Cannabis re-classification

Should the Gubment re-classify Cannabis?

  • Yes, Cannabis is a vile drug that wrecks lives

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • No, let the drug addled ********* crack on

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • I couldn't give a rats ARRSE either way

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0
#1
Seeing as how the press is full of this so called 'story' I just thought I'd open it up for debate on here.

You all know that some time ago the gubment re-classified Cannabis from a Class B drug to a Class C. There is now talk of them re-classifying and upgrading Cannabis back to Class B.

Now, given that the Police are under-resourced and have a multitude of other non-enforceable legislation (Fox hunting ban being one that springs to mind) what use is this?

Thoughts?........
 
#2
The govt never reclassify things upwards, just like they never get rid of laws, only bring in new ways if interfering with peoples lives.

But I'm up for it being brought into line and being arrestable again, Ive seen the damage it does when over used.
 
#3
The damage it does when overused is specific, mostly, to the person who uses it. So basically we'll just have jails full of 17 year old stoners who are doing less harm than, for instance, the ones hanging around kicking the shoite out of people.

A pointless reclassification, leave it as it is and let people destroy their own lives if they wish to. We don't need a nanny state to tell us what is good and bad for us.
 
#4
In terms of public health it is quite an important story. Reclassification, if it happens, will make very little difference to casual smokers, however the penalties in terms of cannabis dealing/production would be substantially higher and the theory goes that this may be a deterrent against these activities.

While cannabis use hasn't changed in terms of amount/numbers, what is being used has, with a huge increase in cannabis cultivation, particularly skunk, in this country as opposed to the riskier import of resin. It is felt that re-classification may deter growers.

One of the problems with the move from B to C was that it sent entirely the wrong message out about the dangers of the drug. In no way is it a safe drug. There are known links to schizophrenia (whilst it doesn't directly cause it if you have a predisposition to psychosis you are much (something like 4-8 times) more likely to suffer a psychotic episode), especially with the much more potent skunk varieties.

Most substance misuse workers were dead against the initial classification change. I've never worked with a single heroin addict who didn't start his drug career on cannabis. To reclassify to B again would more accurately reflect the risks that the drug poses. There was even a suggestion this morning that Rizlas should carry a Govt health warning re mental illness and cannabis use.
 
#5
I agree that tougher penalites for the dealers/growers is a good idea, but what really is the point in nicking someone for carrying a couple of spliffs' worth?

The people who will get mostly targeted is youth - the reason being they have to go out to smoke it as their parents most likely won't let them toke around the house. The users of a higher age (20+) who have their own flats/houses can smoke it indoors with very little worry what so ever. There are plenty of things that are bad for us that are perfectly legal and people just (in the most part) use common sense not to get involved. If you want to get involved, the people know the risks.

Things that cause a direct danger to others should certainly be stamped down on, for instance I feel that people caught driving whilst under the influence of cannabis should be more severely prosecuted. But arresting someone for having a sly one down the local playing fields is not going to be at all productive.
 
#6
BT, nicking someone for having a joint didn't happen very much when it was a Cat B previously and don't see that this would happen again. It's much more important in terms of the public health message it sends, ie this isn't a safe drug, and for punishing dealers/growers.
 
#7
psychobabble said:
In terms of public health it is quite an important story. Reclassification, if it happens, will make very little difference to casual smokers, however the penalties in terms of cannabis dealing/production would be substantially higher and the theory goes that this may be a deterrent against these activities.

While cannabis use hasn't changed in terms of amount/numbers, what is being used has, with a huge increase in cannabis cultivation, particularly skunk, in this country as opposed to the riskier import of resin. It is felt that re-classification may deter growers.

One of the problems with the move from B to C was that it sent entirely the wrong message out about the dangers of the drug. In no way is it a safe drug. There are known links to schizophrenia (whilst it doesn't directly cause it if you have a predisposition to psychosis you are much (something like 4-8 times) more likely to suffer a psychotic episode), especially with the much more potent skunk varieties.

Most substance misuse workers were dead against the initial classification change. I've never worked with a single heroin addict who didn't start his drug career on cannabis. To reclassify to B again would more accurately reflect the risks that the drug poses. There was even a suggestion this morning that Rizlas should carry a Govt health warning re mental illness and cannabis use.
My bold, agreed, however is alcohol a safe drug? What about tobacco? Personally I'm in the 'let people decide for themselves' camp as I think that this nanny state government already tells us far too much about what we should & shouldn't do, don't smack your kids, don't smoke inside, etc etc. I'm sick to death of being told what is right or wrong, I think I'm old enough to decide for myself.

