Crackdown on Lancashire cannabis farms

Blackpool Citizen: CANNABIS PLANTS  In Lancashire, in just over a year, 20,603 plants have been found in 485 factories CANNABIS PLANTS  In Lancashire, in just over a year, 20,603 plants have been found in 485 factories CANNABIS PLANTS In Lancashire, in just over a year, 20,603 plants have been found in 485 factories CANNABIS PLANTS In Lancashire, in just over a year, 20,603 plants have been found in 485 factories

A MONTH-long crackdown on drug factories in Lancashire has been launched.

Officers from the county have raided 485 cannabis farms and seized more than £8million of the drug in the past 12 months.

The rise in drugs factories is matched by a rise in smaller farms often in rented properties and linked to organised crime gangs.

Det Supt John Lyons said: “Cannabis is not the harmless drug it is often perceived to be and is the most used illegal drug in the UK.

“An increasing number of people who grow cannabis are directly funding dangerous, organised criminal gangs.

“These gangs are often responsible for gun crime, violence and intimidation across the North West.”

Last year police found a cannabis factory worth £1million in a disused mill in Brook Street, Nelson.

In that raid alone, more than 1,400 plants were seized by police after they received a tip-off from residents who could smell a strong odour coming from the building.

In another high profile case burglars broke into a Burnley house only to discover it was being used as a £400,000 skunk cannabis farm.

In April 2010, neighbours called police after hearing a disturbance at a house, in Palatine Square, in the Piccadilly area of the town.

When officers arrived they discovered more than 500 plants. In Lancashire, in just over a year, 20,603 plants have been found in 485 factories.

The figures come from the North West Regional Organised Crime Unit (Titan), and Lancashire police.

There will be a number of ‘strike days’ and officers are working with utility companies, garden centres, DIY stores, local authorities, fire services and the Royal Mail to help them to spot the signs equipment is being bought and cannabis is being grown.

Anyone with information should call police on 101 or Crimestoppers, anonymously, on 0800 555 111.

Comments (45)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

10:03am Tue 6 Mar 12

shytalk says...

Years ago there were dairy farms in Lancashire and jobs. Now there are cannabis farms and no jobs.
It's the price you pay for high levels of immigration and the export of manufacturing to places such as China.
Years ago there were dairy farms in Lancashire and jobs. Now there are cannabis farms and no jobs. It's the price you pay for high levels of immigration and the export of manufacturing to places such as China. shytalk
  • Score: 0

10:29am Tue 6 Mar 12

Jack Herer says...

Is this going to finally stop the gangsters making millions then? Is this it - the end? No more hardcore criminals making billions?

Of course it isn't - that will never ever end unless we stop denying the truth.

We have to stop those gangsters of course, but we are never ever going to do with prohibition. Just like the only way to take Al Capone and his gangster's power away was to stop alcohol prohibition.

Cannabis itself is incredibly safe when compared with alcohol for instance though. Hospital admissions in 2010;

peanuts - 2,700
alcohol - over 1,000,000
cannabis - 750

Why aren't we cracking down on peanuts - they cause more harm than cannabis?

Who would much rather see this not even being a problem - instead it being a huge financial and social benefit to society?

Who'd rather be reading a headline like:

Crackdown on Lancashire paedophiles

or

Crackdown on Lancashire violent thugs

Whereas the reality of this headline could actually be:

Police go easy on paedophiles, rapists, and violent thugs, to crackdown on harmless cannabis users
Is this going to finally stop the gangsters making millions then? Is this it - the end? No more hardcore criminals making billions? Of course it isn't - that will never ever end unless we stop denying the truth. We have to stop those gangsters of course, but we are never ever going to do with prohibition. Just like the only way to take Al Capone and his gangster's power away was to stop alcohol prohibition. Cannabis itself is incredibly safe when compared with alcohol for instance though. Hospital admissions in 2010; peanuts - 2,700 alcohol - over 1,000,000 cannabis - 750 Why aren't we cracking down on peanuts - they cause more harm than cannabis? Who would much rather see this not even being a problem - instead it being a huge financial and social benefit to society? Who'd rather be reading a headline like: Crackdown on Lancashire paedophiles or Crackdown on Lancashire violent thugs Whereas the reality of this headline could actually be: Police go easy on paedophiles, rapists, and violent thugs, to crackdown on harmless cannabis users Jack Herer
  • Score: 0

10:51am Tue 6 Mar 12

Jack Herer says...

We want much needed jobs from cannabis not hugely wasted resources.

You can get cannabis already on prescription now, but it's stupidly expensive due to a single company monopoly. It's been scientifically proven to be of great benefit for many conditions. Science and the medical world are in agreement regarding this.

Genuine medical users are being made criminals just for taking something to relieve their pain. Whereas the alternative from their GP of opiates are incredibly dangerous. What a disgrace eh!

It's not the police's fault of course - it's the weak politicians.

Across the North West in the past 3 years, the police have closed over 5,000 cannabis farms . For every one of those 5,000 there was police officers investigating, raiding and punishing.

Do you think there were 5,000 paedophiles raided? 100 maybe, tops. What about metal thieves that blight society. Any raids? They had some "spot checks" I believe, but there was never 5,000. I'd be surprised if there was 50.

The important thing is that even with all this massive money which has gone on stopping 5,000 farms in the past 3 years, the problem has still got worse!

Does anyone think this will genuinely get better without real change from politicians?
We want much needed jobs from cannabis not hugely wasted resources. You can get cannabis already on prescription now, but it's stupidly expensive due to a single company monopoly. It's been scientifically proven to be of great benefit for many conditions. Science and the medical world are in agreement regarding this. Genuine medical users are being made criminals just for taking something to relieve their pain. Whereas the alternative from their GP of opiates are incredibly dangerous. What a disgrace eh! It's not the police's fault of course - it's the weak politicians. Across the North West in the past 3 years, the police have closed over 5,000 cannabis farms . For every one of those 5,000 there was police officers investigating, raiding and punishing. Do you think there were 5,000 paedophiles raided? 100 maybe, tops. What about metal thieves that blight society. Any raids? They had some "spot checks" I believe, but there was never 5,000. I'd be surprised if there was 50. The important thing is that even with all this massive money which has gone on stopping 5,000 farms in the past 3 years, the problem has still got worse! Does anyone think this will genuinely get better without real change from politicians? Jack Herer
  • Score: 0

11:02am Tue 6 Mar 12

Jack Herer says...

Stop telling unscientific fibs Det Supt John Lyons:

“Cannabis is not the harmless drug it is often perceived to be".

Where is your evidence beyond tabloid scare stories that it is so harmful Det Supt John Lyons? You certainly don't have science on your side with that claim.

Professor David Nutt was sacked by the last Labour government just for telling the truth. Unfortunately that truth was regarding the relative safety of cannabis and you aren't allowed to tell the truth with that apparently.

Professor John Bebbington is still the Chief Scientific Adviser to the UK Government. When asked whether he agreed with Professor Nutt's view that cannabis was less harmful than cigarettes and alcohol, Professor Beddington replied: "I think the scientific evidence is absolutely clear cut. I would agree with it."

Det Supt John Lyons - do you know more than Sir Professor John Rex Beddington, CMG, FRS? He seems to completely disagree with you, you see.
Stop telling unscientific fibs Det Supt John Lyons: “Cannabis is not the harmless drug it is often perceived to be". Where is your evidence beyond tabloid scare stories that it is so harmful Det Supt John Lyons? You certainly don't have science on your side with that claim. Professor David Nutt was sacked by the last Labour government just for telling the truth. Unfortunately that truth was regarding the relative safety of cannabis and you aren't allowed to tell the truth with that apparently. Professor John Bebbington is still the Chief Scientific Adviser to the UK Government. When asked whether he agreed with Professor Nutt's view that cannabis was less harmful than cigarettes and alcohol, Professor Beddington replied: "I think the scientific evidence is absolutely clear cut. I would agree with it." Det Supt John Lyons - do you know more than Sir Professor John Rex Beddington, CMG, FRS? He seems to completely disagree with you, you see. Jack Herer
  • Score: 0

11:07am Tue 6 Mar 12

jack daniels says...

Jack Herer wrote:
Is this going to finally stop the gangsters making millions then? Is this it - the end? No more hardcore criminals making billions? Of course it isn't - that will never ever end unless we stop denying the truth. We have to stop those gangsters of course, but we are never ever going to do with prohibition. Just like the only way to take Al Capone and his gangster's power away was to stop alcohol prohibition. Cannabis itself is incredibly safe when compared with alcohol for instance though. Hospital admissions in 2010; peanuts - 2,700 alcohol - over 1,000,000 cannabis - 750 Why aren't we cracking down on peanuts - they cause more harm than cannabis? Who would much rather see this not even being a problem - instead it being a huge financial and social benefit to society? Who'd rather be reading a headline like: Crackdown on Lancashire paedophiles or Crackdown on Lancashire violent thugs Whereas the reality of this headline could actually be: Police go easy on paedophiles, rapists, and violent thugs, to crackdown on harmless cannabis users
alcohol - over 1,000,000
cannabis - 750

This, of course, is flawed as the number of people drinking far exceeds the numbers smoking dope.

This information is also a bit general; as quoted by the BBC

"That includes liver disease and mental disorders due to alcohol abuse as well as some cancers, accidents and injuries."

That's some pretty general stuff. I'm just wondering if the people admitted to a mental health ward or seeing a GP for a long term mental health issue, are included in your 750. I only ask because in my experience, the people I worked with that had a problem with their mental health, often had a problem with either drink, dope or both.
[quote][p][bold]Jack Herer[/bold] wrote: Is this going to finally stop the gangsters making millions then? Is this it - the end? No more hardcore criminals making billions? Of course it isn't - that will never ever end unless we stop denying the truth. We have to stop those gangsters of course, but we are never ever going to do with prohibition. Just like the only way to take Al Capone and his gangster's power away was to stop alcohol prohibition. Cannabis itself is incredibly safe when compared with alcohol for instance though. Hospital admissions in 2010; peanuts - 2,700 alcohol - over 1,000,000 cannabis - 750 Why aren't we cracking down on peanuts - they cause more harm than cannabis? Who would much rather see this not even being a problem - instead it being a huge financial and social benefit to society? Who'd rather be reading a headline like: Crackdown on Lancashire paedophiles or Crackdown on Lancashire violent thugs Whereas the reality of this headline could actually be: Police go easy on paedophiles, rapists, and violent thugs, to crackdown on harmless cannabis users[/p][/quote]alcohol - over 1,000,000 cannabis - 750 This, of course, is flawed as the number of people drinking far exceeds the numbers smoking dope. This information is also a bit general; as quoted by the BBC "That includes liver disease and mental disorders due to alcohol abuse as well as some cancers, accidents and injuries." That's some pretty general stuff. I'm just wondering if the people admitted to a mental health ward or seeing a GP for a long term mental health issue, are included in your 750. I only ask because in my experience, the people I worked with that had a problem with their mental health, often had a problem with either drink, dope or both. jack daniels
  • Score: 0

11:16am Tue 6 Mar 12

Peter-Reynolds says...

Why don't we try taking a completely new approach to cannabis? Around three million people in Britain are regular users and whatever we do we're not going to be able to stop them.

We waste billions every year on police, court and prison resources when a large proportion of society uses cannabis without any problem at all. In fact, the only real problem with cannabis is that it's illegal.

The risks to health are very small - much, much less than alcohol or tobacco. By a recent analysis of mortality, hospital admissions, toxicity and propensity to psychosis, cannabis is nearly 3000 times safer than alcohol. Why not introduce a tax and regulate system and realise the benefits?

That way we'd have a properly regulated supply chain with no criminals involved, no theft of electricity, no human trafficking, no destruction of property and disruption of neighbourhoods. Then there would be some control over this huge market. There would be thousands of new jobs, sales would be from licensed outlets to adults only with guaranteed quality and safety. Then our police could start going after some real wrongdoing instead of trying to fight a crime that exists only because of a misguided government policy.

Also, very importantly, science now proves that cannabis is one of the safest and most effective medicines for a wide range of conditions. While the government promotes the lie that "there is no medicinal value in cannabis", it has granted an unlawful monopoly to GW Pharmaceuticals to grow 20 tonnes a year for, you guessed it, medicine!

Cannabis Law Reform (CLEAR) published independent research on 14th September 2011 that shows a cannabis tax and regulate regime would provide a net gain to the UK exchequer of £6.7 billion per annum as well as reducing all health and social harms.

The only thing that keeps the present absurd status quo in place is weak politicians corrupted by Big Booze and the GW Pharma monopoly.

Go to the CLEAR website for full details: www.clear-uk.org
Why don't we try taking a completely new approach to cannabis? Around three million people in Britain are regular users and whatever we do we're not going to be able to stop them. We waste billions every year on police, court and prison resources when a large proportion of society uses cannabis without any problem at all. In fact, the only real problem with cannabis is that it's illegal. The risks to health are very small - much, much less than alcohol or tobacco. By a recent analysis of mortality, hospital admissions, toxicity and propensity to psychosis, cannabis is nearly 3000 times safer than alcohol. Why not introduce a tax and regulate system and realise the benefits? That way we'd have a properly regulated supply chain with no criminals involved, no theft of electricity, no human trafficking, no destruction of property and disruption of neighbourhoods. Then there would be some control over this huge market. There would be thousands of new jobs, sales would be from licensed outlets to adults only with guaranteed quality and safety. Then our police could start going after some real wrongdoing instead of trying to fight a crime that exists only because of a misguided government policy. Also, very importantly, science now proves that cannabis is one of the safest and most effective medicines for a wide range of conditions. While the government promotes the lie that "there is no medicinal value in cannabis", it has granted an unlawful monopoly to GW Pharmaceuticals to grow 20 tonnes a year for, you guessed it, medicine! Cannabis Law Reform (CLEAR) published independent research on 14th September 2011 that shows a cannabis tax and regulate regime would provide a net gain to the UK exchequer of £6.7 billion per annum as well as reducing all health and social harms. The only thing that keeps the present absurd status quo in place is weak politicians corrupted by Big Booze and the GW Pharma monopoly. Go to the CLEAR website for full details: www.clear-uk.org Peter-Reynolds
  • Score: 0

11:36am Tue 6 Mar 12

living the end times in BB1 says...

Det Supt John Lyons said: “Cannabis is not the harmless drug it is often perceived to be and is the most used illegal drug in the UK.

I don't think people are clear...

Because there have been a lot of mixed messages, it has to be made clear to people that it is still an illegal drug."
Last year almost 64,000 people were convicted of possessing cannabis, putting a massive strain on the police and courts system. Reclassifying the drug would reduce this burden. A total of 2,500 teenagers in London alone gained criminal records for drugs offences - the vast majority for possession of cannabis.
The Home Office is commissioning material in an attempt to put across its message.
Defence lawyers are also concerned that the public do not understand the law. Solicitor Mark Haslam said: "Most of the public would say cannabis is no longer illegal. They think - wrongly - that it has been decriminalised. It would not be wrong to use the word 'shambles' as the public opinion over cannabis." Concern has also mounted among MPs that their constituents will fall foul of the law for growing a bit of pain relief in the old wordrobe.
Does anyone know of any book that has been written on the uk law regarding growing -cannabis how many plants means a jailable offence? How many plants can you grow for medicinal use and not go to jail?
Cannabis is no more dangerous than tobacco or alcohol, according to Professor Pertwee.
A rethink of the laws surrounding cannabis and related products was necessary to take cannabis out of the hands of criminals, said Roger Pertwee, professor of neuropharmacology at Aberdeen University.Cannabis for recreational use should be available in shops under similar restrictions to those used to control the sale of alcohol and tobacco, according to Britain's leading expert on the drug."As cannabis is clearly less harmful than alcohol, criminalisation of people who prefer this drug is illogical and unjust.
We need a new regulatory approach to cannabis. The Dutch coffee-shop model is one that has been proven to work but some of Professor Pertwee's new suggestions may well have extra benefits and should be actively debated."Pertwee said:... "We're allowed to take alcohol, we're allowed to smoke cigarettes. Cannabis, if it's handled properly, is probably not going to be any more dangerous than that. 'how confusing'.Outlawing the drug forced users to either grow it illicitly or buy it from an illegal dealer. "They have no idea what the composition is, what has been added to it, and they are at risk of being invited to take other drugs," he said.

The government are so out of touch with cannabis issues that they should hold a referendum and ask us the people of Britain if they want criminal records for preferring cannabis over alcohol or prescribed paim remedies from pharmaceutical drug dealers..? And a new approach would help the police to catch murderers,rapists,pe
adophiles,terrorists and Asian groomers.
Det Supt John Lyons said: “Cannabis is not the harmless drug it is often perceived to be and is the most used illegal drug in the UK. I don't think people are clear... Because there have been a lot of mixed messages, it has to be made clear to people that it is still an illegal drug." Last year almost 64,000 people were convicted of possessing cannabis, putting a massive strain on the police and courts system. Reclassifying the drug would reduce this burden. A total of 2,500 teenagers in London alone gained criminal records for drugs offences - the vast majority for possession of cannabis. The Home Office is commissioning material in an attempt to put across its message. Defence lawyers are also concerned that the public do not understand the law. Solicitor Mark Haslam said: "Most of the public would say cannabis is no longer illegal. They think - wrongly - that it has been decriminalised. It would not be wrong to use the word 'shambles' as the public opinion over cannabis." Concern has also mounted among MPs that their constituents will fall foul of the law for growing a bit of pain relief in the old wordrobe. Does anyone know of any book that has been written on the uk law regarding growing -cannabis how many plants means a jailable offence? How many plants can you grow for medicinal use and not go to jail? Cannabis is no more dangerous than tobacco or alcohol, according to Professor Pertwee. A rethink of the laws surrounding cannabis and related products was necessary to take cannabis out of the hands of criminals, said Roger Pertwee, professor of neuropharmacology at Aberdeen University.Cannabis for recreational use should be available in shops under similar restrictions to those used to control the sale of alcohol and tobacco, according to Britain's leading expert on the drug."As cannabis is clearly less harmful than alcohol, criminalisation of people who prefer this drug is illogical and unjust. We need a new regulatory approach to cannabis. The Dutch coffee-shop model is one that has been proven to work but some of Professor Pertwee's new suggestions may well have extra benefits and should be actively debated."Pertwee said:... "We're allowed to take alcohol, we're allowed to smoke cigarettes. Cannabis, if it's handled properly, is probably not going to be any more dangerous than that. 'how confusing'.Outlawing the drug forced users to either grow it illicitly or buy it from an illegal dealer. "They have no idea what the composition is, what has been added to it, and they are at risk of being invited to take other drugs," he said. The government are so out of touch with cannabis issues that they should hold a referendum and ask us the people of Britain if they want criminal records for preferring cannabis over alcohol or prescribed paim remedies from pharmaceutical drug dealers..? And a new approach would help the police to catch murderers,rapists,pe adophiles,terrorists and Asian groomers. living the end times in BB1
  • Score: 0

12:35pm Tue 6 Mar 12

1LoveUnity says...

