Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Thu Apr 23, 2026 23:11

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 84 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 01, 2007 21:10 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 23:17
Posts: 499
fisherman wrote:
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.


Really?

I can't see the pharma industry manufacturing and selling recreational substances myself, unless you know something the rest of us don't?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 01, 2007 21:52 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2005 00:31
Posts: 393
fisherman wrote:
bombus wrote:
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?

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.


It's grown not manufactured, Du Pont (allegedly) 'lobbied' the US Govt. to outlaw hemp, (some say) to aid their new discovery nylon's development and its oil dependant production.
It may actually be a help with future needs, it has a reasonably high calorific value and it's ash 'holds' a relatively high percentage of CO2, it is fast growing, can be used medicinally, the stalks to hemp fibre, and anything left over converted to biomass for fuel production. A very renewable resourse.

fatboytim


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 01, 2007 22:31 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 10:16
Posts: 7986
Location: Moved to London
fatboytim wrote:
fisherman wrote:
bombus wrote:
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?

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.


It's grown not manufactured...

That's a good point.
For the pharmaceuticals to supply 'organic’ drugs would be tantamount to admitting the superiority of herbal remedies. That won't happen.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Aug 02, 2007 19:51 
Offline
Magistrate
Magistrate

Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 13:58
Posts: 1155
T2006 wrote:
I can't see the pharma industry manufacturing and selling recreational substances myself, unless you know something the rest of us don't?

They already make vitamin pills and all sorts of stuff that is on open sale in pharmacies and "health shops".

If cannabis is legalised there will be two possibilities.
To allow sale with no quality assurance, quality control, labelling requirements, batch traceability etc etc. Or to insist on all those things, in which case the pharmaceutical industry will be the only part of the manufacturing sector that is geared up to cope.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Aug 02, 2007 19:59 
Offline
Magistrate
Magistrate

Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 13:58
Posts: 1155
fatboytim wrote:
It's grown not manufactured

Most medicines these days are synthesised and not grown.
But in the 60's if you went near the Burroughs Wellcome factory in Kent you drove past dozens of fields of foxgloves being grown to provide the raw materials for the production of digoxin for the treatment of heart problems.
In the early days of production of the oral contraceptive the raw materials were extracted from yams.
Many of todays anti cancer drugs are derived from plants of the periwinkle family which are grown to provide the raw material.

If cannabis is legalised it will be grown and then processed in some form, unless the government decide to allow it to be sold with no check on quality - thus leaving themselves open to legal action as soon as somebody suffers from an unexpectedly strong dose.
It may be that eventually it would be possible to synthesise the active ingredients but that would lose the benefits derivable from the rest of the plant.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Aug 02, 2007 20:00 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2005 00:31
Posts: 393
fisherman wrote:

If cannabis is legalised there will be two possibilities.
To allow sale with no quality assurance, quality control, labelling requirements, batch traceability etc etc. Or to insist on all those things, in which case the pharmaceutical industry will be the only part of the manufacturing sector that is geared up to cope.


It will be like any farmed (not pharm'ed) produce,
Big Pharma doesn't QA Tesco's Brocolli, or Nescafe's beans.
Current consumer protection legislation can have full effect on a legal product, which it doesn't now.

fatboytim


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Aug 02, 2007 20:05 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 23:09
Posts: 6737
Location: Stockport, Cheshire
fatboytim wrote:
fisherman wrote:
If cannabis is legalised there will be two possibilities.
To allow sale with no quality assurance, quality control, labelling requirements, batch traceability etc etc. Or to insist on all those things, in which case the pharmaceutical industry will be the only part of the manufacturing sector that is geared up to cope.

It will be like any farmed (not pharm'ed) produce,
Big Pharma doesn't QA Tesco's Brocolli, or Nescafe's beans.
Current consumer protection legislation can have full effect on a legal product, which it doesn't now.

Presumably it would be controlled in a similar way to alcohol and tobacco, neither of which are produced by the pharmaceutical industry.

