse effects of road transport in order to justify calls for higher taxation or restrictions on mobility." (Conservative Way Forward: Stop The War Against Drivers)

We were talking about cannabis, not heroin, so I don't see the relevance of this statement.

I don't think this forum should encourage such right-wing extremist opinions - they aren't helpful, nor something safespeed should be associated with.

Two of the worlds richest men, the most powerful man in the world (who many believe is psycotic), Winston Churchill (also an alcoholic) and Queen Victoria.

http://www.schmoo.co.uk/cannabis/comeout.htm

I think we need to, clarify a few things, I think the pro goup are talking about 'recreational use' i.e. in a safe environment with no responsibilties for a few hours/ rest of an evening. Not driving, not operating plant and machinery, or controlling air traffic.
Similar to sitting at home with, or going to a friends, or friendly local for a few drinks of an Friday evening.

The 'antis' seem to be talking about cannabis use at anytime anywhere.

I don't want to work (Demolition, Civil Eng, etc.) with people who are under the influence of anything stronger than coffee and nicotine, alcohol, cannabis, uppers, downers or side-to-siders, are not tolerated. If I have any suspisions, it is made plain "I don't care if you smoke it on your way home, BUT, I do if it's on your way, or when on site".

I have caught 2 'smokers' on site, both were immediately removed.
I have also sent people to 'sleep it off' in the canteen, when they come in smelling of the previous nights drinking.

I can think of some jobs were it wouldn't be a problem, mostly creative arts.

Could some one please give an example of a situation were it would be safer to drink alcohol than take cannabis.

Taken recreationally I see little difference.

As for the mental problems, I've seen plenty of alcohol casualties, holding big bottles of cider and shouting at passing cars.

I have asked a FME friend, he says he sees no cannabis only violence, very very few cannabis mental casualties, occasional 'driving while impaired' examinations (some are not impaired even though admitting use!), but lots of alcohol included voilence.
Many of his 'customers' in police stations are herion and/or crack addicts, (but that's not this topic).

75% of scizophrenics (sp?) smoke cigarettes, maybe that causes it?


fatboytim

I remember a article in the Mail a few years back about some guy in south London who'd been drinking all day, like 8-10 pints of Stella and also shared a single spliff with someone, then got in his car and ran someone over.

The headline was something along the lines of "Hit & Run Drug Driver", and the article went on to ram the 'menace of drug driving' down the reader's neck, whereas the gallon of Stella was skated over.

Yes, I've seen exactly that sort of thing many times. It is uncanny how you can often predict from a headline like that that alcohol has also been consumed; at least 80% of the time I would say. The media are I think anti-legalisation/liberalisation as a whole.

That's not to say that there's anything wrong with alcohol. fatboytim has it exactly right. I think that just as adults are trusted to decide when it is OK to drink, they should be able to decide the same thing with cannabis. The effects of both drugs wear off at around the same rate (if anything, cannabis wears off quicker). It seems ludicrous that we are still using police manpower to arrest cannabis users who are otherwise innocent. It achieves nothing except criminalising millions of hard-working tax-payers who are in every aspect law-abiding except their cannabis use (oh, and if they drive, then speeding as well, which should tell us something).

Does anyone here seriously think that the cannabis prohibition that we've had for nearly a century has actually worked in discouraging use? And how is it any different from the former alcohol prohibition in the US? If we really must interefere with people who wish to use cannabis, it should be treated as a health issue rather than a criminal one. Current policy is demonstrably barking. Since people on this site know how to look at statistics honestly, the "anti" crowd may want to look at the usage statistics in the US (hardline) and UK (relatively hardline) compared to the Netherlands (where cannabis is effectively legal). Not to mention the usage statistics in the US and UK now compared with 100 years ago. Prohibition of relatively non-addictive, non-destructive drugs doesn't work. Cannabis isn't harmless but, overall for most people, it's harmless enough to be legalised.

_________________
Paul Smith: a legend.

"The freedom provided by the motor vehicle is not universally applauded, however: there are those who resent the loss of state control over individual choice that the car represents. Such people rarely admit their prejudices openly; instead, they make false or exaggerated claims about the adverse effects of road transport in order to justify calls for higher taxation or restrictions on mobility." (Conservative Way Forward: Stop The War Against Drivers)

cannabis must be ok to smoke as half the Gov seem to have tried it

I have not, therefore do I have more right to be in their position than they have?

they HAVE broken the Law, I have NOT

Christ! You would have to be stoned to want to.