People will look back on this era of Cannabis prohibition much as we now look back and see how stupid alcohol prohibition was. This is all so damaging to society and every day the damage gets worse and harder to recover from. The effect of Cannabis Prohibition has been to impose the "Al Capone Business Model For Cannabis. This has ensured a plentiful supply of Cannabis, at hugely inflated prices! Moreover the Cannabis supplied is often of an unhealthy nature due to contamination with poisonous "bulking agents" and being harvested whilst still very immature. .
What we need, instead of a blanket prohibition of Cannabis, is a proper legally regulated supply that will benefit the U.K. economy through huge tax revenues and free up the resources of the police and courts to deal with real crimes. Most of all a properly regulated supply will protect young people, as it is in the area of Age Limits that prohibition has proven such a huge failure. In countries where there is provision for the legal supply of Cannabis to adults the use of Cannabis, and indeed other substances as well, is greatly reduced amongst youngsters. This is because the licensed suppliers know full well that if they are caught supplying to minors they stand to lose their licence, so they just don't do it. Whereas in good old Blighty we have to soldier on with prohibition giving the whole market straight into the hands of dealers who simply want to see your money, they will sell Cannabis to anyone of any age. And that's not all! A few unscrupulous dealers will sometimes say "Oh sorry, I couldn't get any weed this week, this other stuff is all they had, why don't you try some?" and then proceed to offer Heroin.
So, legalise, regulate and tax the supply of Cannabis for a Britain that is happier, less violent and more affluent.
People will look back on this era of Cannabis prohibition much as we now look back and see how stupid alcohol prohibition was. This is all so damaging to society and every day the damage gets worse and harder to recover from. The effect of Cannabis Prohibition has been to impose the "Al Capone Business Model For Cannabis. This has ensured a plentiful supply of Cannabis, at hugely inflated prices! Moreover the Cannabis supplied is often of an unhealthy nature due to contamination with poisonous "bulking agents" and being harvested whilst still very immature. . What we need, instead of a blanket prohibition of Cannabis, is a proper legally regulated supply that will benefit the U.K. economy through huge tax revenues and free up the resources of the police and courts to deal with real crimes. Most of all a properly regulated supply will protect young people, as it is in the area of Age Limits that prohibition has proven such a huge failure. In countries where there is provision for the legal supply of Cannabis to adults the use of Cannabis, and indeed other substances as well, is greatly reduced amongst youngsters. This is because the licensed suppliers know full well that if they are caught supplying to minors they stand to lose their licence, so they just don't do it. Whereas in good old Blighty we have to soldier on with prohibition giving the whole market straight into the hands of dealers who simply want to see your money, they will sell Cannabis to anyone of any age. And that's not all! A few unscrupulous dealers will sometimes say "Oh sorry, I couldn't get any weed this week, this other stuff is all they had, why don't you try some?" and then proceed to offer Heroin. So, legalise, regulate and tax the supply of Cannabis for a Britain that is happier, less violent and more affluent. 1LoveUnity
  • Score: 0

12:43pm Tue 6 Mar 12

Jack Herer says...

jack daniels wrote:
Jack Herer wrote:
Is this going to finally stop the gangsters making millions then? Is this it - the end? No more hardcore criminals making billions? Of course it isn't - that will never ever end unless we stop denying the truth. We have to stop those gangsters of course, but we are never ever going to do with prohibition. Just like the only way to take Al Capone and his gangster's power away was to stop alcohol prohibition. Cannabis itself is incredibly safe when compared with alcohol for instance though. Hospital admissions in 2010; peanuts - 2,700 alcohol - over 1,000,000 cannabis - 750 Why aren't we cracking down on peanuts - they cause more harm than cannabis? Who would much rather see this not even being a problem - instead it being a huge financial and social benefit to society? Who'd rather be reading a headline like: Crackdown on Lancashire paedophiles or Crackdown on Lancashire violent thugs Whereas the reality of this headline could actually be: Police go easy on paedophiles, rapists, and violent thugs, to crackdown on harmless cannabis users
alcohol - over 1,000,000
cannabis - 750

This, of course, is flawed as the number of people drinking far exceeds the numbers smoking dope.

This information is also a bit general; as quoted by the BBC

"That includes liver disease and mental disorders due to alcohol abuse as well as some cancers, accidents and injuries."

That's some pretty general stuff. I'm just wondering if the people admitted to a mental health ward or seeing a GP for a long term mental health issue, are included in your 750. I only ask because in my experience, the people I worked with that had a problem with their mental health, often had a problem with either drink, dope or both.
Those 750 are the full admissions to hospital - pretty much all mental health issues.

2 million people in the UK smoke cannabis regularly. How many regular drinkers do you think there are - 40 million?

That means there are 20 times as many drinkers as there are cannabis users.

Can you times 750 by 20 for me Jack Daniels? Is it more than 1,000,000?

It isn't is it? It's only 15,000. So therefore if everyone stopped drinking and started smoking cannabis instead, we'd see hospitals admissions drop by about 1,000,000 people a year.

Think how much money we'd save!

Alcohol has 47,000 admissions alone for mental health issues. Scaled up, that makes it more than 3 times as bad than cannabis for mental health issues alone.

Forget the truly vast number of other issues which booze has that cannabis doesn't, booze is still far worse than cannabis for mental health issues.
[quote][p][bold]jack daniels[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jack Herer[/bold] wrote: Is this going to finally stop the gangsters making millions then? Is this it - the end? No more hardcore criminals making billions? Of course it isn't - that will never ever end unless we stop denying the truth. We have to stop those gangsters of course, but we are never ever going to do with prohibition. Just like the only way to take Al Capone and his gangster's power away was to stop alcohol prohibition. Cannabis itself is incredibly safe when compared with alcohol for instance though. Hospital admissions in 2010; peanuts - 2,700 alcohol - over 1,000,000 cannabis - 750 Why aren't we cracking down on peanuts - they cause more harm than cannabis? Who would much rather see this not even being a problem - instead it being a huge financial and social benefit to society? Who'd rather be reading a headline like: Crackdown on Lancashire paedophiles or Crackdown on Lancashire violent thugs Whereas the reality of this headline could actually be: Police go easy on paedophiles, rapists, and violent thugs, to crackdown on harmless cannabis users[/p][/quote]alcohol - over 1,000,000 cannabis - 750 This, of course, is flawed as the number of people drinking far exceeds the numbers smoking dope. This information is also a bit general; as quoted by the BBC "That includes liver disease and mental disorders due to alcohol abuse as well as some cancers, accidents and injuries." That's some pretty general stuff. I'm just wondering if the people admitted to a mental health ward or seeing a GP for a long term mental health issue, are included in your 750. I only ask because in my experience, the people I worked with that had a problem with their mental health, often had a problem with either drink, dope or both.[/p][/quote]Those 750 are the full admissions to hospital - pretty much all mental health issues. 2 million people in the UK smoke cannabis regularly. How many regular drinkers do you think there are - 40 million? That means there are 20 times as many drinkers as there are cannabis users. Can you times 750 by 20 for me Jack Daniels? Is it more than 1,000,000? It isn't is it? It's only 15,000. So therefore if everyone stopped drinking and started smoking cannabis instead, we'd see hospitals admissions drop by about 1,000,000 people a year. Think how much money we'd save! Alcohol has 47,000 admissions alone for mental health issues. Scaled up, that makes it more than 3 times as bad than cannabis for mental health issues alone. Forget the truly vast number of other issues which booze has that cannabis doesn't, booze is still far worse than cannabis for mental health issues. Jack Herer
  • Score: 0

12:59pm Tue 6 Mar 12

Jack Herer says...

Keep Darwen Green wrote:
Jack Herer wrote:
Stop telling unscientific fibs Det Supt John Lyons:

“Cannabis is not the harmless drug it is often perceived to be".

Where is your evidence beyond tabloid scare stories that it is so harmful Det Supt John Lyons? You certainly don't have science on your side with that claim.

Professor David Nutt was sacked by the last Labour government just for telling the truth. Unfortunately that truth was regarding the relative safety of cannabis and you aren't allowed to tell the truth with that apparently.

Professor John Bebbington is still the Chief Scientific Adviser to the UK Government. When asked whether he agreed with Professor Nutt's view that cannabis was less harmful than cigarettes and alcohol, Professor Beddington replied: "I think the scientific evidence is absolutely clear cut. I would agree with it."

Det Supt John Lyons - do you know more than Sir Professor John Rex Beddington, CMG, FRS? He seems to completely disagree with you, you see.
Hey up its the town junkie trying to justify all the cannabis addicts. Everyone knows that every hard core heroin user first went through the cannibis injecting phase first as a stepping stone, so you want to make the steps easier, this would encourage more junkies and don't pap on about how you all like hippie love lets speak about Kyle Kay who injected mounds of cannabis and then kicked his best friend to death, I suggest you google him you space cadet, I say when we catch them we birch them, then taser them, then salt them. Peace Man. Obviously you've eaten too many crack rocks and injected too many mushrooms to be taken seriously. Idiot.
Lol - love it. This is the reefer madness ignorance on wonderful display.

Prohibition isn't helping cases like Kyle Kay - it's creating them. Criminals don't care who they sell to. They don't care about a safe product. Only legalisation would bring screening, licensing, safe and regulated products with restrictions on sale.

None of that exists with the current system. The current system is the worst case scenario for creating cases like Kyle Kay. Your ignorance killed Kyle Kay's friend. In the society I'm proposing, Kyle Kay would never have got cannabis in the first place. He would have got help the first time he tried.

Want to stop tragic cases like Kyle Kay? Then you aren't going to get it with criminal control. You are only going to get it with legalisation.

Kyle Kay was also drinking 5 litres of cider a day as well it has to be said. See above for the bigger mental health risks with alcohol than cannabis - that scientific.

Now to the best bits of your post. Injecting cannabis? What planet are you on? You could no more inject cannabis than you could cheese. Hardcore abusers aren't bothered about cannabis - the kick simply isn't enough big enough for them. That's why you don't see problem cannabis users - those people are heroin addicts or smack heads instead. Responsible people stick with the safe drugs which will cause them far less harm. Irresponsible people move on to the hard drugs and become addicts.

Scientifically, cannabis is actually no more "addictive" than coffee or even a playstation. You seem to be getting mixed up with real, properly dangerous drugs such as heroin or alcohol.

You smoke crack and eat mushrooms I believe as well.

Honestly - are you for real or some comedy character?
[quote][p][bold]Keep Darwen Green[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jack Herer[/bold] wrote: Stop telling unscientific fibs Det Supt John Lyons: “Cannabis is not the harmless drug it is often perceived to be". Where is your evidence beyond tabloid scare stories that it is so harmful Det Supt John Lyons? You certainly don't have science on your side with that claim. Professor David Nutt was sacked by the last Labour government just for telling the truth. Unfortunately that truth was regarding the relative safety of cannabis and you aren't allowed to tell the truth with that apparently. Professor John Bebbington is still the Chief Scientific Adviser to the UK Government. When asked whether he agreed with Professor Nutt's view that cannabis was less harmful than cigarettes and alcohol, Professor Beddington replied: "I think the scientific evidence is absolutely clear cut. I would agree with it." Det Supt John Lyons - do you know more than Sir Professor John Rex Beddington, CMG, FRS? He seems to completely disagree with you, you see.[/p][/quote]Hey up its the town junkie trying to justify all the cannabis addicts. Everyone knows that every hard core heroin user first went through the cannibis injecting phase first as a stepping stone, so you want to make the steps easier, this would encourage more junkies and don't pap on about how you all like hippie love lets speak about Kyle Kay who injected mounds of cannabis and then kicked his best friend to death, I suggest you google him you space cadet, I say when we catch them we birch them, then taser them, then salt them. Peace Man. Obviously you've eaten too many crack rocks and injected too many mushrooms to be taken seriously. Idiot.[/p][/quote]Lol - love it. This is the reefer madness ignorance on wonderful display. Prohibition isn't helping cases like Kyle Kay - it's creating them. Criminals don't care who they sell to. They don't care about a safe product. Only legalisation would bring screening, licensing, safe and regulated products with restrictions on sale. None of that exists with the current system. The current system is the worst case scenario for creating cases like Kyle Kay. Your ignorance killed Kyle Kay's friend. In the society I'm proposing, Kyle Kay would never have got cannabis in the first place. He would have got help the first time he tried. Want to stop tragic cases like Kyle Kay? Then you aren't going to get it with criminal control. You are only going to get it with legalisation. Kyle Kay was also drinking 5 litres of cider a day as well it has to be said. See above for the bigger mental health risks with alcohol than cannabis - that scientific. Now to the best bits of your post. Injecting cannabis? What planet are you on? You could no more inject cannabis than you could cheese. Hardcore abusers aren't bothered about cannabis - the kick simply isn't enough big enough for them. That's why you don't see problem cannabis users - those people are heroin addicts or smack heads instead. Responsible people stick with the safe drugs which will cause them far less harm. Irresponsible people move on to the hard drugs and become addicts. Scientifically, cannabis is actually no more "addictive" than coffee or even a playstation. You seem to be getting mixed up with real, properly dangerous drugs such as heroin or alcohol. You smoke crack and eat mushrooms I believe as well. Honestly - are you for real or some comedy character? Jack Herer
  • Score: 0

1:08pm Tue 6 Mar 12

Jack Herer says...

Keep Darwen Green - have you done this to me before, and it took Chamone'mf to come along and point out the obvious?

Oh dear if so.
Keep Darwen Green - have you done this to me before, and it took Chamone'mf to come along and point out the obvious? Oh dear if so. Jack Herer
  • Score: 0

1:11pm Tue 6 Mar 12

Keep Darwen Green says...

So explain why the guy who took mounds of cannabis, Kyle Kay, then proceeded to kick his best friend to death if its so peaceful? Or Deyan deyanov in tenerife, who prior to taking heroin and cocaine and beheading a british tourist in the middle of the day, was a cannabis user. So we can conclude, if they hadn't taken any cannabis, ever, they wouldn't have commited these crimes. A more interesting stat would be, how many herion and cocaine or any heavy drug user convicted killers started out on cannabis, I think you'll find them stats more interesting.
I would say that 99% of all hard drug users started on cannabis and 100% of all hard drug user that became killers did likewise.
So to nip it in the bud makes sense all cannabis users should be jailed for their own good and everyone elses.
So explain why the guy who took mounds of cannabis, Kyle Kay, then proceeded to kick his best friend to death if its so peaceful? Or Deyan deyanov in tenerife, who prior to taking heroin and cocaine and beheading a british tourist in the middle of the day, was a cannabis user. So we can conclude, if they hadn't taken any cannabis, ever, they wouldn't have commited these crimes. A more interesting stat would be, how many herion and cocaine or any heavy drug user convicted killers started out on cannabis, I think you'll find them stats more interesting. I would say that 99% of all hard drug users started on cannabis and 100% of all hard drug user that became killers did likewise. So to nip it in the bud makes sense all cannabis users should be jailed for their own good and everyone elses. Keep Darwen Green
  • Score: 0

1:21pm Tue 6 Mar 12

1LoveUnity says...

100% of alcoholics started off on milk.
100% of alcoholics started off on milk. 1LoveUnity
  • Score: 0

1:29pm Tue 6 Mar 12

jack daniels says...

Jack Herer wrote:
jack daniels wrote:
Jack Herer wrote: Is this going to finally stop the gangsters making millions then? Is this it - the end? No more hardcore criminals making billions? Of course it isn't - that will never ever end unless we stop denying the truth. We have to stop those gangsters of course, but we are never ever going to do with prohibition. Just like the only way to take Al Capone and his gangster's power away was to stop alcohol prohibition. Cannabis itself is incredibly safe when compared with alcohol for instance though. Hospital admissions in 2010; peanuts - 2,700 alcohol - over 1,000,000 cannabis - 750 Why aren't we cracking down on peanuts - they cause more harm than cannabis? Who would much rather see this not even being a problem - instead it being a huge financial and social benefit to society? Who'd rather be reading a headline like: Crackdown on Lancashire paedophiles or Crackdown on Lancashire violent thugs Whereas the reality of this headline could actually be: Police go easy on paedophiles, rapists, and violent thugs, to crackdown on harmless cannabis users
alcohol - over 1,000,000 cannabis - 750 This, of course, is flawed as the number of people drinking far exceeds the numbers smoking dope. This information is also a bit general; as quoted by the BBC "That includes liver disease and mental disorders due to alcohol abuse as well as some cancers, accidents and injuries." That's some pretty general stuff. I'm just wondering if the people admitted to a mental health ward or seeing a GP for a long term mental health issue, are included in your 750. I only ask because in my experience, the people I worked with that had a problem with their mental health, often had a problem with either drink, dope or both.
Those 750 are the full admissions to hospital - pretty much all mental health issues. 2 million people in the UK smoke cannabis regularly. How many regular drinkers do you think there are - 40 million? That means there are 20 times as many drinkers as there are cannabis users. Can you times 750 by 20 for me Jack Daniels? Is it more than 1,000,000? It isn't is it? It's only 15,000. So therefore if everyone stopped drinking and started smoking cannabis instead, we'd see hospitals admissions drop by about 1,000,000 people a year. Think how much money we'd save! Alcohol has 47,000 admissions alone for mental health issues. Scaled up, that makes it more than 3 times as bad than cannabis for mental health issues alone. Forget the truly vast number of other issues which booze has that cannabis doesn't, booze is still far worse than cannabis for mental health issues.
“Can you times 750 by 20 for me Jack Daniels? Is it more than 1,000,000?”

What a pompous comment, yet so typical of you.

The main flaw with your argument is that you have to compare it with the most commonest drug in the world, just to justify your drug addiction. No matter how you jiggle the figures, cannabis affects your brain chemistry and increases your chance of developing one of a number of mental health complaints. These 750 ward admissions; how many of these are re-admissions due to prolonged use when back in the community? How many are failed rehabilitations due the smoker being addicted?



Cannabis may be better than alcohol, but doing neither is best of all.

