• All Purchases made this month instantly go into the draw to win a USD $ 100.00 credit to your HoP account.
 

Our Most LIKED Products!


Page: 1...3456
coleman
SILVER Member since Aug 2002

coleman

big and good and broken
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay

Total posts: 7330
Posted:from: http://www.cannabisculture.ca/articles/4570.html
br>
Written by: www.cannabisculture.ca

DENVER LEGALIZES MARIJUANA 53% - 46%!
by CC Magazine update (01 Nov, 2005)

Denver voters make adult possession of one ounce or less of marijuana legal.

Denver became the first city in the nation to make the private use of marijuana legal for adults 21 and older as an alternative to alcohol, a far more harmful drug. By 10.45 p.m. Tuesday night, with 100% of the votes tallied, the Alcohol-Marijuana Equalization Initiative had passed 53.49% YES to 46.51% NO.

The Alcohol-Marijuana Equalization Initiative is the first local measure in the nation to draw a comparison between the harms of alcohol and marijuana.

The successful I-100 campaign focused on the vast number of health, safety and social problems associated with alcohol use, promoting marijuana use to avoid the prevalence of such problems. The campaign pointed to government reports and scholarly studies that show alcohol is a contributing factor in domestic violence, sexual assaults, and other violent crimes, as well as overdose deaths, whereas the use of marijuana has never been linked to such violent behavior and there has never been a marijuana overdose death in history.

Colorado Medical Marijuana certificate
Colorado Medical Marijuana certificate
"It is time our laws reflect the facts, and it is an indisputable fact that marijuana is safer than alcohol, both to the user and to society," said Mason Tvert, executive director of SAFER and coordinator of the I-100 campaign. "Current laws accept and even encourage the use of alcohol over marijuana, thus pushing people toward using a more harmful substance. Why on earth would we prohibit an adult from making the rational, safer choice to use marijuana instead of alcohol in their own home?"

By approving the I-100, the use of marijuana in public, the use of marijuana by people under 21, driving under the influence of marijuana, and the cultivation and distribution of marijuana would all remain illegal, much like with alcohol.

Cannabis Culture will update this story as more details become available.

Safer Alternative For Enjoyable Recreation (SAFER) is a Colorado-based non-profit organization whose mission is to educate the public about the harmful consequences associated with alcohol, as compared to the safer yet illegal substance: marijuana.

Here is the language of the Initiative-100

Alcohol-Marijuana Equalization Initiative

WHEREAS, according to the National Institutes of Health, an average of 317 Americans die annually as the result of alcohol overdoses; and

WHEREAS, there has never been even a single fatal marijuana overdose recorded in the medical literature, as noted by the British Medical Journal in September 2003; and

WHEREAS, according to U.S. Department of Justice, About 3 million crimes occur each year in which victims perceive the offender to have been drinking at the time of the offense. Among those victims who provided information about the offenders use of alcohol, about 35% of the victimizations involved an offender who had been drinking; and

WHEREAS, extensive research, documented in official reports by the British government's Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs and the Canadian Senate Special Committee on Illegal Drugs, among others, shows that -- unlike alcohol -- marijuana use is not generally a cause of violence or aggressive behavior and in fact tends to reduce violence and aggression;

WHEREAS, it is the intent of this ordinance to have the private adult use and possession of marijuana treated in the same manner as the private adult use and possession of alcohol;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ENACTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER

________________________________________________________________________

TEXT OF PROPOSED INITIATIVE
(proposed addition in all caps, underlined)

Amend Art. 5, Div. 3, Sec. 38-175 (Revised Municipal Code)

(a) It shall be unlawful for any person UNDER THE AGE OF TWENTY-ONE (21) to possess one (1) ounce or less of marihuana. If such person is under the age of eighteen (18) years of age at the time of the offense, no jail sentence shall be imposed and any fine imposed may be supplanted by treatment as required by the court.




mind you, if you're 19 or 20 and a smoker, watch your back!


cole. x


"i see you at 'dis cafe.
i come to 'dis cafe quite a lot myself.
they do porridge."
- tim westwood

Delete Topic

coleman
SILVER Member since Aug 2002

coleman

big and good and broken
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay

Total posts: 7330
Posted:smile

well prioritisation is indeed a sticking point in this thread, not least which points of discussion one chooses to answer first...

thus, using your prioritisation method dave, i will address your inaccuracies that project your opinions onto others before i discuss the actual topic further:

Written by: dave
the amazing truth that no-one seems to realise- no-one needs any drugs to enjoy their life to the fullest.



no.
i and most others realise this perfectly well.
that is why we *choose* to take drugs rather than *feel a need* to take them - one is recreational use, the other is addiction.
and to get pedantic and take your claim that you "endeavour to be clear when making statements", i think there are a very many people who do need drugs to enjoy life to the fullest - multiple sclerosis sufferers for example?

Written by: dave
But, the fact remains that none of us need to use them at all- it's a lie, perpetuated by our culture, and drummed into us from a young age.



no.
i have never had it 'drummed into me' that i need to use drugs.
in fact, i was positively discouraged from taking drugs from an early age - the direct opposite of your assertion.

