) as I'm a poor swimmer. She was a great swimmer. Someone else trying to tell me about how safe these things are is never going to change my personal experience of them. 
) then we can. With the best intentions. And with respect and dare I say it, love. 
I do not agree with people thinking they are above the law and when you break the law it implies just that to me.
I can understand being young and experimenting particularly when peer pressure is rife, but as an adult to willing break the law time and time again, with respect to using drugs.. I have a problem with that
But what is your issue? Is it that they are breaking the law and hence you feel all laws no matter what they say are our moral guide OR do you have an issue with drug use itself whether it is legal or not?
And hence when you are in countries where drug use is not illegal you are fine with it. Or when you are in countries where the law is harsh and immoral you are fine with that?
See that I cannot comment on as I have grew up in this country and thus have been influenced accordingly by this countries laws and noone elses. how could i possibly comment on that? If you are referring to me perhaps moving - would I still have a problem? - then yes I would because as I said I have grown up in this country and cannabis is illegal here.
I dont think all laws are a moral guide but the laws of a country should be adhered to otherwise where do you draw the line with what is acceptable? Like I said on another thread, If i came on here and stated id been drinking and driving but not hurt anyone and because noone was hurt I intended to do it again - would that be ok? Just because I *think* its ok, regardless of the risks involved? If you are under the influence of drugs anything can happen - you can't control how your body accepts a drug or reacts to it. Same as someone who has drank for years can't say for sure how they would react on a drink or two
Im exhausted tonight so excuse me if I am babbling but hope you get my point..
This is the major problem. People keep comparing pot to alcohol and its incomparable. Pot doesn't make people get into fights or impede motor skills or make you inclined to make decisions which you would not have made if you were not high except perhaps eat too many cookies.
As for being conditioned by the laws of your own country; that's my point. You can't say that it's theoretically okay for a person born in a particular country to not question those laws without saying they have given up the responsibility of their own moral compass. We should be better than that. Depending on which country you come from or what time whether the law be enslaving people, killing homosexuals, stoning people or indeed putting responsible recreational pot users to jail for doing something which doesn't harm people.
As for drink driving, it's HIGHLY dangerous not only to the people doing it but to others and the statistics prove it. SO the crux of the issue is 1. Do we say ALL drugs are illegal no matter how dangerous or the effects? 2. If not HOW do we define which drugs are reasonably safe enough to be legal? and 3. WHY is anything legal or illegal. 4. How effective is prohibition when the drug involved is already used by millions of people with no danger or detriment to themselves or society.
Insanity can be triggered by all sorts of things. People think listening to certain types of music can lead to teenagers killing themselves or other people. We can't ban all music. Or indeed any particular type of music.
If we are going to say ALL drugs are illegal then we surely add the caveat of medical use and there cannabis still has MANY valid medical uses with barely no side effects (besides an increase in appetite). So then why do people sneer when people are prescribed cannabis when they're not sneering at people being given morphine which is far more potent and dangerous a drug?
I would love to hear a cohesive argument.
they can do those things.
I never said you shouldnt question the law I said you shouldnt break it. theres a big difference there.
I dont think you can say that cannabis does not does this that and the other when you do not know anything like that for certainty.
I think a big problem with cannabis users is that they assume everyone will react the same, they generalise based on their own experience. Cannabis can impede motor skills, it can slow you're reflexes and make you less aware. those are facts
Its not true that it doesn't harm people and people affected adversely by cannabis, be it by the addiction itself or something that happened as a result of direct use, will find that sweeping comment offensive.
I never said you shouldnt question the law I said you shouldnt break it. theres a big difference there.
I dont think you can say that cannabis does not does this that and the other when you do not know anything like that for certainty.
I think a big problem with cannabis users is that they assume everyone will react the same, they generalise based on their own experience. Cannabis can impede motor skills, it can slow you're reflexes and make you less aware. those are facts
Its not true that it doesn't harm people and people affected adversely by cannabis, be it by the addiction itself or something that happened as a result of direct use, will find that sweeping comment offensive.
It's not about personal experience. It's about documented use and scientific evaluation. Do you think David Nutt and his fellow scientists were just saying that certain drugs were less addictive and less harmful because they themselves were all users?
As for people finding things offensive, people get offended at all sorts of things, so long as you're being reasonable and honest and not bigoted and so long as you're willing to explain yourself, do you worry about offending people? Because I don't.
Poppy - I take umbrage with one of your points: Crick wouldn't have discovered the DNA held with Rosalind Franklin not LSD! She after all did all the work and got no recognition for it.