In your eyes, it’s like trying to say that Pol Pot was an ok guy when compared to Adolf Hitler.
[quote][p][bold]Jack Herer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jack daniels[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jack Herer[/bold] wrote: Is this going to finally stop the gangsters making millions then? Is this it - the end? No more hardcore criminals making billions? Of course it isn't - that will never ever end unless we stop denying the truth. We have to stop those gangsters of course, but we are never ever going to do with prohibition. Just like the only way to take Al Capone and his gangster's power away was to stop alcohol prohibition. Cannabis itself is incredibly safe when compared with alcohol for instance though. Hospital admissions in 2010; peanuts - 2,700 alcohol - over 1,000,000 cannabis - 750 Why aren't we cracking down on peanuts - they cause more harm than cannabis? Who would much rather see this not even being a problem - instead it being a huge financial and social benefit to society? Who'd rather be reading a headline like: Crackdown on Lancashire paedophiles or Crackdown on Lancashire violent thugs Whereas the reality of this headline could actually be: Police go easy on paedophiles, rapists, and violent thugs, to crackdown on harmless cannabis users[/p][/quote]alcohol - over 1,000,000 cannabis - 750 This, of course, is flawed as the number of people drinking far exceeds the numbers smoking dope. This information is also a bit general; as quoted by the BBC "That includes liver disease and mental disorders due to alcohol abuse as well as some cancers, accidents and injuries." That's some pretty general stuff. I'm just wondering if the people admitted to a mental health ward or seeing a GP for a long term mental health issue, are included in your 750. I only ask because in my experience, the people I worked with that had a problem with their mental health, often had a problem with either drink, dope or both.[/p][/quote]Those 750 are the full admissions to hospital - pretty much all mental health issues. 2 million people in the UK smoke cannabis regularly. How many regular drinkers do you think there are - 40 million? That means there are 20 times as many drinkers as there are cannabis users. Can you times 750 by 20 for me Jack Daniels? Is it more than 1,000,000? It isn't is it? It's only 15,000. So therefore if everyone stopped drinking and started smoking cannabis instead, we'd see hospitals admissions drop by about 1,000,000 people a year. Think how much money we'd save! Alcohol has 47,000 admissions alone for mental health issues. Scaled up, that makes it more than 3 times as bad than cannabis for mental health issues alone. Forget the truly vast number of other issues which booze has that cannabis doesn't, booze is still far worse than cannabis for mental health issues.[/p][/quote]“Can you times 750 by 20 for me Jack Daniels? Is it more than 1,000,000?” What a pompous comment, yet so typical of you. The main flaw with your argument is that you have to compare it with the most commonest drug in the world, just to justify your drug addiction. No matter how you jiggle the figures, cannabis affects your brain chemistry and increases your chance of developing one of a number of mental health complaints. These 750 ward admissions; how many of these are re-admissions due to prolonged use when back in the community? How many are failed rehabilitations due the smoker being addicted? Cannabis may be better than alcohol, but doing neither is best of all. In your eyes, it’s like trying to say that Pol Pot was an ok guy when compared to Adolf Hitler. jack daniels
  • Score: 0

1:32pm Tue 6 Mar 12

what briefcase!! says...

MMMMM really got me thinking here ,wonder if the recovered canabis from the farms that get raided still gets burned.....?not seen any displays of burning piles of cannabis lately lol.
maybe it gets took back to GM for a credit note...this country as gone to the dogs and was sold off to the highest bank bidders for investment.
the all country is one big privatised sector!!
MMMMM really got me thinking here ,wonder if the recovered canabis from the farms that get raided still gets burned.....?not seen any displays of burning piles of cannabis lately lol. maybe it gets took back to GM for a credit note...this country as gone to the dogs and was sold off to the highest bank bidders for investment. the all country is one big privatised sector!! what briefcase!!
  • Score: 0

1:34pm Tue 6 Mar 12

Keep Darwen Green says...

1LoveUnity wrote:
100% of alcoholics started off on milk.
Another cannabis injector
[quote][p][bold]1LoveUnity[/bold] wrote: 100% of alcoholics started off on milk.[/p][/quote]Another cannabis injector Keep Darwen Green
  • Score: 0

1:46pm Tue 6 Mar 12

burner says...

Quote . . . " Cannabis itself is incredibly safe . " . . . OMG, your head is seriously damaged if you consider that to be true !
Quote . . . " Cannabis itself is incredibly safe . " . . . OMG, your head is seriously damaged if you consider that to be true ! burner
  • Score: 0

1:51pm Tue 6 Mar 12

jack daniels says...

Keep Darwen Green wrote:
1LoveUnity wrote: 100% of alcoholics started off on milk.
Another cannabis injector
‘Injector?’

Yet another example of 'Daisy' showing her ignorance
[quote][p][bold]Keep Darwen Green[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]1LoveUnity[/bold] wrote: 100% of alcoholics started off on milk.[/p][/quote]Another cannabis injector[/p][/quote]‘Injector?’ Yet another example of 'Daisy' showing her ignorance jack daniels
  • Score: 0

2:24pm Tue 6 Mar 12

Jack Herer says...

Keep Darwen Green wrote:
So explain why the guy who took mounds of cannabis, Kyle Kay, then proceeded to kick his best friend to death if its so peaceful? Or Deyan deyanov in tenerife, who prior to taking heroin and cocaine and beheading a british tourist in the middle of the day, was a cannabis user. So we can conclude, if they hadn't taken any cannabis, ever, they wouldn't have commited these crimes. A more interesting stat would be, how many herion and cocaine or any heavy drug user convicted killers started out on cannabis, I think you'll find them stats more interesting.
I would say that 99% of all hard drug users started on cannabis and 100% of all hard drug user that became killers did likewise.
So to nip it in the bud makes sense all cannabis users should be jailed for their own good and everyone elses.
Seriously - what planet are you on, because you seem to be completely detached from reality?

Kyle Kay was drinking 5 litres of cider a day. No matter how much cannabis he had, it would never counter the aggressive effects of 5 litres of cider a day.

Second - if 99% of hard drug users started out on cannabis then we need to make cannabis legal, because it then removes the only provable link with hard drugs - dealers often don't just sell cannabis they sell harder drugs.

Besides which 99% of hard users undoubtedly started on alcohol before cannabis. Why are you not decrying alcohol? Why are you blaming cannabis not alcohol?

Third, and this is my favourite -

"Deyan deyanov in tenerife, who prior to taking heroin and cocaine and beheading a british tourist in the middle of the day, was a cannabis user"

That's just brilliant. He's taken heroin and cocaine before hand, but you still want to blame cannabis? What the hell? Anything anyone does that's bad, regardless of what else they have taken or their effects, you want to blame it on cannabis?

You do know what heroin and, more importantly in this case, cocaine are don't you. They are hard hard drugs - with incredibly bad side effects and bad after effects for it's users. They are undoubtedly up there as the hardest drugs of all.

But you still want to blame cannabis? Your conclusion from cannabis being somehow to blame when hard drug users become killers is laughable.

If your argument is that cannabis came first, then why aren't you blaming alcohol which is harder, has far more proven statistical and scientific mental health links, and definitely came before cannabis?

You seem to be blaming cannabis for all of society's ills, whilst therefore downplaying the very real danger from hard dangerous drugs like heroin and cocaine. Don't pass the blame for those drugs - it's extremely dangerous. It's dangerous to our kids, because they will think hard drugs are safe by the ignorance you push. They are not. They are different to cannabis and they are extremely dangerous.

I've personally lost 3 friends to heroin overdoses. No-one in the history of mankind has died from a cannabis overdose.

You ignorance is dangerous for our children. Your ignorance is causing real deaths unnecessarily.
[quote][p][bold]Keep Darwen Green[/bold] wrote: So explain why the guy who took mounds of cannabis, Kyle Kay, then proceeded to kick his best friend to death if its so peaceful? Or Deyan deyanov in tenerife, who prior to taking heroin and cocaine and beheading a british tourist in the middle of the day, was a cannabis user. So we can conclude, if they hadn't taken any cannabis, ever, they wouldn't have commited these crimes. A more interesting stat would be, how many herion and cocaine or any heavy drug user convicted killers started out on cannabis, I think you'll find them stats more interesting. I would say that 99% of all hard drug users started on cannabis and 100% of all hard drug user that became killers did likewise. So to nip it in the bud makes sense all cannabis users should be jailed for their own good and everyone elses.[/p][/quote]Seriously - what planet are you on, because you seem to be completely detached from reality? Kyle Kay was drinking 5 litres of cider a day. No matter how much cannabis he had, it would never counter the aggressive effects of 5 litres of cider a day. Second - if 99% of hard drug users started out on cannabis then we need to make cannabis legal, because it then removes the only provable link with hard drugs - dealers often don't just sell cannabis they sell harder drugs. Besides which 99% of hard users undoubtedly started on alcohol before cannabis. Why are you not decrying alcohol? Why are you blaming cannabis not alcohol? Third, and this is my favourite - "Deyan deyanov in tenerife, who prior to taking heroin and cocaine and beheading a british tourist in the middle of the day, was a cannabis user" That's just brilliant. He's taken heroin and cocaine before hand, but you still want to blame cannabis? What the hell? Anything anyone does that's bad, regardless of what else they have taken or their effects, you want to blame it on cannabis? You do know what heroin and, more importantly in this case, cocaine are don't you. They are hard hard drugs - with incredibly bad side effects and bad after effects for it's users. They are undoubtedly up there as the hardest drugs of all. But you still want to blame cannabis? Your conclusion from cannabis being somehow to blame when hard drug users become killers is laughable. If your argument is that cannabis came first, then why aren't you blaming alcohol which is harder, has far more proven statistical and scientific mental health links, and definitely came before cannabis? You seem to be blaming cannabis for all of society's ills, whilst therefore downplaying the very real danger from hard dangerous drugs like heroin and cocaine. Don't pass the blame for those drugs - it's extremely dangerous. It's dangerous to our kids, because they will think hard drugs are safe by the ignorance you push. They are not. They are different to cannabis and they are extremely dangerous. I've personally lost 3 friends to heroin overdoses. No-one in the history of mankind has died from a cannabis overdose. You ignorance is dangerous for our children. Your ignorance is causing real deaths unnecessarily. Jack Herer
  • Score: 0

2:26pm Tue 6 Mar 12

1LoveUnity says...

Keep Darwen Green wrote:
1LoveUnity wrote:
100% of alcoholics started off on milk.
Another cannabis injector
With every word you type you show such extreme ignorance. I actually find it very hard to believe that you are THIS stupid. I therefore have to come to the conclusion that you are simply a troll.
[quote][p][bold]Keep Darwen Green[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]1LoveUnity[/bold] wrote: 100% of alcoholics started off on milk.[/p][/quote]Another cannabis injector[/p][/quote]With every word you type you show such extreme ignorance. I actually find it very hard to believe that you are THIS stupid. I therefore have to come to the conclusion that you are simply a troll. 1LoveUnity
  • Score: 0

2:31pm Tue 6 Mar 12

Jack Herer says...

burner wrote:
Quote . . . " Cannabis itself is incredibly safe . " . . . OMG, your head is seriously damaged if you consider that to be true !
There are far more admissions to hospital from peanuts than cannabis.

Would you say that peanuts are dangerous or safe? Relatively of course I'm talking. Compared with say alcohol - are peanuts dangerous or safe?

Alcohol sees over 1,000,000 people a year admitted to hospital, including huge numbers of deaths. Peanuts see 2,700 admissions a year with a surprising amount of deaths.

Comparing those figures, would you say that peanuts are dangerous or safe compared to alcohol?

Now cannabis sees far less admissions than peanuts at only 750, and absolutely no deaths.

Would you say that cannabis was dangerous or safe when compared with peanuts?

Would you say that cannabis was dangerous or safe when compared with alcohol?

Would the term incredibly safe spring to mind?

If cannabis is dangerous where is the damage? There's far more damage from peanuts.
[quote][p][bold]burner[/bold] wrote: Quote . . . " Cannabis itself is incredibly safe . " . . . OMG, your head is seriously damaged if you consider that to be true ![/p][/quote]There are far more admissions to hospital from peanuts than cannabis. Would you say that peanuts are dangerous or safe? Relatively of course I'm talking. Compared with say alcohol - are peanuts dangerous or safe? Alcohol sees over 1,000,000 people a year admitted to hospital, including huge numbers of deaths. Peanuts see 2,700 admissions a year with a surprising amount of deaths. Comparing those figures, would you say that peanuts are dangerous or safe compared to alcohol? Now cannabis sees far less admissions than peanuts at only 750, and absolutely no deaths. Would you say that cannabis was dangerous or safe when compared with peanuts? Would you say that cannabis was dangerous or safe when compared with alcohol? Would the term incredibly safe spring to mind? If cannabis is dangerous where is the damage? There's far more damage from peanuts. Jack Herer
  • Score: 0

2:49pm Tue 6 Mar 12

Jack Herer says...

jack daniels wrote:
Jack Herer wrote:
jack daniels wrote:
Jack Herer wrote: Is this going to finally stop the gangsters making millions then? Is this it - the end? No more hardcore criminals making billions? Of course it isn't - that will never ever end unless we stop denying the truth. We have to stop those gangsters of course, but we are never ever going to do with prohibition. Just like the only way to take Al Capone and his gangster's power away was to stop alcohol prohibition. Cannabis itself is incredibly safe when compared with alcohol for instance though. Hospital admissions in 2010; peanuts - 2,700 alcohol - over 1,000,000 cannabis - 750 Why aren't we cracking down on peanuts - they cause more harm than cannabis? Who would much rather see this not even being a problem - instead it being a huge financial and social benefit to society? Who'd rather be reading a headline like: Crackdown on Lancashire paedophiles or Crackdown on Lancashire violent thugs Whereas the reality of this headline could actually be: Police go easy on paedophiles, rapists, and violent thugs, to crackdown on harmless cannabis users
alcohol - over 1,000,000 cannabis - 750 This, of course, is flawed as the number of people drinking far exceeds the numbers smoking dope. This information is also a bit general; as quoted by the BBC "That includes liver disease and mental disorders due to alcohol abuse as well as some cancers, accidents and injuries." That's some pretty general stuff. I'm just wondering if the people admitted to a mental health ward or seeing a GP for a long term mental health issue, are included in your 750. I only ask because in my experience, the people I worked with that had a problem with their mental health, often had a problem with either drink, dope or both.
Those 750 are the full admissions to hospital - pretty much all mental health issues. 2 million people in the UK smoke cannabis regularly. How many regular drinkers do you think there are - 40 million? That means there are 20 times as many drinkers as there are cannabis users. Can you times 750 by 20 for me Jack Daniels? Is it more than 1,000,000? It isn't is it? It's only 15,000. So therefore if everyone stopped drinking and started smoking cannabis instead, we'd see hospitals admissions drop by about 1,000,000 people a year. Think how much money we'd save! Alcohol has 47,000 admissions alone for mental health issues. Scaled up, that makes it more than 3 times as bad than cannabis for mental health issues alone. Forget the truly vast number of other issues which booze has that cannabis doesn't, booze is still far worse than cannabis for mental health issues.
“Can you times 750 by 20 for me Jack Daniels? Is it more than 1,000,000?”

What a pompous comment, yet so typical of you.

The main flaw with your argument is that you have to compare it with the most commonest drug in the world, just to justify your drug addiction. No matter how you jiggle the figures, cannabis affects your brain chemistry and increases your chance of developing one of a number of mental health complaints. These 750 ward admissions; how many of these are re-admissions due to prolonged use when back in the community? How many are failed rehabilitations due the smoker being addicted?



Cannabis may be better than alcohol, but doing neither is best of all.

In your eyes, it’s like trying to say that Pol Pot was an ok guy when compared to Adolf Hitler.
No I don't. Compare cannabis with whatever drug you want -there's not much out there that's safer.

In safety terms, comparing alcohol to cannabis is like comparing Adolf Hitler to someone who stole a penny sweet from the sweet shop.

Nothing is actually harmless, someone has actually died from a tea cosy before now. But if cannabis is harmless - relatively of course - then what is the point in wasting all our money stopping people taking it, when it is far safer than the sanctioned recreational drug we currently have.

How do we morally justify locking people up for smoking cannabis - what harm have they done to anybody? Yet, as can be seen here, we see fit to pump far more resources into stopping cannabis use than we do stopping all this despicable grooming we've seen going on.

North West police have already stopped over 5,000 cannabis farms across the North West - the problem is still worse than ever though.

Think of the massive police time involved in 5,000 cannabis farms - that's just the North West as well, in the past 3 years. Have you read about 5,000 other expensive police raids on other areas of criminality? 5,000 raids on suspected paedophile for instance? I'd be surprised if there had been more than a couple of 100, for something like that.

Your continued ignorance mean our resources are skewed against real crimes against real criminals. Instead you

Try explaining that to a child who'd just been raped by a monster. "Sorry about that, I know we didn't catch who did it, but we got 4 cannabis farms instead". No thanks I'd rather have a justice system which catches and punishes real criminals thanks.

Just as importantly for society's well being, hardcore criminals are getting richer and richer all the time. We're in cloud cuckoo land if we think we are ever going to stop it. There is far too much money to be made.

That should be our money, and as it happens we could really do with it now.
[quote][p][bold]jack daniels[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jack Herer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jack daniels[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jack Herer[/bold] wrote: Is this going to finally stop the gangsters making millions then? Is this it - the end? No more hardcore criminals making billions? Of course it isn't - that will never ever end unless we stop denying the truth. We have to stop those gangsters of course, but we are never ever going to do with prohibition. Just like the only way to take Al Capone and his gangster's power away was to stop alcohol prohibition. Cannabis itself is incredibly safe when compared with alcohol for instance though. Hospital admissions in 2010; peanuts - 2,700 alcohol - over 1,000,000 cannabis - 750 Why aren't we cracking down on peanuts - they cause more harm than cannabis? Who would much rather see this not even being a problem - instead it being a huge financial and social benefit to society? Who'd rather be reading a headline like: Crackdown on Lancashire paedophiles or Crackdown on Lancashire violent thugs Whereas the reality of this headline could actually be: Police go easy on paedophiles, rapists, and violent thugs, to crackdown on harmless cannabis users[/p][/quote]alcohol - over 1,000,000 cannabis - 750 This, of course, is flawed as the number of people drinking far exceeds the numbers smoking dope. This information is also a bit general; as quoted by the BBC "That includes liver disease and mental disorders due to alcohol abuse as well as some cancers, accidents and injuries." That's some pretty general stuff. I'm just wondering if the people admitted to a mental health ward or seeing a GP for a long term mental health issue, are included in your 750. I only ask because in my experience, the people I worked with that had a problem with their mental health, often had a problem with either drink, dope or both.[/p][/quote]Those 750 are the full admissions to hospital - pretty much all mental health issues. 2 million people in the UK smoke cannabis regularly. How many regular drinkers do you think there are - 40 million? That means there are 20 times as many drinkers as there are cannabis users. Can you times 750 by 20 for me Jack Daniels? Is it more than 1,000,000? It isn't is it? It's only 15,000. So therefore if everyone stopped drinking and started smoking cannabis instead, we'd see hospitals admissions drop by about 1,000,000 people a year. Think how much money we'd save! Alcohol has 47,000 admissions alone for mental health issues. Scaled up, that makes it more than 3 times as bad than cannabis for mental health issues alone. Forget the truly vast number of other issues which booze has that cannabis doesn't, booze is still far worse than cannabis for mental health issues.[/p][/quote]“Can you times 750 by 20 for me Jack Daniels? Is it more than 1,000,000?” What a pompous comment, yet so typical of you. The main flaw with your argument is that you have to compare it with the most commonest drug in the world, just to justify your drug addiction. No matter how you jiggle the figures, cannabis affects your brain chemistry and increases your chance of developing one of a number of mental health complaints. These 750 ward admissions; how many of these are re-admissions due to prolonged use when back in the community? How many are failed rehabilitations due the smoker being addicted? Cannabis may be better than alcohol, but doing neither is best of all. In your eyes, it’s like trying to say that Pol Pot was an ok guy when compared to Adolf Hitler.[/p][/quote]No I don't. Compare cannabis with whatever drug you want -there's not much out there that's safer. In safety terms, comparing alcohol to cannabis is like comparing Adolf Hitler to someone who stole a penny sweet from the sweet shop. Nothing is actually harmless, someone has actually died from a tea cosy before now. But if cannabis is harmless - relatively of course - then what is the point in wasting all our money stopping people taking it, when it is far safer than the sanctioned recreational drug we currently have. How do we morally justify locking people up for smoking cannabis - what harm have they done to anybody? Yet, as can be seen here, we see fit to pump far more resources into stopping cannabis use than we do stopping all this despicable grooming we've seen going on. North West police have already stopped over 5,000 cannabis farms across the North West - the problem is still worse than ever though. Think of the massive police time involved in 5,000 cannabis farms - that's just the North West as well, in the past 3 years. Have you read about 5,000 other expensive police raids on other areas of criminality? 5,000 raids on suspected paedophile for instance? I'd be surprised if there had been more than a couple of 100, for something like that. Your continued ignorance mean our resources are skewed against real crimes against real criminals. Instead you Try explaining that to a child who'd just been raped by a monster. "Sorry about that, I know we didn't catch who did it, but we got 4 cannabis farms instead". No thanks I'd rather have a justice system which catches and punishes real criminals thanks. Just as importantly for society's well being, hardcore criminals are getting richer and richer all the time. We're in cloud cuckoo land if we think we are ever going to stop it. There is far too much money to be made. That should be our money, and as it happens we could really do with it now. Jack Herer
  • Score: 0

2:56pm Tue 6 Mar 12

living the end times in BB1 says...