Written by: dave
unicycling from A to B is no more likely to result in injury than cycling form A to B, or walking from A to B etc- by unicycling, i am not increasing my risk of injury. Whereas smoking is proven to considerably increase risk of cancer etc.



no.
that is just not true.
i think if any of us so desired, we could quite easily prove that unicycling as a form of transport is more dangerous than walking.
a 100% logical argument analysing risk would show that walking is obviously the safest mode of transport available to humans.
one word - stairs wink


and finally, a glaring contradiction that is slightly on topic:

Written by: dave
it is feasible to draw a line



but when i asked "where does one draw the line?" you completely evade clarifying your position and replied with:

Written by: dave
the option of 'not drawing a line at all' is generally not the best option.



in the scenario that we are discussing, "not drawing a line at all" could be equated to "everyone is treated equally, no matter their prior lifestyle or health choices".

if you start prioritising based on lifestyle choices as you suggest (as well as taking into account conflicting medical conditions as is the current situation), a line must be drawn as to where these choices will be considered when evaluating a patient's eligibility for care.

see my 'living in a city' example which you quite confidently said would not be a lifestyle choice that should affect rights to medical treatment or even better, your example that quite obviously requires a cut-off point for care somewhere between a 'developing addiction' and an 'established addiction' ("if a person is ill because of alcoholism, it is a developing thing, and certainly, early on they should be entitled to care").


cole. x


"i see you at 'dis cafe.
i come to 'dis cafe quite a lot myself.
they do porridge."
- tim westwood

Delete

Sethis
BRONZE Member since Mar 2017

Sethis

Pooh-Bah
Location: York University

Total posts: 1762
Posted:Cole, well intentioned though it may be, this:

Written by: coleman

i think there are a very many people who do need drugs to enjoy life to the fullest - multiple sclerosis sufferers for example?




Is nit-picking, and possibly irrelevant (in the nicest possible way). Dave is making it clear from his context that he's talking about either Alcohol, Smoking cigarettes or weed. We've never had prescribed drugs enter this discussion.

And about your choice to live in a city, there are sound economic reasons for you to do so. It enables you to have easier access to a variety of possibilities including jobs and pastimes. It is logical to do so. Otherwise Urbanization would never have happened smile. There are no sound economic or rational reasons to smoke cigarettes.

Written by: coleman

in fact, i was positively discouraged from taking drugs from an early age...




By your parents? Teachers? Friends? I think it's pretty much a given that friends often try to get you to try things that your parents and teachers told you not to. wink It's a basic rule of being a teenager. That's where the pressure to participate (in drinking, smoking and illegal drugs) comes from.


After much consideration, I find that the view is worth the asphyxiation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Delete

coleman
SILVER Member since Aug 2002

coleman

big and good and broken
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay

Total posts: 7330
Posted:sethis,



re: 'nit-picking'



the sentence you quoted was preceded by "and to get pedantic and take your claim that you 'endeavour to be clear when making statements'"



the main point is that the statement "no-one seems to realise- no-one needs any drugs to enjoy their life to the fullest" is untrue since very few drug users that do not suffer from an addiction could describe their use as 'fulfilling a need required to live life to the fullest'.



so, by taking an isolated part of the last sentence in my argument, you are the one who is 'nit-picking ' wink



if you do not agree, instead you might like to consider the medical benefits of cannabis for an ms sufferer and reconsider what we were discussing.





as for your second point of contention (my 'living in a city' example), it was designed to be an extreme on the other side of 'the line' when considering medical treatment prioritisation based on lifestyle choices - living in a city, no matter the reasons for choosing to do it, is still a choice you can choose not to make.

here is a more expanded version of that scenario:



take two people with the same respiratory illness awaiting the same treatment, one lives in a city, the other in the country.

if we decide to prioritise based on lifestyle, why would we not prioritise the person that lives in the country, since the city-dweller lives in an area that could exacerbate or worsen their condition?





lastly, dave cited 'our culture' as a whole as the body that 'perpetuates the lie [that we need recreational drugs]', not just our friends during our formative years as you claim above.

personally, i was never told by my friends that i would 'need to take drugs to live life to the fullest', nor was anything of the sort ever 'drummed into me'.

the only thing that i can class as being 'drummed into me was the phrase "just say no".





cole. x


"i see you at 'dis cafe.
i come to 'dis cafe quite a lot myself.
they do porridge."
- tim westwood

Delete

i8beefy2
GOLD Member since Mar 2003

i8beefy2

addict
Location: Ohio, USA

Total posts: 674
Posted:I think, Cole, that psychoactive drugs would be a better example... take for instance, Prozac, Ritoline, etc. used to treat and medicate various mental issues that are very useful. The argument could be made that marijuana DOES help people who have mental issues (self-medicating), but I won't bother.

Don't really have to worry too much about socialized medical problems, and as long as I hold a semi-decent job my medical payments are taken care of, as I live in the US. I have no problem with prioritization of care. In the limited availability of organs, choices have to be made. But in terms of other treatment, let's say cancer treatment, there is no reason for people to be discriminated against for their life-style choices. As these treatments are not dealing with limited resources (at least here... don't know about that in socialized settings), there's no reason for it unless the procedure would do more harm than good.