There have been rumours that the tobacco industry in the past actually drew up marketing plans for legalised cannabis.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Aug 02, 2007 20:18 
Offline
Member
Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2004 18:17
Posts: 794
Location: Reading
fisherman wrote:
If cannabis is legalised there will be two possibilities.
To allow sale with no quality assurance, quality control, labelling requirements, batch traceability etc etc. Or to insist on all those things, in which case the pharmaceutical industry will be the only part of the manufacturing sector that is geared up to cope.

I disagree with you (again ;)). There's absolutely no reason why it couldn't be treated the same as tobacco; pure herbal/resin and joints could be produced by the tobacco companies and sold alongside tobacco in the same shops.

The tobacco companies should know. And indeed Philip Morris (makers of Marlboro) registered the trademark "Marleys" several decades ago. They'll deny it until they're blue in the face, but they're ready to capitalise the minute that legalisation takes place. And it will, eventually (although I must admit that I'm surprised that it hasn't been already, given that it apparently seemed to be just around the corner in the 60s/70s...or so I'm told).

Since the "war on cannabis" has failed as far as statistics are concerned, why can't we at least try legalisation to see what happens? I'll tell you why: because too many powerful people are concerned that it might just work. Most politicians privately say that legalisation is at least worth a try, but they don't want to be seen to be "soft on drugs". So, as is the case with scameras, society has to suffer because politicians are obsessed with not losing face.

_________________
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)


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Aug 02, 2007 22:46 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 23:17
Posts: 499
fisherman wrote:

They already make vitamin pills and all sorts of stuff that is on open sale in pharmacies and "health shops".


I fail to see the similarity between recreational drugs and vitamin tablets.

Honestly, what nonsense.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Aug 03, 2007 00:17 
Offline
User

Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 04:10
Posts: 3244
Tetrahydrocannabinol, also known as THC, or dronabinol, is the main psychoactive substance found in the Cannabis plant
Synthetic THC, also known under the substance name dronabinol, is available as a prescription drug (under the trade name Marinol) in several countries including the U.S., The Netherlands, and Germany. In the United States, Marinol is a Schedule III drug, available by prescription, considered to be non-narcotic and to have a low risk of physical or mental dependence. Efforts to get cannabis rescheduled as analogous to Marinol have not succeeded thus far, though a 2002 petition has been accepted by the DEA. As a result of the rescheduling of Marinol from Schedule II to Schedule III, refills are now permitted for this substance. Marinol has been approved by the FDA in the treatment of anorexia in AIDS patients, as well as for refractory nausea and vomiting of patients undergoing chemotherapy.

An analog of dronabinol, nabilone, is available commercially in Canada under the trade name Cesamet, manufactured by Valeant. Cesamet has also received FDA approval for future availability in the United States and is a Schedule II drug.

In April 2005, Canadian authorities approved the marketing of Sativex, a mouth spray for multiple sclerosis to alleviate pain. Sativex contains tetrahydrocannabinol together with cannabidiol. It is marketed in Canada by GW Pharmaceuticals, being the first cannabis-based prescription drug in the world.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Aug 03, 2007 02:20 
Offline
User

Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2005 01:16
Posts: 917
Location: Northern England
Now Jomukuk, I'm a "child of the sixties"..... but believe me, I've never touched it or any other drug other than legal ones of beer an' fags.

All other arguments aside........ as far as I can understand, there is a shortage of Cannabis based drugs for legal medical use whilst we are using military forces (at the risk to British lives) around the world to quash its production!

There are a few scenario's here, either the western LEGAL drug producers (Alcohol and Nicotine) are waging a territorial war in the west against an Eastern worlds produce which seeks to invade their territory, or maybe, it's simply that MAFIA style, they will NOT join THEIR "club".
I CANNOT believe that they are simply concerned about the drug habits of a few "lowlifes".... other than they may cost them money to treat or money to police.

