Forums > Social Discussion > Legalize Cannabis Yes/No

Posted: 4th Sep 2005
Just something to clarify.

What does one mean by legalise?
Having just finished the topic of drug offences in Law, we had this little debate in one lecture.
One thing to keep in mind is that all talks of legalising cannibis is simply about legalising possession for personal use. If it was to happen (which it has in SA and one other state of Australia) it means that its still illegal to traffik it, sell it and grow it for the purpose of selling it. All that changes is that you dont get charged for possion or use of small quantities. Which makes sense. Its supposed to reflect growing social acceptace of the use of Marajuana. (very simialr to the way homosexuality used to be illegal..and only through social acceptance did the law change) which begins a whole new debate of whether law reflects societies morals of the time.
In relation to other srugs..my point in the dabate is whats the point of clogging up the court system with heroin addicts charged with use and or possossion. Its pointless. Their addicts. Making it illegal is not going to deter them..neither is being caught. An addict wouldnt care. Make it still illegal to get...just not illegal to use. Anyway...thats my ramble. Sorry if anyone said all that already. i kinda just kinda skimmed thru the last page.

Burn like a good bonfire.

Posted: 4th Sep 2005
hummm, is this the same mint sauce that passed me a joint at sheffield???? I think it is, mind you, it was a terrible joint....

leaglise growing thats what I say, stops the organised drug trade, which is just profits for mafia, and stops the goverment taxing it too.

T

This is a post by tom, all spelling is deleberate
-><- Kallisti

Posted: 4th Sep 2005
I always used to believe that weed should be legalised. What harm can it do? Laughing your arse of for the evening etc etc. I always used to smoke once in a blue moon, and the evenings i did were marvellous.



I my fisrt year of college weed became more avaliable, having our own dealer on campus, who specialised in 10bags (£10 bags much more affordable than an 8th). It was hilarious, smoking everynight, rolling up so often they were like cigarettes.

The mornings became more difficult, and before i knew it i was missing the mornings of college. The mornings became 'after lunch', and my grades were slipping. But it didnt matter, i was having a great time.



As the nights went by, there was a lot less hilarity. The stomach-hurting giggles became chuckles, and then grunts of paranoia. I started to believe that i needed that spliff when i woke up at lunch time, otherwise i couldnt face the day. My friends werent smoking as much as me (an 8th every three days), and didnt find what i was doing funny in the slightest. my relationships with them began to fail because of my attitude, creating more paranoia, driving me to become so wasted i didnt 'feel' anymore.



I was cutting myself off from reality, college and my ever decreasing bank balance. I didnt want to believe that weed was the cause of how i was feeling. So i continued to smoke and dellude myself.



Three months of habitual smoking had made me 1/2 stone lighter (dont be fooled you continually get the munchies, i had no apettite), my complexion spotty and white, £400 poorer, scraping passes in college, lonely and severely paranoid.



For those reasons weed should not be made illegal. I know that this wont happen to everyone, but if weed becomes more accessable to all, them surely more people can dellude themselves that its all fun, when its really messing them up big time. I think the damage is believingyour ok, when your really not. I know it wont change the people that smoke it now anyway, but theres plenty of people who have addictive personalities out there-making weed legal will mean more people try it.



Its that first puff.......once you take that first daily puff you know you wont be doing anything for the rest of the day. Employment........?pah!!!!

You'll find me on the dance floor

Posted: 4th Sep 2005

Written by: Arty Farty

---

I know it wont change the people that smoke it now anyway, but theres plenty of people who have addictive personalities out there-making weed legal will mean more people try it.

Its that first puff.......once you take that first daily puff you know you wont be doing anything for the rest of the day. Employment........?pah!!!!