Jack Herer wrote:
burner wrote:
Quote . . . " Cannabis itself is incredibly safe . " . . . OMG, your head is seriously damaged if you consider that to be true !
There are far more admissions to hospital from peanuts than cannabis.

Would you say that peanuts are dangerous or safe? Relatively of course I'm talking. Compared with say alcohol - are peanuts dangerous or safe?

Alcohol sees over 1,000,000 people a year admitted to hospital, including huge numbers of deaths. Peanuts see 2,700 admissions a year with a surprising amount of deaths.

Comparing those figures, would you say that peanuts are dangerous or safe compared to alcohol?

Now cannabis sees far less admissions than peanuts at only 750, and absolutely no deaths.

Would you say that cannabis was dangerous or safe when compared with peanuts?

Would you say that cannabis was dangerous or safe when compared with alcohol?

Would the term incredibly safe spring to mind?

If cannabis is dangerous where is the damage? There's far more damage from peanuts.
A stoner walks into a shop & asks the owner,"How much for that TV set in the window?"
The owner looks at the TV set,then looks at the stoner,& says,"I don't sell stuff to potheads."So the stoner tells the owner that he'll quit smoking skunk & will come back the next week to buy the TV.A week later,the stoner comes back and says,"I quit smoking skunk.how much for that TV set ?"
And the owner says,"I told you I don't sell to potheads!"So the he leaves again.He comes back a week later & says,"How much for the TV?"The owner says,"I'm not going to tell you again, I don't sell to potheads"The stoner looks back & says,"How can you tell I'm a pothead?"The owner says, "Because that's a microwave.
[quote][p][bold]Jack Herer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]burner[/bold] wrote: Quote . . . " Cannabis itself is incredibly safe . " . . . OMG, your head is seriously damaged if you consider that to be true ![/p][/quote]There are far more admissions to hospital from peanuts than cannabis. Would you say that peanuts are dangerous or safe? Relatively of course I'm talking. Compared with say alcohol - are peanuts dangerous or safe? Alcohol sees over 1,000,000 people a year admitted to hospital, including huge numbers of deaths. Peanuts see 2,700 admissions a year with a surprising amount of deaths. Comparing those figures, would you say that peanuts are dangerous or safe compared to alcohol? Now cannabis sees far less admissions than peanuts at only 750, and absolutely no deaths. Would you say that cannabis was dangerous or safe when compared with peanuts? Would you say that cannabis was dangerous or safe when compared with alcohol? Would the term incredibly safe spring to mind? If cannabis is dangerous where is the damage? There's far more damage from peanuts.[/p][/quote]A stoner walks into a shop & asks the owner,"How much for that TV set in the window?" The owner looks at the TV set,then looks at the stoner,& says,"I don't sell stuff to potheads."So the stoner tells the owner that he'll quit smoking skunk & will come back the next week to buy the TV.A week later,the stoner comes back and says,"I quit smoking skunk.how much for that TV set ?" And the owner says,"I told you I don't sell to potheads!"So the he leaves again.He comes back a week later & says,"How much for the TV?"The owner says,"I'm not going to tell you again, I don't sell to potheads"The stoner looks back & says,"How can you tell I'm a pothead?"The owner says, "Because that's a microwave. living the end times in BB1
  • Score: 0

3:06pm Tue 6 Mar 12

Keep Darwen Green says...

1LoveUnity wrote:
Keep Darwen Green wrote:
1LoveUnity wrote:
100% of alcoholics started off on milk.
Another cannabis injector
With every word you type you show such extreme ignorance. I actually find it very hard to believe that you are THIS stupid. I therefore have to come to the conclusion that you are simply a troll.
So I come on here, championing a good clean healthy lifestyle, and I'm stupid and the troll??? you need to look in the mirror, promoting a junkie lifestyle will make society even worse. How can injecting drugs at every possible opportunity be beneficial? you are living within a false sense of reality, its not real, you don't occur in that state naturally, you have introduced some form of mind bending substance. And you call me stupid and a troll??? I think you and all your junkie mates are the stain on society. Funding terrorism and making excuses for being unable to cope without introducing mindwipes.
[quote][p][bold]1LoveUnity[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Keep Darwen Green[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]1LoveUnity[/bold] wrote: 100% of alcoholics started off on milk.[/p][/quote]Another cannabis injector[/p][/quote]With every word you type you show such extreme ignorance. I actually find it very hard to believe that you are THIS stupid. I therefore have to come to the conclusion that you are simply a troll.[/p][/quote]So I come on here, championing a good clean healthy lifestyle, and I'm stupid and the troll??? you need to look in the mirror, promoting a junkie lifestyle will make society even worse. How can injecting drugs at every possible opportunity be beneficial? you are living within a false sense of reality, its not real, you don't occur in that state naturally, you have introduced some form of mind bending substance. And you call me stupid and a troll??? I think you and all your junkie mates are the stain on society. Funding terrorism and making excuses for being unable to cope without introducing mindwipes. Keep Darwen Green
  • Score: 0

3:14pm Tue 6 Mar 12

Cha'mone MF says...

Jack Herer wrote:
Is this going to finally stop the gangsters making millions then? Is this it - the end? No more hardcore criminals making billions?

Of course it isn't - that will never ever end unless we stop denying the truth.

We have to stop those gangsters of course, but we are never ever going to do with prohibition. Just like the only way to take Al Capone and his gangster's power away was to stop alcohol prohibition.

Cannabis itself is incredibly safe when compared with alcohol for instance though. Hospital admissions in 2010;

peanuts - 2,700
alcohol - over 1,000,000
cannabis - 750

Why aren't we cracking down on peanuts - they cause more harm than cannabis?

Who would much rather see this not even being a problem - instead it being a huge financial and social benefit to society?

Who'd rather be reading a headline like:

Crackdown on Lancashire paedophiles

or

Crackdown on Lancashire violent thugs

Whereas the reality of this headline could actually be:

Police go easy on paedophiles, rapists, and violent thugs, to crackdown on harmless cannabis users
Hello Jack, I'm surprised you weren't first to get the ball rolling on here!
[quote][p][bold]Jack Herer[/bold] wrote: Is this going to finally stop the gangsters making millions then? Is this it - the end? No more hardcore criminals making billions? Of course it isn't - that will never ever end unless we stop denying the truth. We have to stop those gangsters of course, but we are never ever going to do with prohibition. Just like the only way to take Al Capone and his gangster's power away was to stop alcohol prohibition. Cannabis itself is incredibly safe when compared with alcohol for instance though. Hospital admissions in 2010; peanuts - 2,700 alcohol - over 1,000,000 cannabis - 750 Why aren't we cracking down on peanuts - they cause more harm than cannabis? Who would much rather see this not even being a problem - instead it being a huge financial and social benefit to society? Who'd rather be reading a headline like: Crackdown on Lancashire paedophiles or Crackdown on Lancashire violent thugs Whereas the reality of this headline could actually be: Police go easy on paedophiles, rapists, and violent thugs, to crackdown on harmless cannabis users[/p][/quote]Hello Jack, I'm surprised you weren't first to get the ball rolling on here! Cha'mone MF
  • Score: 0

3:14pm Tue 6 Mar 12

Jack Herer says...

living the end times in BB1 wrote:
Jack Herer wrote:
burner wrote:
Quote . . . " Cannabis itself is incredibly safe . " . . . OMG, your head is seriously damaged if you consider that to be true !
There are far more admissions to hospital from peanuts than cannabis.

Would you say that peanuts are dangerous or safe? Relatively of course I'm talking. Compared with say alcohol - are peanuts dangerous or safe?

Alcohol sees over 1,000,000 people a year admitted to hospital, including huge numbers of deaths. Peanuts see 2,700 admissions a year with a surprising amount of deaths.

Comparing those figures, would you say that peanuts are dangerous or safe compared to alcohol?

Now cannabis sees far less admissions than peanuts at only 750, and absolutely no deaths.

Would you say that cannabis was dangerous or safe when compared with peanuts?

Would you say that cannabis was dangerous or safe when compared with alcohol?

Would the term incredibly safe spring to mind?

If cannabis is dangerous where is the damage? There's far more damage from peanuts.
A stoner walks into a shop & asks the owner,"How much for that TV set in the window?"
The owner looks at the TV set,then looks at the stoner,& says,"I don't sell stuff to potheads."So the stoner tells the owner that he'll quit smoking skunk & will come back the next week to buy the TV.A week later,the stoner comes back and says,"I quit smoking skunk.how much for that TV set ?"
And the owner says,"I told you I don't sell to potheads!"So the he leaves again.He comes back a week later & says,"How much for the TV?"The owner says,"I'm not going to tell you again, I don't sell to potheads"The stoner looks back & says,"How can you tell I'm a pothead?"The owner says, "Because that's a microwave.
Friggin love it!
[quote][p][bold]living the end times in BB1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jack Herer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]burner[/bold] wrote: Quote . . . " Cannabis itself is incredibly safe . " . . . OMG, your head is seriously damaged if you consider that to be true ![/p][/quote]There are far more admissions to hospital from peanuts than cannabis. Would you say that peanuts are dangerous or safe? Relatively of course I'm talking. Compared with say alcohol - are peanuts dangerous or safe? Alcohol sees over 1,000,000 people a year admitted to hospital, including huge numbers of deaths. Peanuts see 2,700 admissions a year with a surprising amount of deaths. Comparing those figures, would you say that peanuts are dangerous or safe compared to alcohol? Now cannabis sees far less admissions than peanuts at only 750, and absolutely no deaths. Would you say that cannabis was dangerous or safe when compared with peanuts? Would you say that cannabis was dangerous or safe when compared with alcohol? Would the term incredibly safe spring to mind? If cannabis is dangerous where is the damage? There's far more damage from peanuts.[/p][/quote]A stoner walks into a shop & asks the owner,"How much for that TV set in the window?" The owner looks at the TV set,then looks at the stoner,& says,"I don't sell stuff to potheads."So the stoner tells the owner that he'll quit smoking skunk & will come back the next week to buy the TV.A week later,the stoner comes back and says,"I quit smoking skunk.how much for that TV set ?" And the owner says,"I told you I don't sell to potheads!"So the he leaves again.He comes back a week later & says,"How much for the TV?"The owner says,"I'm not going to tell you again, I don't sell to potheads"The stoner looks back & says,"How can you tell I'm a pothead?"The owner says, "Because that's a microwave.[/p][/quote]Friggin love it! Jack Herer
  • Score: 0

3:27pm Tue 6 Mar 12

Cha'mone MF says...

Jack Herer wrote:
burner wrote:
Quote . . . " Cannabis itself is incredibly safe . " . . . OMG, your head is seriously damaged if you consider that to be true !
There are far more admissions to hospital from peanuts than cannabis.

Would you say that peanuts are dangerous or safe? Relatively of course I'm talking. Compared with say alcohol - are peanuts dangerous or safe?

Alcohol sees over 1,000,000 people a year admitted to hospital, including huge numbers of deaths. Peanuts see 2,700 admissions a year with a surprising amount of deaths.

Comparing those figures, would you say that peanuts are dangerous or safe compared to alcohol?

Now cannabis sees far less admissions than peanuts at only 750, and absolutely no deaths.

Would you say that cannabis was dangerous or safe when compared with peanuts?

Would you say that cannabis was dangerous or safe when compared with alcohol?

Would the term incredibly safe spring to mind?

If cannabis is dangerous where is the damage? There's far more damage from peanuts.
Peanuts are extremely dangerous, they can't even serve the on aeroplanes is somebody on board has an allergy in case particles get into the air-conditioning system.

Also Brazil nuts have proven to be lethal, in Brazil last year 9,000 people died as a result of Brazil nuts falling from trees and hitting them on the head. Of course in Brazil they just call them nuts.
[quote][p][bold]Jack Herer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]burner[/bold] wrote: Quote . . . " Cannabis itself is incredibly safe . " . . . OMG, your head is seriously damaged if you consider that to be true ![/p][/quote]There are far more admissions to hospital from peanuts than cannabis. Would you say that peanuts are dangerous or safe? Relatively of course I'm talking. Compared with say alcohol - are peanuts dangerous or safe? Alcohol sees over 1,000,000 people a year admitted to hospital, including huge numbers of deaths. Peanuts see 2,700 admissions a year with a surprising amount of deaths. Comparing those figures, would you say that peanuts are dangerous or safe compared to alcohol? Now cannabis sees far less admissions than peanuts at only 750, and absolutely no deaths. Would you say that cannabis was dangerous or safe when compared with peanuts? Would you say that cannabis was dangerous or safe when compared with alcohol? Would the term incredibly safe spring to mind? If cannabis is dangerous where is the damage? There's far more damage from peanuts.[/p][/quote]Peanuts are extremely dangerous, they can't even serve the on aeroplanes is somebody on board has an allergy in case particles get into the air-conditioning system. Also Brazil nuts have proven to be lethal, in Brazil last year 9,000 people died as a result of Brazil nuts falling from trees and hitting them on the head. Of course in Brazil they just call them nuts. Cha'mone MF
  • Score: 0

3:33pm Tue 6 Mar 12

chris283 says...

drugs are bad , alchol is bad , who said that lol
drugs are bad , alchol is bad , who said that lol chris283
  • Score: 0

3:40pm Tue 6 Mar 12

jack daniels says...

Jack Herer wrote:
jack daniels wrote:
Jack Herer wrote:
jack daniels wrote:
Jack Herer wrote: Is this going to finally stop the gangsters making millions then? Is this it - the end? No more hardcore criminals making billions? Of course it isn't - that will never ever end unless we stop denying the truth. We have to stop those gangsters of course, but we are never ever going to do with prohibition. Just like the only way to take Al Capone and his gangster's power away was to stop alcohol prohibition. Cannabis itself is incredibly safe when compared with alcohol for instance though. Hospital admissions in 2010; peanuts - 2,700 alcohol - over 1,000,000 cannabis - 750 Why aren't we cracking down on peanuts - they cause more harm than cannabis? Who would much rather see this not even being a problem - instead it being a huge financial and social benefit to society? Who'd rather be reading a headline like: Crackdown on Lancashire paedophiles or Crackdown on Lancashire violent thugs Whereas the reality of this headline could actually be: Police go easy on paedophiles, rapists, and violent thugs, to crackdown on harmless cannabis users
alcohol - over 1,000,000 cannabis - 750 This, of course, is flawed as the number of people drinking far exceeds the numbers smoking dope. This information is also a bit general; as quoted by the BBC "That includes liver disease and mental disorders due to alcohol abuse as well as some cancers, accidents and injuries." That's some pretty general stuff. I'm just wondering if the people admitted to a mental health ward or seeing a GP for a long term mental health issue, are included in your 750. I only ask because in my experience, the people I worked with that had a problem with their mental health, often had a problem with either drink, dope or both.
Those 750 are the full admissions to hospital - pretty much all mental health issues. 2 million people in the UK smoke cannabis regularly. How many regular drinkers do you think there are - 40 million? That means there are 20 times as many drinkers as there are cannabis users. Can you times 750 by 20 for me Jack Daniels? Is it more than 1,000,000? It isn't is it? It's only 15,000. So therefore if everyone stopped drinking and started smoking cannabis instead, we'd see hospitals admissions drop by about 1,000,000 people a year. Think how much money we'd save! Alcohol has 47,000 admissions alone for mental health issues. Scaled up, that makes it more than 3 times as bad than cannabis for mental health issues alone. Forget the truly vast number of other issues which booze has that cannabis doesn't, booze is still far worse than cannabis for mental health issues.
“Can you times 750 by 20 for me Jack Daniels? Is it more than 1,000,000?” What a pompous comment, yet so typical of you. The main flaw with your argument is that you have to compare it with the most commonest drug in the world, just to justify your drug addiction. No matter how you jiggle the figures, cannabis affects your brain chemistry and increases your chance of developing one of a number of mental health complaints. These 750 ward admissions; how many of these are re-admissions due to prolonged use when back in the community? How many are failed rehabilitations due the smoker being addicted? Cannabis may be better than alcohol, but doing neither is best of all. In your eyes, it’s like trying to say that Pol Pot was an ok guy when compared to Adolf Hitler.
No I don't. Compare cannabis with whatever drug you want -there's not much out there that's safer. In safety terms, comparing alcohol to cannabis is like comparing Adolf Hitler to someone who stole a penny sweet from the sweet shop. Nothing is actually harmless, someone has actually died from a tea cosy before now. But if cannabis is harmless - relatively of course - then what is the point in wasting all our money stopping people taking it, when it is far safer than the sanctioned recreational drug we currently have. How do we morally justify locking people up for smoking cannabis - what harm have they done to anybody? Yet, as can be seen here, we see fit to pump far more resources into stopping cannabis use than we do stopping all this despicable grooming we've seen going on. North West police have already stopped over 5,000 cannabis farms across the North West - the problem is still worse than ever though. Think of the massive police time involved in 5,000 cannabis farms - that's just the North West as well, in the past 3 years. Have you read about 5,000 other expensive police raids on other areas of criminality? 5,000 raids on suspected paedophile for instance? I'd be surprised if there had been more than a couple of 100, for something like that. Your continued ignorance mean our resources are skewed against real crimes against real criminals. Instead you Try explaining that to a child who'd just been raped by a monster. "Sorry about that, I know we didn't catch who did it, but we got 4 cannabis farms instead". No thanks I'd rather have a justice system which catches and punishes real criminals thanks. Just as importantly for society's well being, hardcore criminals are getting richer and richer all the time. We're in cloud cuckoo land if we think we are ever going to stop it. There is far too much money to be made. That should be our money, and as it happens we could really do with it now.
So we agree that Cannabis carries a number of long term health problems; which makes it a little more than a sweetie thief and ‘one ball’ Hitler. You seem to be in denial about the consequences of its use, and are now using the money spent policing this drug dealing/addiction when compared to protecting our children from groomers.