Delete

coleman
SILVER Member since Aug 2002

coleman

big and good and broken
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay

Total posts: 7330
Posted:cheers beefy.

the reason i specifically chose ms is because it is a disease that the prescription of cannabis could relieve some of the symptoms of (click here for studies).

i.e. i identified that there are examples of people that *need* to take an illegal drug if they are to live life to the fullest.


cole. x


"i see you at 'dis cafe.
i come to 'dis cafe quite a lot myself.
they do porridge."
- tim westwood

Delete

UCOF
SILVER Member since Apr 2002

UCOF

Carpal \'Tunnel


Total posts: 15414
Posted:Cole, for your replies which I have managed to understand, I wish to present you with this bicycle:


Non-Https Image Link


I hope you use it wisely, and offer it to Dave if he wishes to try riding down stairs on it.
Well... its practically a unicycle isnt it?

kiss


Delete

onewheeldave
GOLD Member since Aug 2002

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield

Total posts: 3252
Posted:Cole- to put it bluntly, I feel that there's no point in me addressing most of the points in your recent long post.



In communication I expect the same basic level of respect that I grant to others, and feel as though I'm not getting it from you. Maybe I'm wrong, but it is how I feel- certainly, if we were having this conversation face-to-face, I would have made my excuses and left by now, and see no reason why net communication should be any different.



I'm happy to debate with people, and I'm happy for them to disagree with me- I draw the line at investing time trying to communicate with people who seem to me, to be more focused on deliberatly misinterpreting aspects of what I say.



(I will point out again, that I never said unicycling is as safe as walking- I said that the unicycling I do is as safe as walking/cycling- I would no more attempt to unicycle down steps as I would ride on the road)

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



Speaking now to the thread as a whole-



when I say-



"the amazing truth that no-one seems to realise- no-one needs any drugs to enjoy their life to the fullest."



I stand by that completely.



From the context it was said in, it should indeed have been clear that I was referring to use of recreational drugs.



This of course means that I was not referring to cannabis as used for medicinal purposes.



So, to clarify further, I'll now put it as-



no-one needs to use recreational drugs to enjoy a full and happy life



If anyone wants to debate that one with me, you're most welcome. Please, if you do, do so in the spirit of debate and communication, rather the 'point-scoring' approach that seems to be in evidence from some on this thread.


"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!

Delete

coleman
SILVER Member since Aug 2002

coleman

big and good and broken
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay

Total posts: 7330
Posted:that disappoints me dave.



if you had the attitude to discussion that you profess to have, you would have realised that i have been trying to address your habit of making generalisations and representing them as uniquely accurate statements.



you proclaim things like 'the amazing truth that no-one seems to realise - no-one needs any drugs...' which infers that the majority of drug users actually believe that they need recreational drug use in order to live a full life - NO-ONE I HAVE EVER SPOKEN TO THINKS THAT.

if you can point out where anyone has put forward the idea that it is a common attitude that recreational drug use is needed if one is to have a full life, i will apologise for arguing with your statement immediately.



until then i say this: your truth is not amazing - it is an obvious and pedestrian addendum to the topics at hand and is not useful since it serves to do nothing other than infer that very few people realise the obvious.



i feel the need to challenge these type of generalised, heavily biased/weighted statements - when you have challenged statements of mine in a similar fashion, i have always taken the time to clarify or otherwise further explain my point.

it is you who has not reciprocated the communicational courtesy extended to you and i am sorry you cannot recognise this.



what i have been challenging is the way you repeatedly infer that those in support of the recreational use of drugs 'turned to them to fill a gap in their lives' and that they are unaware that life without recreational drug use is possible/rewarding.



i also find it insulting when i have spent significant amounts of my time critiquing your bold, generalised statements and you feel it is appropriate to dismiss my arguments with nothing more than ignorance of the topics at hand and misrepresentation of what i am actually challenging in your argument.





example:



dave: "I will point out again, that I never said unicycling is as safe as walking"



what precisely did you mean to express in your your original statement when you said:



dave: "unicycling from A to B is no more likely to result in injury than cycling form A to B, or walking from A to B"



if i cannot paraphrase that as "using a unicycle as a form of transport is as safe as walking or cycling" then please show me a more suitable interpretation of your statement.



you are contradicting yourself and have attempted to pass your own contradictions off as a shortcoming of mine somehow.



that is not cool.





you now seem to be upset because you think i was trying to suggest that you unicycle on the road or down stairs - i think those were fair assumptions when one cycles on the road and encounters many stairs on an average walking journey.



i was trying to assert that unicycling does increase a person's risk of injury when it is used it as a form of transport alternative to walking, yet instead of defending your point that unicycling does not increase risk of injury, you would rather pick up on the fact that i don't know if you prefer to ride your uni on roads, pedestrian pavements, cycle paths or fields shrug





i apologise for wasting your time and similarly i regret entering into discussion with you - you obviously do not want to discuss the issues that this topic began on, nor the ones that it has progressed onto.



you claim to not want to preach but when challenged, you deny any discourse - that sounds dangerously like preaching to me.



for now, i give up - you carry on your merry way sir.



*plonk*





cole. x


"i see you at 'dis cafe.
i come to 'dis cafe quite a lot myself.
they do porridge."
- tim westwood

Delete

i8beefy2
GOLD Member since Mar 2003

i8beefy2

addict
Location: Ohio, USA

Total posts: 674
Posted:I THINK that the main point of dissention is that Dave feels that (I hope I get all the distinctions in here) heavy users of recreational drugs are deluded when they say that they smoke because they like it.

Whereas this might SOUND to some like "I know what's better for you than you do, and you are wrong, you really hate smoking", and thus a little arrogant.