---

I think making it legal wouldn't make a difference with the addictive personality types, as unfortunately, these people with addictive personalities are usually around people who haev access to weed & harder drugs so end up down that road anyway,
I agree with the first daily puff attitude - been there & it sux
All comes down to moderation

Are you up for it?
;)

Posted: 5th Sep 2005
There is a really big problem in certain states in the US that have legalized marijuana for medical purposes. It is legal at state level if you have a prescription. But is still illegal on a Federal level. So people with cancer or MS go to their doctor and get a prescription for pot, and then the feds come in and arrest them.

I feel ALL drugs should be legal for consenting adults. And they should all have honest, detailed, labels with warnings. If people can chose to smoke cigs and get lung cancer, drink gin until their liver rots out, or take Vioxx and die. Then why not let them shoot up heroin too?

You can’t stop drug use! So I say, take all that man power and money you are using to stop recreational drug use and use it to educate people on addictions and to stop the guy who mugs people for his next fix. Legal or illegal he is gonna be out there.

Otherwise, make it all illegal. Shut down Merck, Pfizer, Big Tobacco, Anheuser bush, all poppy fields, no more aspirin, and stop coffee and tea from coming over the border too. And while you’re at it, figure out a way to stop me from releasing serotonin and endorphins when I play with my balls. I love contact juggling.

I ain't been around the world, but I've been around the block. I ain't seen everything, but I've seen enough to talk. I'm not a prophet, I'm not the 2nd comming of christ. I'm just a mason with a will to build and a little advice.

Posted: 5th Sep 2005
I don't recon it should be "legalised" I have to admit I agree with el ginger 1 (always a first ) The amount I now smoke has reduced dramatically to almost to the point of not smoking, But it is nice to have the odd smoke. the biggest issue with smoking is the fact everyone thinks of it as smoking.... don't forget people it can be eaten as well which reduces the negative health aspects somewhat.
I feel one of the biggest reasons that cannabis is illegal is the lack of an instant, non-invasive roadside test. The fact you can get stoned out your box then drive DOES have grounded fears. I've done it and admit don't want to do it again as I have had a scary momentor two finding myself half asleep at the wheel or my reacvtions being a week or so behind the norm. But lets be fair, the main reason it's not legal is because the government would not be able to tax the whole market. made legal you would still get smuggling and cheaper hash. too tired to point out more but will when I feel a bit better

A couple of balls short of a full cascade... or maybe a few cards short of a deck... we'll see how this all fans out.

Posted: 5th Sep 2005
Whether legal or not, it's on the driver's conscience when they hit and kill someone, or cause a road accident, or simply crash and die. Those who drive intoxicated can blame it all they want on their altered state, but the bottom line is that they drove knowing that they'd be smoking, or knowing they'd smoked. No excuses.

So could somebody outline the difference between decriminalisation and legalisation??

Posted: 5th Sep 2005
i voted no. i do smoke it occaissionally (mainly in the hols) but i ive seen it mess a lot of people up mentally. one of my really good friends now has schitzophenia (sp?), which blame partly on him smoking so much over the past year. Another friend who deals has been properly beaten up due to it. Although I can see the benefits of legalisation (medical and reduced crime rate possibly), I do think this would encourage over-use, resulting in lots of messy messed up people. I dont see why it isnt on presciption tho. Although it does cause harm so do so so many drugs that are on prescription, so whats wrong with it?

Livin' on dreams and custard creams

Posted: 5th Sep 2005
People who require it by prescription are usually those who are in a hell of a lot of pain anyway, so any adverse side effects would probably be lost on them. If i had a brain tumour then i would most definitely be smoking weed, and anyone who stood in my way would be obstructing my right to make my life as painless as possible.

Most of the time when you get caught by the polizei it's just a slap on the wrist anyway. But if you've got a load bagged up and ready to sell then they'll make life very difficult.......although from my experience the police are notoriously rubbish at searching bags and possessions.

Posted: 5th Sep 2005
I agree with your statement about driving lizzy, which is why I don't smoke and drive, but the point is the police being able to prosecute on the road-side. People drink drive all the time (I do NOT approve) but the possibilty of roadside testing reduces the amount of people I'm sure. The legalisation of cannabis would mean drivers with reduced capability on the road with little risk of prosecution.