Cynical? ...... Moi? ................................



:D


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Aug 03, 2007 10:00 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2004 13:36
Posts: 1339
T2006 wrote:
fisherman wrote:

They already make vitamin pills and all sorts of stuff that is on open sale in pharmacies and "health shops".


I fail to see the similarity between recreational drugs and vitamin tablets.

Honestly, what nonsense.


Fisherman was talking about the claim that pharmaceutical companies won't sell the trendy 'alternative' or herbal remedies. They clearly would and do, as most such products are marketed by them already.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Aug 03, 2007 10:26 
Offline
User

Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2007 12:27
Posts: 361
Interesting article in the New Statesman on this issue last week.

Quote:
Prohibition has failed, just as it did with alcohol.

Almost anybody who takes a sustained, unprejudiced look at the current drugs laws eventually reaches the conclusion that they are hopelessly unfit for purpose. The Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 must be one of the least effective pieces of legislation ever enacted. At that time, there were perhaps 10,000 problematic drug users in the UK; now there are nearly 300,000.

The Downing Street Strategy Unit concluded that "government interventions against the drugs business are a cost of business rather than a substantive threat to the industry's viability". In April, an academic paper for the UK Drug Policy Commission warned that imprisoning drug offenders for long periods was not cost-effective. In March, a Royal Society of Arts commission - which included a recovering addict, a senior police officer, a drug treatment specialist and a Telegraph journalist - decided that "drugs policy should, like our policy on alcohol and tobacco, seek to regulate use and prevent harm rather than to prohibit use altogether". The authors would deny it, but the logic of these reports is that cannabis, cocaine, Ecstasy, heroin and the rest should be legalised.

The harm the various drugs do is irrelevant. Their prohibition has failed, just as prohibition of alcohol once failed in America. Calls for politicians to "get tough" are, as the RSA observes, "meretricious, vapid and out of date". Since 1995, the numbers imprisoned for drug offences have risen by 111 per cent and the average length of their sentences by 29 per cent. A different approach, based on regulation, offers a chance to reduce the harm done by drugs, and at lower cost. Yet politicians just fiddle with the classifications of substances, moving them up or down the rankings as though they were running a hotel guide. So Gordon Brown has asked the Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith, to look again at the classification of cannabis, which, scientists report, is probably more dangerous than generally thought when it was downgraded three years ago. The result is another parade of politicians coming forward to confess to youthful cannabis use which, oddly, none of them enjoyed at all.

Cannabis is an example of the nonsenses created by the 1971 act's simplistic classification system. Stronger types of cannabis are now on sale, we are told, and research shows a link with schizophrenia.

This is like saying Chablis should be banned because cognac is much stronger and because some people become alcoholics, with dire effects on themselves, their families and society. All drugs, legal and illegal (including gambling and pornography), vary in their effects according to how strong or pure they are, who takes them, and where, when and how they take them. The classification system cannot allow for this and is, in any case, full of anomalies. Coca leaves are in class A, alongside crack cocaine, even though the drug in its raw state is largely harmless. Ecstasy is also in class A, though it causes 25 deaths a year against 652 for heroin, which is taken far less widely.

Magic mushrooms, another class A drug, do nothing more than make eccentrics more eccentric. If we are trying to send "messages" to young people about the dangers of drugs, as press and politicians claim, we do it in a pretty confusing way. Many who try one class A drug without ill effects may well conclude they can all be taken freely.

The RSA commission proposed scrapping the 1971 act and putting all drugs, including alcohol and tobacco, within a single regulatory framework. Some drugs in some forms might remain illegal but their illegality would be placed in a coherent continuum, making some drugs available to certain groups in controlled circumstances, as most prescription drugs are, and others more freely available under licence, as alcohol and tobacco are.