As for your “you Try explaining that to a child who'd just been raped by a monster”. This is just a cheap attempt again at supporting your justification for illegal drug use. To realistically use Police manpower to stop grooming we would need a Police officer on every corner and on every facebook website. This would be a little bit more money than they spend on drug arrests I think….

Do people seriously get locked up for smoking dope? The only time I can imagine this is when they are smoking near a school or college. This would therefore make it acceptable as we should protect these impressionable minds, as I’m sure you would agree.


What I think is also important not to forget is that we can’t pick and choose the laws we abide by. If the law on cannabis is there, it’s for a reason, and we need to take into consideration the reasons why the government is not listening to the lobbying done by yourself and your colleagues.

For somebody who gets stressed by all the media coverage of cannabis, I suggest you need smoke a little more and chill out. Maybe have a bourbon or 2 with ice to help you on your way!
[quote][p][bold]Jack Herer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jack daniels[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jack Herer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jack daniels[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jack Herer[/bold] wrote: Is this going to finally stop the gangsters making millions then? Is this it - the end? No more hardcore criminals making billions? Of course it isn't - that will never ever end unless we stop denying the truth. We have to stop those gangsters of course, but we are never ever going to do with prohibition. Just like the only way to take Al Capone and his gangster's power away was to stop alcohol prohibition. Cannabis itself is incredibly safe when compared with alcohol for instance though. Hospital admissions in 2010; peanuts - 2,700 alcohol - over 1,000,000 cannabis - 750 Why aren't we cracking down on peanuts - they cause more harm than cannabis? Who would much rather see this not even being a problem - instead it being a huge financial and social benefit to society? Who'd rather be reading a headline like: Crackdown on Lancashire paedophiles or Crackdown on Lancashire violent thugs Whereas the reality of this headline could actually be: Police go easy on paedophiles, rapists, and violent thugs, to crackdown on harmless cannabis users[/p][/quote]alcohol - over 1,000,000 cannabis - 750 This, of course, is flawed as the number of people drinking far exceeds the numbers smoking dope. This information is also a bit general; as quoted by the BBC "That includes liver disease and mental disorders due to alcohol abuse as well as some cancers, accidents and injuries." That's some pretty general stuff. I'm just wondering if the people admitted to a mental health ward or seeing a GP for a long term mental health issue, are included in your 750. I only ask because in my experience, the people I worked with that had a problem with their mental health, often had a problem with either drink, dope or both.[/p][/quote]Those 750 are the full admissions to hospital - pretty much all mental health issues. 2 million people in the UK smoke cannabis regularly. How many regular drinkers do you think there are - 40 million? That means there are 20 times as many drinkers as there are cannabis users. Can you times 750 by 20 for me Jack Daniels? Is it more than 1,000,000? It isn't is it? It's only 15,000. So therefore if everyone stopped drinking and started smoking cannabis instead, we'd see hospitals admissions drop by about 1,000,000 people a year. Think how much money we'd save! Alcohol has 47,000 admissions alone for mental health issues. Scaled up, that makes it more than 3 times as bad than cannabis for mental health issues alone. Forget the truly vast number of other issues which booze has that cannabis doesn't, booze is still far worse than cannabis for mental health issues.[/p][/quote]“Can you times 750 by 20 for me Jack Daniels? Is it more than 1,000,000?” What a pompous comment, yet so typical of you. The main flaw with your argument is that you have to compare it with the most commonest drug in the world, just to justify your drug addiction. No matter how you jiggle the figures, cannabis affects your brain chemistry and increases your chance of developing one of a number of mental health complaints. These 750 ward admissions; how many of these are re-admissions due to prolonged use when back in the community? How many are failed rehabilitations due the smoker being addicted? Cannabis may be better than alcohol, but doing neither is best of all. In your eyes, it’s like trying to say that Pol Pot was an ok guy when compared to Adolf Hitler.[/p][/quote]No I don't. Compare cannabis with whatever drug you want -there's not much out there that's safer. In safety terms, comparing alcohol to cannabis is like comparing Adolf Hitler to someone who stole a penny sweet from the sweet shop. Nothing is actually harmless, someone has actually died from a tea cosy before now. But if cannabis is harmless - relatively of course - then what is the point in wasting all our money stopping people taking it, when it is far safer than the sanctioned recreational drug we currently have. How do we morally justify locking people up for smoking cannabis - what harm have they done to anybody? Yet, as can be seen here, we see fit to pump far more resources into stopping cannabis use than we do stopping all this despicable grooming we've seen going on. North West police have already stopped over 5,000 cannabis farms across the North West - the problem is still worse than ever though. Think of the massive police time involved in 5,000 cannabis farms - that's just the North West as well, in the past 3 years. Have you read about 5,000 other expensive police raids on other areas of criminality? 5,000 raids on suspected paedophile for instance? I'd be surprised if there had been more than a couple of 100, for something like that. Your continued ignorance mean our resources are skewed against real crimes against real criminals. Instead you Try explaining that to a child who'd just been raped by a monster. "Sorry about that, I know we didn't catch who did it, but we got 4 cannabis farms instead". No thanks I'd rather have a justice system which catches and punishes real criminals thanks. Just as importantly for society's well being, hardcore criminals are getting richer and richer all the time. We're in cloud cuckoo land if we think we are ever going to stop it. There is far too much money to be made. That should be our money, and as it happens we could really do with it now.[/p][/quote]So we agree that Cannabis carries a number of long term health problems; which makes it a little more than a sweetie thief and ‘one ball’ Hitler. You seem to be in denial about the consequences of its use, and are now using the money spent policing this drug dealing/addiction when compared to protecting our children from groomers. As for your “you Try explaining that to a child who'd just been raped by a monster”. This is just a cheap attempt again at supporting your justification for illegal drug use. To realistically use Police manpower to stop grooming we would need a Police officer on every corner and on every facebook website. This would be a little bit more money than they spend on drug arrests I think…. Do people seriously get locked up for smoking dope? The only time I can imagine this is when they are smoking near a school or college. This would therefore make it acceptable as we should protect these impressionable minds, as I’m sure you would agree. What I think is also important not to forget is that we can’t pick and choose the laws we abide by. If the law on cannabis is there, it’s for a reason, and we need to take into consideration the reasons why the government is not listening to the lobbying done by yourself and your colleagues. For somebody who gets stressed by all the media coverage of cannabis, I suggest you need smoke a little more and chill out. Maybe have a bourbon or 2 with ice to help you on your way! jack daniels
  • Score: 0

3:41pm Tue 6 Mar 12

Cha'mone MF says...

Regardless of what you pro weed brigade think of the position of cannabis in society you cannot deny everytime somebody buys it they are contributing towards the funding of organised crime. If you came down off your weed fuelled cloud once in a while and stopped inhaling for a few moments you might realise that even if they did legalise it very little would change. Organised crime syndicates would still continue to be involved in the production and distribution and use the money to fund other areas of criminality.

Alcohol and tobacco are here to stay whether you like it or not and yes they are a terrible strain on the already over stretched NHS. So why would we ultimately give people the opportunity to cause themselves further health problems years down the line by legalising it and making it readily available?
Regardless of what you pro weed brigade think of the position of cannabis in society you cannot deny everytime somebody buys it they are contributing towards the funding of organised crime. If you came down off your weed fuelled cloud once in a while and stopped inhaling for a few moments you might realise that even if they did legalise it very little would change. Organised crime syndicates would still continue to be involved in the production and distribution and use the money to fund other areas of criminality. Alcohol and tobacco are here to stay whether you like it or not and yes they are a terrible strain on the already over stretched NHS. So why would we ultimately give people the opportunity to cause themselves further health problems years down the line by legalising it and making it readily available? Cha'mone MF
  • Score: 0

3:42pm Tue 6 Mar 12

Keep Darwen Green says...

Cha'mone MF wrote:
Jack Herer wrote:
burner wrote:
Quote . . . " Cannabis itself is incredibly safe . " . . . OMG, your head is seriously damaged if you consider that to be true !
There are far more admissions to hospital from peanuts than cannabis.

Would you say that peanuts are dangerous or safe? Relatively of course I'm talking. Compared with say alcohol - are peanuts dangerous or safe?

Alcohol sees over 1,000,000 people a year admitted to hospital, including huge numbers of deaths. Peanuts see 2,700 admissions a year with a surprising amount of deaths.

Comparing those figures, would you say that peanuts are dangerous or safe compared to alcohol?

Now cannabis sees far less admissions than peanuts at only 750, and absolutely no deaths.

Would you say that cannabis was dangerous or safe when compared with peanuts?

Would you say that cannabis was dangerous or safe when compared with alcohol?

Would the term incredibly safe spring to mind?

If cannabis is dangerous where is the damage? There's far more damage from peanuts.
Peanuts are extremely dangerous, they can't even serve the on aeroplanes is somebody on board has an allergy in case particles get into the air-conditioning system.

Also Brazil nuts have proven to be lethal, in Brazil last year 9,000 people died as a result of Brazil nuts falling from trees and hitting them on the head. Of course in Brazil they just call them nuts.
I know what you're saying but I cant remember the last time someone had a peanut and thought they could fly afterwards, yet these injectors are always being scraped off the pavement. One hit and they're jumping out of the nearest available window, unless its when they mix peanuts, brazils and skunk weed. Has anybody ever asked the question?
[quote][p][bold]Cha'mone MF[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jack Herer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]burner[/bold] wrote: Quote . . . " Cannabis itself is incredibly safe . " . . . OMG, your head is seriously damaged if you consider that to be true ![/p][/quote]There are far more admissions to hospital from peanuts than cannabis. Would you say that peanuts are dangerous or safe? Relatively of course I'm talking. Compared with say alcohol - are peanuts dangerous or safe? Alcohol sees over 1,000,000 people a year admitted to hospital, including huge numbers of deaths. Peanuts see 2,700 admissions a year with a surprising amount of deaths. Comparing those figures, would you say that peanuts are dangerous or safe compared to alcohol? Now cannabis sees far less admissions than peanuts at only 750, and absolutely no deaths. Would you say that cannabis was dangerous or safe when compared with peanuts? Would you say that cannabis was dangerous or safe when compared with alcohol? Would the term incredibly safe spring to mind? If cannabis is dangerous where is the damage? There's far more damage from peanuts.[/p][/quote]Peanuts are extremely dangerous, they can't even serve the on aeroplanes is somebody on board has an allergy in case particles get into the air-conditioning system. Also Brazil nuts have proven to be lethal, in Brazil last year 9,000 people died as a result of Brazil nuts falling from trees and hitting them on the head. Of course in Brazil they just call them nuts.[/p][/quote]I know what you're saying but I cant remember the last time someone had a peanut and thought they could fly afterwards, yet these injectors are always being scraped off the pavement. One hit and they're jumping out of the nearest available window, unless its when they mix peanuts, brazils and skunk weed. Has anybody ever asked the question? Keep Darwen Green
  • Score: 0

3:43pm Tue 6 Mar 12

Cha'mone MF says...

chris283 wrote:
drugs are bad , alchol is bad , who said that lol
Burgers are also bad for you
[quote][p][bold]chris283[/bold] wrote: drugs are bad , alchol is bad , who said that lol[/p][/quote]Burgers are also bad for you Cha'mone MF
  • Score: 0

3:55pm Tue 6 Mar 12

Keep Darwen Green says...

Cha'mone MF wrote:
chris283 wrote:
drugs are bad , alchol is bad , who said that lol
Burgers are also bad for you
And lead sandwiches
[quote][p][bold]Cha'mone MF[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]chris283[/bold] wrote: drugs are bad , alchol is bad , who said that lol[/p][/quote]Burgers are also bad for you[/p][/quote]And lead sandwiches Keep Darwen Green
  • Score: 0

4:45pm Tue 6 Mar 12

Speakers Corner says...

Some people smoke weed, some drink both are damaging to your health, be it mental or physical. However you cannot tar everybody with the same brush and say that just because they smoke weed they WILL move onto harder drugs, everybody is in charge of their own lives and make their own decisions. Some people enjoy a quiet drink at weekends, some people end up sat on Blackburn boulevard drinking special brew, can that not be applied in the same way as cannabis and harder drugs....?
And speaking of burgers, some people have such food as a treat, some eat it daily, become obese, housebound and living off benefits unable to work! And lo and behold some even move onto........Big Macs!!
Some people smoke weed, some drink both are damaging to your health, be it mental or physical. However you cannot tar everybody with the same brush and say that just because they smoke weed they WILL move onto harder drugs, everybody is in charge of their own lives and make their own decisions. Some people enjoy a quiet drink at weekends, some people end up sat on Blackburn boulevard drinking special brew, can that not be applied in the same way as cannabis and harder drugs....? And speaking of burgers, some people have such food as a treat, some eat it daily, become obese, housebound and living off benefits unable to work! And lo and behold some even move onto........Big Macs!! Speakers Corner
  • Score: 0

4:47pm Tue 6 Mar 12

did you smash it? says...

Love the people stating that Cannabis leads to heroin therefore cannabis should be banned.
.
As has been mentioned previously, most hard drug users started on Alcohol prior to cannabis and yet as it is a socially acceptable drug and more importantly as a taxable drug, it seems to be given a swerve by the people making this, quite frankly **** poor argument.
Love the people stating that Cannabis leads to heroin therefore cannabis should be banned. . As has been mentioned previously, most hard drug users started on Alcohol prior to cannabis and yet as it is a socially acceptable drug and more importantly as a taxable drug, it seems to be given a swerve by the people making this, quite frankly **** poor argument. did you smash it?
  • Score: 0

4:56pm Tue 6 Mar 12

Jack Herer says...

Cha'mone MF wrote:
Regardless of what you pro weed brigade think of the position of cannabis in society you cannot deny everytime somebody buys it they are contributing towards the funding of organised crime. If you came down off your weed fuelled cloud once in a while and stopped inhaling for a few moments you might realise that even if they did legalise it very little would change. Organised crime syndicates would still continue to be involved in the production and distribution and use the money to fund other areas of criminality.

Alcohol and tobacco are here to stay whether you like it or not and yes they are a terrible strain on the already over stretched NHS. So why would we ultimately give people the opportunity to cause themselves further health problems years down the line by legalising it and making it readily available?
Chamone'mf - I know you aren't daft at all. You always seem reasoned and well educated. Except when it comes to cannabis.

There is nothing wrong with that. Let's be honest, where does everyone get their info from regarding cannabis? It's the papers isn't it for pretty much everyone.

The papers love a story which makes people hate. That Baby P father yesterday - he got £75,000 in damages and the judge said that the tabloids had just completely made up a story with the sole intention of making people hate Baby P's father - even though he had actually done nothing wrong (it was actually the step father, his brother, and her mum).

The papers don't care about £75,000 because they sold more papers, because hate, more than anything, sells. Incensing people sells.

In the recent Leveson inquiry the Sun editor proudly stated that his best selling edition in the past 18 months wasn't tittle tattle about celebrities (for which they take a risk on with hacking and libel claims etc), the biggest selling story for the Sun was one about James Bulger's killer. Can you think of any story that incenses more hate from people. Hate really really sells.

Cannabis is a cash cow for the tabloids. It's a constantly negative story which people can read, then nod their heads in agreement and get angry with how bad this "killer" skunk is. It doesn't matter if it's the truth - that's the best bit about cannabis for the tabloids. No-one is going to sue them for printing lies - who would? The dealers?

Why would the tabloids ever want to stop printing negative stories about cannabis? It clearly isn't in their interests whilst they can still milk that cash cow.

The Daily Mail recently won an award from Oxford University for monumental bad reporting of science. The story was regarding cannabis of course. In their overriding aim to push a skewed negative agenda, they misreported the science so badly that the academics didn't think it would be possible to ever beat it for misrepresentation.

I know you are a reasoned man Chamone'mf - take a quick look around the net. If I could get you to look up just one person - just his wiki page - then it would be Dr Lester Grinspoon.

After that my namesake Jack Herer - his whole book is free on line. All the info is there, all scientific, no hocus pocus. It really isn't too much of it, and it really is easy to find.

Use your head - who is telling you the truth? The self interested tabloids or just decent genuine people like Lester Grinspoon?

In reference to your points;

Organised crime syndicates wouldn't continue to be involved. History has shown that time and again. Besides which it's a silly argument. We are currently handing criminals billions, and with it untold power - no question. But we don't want to stop giving them all this power because they might still get involved. What difference does it make then - we may as well legalise and take the risk.

Secondly you are completely right, alcohol and tobacco are a terrible strain on the already over stretched NHS. They are both certified killers with absolutely zero medical purposes. Cannabis isn't though. It's a massive proven benefit for many medical conditions. Statistically, cannabis users also live on average longer than non-users - look it up in Jack Herer's free book online if you don't believe me.

Cannabis when burnt has some of the same nasty carcinogens as tobacco, but no-one has ever got lung cancer from cannabis. Isn't that strange. The reason scientists are convinced that is, is because cannabis has anti-cancer properties - oh yes.

No-one knew cannabis was going to turn out as healthy and beneficial as it has. Everyone is convinced it's a killer from the tabloids. Science is proving it is hugely beneficial. Why are we denying science?

There are no further health problems from cannabis waiting down the line, this isn't ecstasy or methadrone. We know because cannabis has been around for 1000s of years that there is nothing nasty waiting to happen. That's just the truth unfortunately - cannabis is relatively safe and we say that with some certainty because it has been around that long.