But when alcohol was banned in the US during the prohibition era there were plenty of deaths through 'poisoned liquor' too (From 1,064 in 1920 to 4,154 in 1925). Prohibition didn't work then and it is not working now. Despite a 'ban' on illegal drugs they are still pretty easy to get hold of (or were last time I tried). For dealers today read bootleggers in the '20s.

We need to legalise, tax and regulate supply and change laws to include being unfit through the use of drugs to match that of alcohol and this needs to be done across Europe (if not the World).

Then countries that are currently in poverty, civil war or political turmoil through the cartels that exist to manage the huge production and vast shipment of drugs will benefit. The taxation raised will benefit the country and the income generated will have a chance of being put to some good rather than ending up in the bank accounts of gangsters.

Plus, I expect, legalisation would remove the element of 'danger' and 'rebellion' from drug use and I think many people would use them less. Some would use them more, sure. But we would have an income stream from the sales that would help fund medical support for users who get into difficulty.

many homeless people use alcohol to excess as a way of coping with the stress of their lives. Doesn't mean that it was alcohol that put them on the street in the first place.



Thats probably because those who do have cannabis related mental health problems are so ill they are too serious for an FME to deal with and are taken directly to a psychiatric facility.

So in summary you think:

Cannabis makes people act crazy in the first place, rather than crazy people are attracted to cannabis.

Homeless & shouty people are attracted to alcohol, rather than alcohol making people homeless & shouty in the first place.

This seems slightly contradictory to me on the chicken/egg basis.

To those who are against liberalisation: would you agree that there are plenty of powerful and influential people (for example owners of pharmaceutical companies) who have a vested interest in keeping cannabis illegal? Do you agree that (whether or not they happen to be "correct") the current laws are as much shaped by them as they are by science and reason?

Yet another parallel between the cannabis and speeding laws, BTW.

_________________
Paul Smith: a legend.

"The freedom provided by the motor vehicle is not universally applauded, however: there are those who resent the loss of state control over individual choice that the car represents. Such people rarely admit their prejudices openly; instead, they make false or exaggerated claims about the adverse effects of road transport in order to justify calls for higher taxation or restrictions on mobility." (Conservative Way Forward: Stop The War Against Drivers)

Many homeless take drugs, and exactly the same would apply.
There are also many people who end up homeless in the first place due to the excessive use of alcohol and drugs (though very few from cannabis use).




That's not correct, it is the FME not Sgt. Joe Bobby who arranges admission to a psychiatric facility.
He also works in a drug users centre, dealing with the rehabilitation order recipients you and yours send him. But as none are cannabis users it's outside this topic.

Cannabis and alcohol are 'mood enhancers', it's not a good idea to drink heavily if one is angry, or consume cannabis if paranoid.

If cannabis is as cheap as quoted, it will not require a lot of property crime by the users to afford it, shoplifting, burglary, mugging etc.
A crack or herion habit takes a lot of cash to finance.

Again I ask for a situation where it would be less harmful to recreationally consume alcohol, than consume cannabis.

fatboytim

No. I think that both options are possible in each of the cases.

That is factually incorrect.
In all cases except one it takes two properly qualified mental health professionals to have someone detained under the Mental health Act.
The one exception is that a single police officer has the power to order detention for assessment for a period of up to 72 hours under s136 of the Mental health Act.

http://www.hyperguide.co.uk/mha/overview.htm#start




A drug users centre with no cannabis users? it must be the only one.

You couldn't be more wrong.

If cannabis were to be legalised it would be manufactured and sold by the pharmaceutical companies who stand to make a profit out of it.

The FME usually after the second opinion from the GP and discussions with the psyciatic admissions duty doctor, arranges for admission,a situation where it would be less harmful to recreationally consume alcohol, than consume cannabis.in extreme situations.

Section 136
Removal of People from Public Places

Summary
Section 136 enables a police officer to remove someone from a public place and take them to a Place of Safety. Like Section 135, this is not an admission Section, but one which allows assessment to take place at the Place of Safety, as to whether a Section 2 or other admission Section should be implemented. Section 136 states clearly that the purpose of being taken to the Place of Safety is to enable the person to be examined by a doctor and interviewed by an Approved Social Worker, and for the making of any necessary arrangements for treatment or care.

So a Police Officer can detain a person for examination anywhere safe, but he does not arrange the admission, that can only happen after assessment.



And yours must be the only court filled with psycotic dope fiends.

As someone who AIUI from previous postings, drinks very little if at all and takes nothing else, could you answer my question,
a situation where it would be less harmful to recreationally consume alcohol, than consume cannabis.

fatboytim