But as the Transform Drug Policy Foundation (www.tdpf.org.uk) says, nobody should pretend that legalisation would solve "the drugs problem", however it is conceived. Many - perhaps most - users handle drugs without significant harm to themselves or others. Where drugs lead to crime, addiction and family breakdown, they are nearly always associated with wider social problems. The best way to wage war on drugs is to step up the war against poverty.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Aug 05, 2007 12:17 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2005 00:31
Posts: 393
My first post
fatboytim wrote:


Shows how well prohibition works, it increases prices and thus potential profits for the criminals, Alcohol prohibition in the USA should be the lesson to learn from.


We should always try to learn from History not Hysteria.
A bit like Speed Cameras!

fatboytim


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Aug 05, 2007 15:34 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2005 16:51
Posts: 1323
Location: Stafford - a short distance past hope
Icandoit wrote:
Interesting article in the New Statesman on this issue last week.

Quote:
Prohibition has failed, just as it did with alcohol.

Almost anybody who takes a sustained, unprejudiced look at the current drugs laws eventually reaches the conclusion that they are hopelessly unfit for purpose. The Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 must be one of the least effective pieces of legislation ever enacted. At that time, there were perhaps 10,000 problematic drug users in the UK; now there are nearly 300,000.

The Downing Street Strategy Unit concluded that "government interventions against the drugs business are a cost of business rather than a substantive threat to the industry's viability". In April, an academic paper for the UK Drug Policy Commission warned that imprisoning drug offenders for long periods was not cost-effective. In March, a Royal Society of Arts commission - which included a recovering addict, a senior police officer, a drug treatment specialist and a Telegraph journalist - decided that "drugs policy should, like our policy on alcohol and tobacco, seek to regulate use and prevent harm rather than to prohibit use altogether". The authors would deny it, but the logic of these reports is that cannabis, cocaine, Ecstasy, heroin and the rest should be legalised.

The harm the various drugs do is irrelevant. Their prohibition has failed, just as prohibition of alcohol once failed in America. Calls for politicians to "get tough" are, as the RSA observes, "meretricious, vapid and out of date". Since 1995, the numbers imprisoned for drug offences have risen by 111 per cent and the average length of their sentences by 29 per cent. A different approach, based on regulation, offers a chance to reduce the harm done by drugs, and at lower cost. Yet politicians just fiddle with the classifications of substances, moving them up or down the rankings as though they were running a hotel guide. So Gordon Brown has asked the Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith, to look again at the classification of cannabis, which, scientists report, is probably more dangerous than generally thought when it was downgraded three years ago. The result is another parade of politicians coming forward to confess to youthful cannabis use which, oddly, none of them enjoyed at all.

Cannabis is an example of the nonsenses created by the 1971 act's simplistic classification system. Stronger types of cannabis are now on sale, we are told, and research shows a link with schizophrenia.

This is like saying Chablis should be banned because cognac is much stronger and because some people become alcoholics, with dire effects on themselves, their families and society. All drugs, legal and illegal (including gambling and pornography), vary in their effects according to how strong or pure they are, who takes them, and where, when and how they take them. The classification system cannot allow for this and is, in any case, full of anomalies. Coca leaves are in class A, alongside crack cocaine, even though the drug in its raw state is largely harmless. Ecstasy is also in class A, though it causes 25 deaths a year against 652 for heroin, which is taken far less widely.

Magic mushrooms, another class A drug, do nothing more than make eccentrics more eccentric. If we are trying to send "messages" to young people about the dangers of drugs, as press and politicians claim, we do it in a pretty confusing way. Many who try one class A drug without ill effects may well conclude they can all be taken freely.

The RSA commission proposed scrapping the 1971 act and putting all drugs, including alcohol and tobacco, within a single regulatory framework. Some drugs in some forms might remain illegal but their illegality would be placed in a coherent continuum, making some drugs available to certain groups in controlled circumstances, as most prescription drugs are, and others more freely available under licence, as alcohol and tobacco are.