It mean that if cannabis were legalised, it's extremely likely that we a drop to our already stretched services not an increase. That's scientific - no hocus pocus.
[quote][p][bold]Cha'mone MF[/bold] wrote: Regardless of what you pro weed brigade think of the position of cannabis in society you cannot deny everytime somebody buys it they are contributing towards the funding of organised crime. If you came down off your weed fuelled cloud once in a while and stopped inhaling for a few moments you might realise that even if they did legalise it very little would change. Organised crime syndicates would still continue to be involved in the production and distribution and use the money to fund other areas of criminality. Alcohol and tobacco are here to stay whether you like it or not and yes they are a terrible strain on the already over stretched NHS. So why would we ultimately give people the opportunity to cause themselves further health problems years down the line by legalising it and making it readily available?[/p][/quote]Chamone'mf - I know you aren't daft at all. You always seem reasoned and well educated. Except when it comes to cannabis. There is nothing wrong with that. Let's be honest, where does everyone get their info from regarding cannabis? It's the papers isn't it for pretty much everyone. The papers love a story which makes people hate. That Baby P father yesterday - he got £75,000 in damages and the judge said that the tabloids had just completely made up a story with the sole intention of making people hate Baby P's father - even though he had actually done nothing wrong (it was actually the step father, his brother, and her mum). The papers don't care about £75,000 because they sold more papers, because hate, more than anything, sells. Incensing people sells. In the recent Leveson inquiry the Sun editor proudly stated that his best selling edition in the past 18 months wasn't tittle tattle about celebrities (for which they take a risk on with hacking and libel claims etc), the biggest selling story for the Sun was one about James Bulger's killer. Can you think of any story that incenses more hate from people. Hate really really sells. Cannabis is a cash cow for the tabloids. It's a constantly negative story which people can read, then nod their heads in agreement and get angry with how bad this "killer" skunk is. It doesn't matter if it's the truth - that's the best bit about cannabis for the tabloids. No-one is going to sue them for printing lies - who would? The dealers? Why would the tabloids ever want to stop printing negative stories about cannabis? It clearly isn't in their interests whilst they can still milk that cash cow. The Daily Mail recently won an award from Oxford University for monumental bad reporting of science. The story was regarding cannabis of course. In their overriding aim to push a skewed negative agenda, they misreported the science so badly that the academics didn't think it would be possible to ever beat it for misrepresentation. I know you are a reasoned man Chamone'mf - take a quick look around the net. If I could get you to look up just one person - just his wiki page - then it would be Dr Lester Grinspoon. After that my namesake Jack Herer - his whole book is free on line. All the info is there, all scientific, no hocus pocus. It really isn't too much of it, and it really is easy to find. Use your head - who is telling you the truth? The self interested tabloids or just decent genuine people like Lester Grinspoon? In reference to your points; Organised crime syndicates wouldn't continue to be involved. History has shown that time and again. Besides which it's a silly argument. We are currently handing criminals billions, and with it untold power - no question. But we don't want to stop giving them all this power because they might still get involved. What difference does it make then - we may as well legalise and take the risk. Secondly you are completely right, alcohol and tobacco are a terrible strain on the already over stretched NHS. They are both certified killers with absolutely zero medical purposes. Cannabis isn't though. It's a massive proven benefit for many medical conditions. Statistically, cannabis users also live on average longer than non-users - look it up in Jack Herer's free book online if you don't believe me. Cannabis when burnt has some of the same nasty carcinogens as tobacco, but no-one has ever got lung cancer from cannabis. Isn't that strange. The reason scientists are convinced that is, is because cannabis has anti-cancer properties - oh yes. No-one knew cannabis was going to turn out as healthy and beneficial as it has. Everyone is convinced it's a killer from the tabloids. Science is proving it is hugely beneficial. Why are we denying science? There are no further health problems from cannabis waiting down the line, this isn't ecstasy or methadrone. We know because cannabis has been around for 1000s of years that there is nothing nasty waiting to happen. That's just the truth unfortunately - cannabis is relatively safe and we say that with some certainty because it has been around that long. It mean that if cannabis were legalised, it's extremely likely that we a drop to our already stretched services not an increase. That's scientific - no hocus pocus. Jack Herer
  • Score: 0

5:09pm Tue 6 Mar 12

Jack Herer says...

Keep Darwen Green wrote:
Cha'mone MF wrote:
Jack Herer wrote:
burner wrote:
Quote . . . " Cannabis itself is incredibly safe . " . . . OMG, your head is seriously damaged if you consider that to be true !
There are far more admissions to hospital from peanuts than cannabis.

Would you say that peanuts are dangerous or safe? Relatively of course I'm talking. Compared with say alcohol - are peanuts dangerous or safe?

Alcohol sees over 1,000,000 people a year admitted to hospital, including huge numbers of deaths. Peanuts see 2,700 admissions a year with a surprising amount of deaths.

Comparing those figures, would you say that peanuts are dangerous or safe compared to alcohol?

Now cannabis sees far less admissions than peanuts at only 750, and absolutely no deaths.

Would you say that cannabis was dangerous or safe when compared with peanuts?

Would you say that cannabis was dangerous or safe when compared with alcohol?

Would the term incredibly safe spring to mind?

If cannabis is dangerous where is the damage? There's far more damage from peanuts.
Peanuts are extremely dangerous, they can't even serve the on aeroplanes is somebody on board has an allergy in case particles get into the air-conditioning system.

Also Brazil nuts have proven to be lethal, in Brazil last year 9,000 people died as a result of Brazil nuts falling from trees and hitting them on the head. Of course in Brazil they just call them nuts.
I know what you're saying but I cant remember the last time someone had a peanut and thought they could fly afterwards, yet these injectors are always being scraped off the pavement. One hit and they're jumping out of the nearest available window, unless its when they mix peanuts, brazils and skunk weed. Has anybody ever asked the question?
Peanuts might not make make people think they can fly, but they are most definitely killing real children in this country. Poor kids - dead from peanuts. Cannabis never does that.

All those tragedies involving cannabis - people thinking they could fly etc (that's actually LSD btw and is a Bill Hicks sketch) - they aren't happening in reality, not in great numbers. Far more people are "thinking they can fly" with alcohol than cannabis.

There are tragedies with cannabis, yes 750 of them a year. But tragedies from peanuts really are far more in number and are actually far more tragic.

There was a little boy in Manchester who died last year eating a peanut. Absolutely tragic. Go and see his family - they are no less devestated that if he had been killed in any other way. It's still a complete tragedy, and if the tabloids saw fit they could easily fill front page after front page with peanut tragedies - real ones with real families who could tell us sob story after sob story into angering us to ban peanuts.

They don't of course because the peanut industry would rightly stop them. No-one is stopping them with cannabis though, even though the risk is less than peanuts, and the banning of cannabis causes far far more damage to society than the banning of peanuts ever could.

Peanuts might not have the same risks as cannabis, but it's risks are actually more frequent and more deadly.

Once again, just to reiterate, no one injects cannabis. You appear to be getting your drugs all mixed up together in one lot. That screams of supreme ignorance I'm afraid.
[quote][p][bold]Keep Darwen Green[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Cha'mone MF[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jack Herer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]burner[/bold] wrote: Quote . . . " Cannabis itself is incredibly safe . " . . . OMG, your head is seriously damaged if you consider that to be true ![/p][/quote]There are far more admissions to hospital from peanuts than cannabis. Would you say that peanuts are dangerous or safe? Relatively of course I'm talking. Compared with say alcohol - are peanuts dangerous or safe? Alcohol sees over 1,000,000 people a year admitted to hospital, including huge numbers of deaths. Peanuts see 2,700 admissions a year with a surprising amount of deaths. Comparing those figures, would you say that peanuts are dangerous or safe compared to alcohol? Now cannabis sees far less admissions than peanuts at only 750, and absolutely no deaths. Would you say that cannabis was dangerous or safe when compared with peanuts? Would you say that cannabis was dangerous or safe when compared with alcohol? Would the term incredibly safe spring to mind? If cannabis is dangerous where is the damage? There's far more damage from peanuts.[/p][/quote]Peanuts are extremely dangerous, they can't even serve the on aeroplanes is somebody on board has an allergy in case particles get into the air-conditioning system. Also Brazil nuts have proven to be lethal, in Brazil last year 9,000 people died as a result of Brazil nuts falling from trees and hitting them on the head. Of course in Brazil they just call them nuts.[/p][/quote]I know what you're saying but I cant remember the last time someone had a peanut and thought they could fly afterwards, yet these injectors are always being scraped off the pavement. One hit and they're jumping out of the nearest available window, unless its when they mix peanuts, brazils and skunk weed. Has anybody ever asked the question?[/p][/quote]Peanuts might not make make people think they can fly, but they are most definitely killing real children in this country. Poor kids - dead from peanuts. Cannabis never does that. All those tragedies involving cannabis - people thinking they could fly etc (that's actually LSD btw and is a Bill Hicks sketch) - they aren't happening in reality, not in great numbers. Far more people are "thinking they can fly" with alcohol than cannabis. There are tragedies with cannabis, yes 750 of them a year. But tragedies from peanuts really are far more in number and are actually far more tragic. There was a little boy in Manchester who died last year eating a peanut. Absolutely tragic. Go and see his family - they are no less devestated that if he had been killed in any other way. It's still a complete tragedy, and if the tabloids saw fit they could easily fill front page after front page with peanut tragedies - real ones with real families who could tell us sob story after sob story into angering us to ban peanuts. They don't of course because the peanut industry would rightly stop them. No-one is stopping them with cannabis though, even though the risk is less than peanuts, and the banning of cannabis causes far far more damage to society than the banning of peanuts ever could. Peanuts might not have the same risks as cannabis, but it's risks are actually more frequent and more deadly. Once again, just to reiterate, no one injects cannabis. You appear to be getting your drugs all mixed up together in one lot. That screams of supreme ignorance I'm afraid. Jack Herer
  • Score: 0

5:43pm Tue 6 Mar 12

Michael@ClitheroeSince58 says...

I feel cannabis has a calming influence on society, especially in hard times like these. Riots what riots pass the bong, peace man :)
I feel cannabis has a calming influence on society, especially in hard times like these. Riots what riots pass the bong, peace man :) Michael@ClitheroeSince58
  • Score: 0

6:00pm Tue 6 Mar 12

Jack Herer says...

jack daniels wrote:
Jack Herer wrote:
jack daniels wrote:
Jack Herer wrote:
jack daniels wrote:
Jack Herer wrote: Is this going to finally stop the gangsters making millions then? Is this it - the end? No more hardcore criminals making billions? Of course it isn't - that will never ever end unless we stop denying the truth. We have to stop those gangsters of course, but we are never ever going to do with prohibition. Just like the only way to take Al Capone and his gangster's power away was to stop alcohol prohibition. Cannabis itself is incredibly safe when compared with alcohol for instance though. Hospital admissions in 2010; peanuts - 2,700 alcohol - over 1,000,000 cannabis - 750 Why aren't we cracking down on peanuts - they cause more harm than cannabis? Who would much rather see this not even being a problem - instead it being a huge financial and social benefit to society? Who'd rather be reading a headline like: Crackdown on Lancashire paedophiles or Crackdown on Lancashire violent thugs Whereas the reality of this headline could actually be: Police go easy on paedophiles, rapists, and violent thugs, to crackdown on harmless cannabis users
alcohol - over 1,000,000 cannabis - 750 This, of course, is flawed as the number of people drinking far exceeds the numbers smoking dope. This information is also a bit general; as quoted by the BBC "That includes liver disease and mental disorders due to alcohol abuse as well as some cancers, accidents and injuries." That's some pretty general stuff. I'm just wondering if the people admitted to a mental health ward or seeing a GP for a long term mental health issue, are included in your 750. I only ask because in my experience, the people I worked with that had a problem with their mental health, often had a problem with either drink, dope or both.
Those 750 are the full admissions to hospital - pretty much all mental health issues. 2 million people in the UK smoke cannabis regularly. How many regular drinkers do you think there are - 40 million? That means there are 20 times as many drinkers as there are cannabis users. Can you times 750 by 20 for me Jack Daniels? Is it more than 1,000,000? It isn't is it? It's only 15,000. So therefore if everyone stopped drinking and started smoking cannabis instead, we'd see hospitals admissions drop by about 1,000,000 people a year. Think how much money we'd save! Alcohol has 47,000 admissions alone for mental health issues. Scaled up, that makes it more than 3 times as bad than cannabis for mental health issues alone. Forget the truly vast number of other issues which booze has that cannabis doesn't, booze is still far worse than cannabis for mental health issues.
“Can you times 750 by 20 for me Jack Daniels? Is it more than 1,000,000?” What a pompous comment, yet so typical of you. The main flaw with your argument is that you have to compare it with the most commonest drug in the world, just to justify your drug addiction. No matter how you jiggle the figures, cannabis affects your brain chemistry and increases your chance of developing one of a number of mental health complaints. These 750 ward admissions; how many of these are re-admissions due to prolonged use when back in the community? How many are failed rehabilitations due the smoker being addicted? Cannabis may be better than alcohol, but doing neither is best of all. In your eyes, it’s like trying to say that Pol Pot was an ok guy when compared to Adolf Hitler.
No I don't. Compare cannabis with whatever drug you want -there's not much out there that's safer. In safety terms, comparing alcohol to cannabis is like comparing Adolf Hitler to someone who stole a penny sweet from the sweet shop. Nothing is actually harmless, someone has actually died from a tea cosy before now. But if cannabis is harmless - relatively of course - then what is the point in wasting all our money stopping people taking it, when it is far safer than the sanctioned recreational drug we currently have. How do we morally justify locking people up for smoking cannabis - what harm have they done to anybody? Yet, as can be seen here, we see fit to pump far more resources into stopping cannabis use than we do stopping all this despicable grooming we've seen going on. North West police have already stopped over 5,000 cannabis farms across the North West - the problem is still worse than ever though. Think of the massive police time involved in 5,000 cannabis farms - that's just the North West as well, in the past 3 years. Have you read about 5,000 other expensive police raids on other areas of criminality? 5,000 raids on suspected paedophile for instance? I'd be surprised if there had been more than a couple of 100, for something like that. Your continued ignorance mean our resources are skewed against real crimes against real criminals. Instead you Try explaining that to a child who'd just been raped by a monster. "Sorry about that, I know we didn't catch who did it, but we got 4 cannabis farms instead". No thanks I'd rather have a justice system which catches and punishes real criminals thanks. Just as importantly for society's well being, hardcore criminals are getting richer and richer all the time. We're in cloud cuckoo land if we think we are ever going to stop it. There is far too much money to be made. That should be our money, and as it happens we could really do with it now.
So we agree that Cannabis carries a number of long term health problems; which makes it a little more than a sweetie thief and ‘one ball’ Hitler. You seem to be in denial about the consequences of its use, and are now using the money spent policing this drug dealing/addiction when compared to protecting our children from groomers.

As for your “you Try explaining that to a child who'd just been raped by a monster”. This is just a cheap attempt again at supporting your justification for illegal drug use. To realistically use Police manpower to stop grooming we would need a Police officer on every corner and on every facebook website. This would be a little bit more money than they spend on drug arrests I think….

Do people seriously get locked up for smoking dope? The only time I can imagine this is when they are smoking near a school or college. This would therefore make it acceptable as we should protect these impressionable minds, as I’m sure you would agree.


What I think is also important not to forget is that we can’t pick and choose the laws we abide by. If the law on cannabis is there, it’s for a reason, and we need to take into consideration the reasons why the government is not listening to the lobbying done by yourself and your colleagues.

For somebody who gets stressed by all the media coverage of cannabis, I suggest you need smoke a little more and chill out. Maybe have a bourbon or 2 with ice to help you on your way!
People do get locked up regularly for smoking dope. Genuine medical users as well.

Disgraceful eh.
[quote][p][bold]jack daniels[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jack Herer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jack daniels[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jack Herer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jack daniels[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jack Herer[/bold] wrote: Is this going to finally stop the gangsters making millions then? Is this it - the end? No more hardcore criminals making billions? Of course it isn't - that will never ever end unless we stop denying the truth. We have to stop those gangsters of course, but we are never ever going to do with prohibition. Just like the only way to take Al Capone and his gangster's power away was to stop alcohol prohibition. Cannabis itself is incredibly safe when compared with alcohol for instance though. Hospital admissions in 2010; peanuts - 2,700 alcohol - over 1,000,000 cannabis - 750 Why aren't we cracking down on peanuts - they cause more harm than cannabis? Who would much rather see this not even being a problem - instead it being a huge financial and social benefit to society? Who'd rather be reading a headline like: Crackdown on Lancashire paedophiles or Crackdown on Lancashire violent thugs Whereas the reality of this headline could actually be: Police go easy on paedophiles, rapists, and violent thugs, to crackdown on harmless cannabis users[/p][/quote]alcohol - over 1,000,000 cannabis - 750 This, of course, is flawed as the number of people drinking far exceeds the numbers smoking dope. This information is also a bit general; as quoted by the BBC "That includes liver disease and mental disorders due to alcohol abuse as well as some cancers, accidents and injuries." That's some pretty general stuff. I'm just wondering if the people admitted to a mental health ward or seeing a GP for a long term mental health issue, are included in your 750. I only ask because in my experience, the people I worked with that had a problem with their mental health, often had a problem with either drink, dope or both.[/p][/quote]Those 750 are the full admissions to hospital - pretty much all mental health issues. 2 million people in the UK smoke cannabis regularly. How many regular drinkers do you think there are - 40 million? That means there are 20 times as many drinkers as there are cannabis users. Can you times 750 by 20 for me Jack Daniels? Is it more than 1,000,000? It isn't is it? It's only 15,000. So therefore if everyone stopped drinking and started smoking cannabis instead, we'd see hospitals admissions drop by about 1,000,000 people a year. Think how much money we'd save! Alcohol has 47,000 admissions alone for mental health issues. Scaled up, that makes it more than 3 times as bad than cannabis for mental health issues alone. Forget the truly vast number of other issues which booze has that cannabis doesn't, booze is still far worse than cannabis for mental health issues.[/p][/quote]“Can you times 750 by 20 for me Jack Daniels? Is it more than 1,000,000?” What a pompous comment, yet so typical of you. The main flaw with your argument is that you have to compare it with the most commonest drug in the world, just to justify your drug addiction. No matter how you jiggle the figures, cannabis affects your brain chemistry and increases your chance of developing one of a number of mental health complaints. These 750 ward admissions; how many of these are re-admissions due to prolonged use when back in the community? How many are failed rehabilitations due the smoker being addicted? Cannabis may be better than alcohol, but doing neither is best of all. In your eyes, it’s like trying to say that Pol Pot was an ok guy when compared to Adolf Hitler.[/p][/quote]No I don't. Compare cannabis with whatever drug you want -there's not much out there that's safer. In safety terms, comparing alcohol to cannabis is like comparing Adolf Hitler to someone who stole a penny sweet from the sweet shop. Nothing is actually harmless, someone has actually died from a tea cosy before now. But if cannabis is harmless - relatively of course - then what is the point in wasting all our money stopping people taking it, when it is far safer than the sanctioned recreational drug we currently have. How do we morally justify locking people up for smoking cannabis - what harm have they done to anybody? Yet, as can be seen here, we see fit to pump far more resources into stopping cannabis use than we do stopping all this despicable grooming we've seen going on. North West police have already stopped over 5,000 cannabis farms across the North West - the problem is still worse than ever though. Think of the massive police time involved in 5,000 cannabis farms - that's just the North West as well, in the past 3 years. Have you read about 5,000 other expensive police raids on other areas of criminality? 5,000 raids on suspected paedophile for instance? I'd be surprised if there had been more than a couple of 100, for something like that. Your continued ignorance mean our resources are skewed against real crimes against real criminals. Instead you Try explaining that to a child who'd just been raped by a monster. "Sorry about that, I know we didn't catch who did it, but we got 4 cannabis farms instead". No thanks I'd rather have a justice system which catches and punishes real criminals thanks. Just as importantly for society's well being, hardcore criminals are getting richer and richer all the time. We're in cloud cuckoo land if we think we are ever going to stop it. There is far too much money to be made. That should be our money, and as it happens we could really do with it now.[/p][/quote]So we agree that Cannabis carries a number of long term health problems; which makes it a little more than a sweetie thief and ‘one ball’ Hitler. You seem to be in denial about the consequences of its use, and are now using the money spent policing this drug dealing/addiction when compared to protecting our children from groomers. As for your “you Try explaining that to a child who'd just been raped by a monster”. This is just a cheap attempt again at supporting your justification for illegal drug use. To realistically use Police manpower to stop grooming we would need a Police officer on every corner and on every facebook website. This would be a little bit more money than they spend on drug arrests I think…. Do people seriously get locked up for smoking dope? The only time I can imagine this is when they are smoking near a school or college. This would therefore make it acceptable as we should protect these impressionable minds, as I’m sure you would agree. What I think is also important not to forget is that we can’t pick and choose the laws we abide by. If the law on cannabis is there, it’s for a reason, and we need to take into consideration the reasons why the government is not listening to the lobbying done by yourself and your colleagues. For somebody who gets stressed by all the media coverage of cannabis, I suggest you need smoke a little more and chill out. Maybe have a bourbon or 2 with ice to help you on your way![/p][/quote]People do get locked up regularly for smoking dope. Genuine medical users as well. Disgraceful eh. Jack Herer
  • Score: 0

6:06pm Tue 6 Mar 12

Jack Herer says...