A couple of balls short of a full cascade... or maybe a few cards short of a deck... we'll see how this all fans out.

Posted: 6th Sep 2005
im not sure what i think on this. i smoked 'hard' fro 8yrs, i flatted with my dealer, and we smoked ALOT, and i mean ALOT! i was addicted, i know there is disagreement about the addictiveness of pot, but having been addicted, i know that it is, if not physically, then pschologically. i think the physical factors are less apparent, when i didnt smoke for a day, i would have no appetite and couldnt sleep, as well as being an absolute . inspite of this i do think it is less harmful than alchohol or smokes. i think there is a correlation between mental illness and cannbis, but alot (but by no means all) of this isnt causation, merely correlation.
it is a gateway drug in some cases b/c of the associations involved with getting it.

legalisation would mean standardization, which would mean a decrease in quality, as the stronger varieties would not appeal to the main stream.
im going to stop here, i can go on and on, but really everyone has there own thoughts on this, there will never be agreement. i will say though, that governments need to decide one way or the other, at the moment most countries dont penalise cannabis enough to deter its use. if they dont want it smoked then make the penalties more severe, otherwise ppl like myself will still smoke it. and for the record, i have been cannabis free for 18months, i still miss it and miss the times i had, but am happier bein free of it, simply b/c it came to rule my life.

hope what i have said makes some sense, since i dotn smoke anymore i drink more, had alot of rum tonight ...maybe too much...oh well

It took a while, but once their numbers dropped from 50 down to 8, the other dwarves started to suspect Hungry.

Posted: 6th Sep 2005

Written by: Mynci

---

The legalisation of cannabis would mean drivers with reduced capability on the road with little risk of prosecution.

---

It is illegal to be under intoxification of drugs and drive. In the UK at least they have started campaigns, similar to the drink drive ones about don't do drugs and drive, mainly on posters.

I'm very sure that if weed was legalised, they would campaign about drugs and driving, otherwise there would be a public uproar.

Live like there is no tomorrow,
dance like nobody is watching
and hula hoop like wiggling will save the world.

“What lies behind us and what lies before us are tiny matters compared to what lies within us.”

Ralph Waldo Emerson

Posted: 6th Sep 2005
true prickly. question: are you allowed to drive whilst taking night nurse (UK cold medicine that causes drowsyness)
It is a legall drug that causes reduced mental capacity, all it has on the pack is if drowsiness occurs do not drive...
(I know you're right but wondered if people thought about the effects of "legal" drugs (not alcohol) and heavy machinery there are warnings but doubt you'd be locked up for it.

A couple of balls short of a full cascade... or maybe a few cards short of a deck... we'll see how this all fans out.

Posted: 7th Sep 2005
I cant remember the name of the first poster, but something said in the first post annoyed the hell out of me. They said dope was bad because it was a mind altering. Implying that altering your mind is wrong? Do you fell the same way about education? Or debate? Is your mind that perfect?

Mynci, you are advised not to operate heavy machinery. I dont think its illegal though. But your Personal Liability clause in your insurance would be null and void.

Personally, i think anyone that drives when they are not safe to, be it drink, drugs, excessive sleepiness, whatever, should be used in a human pinball machine. But thats another debate.

I voted for legalise. I could have voted any which way, there are advantages and disadvantages to each. But the people who voted dont legalise managed to annoy me more.

I smoke a lot. By that i mean, i am stoned daily. I havent gone a day without a spliff since the drought of 2004 *grins*
I usually smoke hash, but smoke weed occasionally, but its harder to get that here, and its not as good as it is anywhere else. I'm not too worried about the health related effects. I used to smoke cigarettes, but ive quit. Not that that makes it okay, but my body is my temple, and i handle the housekeeping. I drink maybe three, four times a year, and yes i do other harder drugs, sometimes weekly, sometimes more, sometimes less. I have smoked dope for over a decade and have no serious plans to stop. I would like to go back to smoking once or twice a week, and maybe quit doing the other drugs.

Ive done and stopped or will stop doing every other drug ive ever come in contact with. Im just that sort of person, i believe i am here to experience life, and would prefer to watch the inside of my eyeballs blossom into colour than watch crappy TV. But marijuana is different. It doesnt affect you as strongly, or as strangely as the other drugs ive used. Im okay if i do have to go without it. I am psychologically addicted, but psychological addictions are things i have broken before, and im confident i would be able to break this one, should i feel the need to. At the moment, the only thing that would make me quit would be finding out i was pregnant. I dont think hash is physically addictive, and i assume anyone who thinks it is has never been truly physically addicted to anything.

I dont agree that marijuana is a gateway drug. Its more readily available, yes. But the type of people who want to do drugs will do them regardless. A lot of people are satisfied with dope, they dont look any further, and stay happy with their minor vices. Others are always on the lookout for the next high, and will find it regardless of where or on what they start. Legalise dope and i do not have to go to dealers houses, nor have them call to mine. Legalise dope, and close off the supposed gateway.

Its legal in Holland, and tolerated in many other parts of the world. They pay taxes on something worthwhile. Their crime rates dont soar, their productivity doesnt plummet.

Ive seen the downsides of it.
Ive been doing a four year course in college for six years. Not because of marijuana itself, just because im happy in the lifestyle ive built around it.
Ive seen someone badly affected by cannabis induced psychosis, and that was strangely terrifying.
Ive been raided by the drug squad after a housemate reported us, luckily all they found was roaches.

But people who dont smoke dope also drop out of college, go crazy, get arrested. [censored] happens.

I am not a bitch.
I am THE bitch.
And Im Miss Bitch to you.

Posted: 7th Sep 2005
personally i think that it should be legalized on the basis that what you do to yourself (harmful or not) is your own business...

Even my multiple personalities hate me!
BLEEEAAAGGHHH!

Posted: 8th Sep 2005
But that leads to the whole issue of passive smoking.

And the fact the NHS (in Britain) has to foot the bill to repair all that damage that is done, basically spending the public's money.

Live like there is no tomorrow,
dance like nobody is watching
and hula hoop like wiggling will save the world.

“What lies behind us and what lies before us are tiny matters compared to what lies within us.”

Ralph Waldo Emerson

Posted: 9th Sep 2005
my personal experiences (and i've try'd many d-ugs) is that everything in moderation and responsibly done cannanabis can be very benificial, in some amounts it can make me sleepy, giggly or very horny. i don't smoke regularly any more but when i do smoke it i do it for the right reasons. say if i'm at a party and i wanna be giggly or philisophicle i know how much to smoke, if i'm with a girl i like and we wanna have some fun together, again i know how much to smoke. when i first started it was about smoking it till you threw up and constantly smoking it, now it's about enjoying the smoke and knowing your limits.



i am not an authority on d-ugs and dont wish to be, these are my own personal views

Posted: 9th Sep 2005
but Pricklyleaf, like i've said, the wages of those doctors working for the NHS are probably paid for by taxes on tobacco and alcohol.

Posted: 9th Sep 2005
But they wouldn't need so many doctors wages, and to spend so much money on drugs to treat cancer caused by smoking, if nobody smoked.

Live like there is no tomorrow,
dance like nobody is watching
and hula hoop like wiggling will save the world.

“What lies behind us and what lies before us are tiny matters compared to what lies within us.”

Ralph Waldo Emerson

Posted: 21st Sep 2005
I don't think quality would go down at all actually. It'd be just like alcohol. You'd have your beer level weed (comercial cigarettes), then your wine level (middies) and then your hard liquor level (headies). Alcohol purity goes all the way to 200 proof... you don't think they would allow weed to be sold similarly?

Even if it didn't, I wouldn't be anywhere near any government grown weed if they legalized it. I'd be home growing it, or buying certified organics at the minimum (I don't trust the government to regulate much of anything... they tend to allow a lot of things that I would rather not deal with, like say pesticides / steroids / antibiotics, etc. in the food industry). Most everyone I know would go this route.

Hey if they want to tax it, be my guest. The availability will drop the price of a bag to pennies on the dollar... It's like saying "No, don't legalize gasoline and drop the price from $40 a gallon to $3 a gallon with taxes!". I might be oversimplifying here, but when I was in Amsterdam prices were 1/2 for supperior quality in the tourist like shops. Price would get better not worse... we're talking simple economics and supply and demand here. Mass production would drop prices dramatically across the board because of market competition.

Of course there will be "drugs and driving" issues as well as any other intoxicant, but at least with the legalization you can set a point of intoxification... if they can find a decent way to test for it, which I doubt they can, but they tend to be pretty smart about that sort of thing when they have to.

I won't get into medical discussions... been there and done that. Let people do what they want to themselves. Of course, there is the China / Japan Opium problems we could discuss about social problems arrising, but that was in large part before people really knew what it would do. Harder drugs like opium, heroine, morphine, etc. should be prescription only. Heck they already are, we just call them Demoral, Oxycontin, etc... or did you not realize what these prescription drugs were really derived from?

Im very much in the treatment camp over the enforcement camp here, obviously. Teach people to have some self control, not to control themselves because you will punish them, and you make better people instead of people who are only controlled by fear... which I might add drugs can do away with pretty easily (fear that is). I suppose self-control too... hmmm... although I feel self-control is better than fear, so Im still sticking to my guns on this one.

I disagree that there will be this huge influx of people suddenly doing drugs and society will go down the tube. To my knowledge the Amsterdam model of decriminalization has worked out ok (arguably), as have others (Switzerland has needle park or whatever doesn't it?). In these cases, there were NOT a large influx of people using, actually if I remember right usage rates actually dropped a small amount, but on the whole stayed about the same. I would have thought that people would give up drinking for the less taxing use of marijuana, but these cases show otherwise...

Heck, Alaska legalized marijuana use for a long time (until just recently when some stupid kid took a quarter ounce to school). The oil pipeline workers were having a hard time getting to work when they spent all night drinking... smoking allowed them to at least not be hung over and such.

==============

The best argument I've really heard is the non-motivational qualities of marijuana (putting aside all other drugs for now). It does tend to make one very lazy... which is why I no longer smoke except on certain occasions, just like my drinking habits. I grew some self-control. Im sorry others have a problem with that, it's really unfortunate. But then that's why I'm in the treatment camp, and not the punishment camp. I'd rather teach than punish them for something they don't know how to do.

Posted: 21st Sep 2005
Yes, but far more research needs to be done on its long-term effects on mental health, its bringing out of previously dormant mental illnesses etc... It's a less harmful drug than alcohol or nicotine, but when someone is affected by it the effects can be extremely acute and damaging, unlike drink and smoking cigarettes.



I'm all for different strengths being more readily available, as well. One of the biggest problems with Cannabis is that it's got far, far stronger than it used to be in the 60s, say, thus increasing the risks of it bringing on psychosis. If I could buy weaker stuff for cheaper I would, but everyone around here just wants to get out of their skull the whole time as opposed to a nice chill. I know I can just roll using less, but it's not really the same as a nice, steady, mellow smoke.



[/rant]

What a wonderful miracle if only we could look through each other's eyes for an instant.
Thoreau

Posted: 21st Sep 2005
There are indeed several studies to the effect that some mental illness is corelated with marijuana use. I've gone all through that, and reject the findings of CAUSATION for many reasons... been there done that and all that... Im sure it can have a bigger effect on the biopsycho properties of the person than say alcohol, heck I might even be generous and say the prolonged increased neurotransmitters released by smoking can cause longterm brain adaptation that will develop into a physical disability in the brain (Im taking biopsych right now, so Im a bit more open to some of these ideas now). However, I still don't think that it causes the development of these things when used moderatly... just like smoking cigarettes moderately won't cause cancer. Just like drinking occasionally won't cause liver failure. It just effects a different part of the anatomy.