I know that salt is bad in large amounts, that I shouldn't smoke, that I probably (definitely) drink too much, but do you know what, it's my fookin body! I know that I should turn my engine off if stuck at a level crossing, that leaving the TV on standby is bad and that if I turn down my heating by 1 degree that I'll use 10% less fuel!

rant over, off for a cig, OUTSIDE!
 
#9
Belt_Twit said:
The damage it does when overused is specific, mostly, to the person who uses it. So basically we'll just have jails full of 17 year old stoners who are doing less harm than, for instance, the ones hanging around kicking the shoite out of people.

A pointless reclassification, leave it as it is and let people destroy their own lives if they wish to. We don't need a nanny state to tell us what is good and bad for us.
Sorry to sh1t on your strawberries but blended cannabis and high THC concentration breeds like so called skunk are borderline hallucinogenic and induce psychosis over time.

Ive been violently attacked by folk off their breasts on 'nabis who were diagnosed as suffering from drug induced psychosis.

A local Mental hospital which I have to visit frequently at work is packed full of 'nabis abusers.

Its not teenage stoners who use it who are the problem, it's also the 50 cent obsessed gangstas who will get violently out of control when sober and flip even worse when out of it, over the merest perceived slight.
 
#10
There are a lot of jobsworth police around this area who are far more concerned about driving around videoing people and arresting/fining them for very minor offenses than they are about clamping down on, say, the huge amounts of vandalism and fighting that goes on in some areas.

As it is they go around trying to find people having a smoke in the quiet and confiscating it along with filling out the plethora of forms that then follows. I do not condone the use of cannabis by any means, I've had friends wreck themselves on it, but they knew the risks. It just concerns me that the priorities in terms of enforcing laws are not at all well set.
 
#11
The more addled waster heroin addicts top themselves, the better. Psychotic habitual hash-heads are another barrel of fluorescent, top-hat wearing monkeys. They're unlikely to OD, just become more and more likely to need the NHS and less and les likely to find gainful employment.

I say shoot the fuckers. And coat dealers in Bisto before chucking them manacled into a pit of starving rats.
 
#12
Sorry, rant not quite over.

Althought it is now illegal to smoke in pubs or public buidlings in this country, all Prisons and bars in the Houses of Parliament are exempt!!! Why is it then that the only people in this country who can smoke indoors are CRIMINALS?
 
#13
hogspawn said:
Belt_Twit said:
The damage it does when overused is specific, mostly, to the person who uses it. So basically we'll just have jails full of 17 year old stoners who are doing less harm than, for instance, the ones hanging around kicking the shoite out of people.

A pointless reclassification, leave it as it is and let people destroy their own lives if they wish to. We don't need a nanny state to tell us what is good and bad for us.
Sorry to sh1t on your strawberries but blended cannabis and high THC concentration breeds like so called skunk are borderline hallucinogenic and induce psychosis over time.

Ive been violently attacked by folk off their breasts on 'nabis who were diagnosed as suffering from drug induced psychosis.

A local Mental hospital which I have to visit frequently at work is packed full of 'nabis abusers.

Its not teenage stoners who use it who are the problem, it's also the 50 cent obsessed gangstas who will get violently out of control when sober and flip even worse when out of it, over the merest perceived slight.
Sorry mate but I've not once in my life seen someone get violent after smoking a joint (and I know plenty who do smoke it, being in an area where it's quite popular). As opposed to the hundreds of fights I've seen down the local after a few too many beers, or the cases in the news of teenage gangs off their tits on cheap cider kicking someone to death.

A very strong cannabis hybrid with a bucket load of THC is ENTIRELY different to a bit of weed that the everyday stoner will buy. Ever heard of Herbal High? Salvia? Standard strength lung fulls of that stuff gives hallucinations pretty much guaranteed, though it is perfectly legal to buy and sell.
 
#14
whosthedaddy said:
Sorry, rant not quite over.

Althought it is now illegal to smoke in pubs or public buidlings in this country, all Prisons and bars in the Houses of Parliament are exempt!!! Why is it then that the only people in this country who can smoke indoors are CRIMINALS?
Completely irrelevant to this subject, you seem to be trying to get people riled up...
 