Michael@ClitheroeSin
ce58
wrote:
I feel cannabis has a calming influence on society, especially in hard times like these. Riots what riots pass the bong, peace man :)
Totally true.

When Holland and Belgium jointly hosted the Euro 2000 finals, Belgium saw loads of trouble -loads. The Belgium police were really really busy.

In contrast, the Dutch police could answer calls to get cats down from trees if they wanted - there was no trouble at all.

It was one of the few times where Holland condoned the sale of cannabis by coffee shops outside their premises. If ever one simple decision saved the Dutch a fortune in policing, it was promoting cannabis use then.

It doesn't take a genius to see the benefits were it legalised here.
[quote][p][bold]Michael@ClitheroeSin ce58[/bold] wrote: I feel cannabis has a calming influence on society, especially in hard times like these. Riots what riots pass the bong, peace man :)[/p][/quote]Totally true. When Holland and Belgium jointly hosted the Euro 2000 finals, Belgium saw loads of trouble -loads. The Belgium police were really really busy. In contrast, the Dutch police could answer calls to get cats down from trees if they wanted - there was no trouble at all. It was one of the few times where Holland condoned the sale of cannabis by coffee shops outside their premises. If ever one simple decision saved the Dutch a fortune in policing, it was promoting cannabis use then. It doesn't take a genius to see the benefits were it legalised here. Jack Herer
  • Score: 0

6:21pm Tue 6 Mar 12

Jack Herer says...

jack daniels wrote:
Jack Herer wrote:
jack daniels wrote:
Jack Herer wrote:
jack daniels wrote:
Jack Herer wrote: Is this going to finally stop the gangsters making millions then? Is this it - the end? No more hardcore criminals making billions? Of course it isn't - that will never ever end unless we stop denying the truth. We have to stop those gangsters of course, but we are never ever going to do with prohibition. Just like the only way to take Al Capone and his gangster's power away was to stop alcohol prohibition. Cannabis itself is incredibly safe when compared with alcohol for instance though. Hospital admissions in 2010; peanuts - 2,700 alcohol - over 1,000,000 cannabis - 750 Why aren't we cracking down on peanuts - they cause more harm than cannabis? Who would much rather see this not even being a problem - instead it being a huge financial and social benefit to society? Who'd rather be reading a headline like: Crackdown on Lancashire paedophiles or Crackdown on Lancashire violent thugs Whereas the reality of this headline could actually be: Police go easy on paedophiles, rapists, and violent thugs, to crackdown on harmless cannabis users
alcohol - over 1,000,000 cannabis - 750 This, of course, is flawed as the number of people drinking far exceeds the numbers smoking dope. This information is also a bit general; as quoted by the BBC "That includes liver disease and mental disorders due to alcohol abuse as well as some cancers, accidents and injuries." That's some pretty general stuff. I'm just wondering if the people admitted to a mental health ward or seeing a GP for a long term mental health issue, are included in your 750. I only ask because in my experience, the people I worked with that had a problem with their mental health, often had a problem with either drink, dope or both.
Those 750 are the full admissions to hospital - pretty much all mental health issues. 2 million people in the UK smoke cannabis regularly. How many regular drinkers do you think there are - 40 million? That means there are 20 times as many drinkers as there are cannabis users. Can you times 750 by 20 for me Jack Daniels? Is it more than 1,000,000? It isn't is it? It's only 15,000. So therefore if everyone stopped drinking and started smoking cannabis instead, we'd see hospitals admissions drop by about 1,000,000 people a year. Think how much money we'd save! Alcohol has 47,000 admissions alone for mental health issues. Scaled up, that makes it more than 3 times as bad than cannabis for mental health issues alone. Forget the truly vast number of other issues which booze has that cannabis doesn't, booze is still far worse than cannabis for mental health issues.
“Can you times 750 by 20 for me Jack Daniels? Is it more than 1,000,000?” What a pompous comment, yet so typical of you. The main flaw with your argument is that you have to compare it with the most commonest drug in the world, just to justify your drug addiction. No matter how you jiggle the figures, cannabis affects your brain chemistry and increases your chance of developing one of a number of mental health complaints. These 750 ward admissions; how many of these are re-admissions due to prolonged use when back in the community? How many are failed rehabilitations due the smoker being addicted? Cannabis may be better than alcohol, but doing neither is best of all. In your eyes, it’s like trying to say that Pol Pot was an ok guy when compared to Adolf Hitler.
No I don't. Compare cannabis with whatever drug you want -there's not much out there that's safer. In safety terms, comparing alcohol to cannabis is like comparing Adolf Hitler to someone who stole a penny sweet from the sweet shop. Nothing is actually harmless, someone has actually died from a tea cosy before now. But if cannabis is harmless - relatively of course - then what is the point in wasting all our money stopping people taking it, when it is far safer than the sanctioned recreational drug we currently have. How do we morally justify locking people up for smoking cannabis - what harm have they done to anybody? Yet, as can be seen here, we see fit to pump far more resources into stopping cannabis use than we do stopping all this despicable grooming we've seen going on. North West police have already stopped over 5,000 cannabis farms across the North West - the problem is still worse than ever though. Think of the massive police time involved in 5,000 cannabis farms - that's just the North West as well, in the past 3 years. Have you read about 5,000 other expensive police raids on other areas of criminality? 5,000 raids on suspected paedophile for instance? I'd be surprised if there had been more than a couple of 100, for something like that. Your continued ignorance mean our resources are skewed against real crimes against real criminals. Instead you Try explaining that to a child who'd just been raped by a monster. "Sorry about that, I know we didn't catch who did it, but we got 4 cannabis farms instead". No thanks I'd rather have a justice system which catches and punishes real criminals thanks. Just as importantly for society's well being, hardcore criminals are getting richer and richer all the time. We're in cloud cuckoo land if we think we are ever going to stop it. There is far too much money to be made. That should be our money, and as it happens we could really do with it now.
So we agree that Cannabis carries a number of long term health problems; which makes it a little more than a sweetie thief and ‘one ball’ Hitler. You seem to be in denial about the consequences of its use, and are now using the money spent policing this drug dealing/addiction when compared to protecting our children from groomers.

As for your “you Try explaining that to a child who'd just been raped by a monster”. This is just a cheap attempt again at supporting your justification for illegal drug use. To realistically use Police manpower to stop grooming we would need a Police officer on every corner and on every facebook website. This would be a little bit more money than they spend on drug arrests I think….

Do people seriously get locked up for smoking dope? The only time I can imagine this is when they are smoking near a school or college. This would therefore make it acceptable as we should protect these impressionable minds, as I’m sure you would agree.


What I think is also important not to forget is that we can’t pick and choose the laws we abide by. If the law on cannabis is there, it’s for a reason, and we need to take into consideration the reasons why the government is not listening to the lobbying done by yourself and your colleagues.

For somebody who gets stressed by all the media coverage of cannabis, I suggest you need smoke a little more and chill out. Maybe have a bourbon or 2 with ice to help you on your way!
Quick one on this one just so you know.

The reasons why the government is not listening to the lobbying done by yourself and your colleagues, is because we aren't lobbying, all we are doing is chewing the cud with people like Cha'mone MF.

Lobbying is done by interested parties like the pharmaceutical or alcohol companies. The exact same people who lobby government already.

Besides which, you are missing a massive point - since when did the government ever go against the tabloids before the recent scandal? Cannabis crack downs are good for politicians as well, it's an easy target, for which the public, filled with hate from the tabloids, can agree with.

Today's politician is far more interested in popularity than the truth. I'm amazed you didn't already know that.
[quote][p][bold]jack daniels[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jack Herer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jack daniels[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jack Herer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jack daniels[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jack Herer[/bold] wrote: Is this going to finally stop the gangsters making millions then? Is this it - the end? No more hardcore criminals making billions? Of course it isn't - that will never ever end unless we stop denying the truth. We have to stop those gangsters of course, but we are never ever going to do with prohibition. Just like the only way to take Al Capone and his gangster's power away was to stop alcohol prohibition. Cannabis itself is incredibly safe when compared with alcohol for instance though. Hospital admissions in 2010; peanuts - 2,700 alcohol - over 1,000,000 cannabis - 750 Why aren't we cracking down on peanuts - they cause more harm than cannabis? Who would much rather see this not even being a problem - instead it being a huge financial and social benefit to society? Who'd rather be reading a headline like: Crackdown on Lancashire paedophiles or Crackdown on Lancashire violent thugs Whereas the reality of this headline could actually be: Police go easy on paedophiles, rapists, and violent thugs, to crackdown on harmless cannabis users[/p][/quote]alcohol - over 1,000,000 cannabis - 750 This, of course, is flawed as the number of people drinking far exceeds the numbers smoking dope. This information is also a bit general; as quoted by the BBC "That includes liver disease and mental disorders due to alcohol abuse as well as some cancers, accidents and injuries." That's some pretty general stuff. I'm just wondering if the people admitted to a mental health ward or seeing a GP for a long term mental health issue, are included in your 750. I only ask because in my experience, the people I worked with that had a problem with their mental health, often had a problem with either drink, dope or both.[/p][/quote]Those 750 are the full admissions to hospital - pretty much all mental health issues. 2 million people in the UK smoke cannabis regularly. How many regular drinkers do you think there are - 40 million? That means there are 20 times as many drinkers as there are cannabis users. Can you times 750 by 20 for me Jack Daniels? Is it more than 1,000,000? It isn't is it? It's only 15,000. So therefore if everyone stopped drinking and started smoking cannabis instead, we'd see hospitals admissions drop by about 1,000,000 people a year. Think how much money we'd save! Alcohol has 47,000 admissions alone for mental health issues. Scaled up, that makes it more than 3 times as bad than cannabis for mental health issues alone. Forget the truly vast number of other issues which booze has that cannabis doesn't, booze is still far worse than cannabis for mental health issues.[/p][/quote]“Can you times 750 by 20 for me Jack Daniels? Is it more than 1,000,000?” What a pompous comment, yet so typical of you. The main flaw with your argument is that you have to compare it with the most commonest drug in the world, just to justify your drug addiction. No matter how you jiggle the figures, cannabis affects your brain chemistry and increases your chance of developing one of a number of mental health complaints. These 750 ward admissions; how many of these are re-admissions due to prolonged use when back in the community? How many are failed rehabilitations due the smoker being addicted? Cannabis may be better than alcohol, but doing neither is best of all. In your eyes, it’s like trying to say that Pol Pot was an ok guy when compared to Adolf Hitler.[/p][/quote]No I don't. Compare cannabis with whatever drug you want -there's not much out there that's safer. In safety terms, comparing alcohol to cannabis is like comparing Adolf Hitler to someone who stole a penny sweet from the sweet shop. Nothing is actually harmless, someone has actually died from a tea cosy before now. But if cannabis is harmless - relatively of course - then what is the point in wasting all our money stopping people taking it, when it is far safer than the sanctioned recreational drug we currently have. How do we morally justify locking people up for smoking cannabis - what harm have they done to anybody? Yet, as can be seen here, we see fit to pump far more resources into stopping cannabis use than we do stopping all this despicable grooming we've seen going on. North West police have already stopped over 5,000 cannabis farms across the North West - the problem is still worse than ever though. Think of the massive police time involved in 5,000 cannabis farms - that's just the North West as well, in the past 3 years. Have you read about 5,000 other expensive police raids on other areas of criminality? 5,000 raids on suspected paedophile for instance? I'd be surprised if there had been more than a couple of 100, for something like that. Your continued ignorance mean our resources are skewed against real crimes against real criminals. Instead you Try explaining that to a child who'd just been raped by a monster. "Sorry about that, I know we didn't catch who did it, but we got 4 cannabis farms instead". No thanks I'd rather have a justice system which catches and punishes real criminals thanks. Just as importantly for society's well being, hardcore criminals are getting richer and richer all the time. We're in cloud cuckoo land if we think we are ever going to stop it. There is far too much money to be made. That should be our money, and as it happens we could really do with it now.[/p][/quote]So we agree that Cannabis carries a number of long term health problems; which makes it a little more than a sweetie thief and ‘one ball’ Hitler. You seem to be in denial about the consequences of its use, and are now using the money spent policing this drug dealing/addiction when compared to protecting our children from groomers. As for your “you Try explaining that to a child who'd just been raped by a monster”. This is just a cheap attempt again at supporting your justification for illegal drug use. To realistically use Police manpower to stop grooming we would need a Police officer on every corner and on every facebook website. This would be a little bit more money than they spend on drug arrests I think…. Do people seriously get locked up for smoking dope? The only time I can imagine this is when they are smoking near a school or college. This would therefore make it acceptable as we should protect these impressionable minds, as I’m sure you would agree. What I think is also important not to forget is that we can’t pick and choose the laws we abide by. If the law on cannabis is there, it’s for a reason, and we need to take into consideration the reasons why the government is not listening to the lobbying done by yourself and your colleagues. For somebody who gets stressed by all the media coverage of cannabis, I suggest you need smoke a little more and chill out. Maybe have a bourbon or 2 with ice to help you on your way![/p][/quote]Quick one on this one just so you know. The reasons why the government is not listening to the lobbying done by yourself and your colleagues, is because we aren't lobbying, all we are doing is chewing the cud with people like Cha'mone MF. Lobbying is done by interested parties like the pharmaceutical or alcohol companies. The exact same people who lobby government already. Besides which, you are missing a massive point - since when did the government ever go against the tabloids before the recent scandal? Cannabis crack downs are good for politicians as well, it's an easy target, for which the public, filled with hate from the tabloids, can agree with. Today's politician is far more interested in popularity than the truth. I'm amazed you didn't already know that. Jack Herer
  • Score: 0

6:27pm Tue 6 Mar 12

Jack Herer says...

Wish I'd not quoted Jack Daniel's there - that is a nightmare to scroll through.

Jack Daniels - did you change your name from something to do with bomber Harris a fair bit back, after I told you what bomber Harris had actually done?

Did you choose Jack Daniels as a counter to Jack Herer? Did you see yourself as my alcoholic adversary?

Apologies if it isn't you - I've only just realised if it was though.
Wish I'd not quoted Jack Daniel's there - that is a nightmare to scroll through. Jack Daniels - did you change your name from something to do with bomber Harris a fair bit back, after I told you what bomber Harris had actually done? Did you choose Jack Daniels as a counter to Jack Herer? Did you see yourself as my alcoholic adversary? Apologies if it isn't you - I've only just realised if it was though. Jack Herer
  • Score: 0

6:54pm Tue 6 Mar 12

jack daniels says...

Jack Herer wrote:
jack daniels wrote:
Jack Herer wrote:
jack daniels wrote:
Jack Herer wrote:
jack daniels wrote:
Jack Herer wrote: Is this going to finally stop the gangsters making millions then? Is this it - the end? No more hardcore criminals making billions? Of course it isn't - that will never ever end unless we stop denying the truth. We have to stop those gangsters of course, but we are never ever going to do with prohibition. Just like the only way to take Al Capone and his gangster's power away was to stop alcohol prohibition. Cannabis itself is incredibly safe when compared with alcohol for instance though. Hospital admissions in 2010; peanuts - 2,700 alcohol - over 1,000,000 cannabis - 750 Why aren't we cracking down on peanuts - they cause more harm than cannabis? Who would much rather see this not even being a problem - instead it being a huge financial and social benefit to society? Who'd rather be reading a headline like: Crackdown on Lancashire paedophiles or Crackdown on Lancashire violent thugs Whereas the reality of this headline could actually be: Police go easy on paedophiles, rapists, and violent thugs, to crackdown on harmless cannabis users
alcohol - over 1,000,000 cannabis - 750 This, of course, is flawed as the number of people drinking far exceeds the numbers smoking dope. This information is also a bit general; as quoted by the BBC "That includes liver disease and mental disorders due to alcohol abuse as well as some cancers, accidents and injuries." That's some pretty general stuff. I'm just wondering if the people admitted to a mental health ward or seeing a GP for a long term mental health issue, are included in your 750. I only ask because in my experience, the people I worked with that had a problem with their mental health, often had a problem with either drink, dope or both.
Those 750 are the full admissions to hospital - pretty much all mental health issues. 2 million people in the UK smoke cannabis regularly. How many regular drinkers do you think there are - 40 million? That means there are 20 times as many drinkers as there are cannabis users. Can you times 750 by 20 for me Jack Daniels? Is it more than 1,000,000? It isn't is it? It's only 15,000. So therefore if everyone stopped drinking and started smoking cannabis instead, we'd see hospitals admissions drop by about 1,000,000 people a year. Think how much money we'd save! Alcohol has 47,000 admissions alone for mental health issues. Scaled up, that makes it more than 3 times as bad than cannabis for mental health issues alone. Forget the truly vast number of other issues which booze has that cannabis doesn't, booze is still far worse than cannabis for mental health issues.
“Can you times 750 by 20 for me Jack Daniels? Is it more than 1,000,000?” What a pompous comment, yet so typical of you. The main flaw with your argument is that you have to compare it with the most commonest drug in the world, just to justify your drug addiction. No matter how you jiggle the figures, cannabis affects your brain chemistry and increases your chance of developing one of a number of mental health complaints. These 750 ward admissions; how many of these are re-admissions due to prolonged use when back in the community? How many are failed rehabilitations due the smoker being addicted? Cannabis may be better than alcohol, but doing neither is best of all. In your eyes, it’s like trying to say that Pol Pot was an ok guy when compared to Adolf Hitler.
No I don't. Compare cannabis with whatever drug you want -there's not much out there that's safer. In safety terms, comparing alcohol to cannabis is like comparing Adolf Hitler to someone who stole a penny sweet from the sweet shop. Nothing is actually harmless, someone has actually died from a tea cosy before now. But if cannabis is harmless - relatively of course - then what is the point in wasting all our money stopping people taking it, when it is far safer than the sanctioned recreational drug we currently have. How do we morally justify locking people up for smoking cannabis - what harm have they done to anybody? Yet, as can be seen here, we see fit to pump far more resources into stopping cannabis use than we do stopping all this despicable grooming we've seen going on. North West police have already stopped over 5,000 cannabis farms across the North West - the problem is still worse than ever though. Think of the massive police time involved in 5,000 cannabis farms - that's just the North West as well, in the past 3 years. Have you read about 5,000 other expensive police raids on other areas of criminality? 5,000 raids on suspected paedophile for instance? I'd be surprised if there had been more than a couple of 100, for something like that. Your continued ignorance mean our resources are skewed against real crimes against real criminals. Instead you Try explaining that to a child who'd just been raped by a monster. "Sorry about that, I know we didn't catch who did it, but we got 4 cannabis farms instead". No thanks I'd rather have a justice system which catches and punishes real criminals thanks. Just as importantly for society's well being, hardcore criminals are getting richer and richer all the time. We're in cloud cuckoo land if we think we are ever going to stop it. There is far too much money to be made. That should be our money, and as it happens we could really do with it now.
So we agree that Cannabis carries a number of long term health problems; which makes it a little more than a sweetie thief and ‘one ball’ Hitler. You seem to be in denial about the consequences of its use, and are now using the money spent policing this drug dealing/addiction when compared to protecting our children from groomers.