Blackberry - I think Schizophrenia is one those mental health diagnoses that are classically based on symptoms and not cause. I think as causes were better understood the illness will get broken down but I agree that by and large people are born with it. There is certainly argument though that cannabis can trigger serious mental conditions.
Faerie - thanks for your post and
Completely agree with this. I'll use alcohol as an example here because it is the most common - lots of people drink alcohol and whilst there are different types of 'drunk', happy, chatty, aggressive, horny, violent etc, a certain amount of those people become alcoholics. I think the same can be said about most drugs, legal or illegal.
It was only when I finally left and then could see it wasn't helping me as I was getting depressed when I smoked it that I stopped. I was fine smoking when I was in a good place ie before I met my ex, but when I was fragile I found it exacerbated those issues.
I never said you shouldnt question the law I said you shouldnt break it. theres a big difference there.
I dont think you can say that cannabis does not does this that and the other when you do not know anything like that for certainty.
I think a big problem with cannabis users is that they assume everyone will react the same, they generalise based on their own experience. Cannabis can impede motor skills, it can slow you're reflexes and make you less aware. those are facts
Its not true that it doesn't harm people and people affected adversely by cannabis, be it by the addiction itself or something that happened as a result of direct use, will find that sweeping comment offensive.
It's not about personal experience. It's about documented use and scientific evaluation. Do you think David Nutt and his fellow scientists were just saying that certain drugs were less addictive and less harmful because they themselves were all users?
As for people finding things offensive, people get offended at all sorts of things, so long as you're being reasonable and honest and not bigoted and so long as you're willing to explain yourself, do you worry about offending people? Because I don't.
Then why is it illegal? why was it moved from a class C to a class B drug?
You seemed to be dismissive of any negatives.. perhaps because you're bias?
And wasn't David Nutt the one who claimed lsd was less dangerous than alcohol??
I never said you shouldnt question the law I said you shouldnt break it. theres a big difference there.
I dont think you can say that cannabis does not does this that and the other when you do not know anything like that for certainty.
I think a big problem with cannabis users is that they assume everyone will react the same, they generalise based on their own experience. Cannabis can impede motor skills, it can slow you're reflexes and make you less aware. those are facts
Its not true that it doesn't harm people and people affected adversely by cannabis, be it by the addiction itself or something that happened as a result of direct use, will find that sweeping comment offensive.
It's not about personal experience. It's about documented use and scientific evaluation. Do you think David Nutt and his fellow scientists were just saying that certain drugs were less addictive and less harmful because they themselves were all users?
As for people finding things offensive, people get offended at all sorts of things, so long as you're being reasonable and honest and not bigoted and so long as you're willing to explain yourself, do you worry about offending people? Because I don't.
Then why is it illegal? why was it moved from a class C to a class B drug?
You seemed to be dismissive of any negatives.. perhaps because you're bias?
And wasn't David Nutt the one who claimed lsd was less dangerous than alcohol??
I don't know if you followed the news during that time.
The government hired a bunch of scientists to asses drugs policy.
The scientists did the work and came back saying, "well most drugs are safer than alcohol" or something along those lines. Cannabis was deemed by the specialist scientists hired by the government to be very harmless.
So they went back to the government and told them this.
The government thought "no, no that will never do no one will vote for us if we downgrade cannabis when public pressure wants us to do the opposite" so they fired him and his colleagues were in uproar and some of them resigned because you can't go around firing scientists because they don't come up with the results you want them to come up with.
And you ask a crucial question. Why was it upgraded back to a b class? Why? Do you know why? Or are you making assumptions?
And I'm not biased for a laugh. I also think most nanny state antics need to stop. I'm not into small government as I believe in welfare but apart from that I am a libertarian. Don't give me laws about my morality. Don't tell me how to raise my kids, what to do with my body and what to consume. Educate me, sure! But don't make laws criminalising people when they are not a danger to society, putting a huge financial burden on the system and filling up the prisons with people who are harmless.
Are you biased? Hmmmm.....
As for LSD being less harmful than alcohol. LSD was originally used as a drug by psychologists. It was outlawed a good 13 years after it became a party drug. It isn't addictive and very rarely it does cause people to be a bit nuts. It does no lasting physical damage to your body. Alcohol is very addictive (compared to LSD) and causing people to be violent OFTEN. It also kills your liver.
SO if it sounds silly its maybe because you haven't listened to what he had to say and what he was testing. I go through life hearing people's biased views about muslims when they've never met any socially, people have biased views about homosexuals when they don't know any, and people have biased views about drug takers when they don't know any.
They all tell me one off stories but I sit and wonder if they have large social circles at all or if they're willing to think outside of their small world view at all?
I never said you shouldnt question the law I said you shouldnt break it. theres a big difference there.
I dont think you can say that cannabis does not does this that and the other when you do not know anything like that for certainty.
I think a big problem with cannabis users is that they assume everyone will react the same, they generalise based on their own experience. Cannabis can impede motor skills, it can slow you're reflexes and make you less aware. those are facts
Its not true that it doesn't harm people and people affected adversely by cannabis, be it by the addiction itself or something that happened as a result of direct use, will find that sweeping comment offensive.
It's not about personal experience. It's about documented use and scientific evaluation. Do you think David Nutt and his fellow scientists were just saying that certain drugs were less addictive and less harmful because they themselves were all users?
As for people finding things offensive, people get offended at all sorts of things, so long as you're being reasonable and honest and not bigoted and so long as you're willing to explain yourself, do you worry about offending people? Because I don't.
Then why is it illegal? why was it moved from a class C to a class B drug?
You seemed to be dismissive of any negatives.. perhaps because you're bias?
And wasn't David Nutt the one who claimed lsd was less dangerous than alcohol??
I don't know if you followed the news during that time.
The government hired a bunch of scientists to asses drugs policy.
The scientists did the work and came back saying, "well most drugs are safer than alcohol" or something along those lines. Cannabis was deemed by the specialist scientists hired by the government to be very harmless.
So they went back to the government and told them this.
The government thought "no, no that will never do no one will vote for us if we downgrade cannabis when public pressure wants us to do the opposite" so they fired him and his colleagues were in uproar and some of them resigned because you can't go around firing scientists because they don't come up with the results you want them to come up with.
And you ask a crucial question. Why was it upgraded back to a b class? Why? Do you know why? Or are you making assumptions?
And I'm not biased for a laugh. I also think most nanny state antics need to stop. I'm not into small government as I believe in welfare but apart from that I am a libertarian. Don't give me laws about my morality. Don't tell me how to raise my kids, what to do with my body and what to consume. Educate me, sure! But don't make laws criminalising people when they are not a danger to society, putting a huge financial burden on the system and filling up the prisons with people who are harmless.
Are you biased? Hmmmm.....
As for LSD being less harmful than alcohol. LSD was originally used as a drug by psychologists. It was outlawed a good 13 years after it became a party drug. It isn't addictive and very rarely it does cause people to be a bit nuts. It does no lasting physical damage to your body. Alcohol is very addictive (compared to LSD) and causing people to be violent OFTEN. It also kills your liver.
SO if it sounds silly its maybe because you haven't listened to what he had to say and what he was testing. I go through life hearing people's biased views about muslims when they've never met any socially, people have biased views about homosexuals when they don't know any, and people have biased views about drug takers when they don't know any.
They all tell me one off stories but I sit and wonder if they have large social circles at all or if they're willing to think outside of their small world view at all?
Im almost inclined to ignore this post completely - its that patronising.
I dont think you're anymore qualified than me to pass comment on the use of cannabis so would appreciate a little respect that my opinion is my opinion and I am entitled to it. As a cannabis user you are of course biased
I never made any comments on drug users themselves, you seem to be putting words in my mouth. Assuming I didnt 'follow' the news because I did not come to the same conclusions as you is insulting. I would like to ask what makes your opinion or stance anymore credible or 'right' than mine? I am not a child I can think for myself thank you very much.
David Nutt himself said cannabis was harmful and did not fail to recognise that it is more harmful in earlier years of use (teen years as opposed to adulthood) so id like to know how you came to conclusion that it is not harmful? Based on your own experiences? very biased and unreliable.
Are you willing to think outside of your small world view at all, as you put it?Cannabis is harmful. FACT. thats not just my opinion that is the conclusion of many a scientist that has researched it. It is ILLEGAL in the UK. FACT. Therefore it should not be used. Again that is not my opinion, that is the law.
No one had a go at the poster insulting another posters husband because he smoked pot earlier. But me trying to get at some answers whilst being open to discuss mine all along with thought and honesty and interact. That's obviously very offensive. I never said you shouldnt question the law I said you shouldnt break it. theres a big difference there.
I dont think you can say that cannabis does not does this that and the other when you do not know anything like that for certainty.