#15
Can't see this being any more of a priority now for the police than it was in the past. In my experience of in patient mental health work the vast majority of young men with psychotic illnesses smoke cannabis (and are diagnosed initially with drug induced psychosis, a substantial portion go on to develop full blown schizophrenia), with the resultant chaos that this causes for themselves and others.
 
#16
As someone in the early twenties age group who has used canabis/weed etc in the past I don't see the point in re-classifying it. I tried it when I was young but as I got older and got a job and my own place it didn't become an issue and I stopped. Its a social drug to most who use it and its more fun to meet mates down the pub than in someones house.

At the same time I've seen ex-mates who use it constantly. They're ex-mates because they've not moved on and are acting like 17 year olds with no job and I've got no time for it.

Would I smoke a joint now - no. No point. Do I mind someone else doing it. Nope, please themselves. Don't criminilise someone for being stupid.
 
#17
Belt, it's my subject, I posted it!.....

Besides, I think it does have a place. The point I was trying to make is that we are constantly dictated to by a Government that thinks we all need to have our hands held, I say let people decide for themselves, seeing as how MP's can decide for themselves if they to smoke in the own 'pubs' when to be fair they should have extended the ban in line with what Joe public now has to put up with!
 
#18
Belt_Twit said:
hogspawn said:
Belt_Twit said:
The damage it does when overused is specific, mostly, to the person who uses it. So basically we'll just have jails full of 17 year old stoners who are doing less harm than, for instance, the ones hanging around kicking the shoite out of people.

A pointless reclassification, leave it as it is and let people destroy their own lives if they wish to. We don't need a nanny state to tell us what is good and bad for us.
Sorry to sh1t on your strawberries but blended cannabis and high THC concentration breeds like so called skunk are borderline hallucinogenic and induce psychosis over time.

Ive been violently attacked by folk off their breasts on 'nabis who were diagnosed as suffering from drug induced psychosis.

A local Mental hospital which I have to visit frequently at work is packed full of 'nabis abusers.

Its not teenage stoners who use it who are the problem, it's also the 50 cent obsessed gangstas who will get violently out of control when sober and flip even worse when out of it, over the merest perceived slight.
Sorry mate but I've not once in my life seen someone get violent after smoking a joint (and I know plenty who do smoke it, being in an area where it's quite popular). As opposed to the hundreds of fights I've seen down the local after a few too many beers, or the cases in the news of teenage gangs off their tits on cheap cider kicking someone to death.

A very strong cannabis hybrid with a bucket load of THC is ENTIRELY different to a bit of weed that the everyday stoner will buy. Ever heard of Herbal High? Salvia? Standard strength lung fulls of that stuff gives hallucinations pretty much guaranteed, though it is perfectly legal to buy and sell.
My bold, I've seen plenty on inpatient wards and so will have all mental health professionals/police/ambulance staff etc. One of the problems is that skunk usage has increased hugely over the last few years and there isn't that much 'bit of weed' about now in comparison.
 
#19
Belt_Twit said:
There are a lot of jobsworth police around this area who are far more concerned about driving around videoing people and arresting/fining them for very minor offenses than they are about clamping down on, say, the huge amounts of vandalism and fighting that goes on in some areas.

As it is they go around trying to find people having a smoke in the quiet and confiscating it along with filling out the plethora of forms that then follows. I do not condone the use of cannabis by any means, I've had friends wreck themselves on it, but they knew the risks. It just concerns me that the priorities in terms of enforcing laws are not at all well set.
Well, if someone's smoking it and not kicking off at all then how would the police know? But, having been called to a woman who's grandson had just beaten her up cos she wouldnt give him any cash and he was high on super strength cannabis, well that's a different BV of trout isnt it.

So my belief is cannabis shouldnt be a class C drug.

If the govt want to legalise it and regulate it's strenght/content then that's up to them, but do you think that'll happen?
 
#20
whosthedaddy said:
Belt, it's my subject, I posted it!.....

Besides, I think it does have a place. The point I was trying to make is that we are constantly dictated to by a Government that thinks we all need to have our hands held, I say let people decide for themselves, seeing as how MP's can decide for themselves if they to smoke in the own 'pubs' when to be fair they should have extended the ban in line with what Joe public now has to put up with!
Well done, medal's in the post for posting a discussion, but the smoking law debate has been done to death and in a topic entitled 'Cannabis re-flassification' getting people to chat about a subject that has NOTHING to do with it is not the done thing.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top