But more importantly, I don't see this as a reason to not allow people to do as they wish with their own body. Do the research, put out warnings, etc. as I'm sure the Surgeon General and whatever your equivelant across the pond is, would do. But in the end, the choice of what is acceptable risk should be made by the individual and not legislature.

In terms of social effects, again, people can be as big of a pissant as they want. They want to blame it on drug use, that's their problem. They need to take responsibility for their life and their actions. Drugs are NOT an excuse to be a swaggering prick. If you think they are, you shouldn't use them. I also don't agree with "temporary insanity" pleas by criminal drug users, EXCEPT for in extreme cases, let's say first time users, maybe other strictly defined occasions. If you take something not knowing what it will do to, you should be responsible enough to put yourself in the right environment prior to that. Granted, there can be some leaniency in that area. If you KNOW what it will do to you, you have no excuse.

That was a rant? You can do better than that, come on...

Posted: 21st Sep 2005
You know I can! Remember free will?! But I won't this time, I don't have feelings that are as strong or an argument which is as... considered Just speaking from personal experience, I've found that in friends who are particulary genetically succeptible to mental health issues find that those issues arise, through pure psychosomatic paranoia or otherwise, when they smoke. I think if you're going to smoke something strong, you need to be a fairly stable person to have a consistently OK time with it. I don't know facts or individual studies to do with it, much to my shame, but I do personally believe there is some link which will affect, as you say, inexperienced users who smoke large quantities.



I don't agree with the whole "every drug should be legal" concept of it being your body, and up to you what you do with it. Acid, Ketamine, MDMA, Cocaine (all forms) and Heroin should be illegal (to name some common ones). Those who choose to take them still will, that's the reality, and I'm sure those who make the legislature are fully aware of this. I just don't think people should have ready access to things which could potentially you up that much, because the reality is many people will end up using them without the proper consideration which such a potentially life-changing decision merits. I don't think an appreciation of the dangers of drugs is, in reality, part of "common sense" for a good deal of the population, and certainly not for under-20s. If drugs are made readily available, younger people will get them WHATEVER restrictions are applied to them.

Written by: i8beefy2

---

They need to take responsibility for their life and their actions. Drugs are NOT an excuse to be a swaggering prick. If you think they are, you shouldn't use them.

---

Couldn't agree more. Unfortunately, we both know that's not the reality, and that's my point. Over relaxation of drugs laws are only going to lead to more dickheads being able to get wasted every night. It's defeat, in my opinion. A nation of stoners, whilst it might seem appealing whilst high, would be an extremely dull place in my opinion.

What a wonderful miracle if only we could look through each other's eyes for an instant.
Thoreau

Posted: 21st Sep 2005
Oh, I'm sorry, I suppose the actual term I meant for "all drugs" would have been decriminalization, not legalization. Im not saying these things should not be regulated and used as they should be (heroin / opiate based pain killers are already regulated and dsitributed in pharmecutical pill form...). I'm not one to think hallucinagens have a strong pharmecutical future, but I don't see why having one hit of acid should be considered an attemped manslaughter charge either (As it is in Ohio).

More people would have ready access to it? Perhaps this is true, but I don't think that there will be this huge boom in usage statistics either. If other decriminalized / legalization strategies used in other countries are any indication, that isn't a likely outcome. However, you would see these acts a lot more which might make it seem otherwise (Amsterdam had some trouble with this I think, people just doing it on the street and a few people got up in arms and tried to have it recriminalized because they thought everyone was just turning into stoners. Statistics showed otherwise. People just did it where it could be seen more). Out of sight out of mind and all that...

I am not sure that is the reality of the situation as you say though... I know there will be people who can't control themselves / don't want to. Always will be. Darwinism at its finest. It's one of the reasons Im not so idealistically liberal anymore. Sometimes you just have to take responsibility for your own life or face the consequences. Addiction sucks, but then so do many things in life. Realize your limitations or be eaten by them. Right now we're just fillin gall our prisons with minor drug offenders and its overwhelming the system and making us dump way more money than is necessary into the prison system. Treatment based alternatives would be more effective. It costs something like $30,000 a yr to house someone in prison, and treatment runs cost about $3,000. That's 10x the cost to punish instead of treat. Economically it makes no sense.

And that was a much better rant... thank you

Posted: 21st Sep 2005

Written by: i8beefy2

---

... just like smoking cigarettes moderately won't cause cancer

---

Really?

What constitutes moderate smoking- would 5-a-day be moderate? Roughly speaking, what's the cut off point below which you can guarantee a smoker definitly will not contract cancer caused by their smoking? And, can you point us to some evidence.

"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32


Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!

Posted: 21st Sep 2005
mr 1wheel. I agree 100% but you could smoke 20 a day and NOT get cancer, but it's a slippery slope to risk

A couple of balls short of a full cascade... or maybe a few cards short of a deck... we'll see how this all fans out.

Posted: 21st Sep 2005
It's perhaps a little presumptious Mynci, to be agreeing with me when I didn't actually put forward a point of view



I simply asked for clarification, and substaniation, for the claim that moderate cigarette smoking doesn't cause cancer.



Regarding smoking 20-a-day and not getting cancer, of course it's entirely possible- I'm sure there've been 100-a-day smokers who didn't get cancer. Then again, you could play 20 games of russian roulette and leave alive. None of that in any way supports the claim that moderate smoking does not cause cancer.

"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32


Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!

Posted: 22nd Sep 2005
Oh, yes, there could be quite some misunderstanding as to what I mean there, as what Im talking about is moderated smoking, not a defined "moderate smoker"... I consider moderate use to be, say, social smokers, or those that smoke only on occasion. I am not saying "This number a day" I am saying once or twice a week. Like one or two a week.

Just as when I say moderated marijuana use, I am advocating a view of only a few times a month, lets say. I suppose that my statements really only apply to my own habits, which have taught me to moderate my use to what is healthy for ME. I realize that smoking cigarettes all day has an impact on my breathing, my stamina, etc. and so I limit my use of substances to a level where I experience no negetive health effects. THAT is what I am saying here. Simply put, I know my limits and thus MY use is moderate (for me).

I realize that most people don't stop at a point where their health is not impacted.

I should have clarified. My mistake.

Posted: 22nd Sep 2005
I voted for no to legalisation, but maybe i should of said yes; i'll explain

If by making weed legal they (being the government) would control growing, sles etc probably by selling to multinationals imagine walking into Spar for a twenty deck of malboro joints, silkcut green and so on, these companies would make terrible joints probably laced with all kinds of chemicals like they do with their tobacco.

Would this mean that growing your own and selling it would be illegal as technically it would be black market.

However if they made it legal as in your free to grow it, free to distribute it etc in theory keeping the whole "scene" like it is now but without the police having to bother making arrests, therefore stop wasting their time and concentrate on more serious crimes then, brilliant idea. Obviouslly morporations would catch on and we'd probably wind up with better weed, with a choice between asda smart price weed and harrods gold plated get you stoned in one toke type weed.

However as a smoker for a long time i think the first is the most likely so therefore by keeping it like it is or maybe introducing tolerence as opposed to legalisation. As it stands though i'm happy, i know my dealer and can buy whenever i want whats the problem with that??

Whatever happened to my green and pleasant land?

Posted: 22nd Sep 2005
sorry dave a was agreeing with your questions.

on the news this morning....smoking just 3 cigarettes a day can triple your chances of getting heart disease or lung cancer. does that help with the moderation question....

A couple of balls short of a full cascade... or maybe a few cards short of a deck... we'll see how this all fans out.