I think a big problem with cannabis users is that they assume everyone will react the same, they generalise based on their own experience. Cannabis can impede motor skills, it can slow you're reflexes and make you less aware. those are facts
Its not true that it doesn't harm people and people affected adversely by cannabis, be it by the addiction itself or something that happened as a result of direct use, will find that sweeping comment offensive.
It's not about personal experience. It's about documented use and scientific evaluation. Do you think David Nutt and his fellow scientists were just saying that certain drugs were less addictive and less harmful because they themselves were all users?
As for people finding things offensive, people get offended at all sorts of things, so long as you're being reasonable and honest and not bigoted and so long as you're willing to explain yourself, do you worry about offending people? Because I don't.
Then why is it illegal? why was it moved from a class C to a class B drug?
You seemed to be dismissive of any negatives.. perhaps because you're bias?
And wasn't David Nutt the one who claimed lsd was less dangerous than alcohol??
I don't know if you followed the news during that time.
The government hired a bunch of scientists to asses drugs policy.
The scientists did the work and came back saying, "well most drugs are safer than alcohol" or something along those lines. Cannabis was deemed by the specialist scientists hired by the government to be very harmless.
So they went back to the government and told them this.
The government thought "no, no that will never do no one will vote for us if we downgrade cannabis when public pressure wants us to do the opposite" so they fired him and his colleagues were in uproar and some of them resigned because you can't go around firing scientists because they don't come up with the results you want them to come up with.
And you ask a crucial question. Why was it upgraded back to a b class? Why? Do you know why? Or are you making assumptions?
And I'm not biased for a laugh. I also think most nanny state antics need to stop. I'm not into small government as I believe in welfare but apart from that I am a libertarian. Don't give me laws about my morality. Don't tell me how to raise my kids, what to do with my body and what to consume. Educate me, sure! But don't make laws criminalising people when they are not a danger to society, putting a huge financial burden on the system and filling up the prisons with people who are harmless.
Are you biased? Hmmmm.....
As for LSD being less harmful than alcohol. LSD was originally used as a drug by psychologists. It was outlawed a good 13 years after it became a party drug. It isn't addictive and very rarely it does cause people to be a bit nuts. It does no lasting physical damage to your body. Alcohol is very addictive (compared to LSD) and causing people to be violent OFTEN. It also kills your liver.
SO if it sounds silly its maybe because you haven't listened to what he had to say and what he was testing. I go through life hearing people's biased views about muslims when they've never met any socially, people have biased views about homosexuals when they don't know any, and people have biased views about drug takers when they don't know any.
They all tell me one off stories but I sit and wonder if they have large social circles at all or if they're willing to think outside of their small world view at all?
Im almost inclined to ignore this post completely - its that patronising.
I dont think you're anymore qualified than me to pass comment on the use of cannabis so would appreciate a little respect that my opinion is my opinion and I am entitled to it. As a cannabis user you are of course biased
I never made any comments on drug users themselves, you seem to be putting words in my mouth. Assuming I didnt 'follow' the news because I did not come to the same conclusions as you is insulting. I would like to ask what makes your opinion or stance anymore credible or 'right' than mine? I am not a child I can think for myself thank you very much.
David Nutt himself said cannabis was harmful and did not fail to recognise that it is more harmful in earlier years of use (teen years as opposed to adulthood) so id like to know how you came to conclusion that it is not harmful? Based on your own experiences? very biased and unreliable.
Are you willing to think outside of your small world view at all, as you put it?Cannabis is harmful. FACT. thats not just my opinion that is the conclusion of many a scientist that has researched it. It is ILLEGAL in the UK. FACT. Therefore it should not be used. Again that is not my opinion, that is the law.
SO you're going to avoid my questions because I wrongly assumed you hadn't followed the news because you implied that David Nutt wasn't a credible scientist because of a comment regarding LSD and alcohol?
Of course you're entitled to your opinion but surely I'm entitled to ask you why you have it. This is a debate not a "lets state our opinions" thread. I'm sorry if you thought he tone of my post was patronising. It wasn't meant to be and I didn't mean for you to get so defensive. I was attempting to progress the debate.
but ending the debate on "you are biased and my opinion is my opinion and the law is the law" is in my opinion isn't very sportsmanlike.
My small world view isn't a small world view at all. I've questioned things and looked into all angles. Plus I've had first hand experience. I have people close to me who work in the mental health services. I am not saying that cannabis ONLY has positives. I am questioning the effectiveness and validity of the law. I also posed a few interesting questions about the law and drugs earlier but you don't seem to asnwer my quiestion just repeat yours and threat that people (including yourself) will take offence at my voicing my opinion.