But as the Transform Drug Policy Foundation (www.tdpf.org.uk) says, nobody should pretend that legalisation would solve "the drugs problem", however it is conceived. Many - perhaps most - users handle drugs without significant harm to themselves or others. Where drugs lead to crime, addiction and family breakdown, they are nearly always associated with wider social problems. The best way to wage war on drugs is to step up the war against poverty.


Sums up my views on the matter very nicely.

_________________
I won't slave for beggar's pay,
likewise gold and jewels,
but I would slave to learn the way
to sink your ship of fools


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Aug 05, 2007 17:16 
Offline
Magistrate
Magistrate

Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 13:58
Posts: 1155
Draco wrote:
as far as I can understand, there is a shortage of Cannabis based drugs for legal medical use whilst we are using military forces (at the risk to British lives) around the world to quash its production!

That is certainly true for heroin (diamorphine) but I am not aware of that happening with regard to cannabis.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Aug 05, 2007 17:28 
Offline
Magistrate
Magistrate

Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 13:58
Posts: 1155
bombus wrote:
There's absolutely no reason why it couldn't be treated the same as tobacco;

there is every reason.


bombus wrote:
pure herbal/resin and joints could be produced by the tobacco companies and sold alongside tobacco in the same shops.

tobacco is used for one ingredient - nicotine. It contains other things which are harmful but don't affect behaviour or alter the effect the user will get from smoking his or her usual amount.

"Pure herbal/resin" may well be pure in that it contains cannabis extracts and nothing else. The problem is that its not a standard product. The percentage of the active ingredients varies according to the strain of plant grown and the amount of sunshine and fertiliser they get. Add in the fact that there at least 35 known active cannabinoids and you begin to see the differences between cannabis and tobacco.

bombus wrote:
Most politicians privately say that legalisation is at least worth a try, but they don't want to be seen to be "soft on drugs".

It won't be possible to "give it a try". It will be all or nothing. As the americans found out when they decided to ban alcohol - you can't put the genie back in the bottle.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Aug 05, 2007 17:41 
Offline
User

Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 21:10
Posts: 1693
Quote:
It won't be possible to "give it a try". It will be all or nothing. As the americans found out when they decided to ban alcohol - you can't put the genie back in the bottle.


That is pretty well the whole point!

The Cannabis genie was never in the bottle in the first place! Official denial of this and the mistaken belief that it ever was (and is) is responsible for most, if not all, of the socioeconomic harm that "illegal" cannabis use causes

_________________
"The road to a police state is paved with public safety legislation"


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Aug 05, 2007 19:50 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2005 00:31
Posts: 393
I have been told, and seen on documentaries (but never experienced) the 'cafe' keepers of Amsterdam are pretty good at classifying the strength of the various herbal and resin varieties.

I would never encourage tobacco or cannabis smoking,
chewing tobacco gives a bigger hit of nicotine but tends to cause lip and gum cancers (and the spitting is disgusting).

The beer I'm drinking now is 5% alcohol, the wine I had with lunch was 13% and the tot of Bushmills I'll have before bed is 43%.

I'm having a pint of beer now, had a 125ml glass of wine at lunch, and will have less than an pub measure of Whiskey later.

Surely the stronger the cannabis the less will be used to achieve the same effect just like alcohol, so I would suggest the strength is not an issue.

Are all the 'anti's' struggling to answer to my question?

fatboytim


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Aug 05, 2007 20:33 
Offline
Magistrate
Magistrate

Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 13:58
Posts: 1155
Dusty wrote:
The Cannabis genie was never in the bottle in the first place! Official denial of this and the mistaken belief that it ever was (and is) is responsible for most, if not all, of the socioeconomic harm that "illegal" cannabis use causes

The cannabis genie is in the official bottle which is why they can impose criminal penalties on those who possess it and why a percentage of people won't risk using it.
It might be of some use to me to try it, in order to better understand the effects it has on those I look after in my professional life. I won't risk it because if caught I could look forward to being struck off, and thus having no way of earning a living.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 84 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You can post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.029s | 11 Queries | GZIP : Off ]