Dave isn't trying to be arrogant, but he does have a very strong oppinion on the subject from personal experience. That's why he has so vehomentally referred to his qualifications for what hes talking about. Specifically, he's talking about addicted individuals, who aren't medical use cases (though I think cigarettes aren't ever gonna be in that category, though recreational drugs can be).

Now I will take issue with Dave's opinion that * I * am deluded or others that I know that use responsibly (go ahead, I know you want to attack that, and I will clarify) are, that we don't like smoking or drinking or whatever. CAN we lead full, happy lives without them? Yes, probably... though I won't give that overarching support. But we choose the things in our life that make us happy, and if those happen to be bad for us, that's STILL our choice. I see no delusion in KNOWING its bad for you and still doing it because you LIKE it. It may seem like a case of cognitive disonance, granted, but Im still not deluded.

Could you quallify a BIT more for when someone is deluded Dave?


Delete

onewheeldave
GOLD Member since Aug 2002

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield

Total posts: 3252
Posted:Coleman-

Fair enough. So we do agree that no-one needs to use recreational drugs to have a happy life.

And you're disputing my implication that this fact is not well known.

That's reasonable. Personally I think many people do carry the belief that use of recreational drugs is necessary for a happy life, and that there is considerable social/peer pressure for them to adopt that belief. Partly because I don't see many other ways to explain the number of deaths caused by nicotine addiction, and the amount of damage caused by alcohol in the UK.

However, I accept the innacuracy you point out in my 'the amazing truth that no-one seems to realise...' which was indeed not the best way to put it. The reason I did put it that way was because it does seem to be a cultural assumption in the UK that a 'good time' necessarily involves booze, and I've certainly encountered many individuals who believe that; however, i accept that drug users who have a more realistic understanding, would indeed feel put out by the way I put it.

The unicycling example came about when someone asked if I would refuse hospital treatment if I had an accident on it.

My reply was no, as I am at no more risk on my unicycle than if I walked or cycled. Thus unicycling on roads/steps was irrelevant. It is true that you're not to know that I don't unicycle on roads and steps; equally it is true that I can't be expected to try and cover every hole someone may try to pick in my assertions.

In this case I was obviously saying that I would be entitled to treatment as I had not exposed myself to excessive risk; hopefully people would accept my abilities in assessing the relative risks of me walking/cycling somewhere, and me unicycling somewhere.

It sounds as though you find my way of putting things as annoying as I've found yours. So maybe we can both stand back a little and try to take on board what we've both said here and bear them in mind on future posts.



Written by: beefy

Now I will take issue with Dave's opinion that * I * am deluded or others that I know that use responsibly (go ahead, I know you want to attack that, and I will clarify) are, that we don't like smoking or drinking or whatever. CAN we lead full, happy lives without them? Yes, probably... though I won't give that overarching support. But we choose the things in our life that make us happy, and if those happen to be bad for us, that's STILL our choice. I see no delusion in KNOWING its bad for you and still doing it because you LIKE it. It may seem like a case of cognitive disonance, granted, but Im still not deluded.

Could you quallify a BIT more for when someone is deluded Dave?




Yes. A habitual, moderate/heavy user of cigarettes who believes that they smoke because they enjoy it; is deluded. This is because the true reason a habitual, heavy/moderate user smokes is because they are addicted.

An individual who drinks to the extent that their health and lives are seriously damaged by alcohol use, yet who maintain that they drink because they enjoy it; are similarly deluded.

Basically, any addict who denies they are an addict, are deluded.

incidently, cheers for your attempt to clarify my views in your previous post smile


"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!

Delete

Dunc
GOLD Member since Aug 2003

Dunc

playing the days away
Location: The Middle lands

Total posts: 7263
Posted:Although the reason they use the drugs could be this wink

[/comedy interlude, please return to the post above]


Let's relight this forum ubblove

Delete

Sethis
BRONZE Member since Mar 2017

Sethis

Pooh-Bah
Location: York University

Total posts: 1762
Posted:ubblol

Funny.

Although I can't escape the feeling that this thread is about to die...


After much consideration, I find that the view is worth the asphyxiation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Delete

i8beefy2
GOLD Member since Mar 2003

i8beefy2

addict
Location: Ohio, USA

Total posts: 674
Posted:Ok. Next step: what defines an addict, or are we talking in the abstract, in that there is something called an addict, and our discussion applies to them?

Delete

onewheeldave
GOLD Member since Aug 2002

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield

Total posts: 3252
Posted:My defintition of 'addict' for the purposes of this discussion, would be-

Where substances are concerned (eg nicotine and alcohol), an addict is someone who is compelled to use the substance, by the cravings initiated by the withdrawal symptoms caused by that substance leaving his/her body.

Generally, the substance is also one which causes harm to the user, and one which is not necessary for normal functioning- thus for example, food is not considered to be an addiction, even though, in the absence of food, people will crave it.


"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!

Delete

UCOF
SILVER Member since Apr 2002

UCOF

Carpal \'Tunnel


Total posts: 15414
Posted:Surely thats called getting hungry? umm

Delete

Stone
GOLD Member since Jun 2001

Stream Entrant
Location: Melbourne

Total posts: 2830
Posted:Dave we all have delusions, like you consider uni-cycling safer than walking. No problem, I accept that. So Christmas is a delusion, but many enjoy the festivities without worrying about that. Just dont eat that yellow snow wink

Did you know that cannabis can reverse psychosis?

AUSTRALIAN researchers at Melbourne's Monash University believe cannabis, a drug believed to increase the risk of psychosis, may also be able to reverse psychotic behaviour.

Cannabidiol may also help alleviate the symptoms of epilepsy and also pain associated with inflammatory disorders such as multiple sclerosis.


If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh

Delete

i8beefy2
GOLD Member since Mar 2003

i8beefy2

addict
Location: Ohio, USA

Total posts: 674
Posted:But by that definition Dave, an "addict" can be cured in a week simply by stopping. There is a psychological component which is just as important as the physical component: habit.

And while marijuana does have some medical benefits, it is questionable in how good it really is. I have a friend with epilepsy who smoked, not even that much, but smoking weed (alcohol use, sleep deprivation and a number of other little things) can trigger epileptic fits very easily. Granted, it may have been some kind of interaction with his Tygertol. Similarly for schitzophrenia, there is ample research that people that are predisposed to the disease are twice as likely to develop symptoms if they are a heavy user (closer to a 10% increased risk for those not predisposed). As for inflamatory disorders and pain management, this is perhaps the best area for medical usage.

It is no miracle drug, but it does have legitimate medical uses.


Delete

Sethis
BRONZE Member since Mar 2017

Sethis

Pooh-Bah
Location: York University

Total posts: 1762
Posted:@ Stone:

We're not talking about, and never have been talking about the medical prescription of marijuana. It's always been about the illegal use, and the consequences of it. smile


After much consideration, I find that the view is worth the asphyxiation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Delete

coleman
SILVER Member since Aug 2002

coleman

big and good and broken
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay

Total posts: 7330
Posted:Written by: Sethis


It's always been about the illegal use, and the consequences of it. smile





well, not really dude - the discussion started with a story about an example of the ever-increasing phenomenon of cannabis legalisation.



since then the thread has gradually turned towards that old chestnut of recreational drug use vs addiction.





so, to bring it back on-topic, has anyone seen the daily (*spit*) mail today?



Written by: daily mail, 1 december 2005


CANNABIS FREE-FOR-ALL



CANNABIS users could be allowed to carry enough of the drug to make six joints a day for a year without being touched by the law.



Under proposed new guidelines, if they were found with up to 17oz - sufficient for 2,410 'spliffs' - they could claim it was for personal use.



They would not face arrest or a criminal record, even though that amount has a street value of up to 1,870. Last night, there were warnings that the rules - put forward by Home Secretary Charles Clarke - will signal a free-for-all on the use of cannabis and give a watertight excuse to any drug dealer who is confronted by the police.



When questioned, pushers will simply be able to pass off huge amounts of cannabis as being for their own use and escape with a ticking-off, said MPs.



Extraordinary levels of other drugs could also be allowed to be carried in the same way. Mr Clarke wants to set the threshold at seven grams of heroin, seven grams of crack cocaine, ten Ecstasy tablets, 14 grams of amphetamines and seven grams of cocaine - all lethal doses if taken at once.



The cocaine would be enough for a user to cut 100 'lines' of the drug, while the heroin would give an addict up to 70 'hits'.



The threshold for cannabis would be 4oz of resin or 0.5 kilograms - 17oz - of the drug's leaf.



According to Independent Drug Monitoring Unit estimates, this is the equivalent of 2,410 herbal 'spliffs', made with the leaf, or 810 made with the resin - produced by pressing the plant's juices into slabs.



Since Labour downgraded cannabis last year, those caught with it for personal use no longer face automatic arrest. Instead, they get a formal warning or telling-off - which does not carry a criminal record.



The announcement of the proposed thresholds was slipped out yesterday - a hectic news day, with plans for state pension reforms dominating the headlines - in the last two lines of a press release promising to be hard on crime suspects who use drugs.



The Home Office will definitely introduce a threshold and is consulting police, courts and drugs agencies only on what the levels should be.



It insisted it is a sensible move to clarify a confusing area of the law. Currently, it is down to individual police officers to decide the point at which possession turns into dealing.



A letter from the Home Office's Drugs Legislation and Enforcement Unit said the thresholds it is proposing are based on a deal already in force between an unnamed English police force and the Crown Prosecution Service.



It added: 'Being in possession of a lower-thanprescribed amount of a controlled drug will not prevent prosecution for the offence of intent to supply if other evidence demonstrates that the defendant had the necessary intent, for example, the possession of dealing paraphernalia or test purchase evidence.'



But opponents said setting any sort of threshold would only lead to drug dealers staying free.



In guidelines issued to officers, the Association of Chief Police Officers warns that a defined limit would mean dealers 'only carrying around amounts smaller than that prescribed'.



The Tories' shadow home affairs minister, Cheryl Gillan, said: 'The laying down of official guidelines on what constitutes possession and dealing will help dealers know what they can and can't get away with. We can expect to see them carry around just less than the prescribed amount so that if they get caught, they will have a powerful case that it is only for their personal use.



'When a threshold is set and it is set so high, this will not help in the fight against illegal drug use, it will make it harder.'



Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman Alistair Carmichael said: 'If police and prosecutors take these proposals as a rule of thumb, a lot of dealers will be let off the hook.'



Norman Brennan, director of the Victims of Crime Trust, said the Home Office was offering drug dealers the equivalent of a supermarket-style special offer. 'The Government has an obsession with not sending people to jail.



'The only way to deal with drugs is arrest those responsible, get them in front of the courts and, where appropriate, send them to prison.'



The row comes as the Government's policy on cannabis is mired in confusion.



Yesterday, in Brixton, South London - where police piloted a softy, softly approach to the drug - there was a U-turn.



Officers, worried that the area is plagued by 'drug tourists, will now arrest anyone caught with even a small amount.







ahh, objective reporting at its best wink



and mr brennan: "a supermarket-style special offer"?!

does that mean i could stand to earn nectar points next time i buy weed...?





i also have the full brixton story that the daily mail ran today if anyone wants to read that - its almost as funny as that one.





cole. x


"i see you at 'dis cafe.
i come to 'dis cafe quite a lot myself.
they do porridge."
- tim westwood

Delete

UCOF
SILVER Member since Apr 2002

UCOF

Carpal \'Tunnel


Total posts: 15414
Posted:I think that being allowed to carry round that much and be allowed off with it is rediculous! Im all in favour of being let off obvious personal amounts (under 1/4 or 1/8), but to carry round over 17oz.. eek
Thats a tad extreme in my opinion.
I looked on the bbc news site for a report about the new idea, but ended up finding this instead.


Delete

Stone
GOLD Member since Jun 2001

Stream Entrant
Location: Melbourne

Total posts: 2830
Posted:Sethis I think some of the confusion comes from people categorise things as black or white, right or wrong, medical or recreational.

Even Daves definition of addiction is flawed, because many would consider beer a food, and a glass of wine a day has been shown to be beneficial. So, I think its more about quantity and moderation, rather than medical or recreational..


If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh

Delete

onewheeldave
GOLD Member since Aug 2002

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield

Total posts: 3252
Posted:Written by: Stone

Even Dave’s definition of addiction is flawed, because many would consider beer a food, and a glass of wine a day has been shown to be beneficial. So, I think its more about quantity and moderation, rather than medical or recreational..



Written by: OWD

Where substances are concerned (eg nicotine and alcohol), an addict is someone who is compelled to use the substance, by the cravings initiated by the withdrawal symptoms caused by that substance leaving his/her body.

Generally, the substance is also one which causes harm to the user, and one which is not necessary for normal functioning- thus for example, food is not considered to be an addiction, even though, in the absence of food, people will crave it.




My definition may well be flawed- I would be surprised if it didn't need some tweaks as problems are pointed out.

However, it seems to me that it is entirely compatible with the fact that some people enjoy moderate consumption of alcohol.

Those who have the occasional glass of wine are not addicts, because they aren't compelled to overuse it till it wrecks their life.

A glass of wine to a non-addict, is very different to a glass of wine to an alcoholic (alcohol addict).

As you say, quantity and moderation are important factors, and moderation is precisely what an addict cannot achieve in regard to the particular substance they are addicted to.


"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!

Delete

Dunc
GOLD Member since Aug 2003

Dunc

playing the days away
Location: The Middle lands

Total posts: 7263
Posted:I find a dictionary so useful in these times of over explained personal definitions...

Written by: A Dictionary
Addiction - Habitual psychological and physiological dependence on a substance or practice beyond one's voluntary control.



Let's relight this forum ubblove

Delete

onewheeldave
GOLD Member since Aug 2002

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield

Total posts: 3252
Posted:But he asked for my definition.

A definition which I composed with the aid of checking a dictionary.

(the dictionary definition would, on HOP (Home of Pedantry), have been immediately picked apart on the grounds 'well- that would made food an addiction then' etc, etc).

I was just wanting to save some time smile


"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!

Delete

Stone
GOLD Member since Jun 2001

Stream Entrant
Location: Melbourne

Total posts: 2830
Posted:I would classify partaking in a glass of wine or so, every day for the rest of ones life as an addiction.



I dont find authoritarian arguments particularly enrolling or appealing. I think if people are really concerned about the ephemeral empty happiness created by substances, then its much better to concentrate on the positives not the negatives ie. offer solutions rather than threats.



Prioritisation of government funds is not a good argument because the next questions are should we pay millions to rescues people lost in the bush, or around the world sailors stranded at sea etcetcterc? We have do have vast resources for health and education, but most are squandered. Like in the recent attempt to globalise terrorism. Which incidently, seems to be working wink



Side issue. Dave, I dont see hop as a pedantic place, dictionary dot com is fine for most.





Have A Nice Day smile


If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh

Delete

i8beefy2
GOLD Member since Mar 2003

i8beefy2

addict
Location: Ohio, USA

Total posts: 674
Posted:But we're classifying cases too Stone, which means that it is necessary to say exactly what we mean by our terms. I have a fairly clear idea of what Dave means bt his terms now, which means that I can raise specific points to attack or defend it without having to think of as many arguments. In answering past objections we have come to a very clear idea of what exactly his arguments are, and to how it would aply in specific cases.

HoP is very pedantic, as it is a discussion board and many times we use terms that are too general to express everything in short terms, so we end up describing in detail basic lines of thought like "addicts are all not free". In ding so, we are creating a much more specific working definition of the terms we are using in context to each discussion.

And further more, what's pedantic mean? wink

And see, your statement of what you see as an addict, and how Dave is using the term, and how I might interperet both of you, is exactly why we need to flesh out our meanings so much. Because typing over and over again the long line of what an addict is, and what it is not, would be very time consuming and silly. But as HoP is very "characterized by a narrow, often ostentatious concern for book learning and formal rules: a pedantic attention to details", it is kind of necessary to flush out your views when someone offers a criticism.

But now we're arguing linguistics... never mind... I just contributing to shooting this thread way off course too. smile

==

In terms of Dave's definition, there are many things that are and addict, and are not an addict. I'm just currious as to how you draw the line, and what exactly can be called an addict and what a regular recreational user. I've always been confused, because very often people will label me with one or the other depending on how they use the term. But I do the same thing... I know two friends, one who I would call an alcoholic, and one that I wouldn't, they both drink daily (the other maybe every other), but they just drink differently. Im not sure I could put my hand on all the reasons I classify them differently. I just do. Im curious as to whether or not I'm an addict or not.

Lets say I drink heavily twice a week, maybe 8 beers, and have a beer or two socially or just after work another day or two a week. Am I an alcoholic? Oh, and I can stop and not drink for months at a time sometimes, because I want to lose weight, or are training for something, etc.

I smoke occasionally. Usually when I'm drinking. I might have 3 or 4 cigarettes a week. Am I an addict now? I don't buy them, and I can't stand smoking more than that.

I smoke weed quite a bit at the moment. Maybe a bowl or two a day between me and friends. Sometimes I skip a day, or two, or three, depending on whether or not I'm feeling like smoking, or I have something I want to get done, or I feel like doing something else like going outside my house... smile I havn't bought any for four months. I feel no compulsion to smoke it, and I can and do quit for a week, a month, etc. many times throughout the year because I simply dont have time or money, or feel like doing other things. Usually every spring I cut down to one or two bowls a month because Im outside doing things. Summer I smoke every few days, but not consistantly at all. In winter I tend to smoke more because theres nothing to bloody do. But still, there is no compulsion or true addiction unless you want to say the addiction lasts for longer than that.

Again, it comes down to "where do we draw the line". I do the things I do because I enjoy them. I do not believe that I am deluded. And I am free to choose every time I pick it up. But others might classify me as an addict. I feel that I don't have the compulsion, but you can say I am deluded and really do. I would like to know where one draws the line.


Delete

Stone
GOLD Member since Jun 2001

Stream Entrant
Location: Melbourne

Total posts: 2830
Posted:beefy, I think pedantic means something like procasternation wink

How to draw the line is easy. Look at playing a role in Trainspotting.

I think the line is drawn when we stop procrastinating, and do something. Choose your future, Never let your friends tie you to the tracks. Its really up to each of us to figure out whats right, and where we want to go.

Back on track smile


If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh

Delete

onewheeldave
GOLD Member since Aug 2002

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield

Total posts: 3252
Posted:Written by: i8beefy2
But we're classifying cases too Stone, which means that it is necessary to say exactly what we mean by our terms. I have a fairly clear idea of what Dave means bt his terms now, which means that I can raise specific points to attack or defend it without having to think of as many arguments. In answering past objections we have come to a very clear idea of what exactly his arguments are, and to how it would aply in specific cases.




I think that this is perhaps the most intelligent post I've read on HOP this year

Certainly in terms of of pedantry, and the common complaint that many on HOP respond to what they think a poster has said, rather than to what the poster actually said; it is apparent that there is an issue. Not HOP in general, but certainly in 'Discussion', these things are a factor.

Note that I compliment beefys post, not because he is agreeing with me (he actually has serious reservations about my definition), but because he has bothered to read what I said with an open mind, and paid me the respect of assuming that I'm debating sincerely with the aim of coming to the truth.

He's recognised that I'm not trying to 'win', or to show off my intelligence; but rather am simply trying to facilitate objective and useful discussion by explaining my terms.

Cheers Beffy, much appreciated smile

------------

Beefy, in terms of drawing the line where addiction is concerned; on the info given, I can't offer a judgement as to whether or not you're an addict.

There are clear cases of someone not being an addict (eg person who occasionally has a glass of wine, whose relationships aren't damaged by drink, and whose health isn't wrecked by drink).

And there are clear cases of people who are addicts- eg George Best (RIP).

In between is the gray area, where a lot more facts need to be known in assessing whether an individual is an addict.

In coming to that decision, i would suggest that taking the following things into account is useful: -

1. There is often shame associated with being an addict- this is wrong and unhelpful. A first step in tackling addiction is in acknowledging it (As previously mentioned, during my last years of smoking, I faced up to the fact that i was an addict; reluctantly at first, but later coming to see the value in doing so).

2. As previously stated, delusion generally accompanies addiction- many addicts are in denial. This is where the opinions of others can be very helpful. Many people close to you tend to not want to address the issue (partly cos of the previously mentioned shame thing), so, in the case of a drinker for example- if multiple people who, in every other way have been seen as trustworthy, mention to the drinker that they think he/she has a problem: then it would be well worth the drinker investigating that, possibly via a professional, and very much with an eye to accepting that their own opinion could lack objectivity.




Patterns of addiction vary- for example, some addicts base their denial on the fact that they can drink a lot, yet still make it into work the next day.

Others base their denial on the fact that they can, in some circumstances, go for months without using.

These are not indications that one isn't an addict- many addicts have managed to sustain a working life, or go months between binges: yet other factors (eg ruined health, strings of abusive relationships etc) indicate that they do have a substance problem.



Things that point to addiction include-

Binging (ie they're not using every day, or even every week, but, when they do use, it can end in episodes of gross excess).

Harm- either direct harm to the body, such as liver damage from alcohol/lung damage from smoking 30 cigarettes a day; or, in the case of binge drinkers, sessions where one cannot remember what happened during the session (in that case it is possible that harm could arise through being unable to cross a road safely, or could be highly suseptible to molestation etc).

Relationships- tend to suffer damage if addiction is present, as the addict basically puts their substance use as a higher priority than being trustworthy/reliable. Certainly, if all an individuals associates tend to be, for example, drunken losers, that would be an indication that there is a problem.



Having said all that, I feel, to an extent, that some addicts are kind of born with, or acquire in the early years, some sense of 'lack' that makes them tend towards a habitual substance abuse.

Certainly I, as a addicted smoker, and as a regular user of weed; suffered from depression, lack of direction in life, and inadequate relationships.

And, since overcoming the addiction, quitting weed, escaping the fullon depression; if I'm being honest, most of those other factors are still present.

I don't really get depressed, but that's primarily because I learnt the abiltiy to recongise the thought patterns/emotional chains that lead to it, and cut them off habitually. But the 'lack' is still there.

Similarly, socially speaking, I'm still a dismal failure, and pretty much gave up long ago on the possibility of feeling 'liked' or useful.

But nevertheless, things are infinitly better, if only because these days I'm not going around in a perpetual state of hopeless grief and misery; instead I'm, at worst, occasionaly unhappy, at best, joyfull, and, in between, happy, calm, and well able to face up to life.

I do believe firmly that getting away from cigarette addiction and weed use has helped considerably with acquiring the understanding of my own mind, and, to a lesser extent, the ability to control/influence my mind.

Note that I don't consider that I was 'addicted' to weed (not in the way i was addicted to nicotine)- nevertheless, looking back, I think weed use was a block to me facing up to the things I needed to deal with.

Of course, it's possible that I'm wrong in attributing my life-shift to quitting substance use: many of the symptoms I experienced during those years, I later found out were common in a condition known as 'borderline personality'. Those with this condition are, statistically, very prone to commiting suicide before reaching thier thirties.

However, if they do survive into their thirties, they tend to, in some way, come to terms with their lives- they don't necessarily improve their social relations and other factors which previously drove them to self-destructive feelings; but, they seem to learn to handle them, and control them, so they can lead a 'normal' life.

I mention this only as an example of other, non-substance, based factors that could have been in effect (the transition took place in my early thirites).

But, on the whole, i do see it as a bit of a 'holistic' thing, whereby the psychological symtoms, the depression, the nicotine addiction, and the weed use; basically fed off, and sustained, one another.

Taking one of them out, weakened the others, creating a cycle whereby I gained greater control.


One final thing to mention, is that, as a user, I lacked the ability to view things in the way I now can, as a person who has been free of the desire to use for several years.

These days I would not smoke a spliff, purely because I can see it so clearly as being a complete waste of time (for me). This is something I know that I cannot convey to a current weed smoker, because I know that I, in years past, as a smoker, could not have seen it.

These days, if i want to feel less sad, or feel more happy- I tackle it directly, and thus bring about a more lasting change, rather than feel inclined to use a substance for a temporary effect.

Similarly, if I feel bored, that's an indication that I should either do something new, or learn to become more comfortable with 'doing nothing'- to tackle it with a drink or a spliff seems simply to be putting it off, and thereby perpetuating it.

Not that I'm condemning those who do drink and smoke; just pointing out that, where I was concerned, my use was based on delusion, and part of that delusion consisted of me not being able to see it.

The question being, for anyone using alcohol/weed regularly- are you sure that you're not in the same boat I was, and, by what means can people judge for themselves whether their use is through choice or delusion?


"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!

Delete

UCOF
SILVER Member since Apr 2002

UCOF

Carpal \'Tunnel


Total posts: 15414
Posted:Written by: OneWheelDave
Similarly, socially speaking, I'm still a dismal failure, and pretty much gave up long ago on the possibility of feeling 'liked' or useful.



I was exactly like that.
If you give up on possibilities then it's fairly inevitable you'll be a dismal failure.

hug


Delete

Stone
GOLD Member since Jun 2001

Stream Entrant
Location: Melbourne

Total posts: 2830
Posted:Dave, I think most people acquire a sense of 'lack' early on that makes them tend towards habitual rituals, be it substance abuse or giving up on feeling 'liked' or useful. It has something to do with our programming. Like in the Artificial Intelligence thread and in your Ultimate Theory of Reality. I wasnt going to mention this because its preaching in a way, and I dont do that wink But Landmark Education has really helped me, and a lot of people understand why they feel the way they do, and how to create the future we always knew was there. Look it up, do the Forum. Guranteed. Cheers smile

If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh

Delete

Page: 1...3456

Similar Topics

Using the keywords [denver leagalise* weed] we found the following similar topics.
1. Forums > denver leagalises weed! [156 replies]
2. Forums > Fire in Denver [3 replies]
3. Forums > poi gathering in denver Colorado [1 reply]
4. Forums > Springs / Denver Area
5. Forums > new in Denver

     Show more..