As for your “you Try explaining that to a child who'd just been raped by a monster”. This is just a cheap attempt again at supporting your justification for illegal drug use. To realistically use Police manpower to stop grooming we would need a Police officer on every corner and on every facebook website. This would be a little bit more money than they spend on drug arrests I think….

Do people seriously get locked up for smoking dope? The only time I can imagine this is when they are smoking near a school or college. This would therefore make it acceptable as we should protect these impressionable minds, as I’m sure you would agree.


What I think is also important not to forget is that we can’t pick and choose the laws we abide by. If the law on cannabis is there, it’s for a reason, and we need to take into consideration the reasons why the government is not listening to the lobbying done by yourself and your colleagues.

For somebody who gets stressed by all the media coverage of cannabis, I suggest you need smoke a little more and chill out. Maybe have a bourbon or 2 with ice to help you on your way!
People do get locked up regularly for smoking dope. Genuine medical users as well.

Disgraceful eh.
Would that be called sectioning?
[quote][p][bold]Jack Herer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jack daniels[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jack Herer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jack daniels[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jack Herer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jack daniels[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jack Herer[/bold] wrote: Is this going to finally stop the gangsters making millions then? Is this it - the end? No more hardcore criminals making billions? Of course it isn't - that will never ever end unless we stop denying the truth. We have to stop those gangsters of course, but we are never ever going to do with prohibition. Just like the only way to take Al Capone and his gangster's power away was to stop alcohol prohibition. Cannabis itself is incredibly safe when compared with alcohol for instance though. Hospital admissions in 2010; peanuts - 2,700 alcohol - over 1,000,000 cannabis - 750 Why aren't we cracking down on peanuts - they cause more harm than cannabis? Who would much rather see this not even being a problem - instead it being a huge financial and social benefit to society? Who'd rather be reading a headline like: Crackdown on Lancashire paedophiles or Crackdown on Lancashire violent thugs Whereas the reality of this headline could actually be: Police go easy on paedophiles, rapists, and violent thugs, to crackdown on harmless cannabis users[/p][/quote]alcohol - over 1,000,000 cannabis - 750 This, of course, is flawed as the number of people drinking far exceeds the numbers smoking dope. This information is also a bit general; as quoted by the BBC "That includes liver disease and mental disorders due to alcohol abuse as well as some cancers, accidents and injuries." That's some pretty general stuff. I'm just wondering if the people admitted to a mental health ward or seeing a GP for a long term mental health issue, are included in your 750. I only ask because in my experience, the people I worked with that had a problem with their mental health, often had a problem with either drink, dope or both.[/p][/quote]Those 750 are the full admissions to hospital - pretty much all mental health issues. 2 million people in the UK smoke cannabis regularly. How many regular drinkers do you think there are - 40 million? That means there are 20 times as many drinkers as there are cannabis users. Can you times 750 by 20 for me Jack Daniels? Is it more than 1,000,000? It isn't is it? It's only 15,000. So therefore if everyone stopped drinking and started smoking cannabis instead, we'd see hospitals admissions drop by about 1,000,000 people a year. Think how much money we'd save! Alcohol has 47,000 admissions alone for mental health issues. Scaled up, that makes it more than 3 times as bad than cannabis for mental health issues alone. Forget the truly vast number of other issues which booze has that cannabis doesn't, booze is still far worse than cannabis for mental health issues.[/p][/quote]“Can you times 750 by 20 for me Jack Daniels? Is it more than 1,000,000?” What a pompous comment, yet so typical of you. The main flaw with your argument is that you have to compare it with the most commonest drug in the world, just to justify your drug addiction. No matter how you jiggle the figures, cannabis affects your brain chemistry and increases your chance of developing one of a number of mental health complaints. These 750 ward admissions; how many of these are re-admissions due to prolonged use when back in the community? How many are failed rehabilitations due the smoker being addicted? Cannabis may be better than alcohol, but doing neither is best of all. In your eyes, it’s like trying to say that Pol Pot was an ok guy when compared to Adolf Hitler.[/p][/quote]No I don't. Compare cannabis with whatever drug you want -there's not much out there that's safer. In safety terms, comparing alcohol to cannabis is like comparing Adolf Hitler to someone who stole a penny sweet from the sweet shop. Nothing is actually harmless, someone has actually died from a tea cosy before now. But if cannabis is harmless - relatively of course - then what is the point in wasting all our money stopping people taking it, when it is far safer than the sanctioned recreational drug we currently have. How do we morally justify locking people up for smoking cannabis - what harm have they done to anybody? Yet, as can be seen here, we see fit to pump far more resources into stopping cannabis use than we do stopping all this despicable grooming we've seen going on. North West police have already stopped over 5,000 cannabis farms across the North West - the problem is still worse than ever though. Think of the massive police time involved in 5,000 cannabis farms - that's just the North West as well, in the past 3 years. Have you read about 5,000 other expensive police raids on other areas of criminality? 5,000 raids on suspected paedophile for instance? I'd be surprised if there had been more than a couple of 100, for something like that. Your continued ignorance mean our resources are skewed against real crimes against real criminals. Instead you Try explaining that to a child who'd just been raped by a monster. "Sorry about that, I know we didn't catch who did it, but we got 4 cannabis farms instead". No thanks I'd rather have a justice system which catches and punishes real criminals thanks. Just as importantly for society's well being, hardcore criminals are getting richer and richer all the time. We're in cloud cuckoo land if we think we are ever going to stop it. There is far too much money to be made. That should be our money, and as it happens we could really do with it now.[/p][/quote]So we agree that Cannabis carries a number of long term health problems; which makes it a little more than a sweetie thief and ‘one ball’ Hitler. You seem to be in denial about the consequences of its use, and are now using the money spent policing this drug dealing/addiction when compared to protecting our children from groomers. As for your “you Try explaining that to a child who'd just been raped by a monster”. This is just a cheap attempt again at supporting your justification for illegal drug use. To realistically use Police manpower to stop grooming we would need a Police officer on every corner and on every facebook website. This would be a little bit more money than they spend on drug arrests I think…. Do people seriously get locked up for smoking dope? The only time I can imagine this is when they are smoking near a school or college. This would therefore make it acceptable as we should protect these impressionable minds, as I’m sure you would agree. What I think is also important not to forget is that we can’t pick and choose the laws we abide by. If the law on cannabis is there, it’s for a reason, and we need to take into consideration the reasons why the government is not listening to the lobbying done by yourself and your colleagues. For somebody who gets stressed by all the media coverage of cannabis, I suggest you need smoke a little more and chill out. Maybe have a bourbon or 2 with ice to help you on your way![/p][/quote]People do get locked up regularly for smoking dope. Genuine medical users as well. Disgraceful eh.[/p][/quote]Would that be called sectioning? jack daniels
  • Score: 0

7:26pm Tue 6 Mar 12

Jack Herer says...

Is that what they called it in your case Jack Daniels?
Is that what they called it in your case Jack Daniels? Jack Herer
  • Score: 0

8:12am Wed 7 Mar 12

Cha'mone MF says...

Jack Herer wrote:
Cha'mone MF wrote:
Regardless of what you pro weed brigade think of the position of cannabis in society you cannot deny everytime somebody buys it they are contributing towards the funding of organised crime. If you came down off your weed fuelled cloud once in a while and stopped inhaling for a few moments you might realise that even if they did legalise it very little would change. Organised crime syndicates would still continue to be involved in the production and distribution and use the money to fund other areas of criminality.

Alcohol and tobacco are here to stay whether you like it or not and yes they are a terrible strain on the already over stretched NHS. So why would we ultimately give people the opportunity to cause themselves further health problems years down the line by legalising it and making it readily available?
Chamone'mf - I know you aren't daft at all. You always seem reasoned and well educated. Except when it comes to cannabis.

There is nothing wrong with that. Let's be honest, where does everyone get their info from regarding cannabis? It's the papers isn't it for pretty much everyone.

The papers love a story which makes people hate. That Baby P father yesterday - he got £75,000 in damages and the judge said that the tabloids had just completely made up a story with the sole intention of making people hate Baby P's father - even though he had actually done nothing wrong (it was actually the step father, his brother, and her mum).

The papers don't care about £75,000 because they sold more papers, because hate, more than anything, sells. Incensing people sells.

In the recent Leveson inquiry the Sun editor proudly stated that his best selling edition in the past 18 months wasn't tittle tattle about celebrities (for which they take a risk on with hacking and libel claims etc), the biggest selling story for the Sun was one about James Bulger's killer. Can you think of any story that incenses more hate from people. Hate really really sells.

Cannabis is a cash cow for the tabloids. It's a constantly negative story which people can read, then nod their heads in agreement and get angry with how bad this "killer" skunk is. It doesn't matter if it's the truth - that's the best bit about cannabis for the tabloids. No-one is going to sue them for printing lies - who would? The dealers?

Why would the tabloids ever want to stop printing negative stories about cannabis? It clearly isn't in their interests whilst they can still milk that cash cow.

The Daily Mail recently won an award from Oxford University for monumental bad reporting of science. The story was regarding cannabis of course. In their overriding aim to push a skewed negative agenda, they misreported the science so badly that the academics didn't think it would be possible to ever beat it for misrepresentation.

I know you are a reasoned man Chamone'mf - take a quick look around the net. If I could get you to look up just one person - just his wiki page - then it would be Dr Lester Grinspoon.

After that my namesake Jack Herer - his whole book is free on line. All the info is there, all scientific, no hocus pocus. It really isn't too much of it, and it really is easy to find.

Use your head - who is telling you the truth? The self interested tabloids or just decent genuine people like Lester Grinspoon?

In reference to your points;

Organised crime syndicates wouldn't continue to be involved. History has shown that time and again. Besides which it's a silly argument. We are currently handing criminals billions, and with it untold power - no question. But we don't want to stop giving them all this power because they might still get involved. What difference does it make then - we may as well legalise and take the risk.

Secondly you are completely right, alcohol and tobacco are a terrible strain on the already over stretched NHS. They are both certified killers with absolutely zero medical purposes. Cannabis isn't though. It's a massive proven benefit for many medical conditions. Statistically, cannabis users also live on average longer than non-users - look it up in Jack Herer's free book online if you don't believe me.

Cannabis when burnt has some of the same nasty carcinogens as tobacco, but no-one has ever got lung cancer from cannabis. Isn't that strange. The reason scientists are convinced that is, is because cannabis has anti-cancer properties - oh yes.

No-one knew cannabis was going to turn out as healthy and beneficial as it has. Everyone is convinced it's a killer from the tabloids. Science is proving it is hugely beneficial. Why are we denying science?

There are no further health problems from cannabis waiting down the line, this isn't ecstasy or methadrone. We know because cannabis has been around for 1000s of years that there is nothing nasty waiting to happen. That's just the truth unfortunately - cannabis is relatively safe and we say that with some certainty because it has been around that long.

It mean that if cannabis were legalised, it's extremely likely that we a drop to our already stretched services not an increase. That's scientific - no hocus pocus.
Over the years in various capacities I have had experience of dealing with users of this drug, both casual and hardcore. I have seen first hand just what a detrimental effect it can have on a persons health from prolonged usage and I'm talking about people who just use cannabis without the add on of alcoholism. I'll accept the argument about alcohol being a bigger problem in terms of it being a cause of bad health/strain on the NHS/ the cause of violence in town centres etc, I'll have all that and agree that it is more of a blight on society than cannabis. But the simple fact remains that it's here to stay and that isn't going to change. You have to accept that there would be huge pit falls surrounding the decriminalisation of cannabis, I posted on here a while ago about actually collecting the tax off cannabis and the issues surrounding illegal sale of it and the cost to customs and excise of investigation and prosecution, would mean the over all tax revenue gained would be greatly reduced.
You have also got to consider the moral implications of such move.
I bet it's not all plain sailing in Holland, they will have unique problems directly associated with the legalisation if cannabis.

It would be a brave government that makes such a move and I'm confident that no matter how good the argument is it's not going to happen in our life time.
[quote][p][bold]Jack Herer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Cha'mone MF[/bold] wrote: Regardless of what you pro weed brigade think of the position of cannabis in society you cannot deny everytime somebody buys it they are contributing towards the funding of organised crime. If you came down off your weed fuelled cloud once in a while and stopped inhaling for a few moments you might realise that even if they did legalise it very little would change. Organised crime syndicates would still continue to be involved in the production and distribution and use the money to fund other areas of criminality. Alcohol and tobacco are here to stay whether you like it or not and yes they are a terrible strain on the already over stretched NHS. So why would we ultimately give people the opportunity to cause themselves further health problems years down the line by legalising it and making it readily available?[/p][/quote]Chamone'mf - I know you aren't daft at all. You always seem reasoned and well educated. Except when it comes to cannabis. There is nothing wrong with that. Let's be honest, where does everyone get their info from regarding cannabis? It's the papers isn't it for pretty much everyone. The papers love a story which makes people hate. That Baby P father yesterday - he got £75,000 in damages and the judge said that the tabloids had just completely made up a story with the sole intention of making people hate Baby P's father - even though he had actually done nothing wrong (it was actually the step father, his brother, and her mum). The papers don't care about £75,000 because they sold more papers, because hate, more than anything, sells. Incensing people sells. In the recent Leveson inquiry the Sun editor proudly stated that his best selling edition in the past 18 months wasn't tittle tattle about celebrities (for which they take a risk on with hacking and libel claims etc), the biggest selling story for the Sun was one about James Bulger's killer. Can you think of any story that incenses more hate from people. Hate really really sells. Cannabis is a cash cow for the tabloids. It's a constantly negative story which people can read, then nod their heads in agreement and get angry with how bad this "killer" skunk is. It doesn't matter if it's the truth - that's the best bit about cannabis for the tabloids. No-one is going to sue them for printing lies - who would? The dealers? Why would the tabloids ever want to stop printing negative stories about cannabis? It clearly isn't in their interests whilst they can still milk that cash cow. The Daily Mail recently won an award from Oxford University for monumental bad reporting of science. The story was regarding cannabis of course. In their overriding aim to push a skewed negative agenda, they misreported the science so badly that the academics didn't think it would be possible to ever beat it for misrepresentation. I know you are a reasoned man Chamone'mf - take a quick look around the net. If I could get you to look up just one person - just his wiki page - then it would be Dr Lester Grinspoon. After that my namesake Jack Herer - his whole book is free on line. All the info is there, all scientific, no hocus pocus. It really isn't too much of it, and it really is easy to find. Use your head - who is telling you the truth? The self interested tabloids or just decent genuine people like Lester Grinspoon? In reference to your points; Organised crime syndicates wouldn't continue to be involved. History has shown that time and again. Besides which it's a silly argument. We are currently handing criminals billions, and with it untold power - no question. But we don't want to stop giving them all this power because they might still get involved. What difference does it make then - we may as well legalise and take the risk. Secondly you are completely right, alcohol and tobacco are a terrible strain on the already over stretched NHS. They are both certified killers with absolutely zero medical purposes. Cannabis isn't though. It's a massive proven benefit for many medical conditions. Statistically, cannabis users also live on average longer than non-users - look it up in Jack Herer's free book online if you don't believe me. Cannabis when burnt has some of the same nasty carcinogens as tobacco, but no-one has ever got lung cancer from cannabis. Isn't that strange. The reason scientists are convinced that is, is because cannabis has anti-cancer properties - oh yes. No-one knew cannabis was going to turn out as healthy and beneficial as it has. Everyone is convinced it's a killer from the tabloids. Science is proving it is hugely beneficial. Why are we denying science? There are no further health problems from cannabis waiting down the line, this isn't ecstasy or methadrone. We know because cannabis has been around for 1000s of years that there is nothing nasty waiting to happen. That's just the truth unfortunately - cannabis is relatively safe and we say that with some certainty because it has been around that long. It mean that if cannabis were legalised, it's extremely likely that we a drop to our already stretched services not an increase. That's scientific - no hocus pocus.[/p][/quote]Over the years in various capacities I have had experience of dealing with users of this drug, both casual and hardcore. I have seen first hand just what a detrimental effect it can have on a persons health from prolonged usage and I'm talking about people who just use cannabis without the add on of alcoholism. I'll accept the argument about alcohol being a bigger problem in terms of it being a cause of bad health/strain on the NHS/ the cause of violence in town centres etc, I'll have all that and agree that it is more of a blight on society than cannabis. But the simple fact remains that it's here to stay and that isn't going to change. You have to accept that there would be huge pit falls surrounding the decriminalisation of cannabis, I posted on here a while ago about actually collecting the tax off cannabis and the issues surrounding illegal sale of it and the cost to customs and excise of investigation and prosecution, would mean the over all tax revenue gained would be greatly reduced. You have also got to consider the moral implications of such move. I bet it's not all plain sailing in Holland, they will have unique problems directly associated with the legalisation if cannabis. It would be a brave government that makes such a move and I'm confident that no matter how good the argument is it's not going to happen in our life time. Cha'mone MF
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree