Cannabis reclassification

I don't think it should be reclassified. It wastes far to much police time and resources.
However it is a drug and does damage peoples mental state. Which some people don't accept. Not everyone and only usually in heavy smokers. But from first hand experience I've seen a couple of peoples mental health get shot to pieces due to weed.
 
The ones involved in wanting to reclassify it should sit back, skin up and smoke some.

Then would I be willing to listen to their decisions based on their findings and not what some overpaid half intelligent wannabe Politician thinks based on 'Scientifical Research'.
 
AcidHell2 said:
I don't think it should be reclassified. It wastes far to much police time and resources.
However it is a drug and does damage peoples mental state. Which some people don't accept. Not everyone and only usually in heavy smokers. But from first hand experience I've seen a couple of peoples mental health get shot to pieces due to weed.
Click to expand...

I agree with everything you said there.

I've seen just living life ruin peoples mental health too on the flip side. The risk are most certainly there, we just have little knowledge on the susceptibility.
 
Wiggins said:
The ones involved in wanting to reclassify it should sit back, skin up and smoke some.

Then would I be willing to listen to their decisions based on their findings and not what some overpaid half intelligent wannabe Politician thinks based on 'Scientifical Research'.
Click to expand...

You don't need to smoke it to see the affect it has on people
 
Wiggins said:
The ones involved in wanting to reclassify it should sit back, skin up and smoke some.

Then would I be willing to listen to their decisions based on their findings and not what some overpaid half intelligent wannabe Politician thinks based on 'Scientifical Research'.
Click to expand...
Experience is a precursor to understanding? I think not.
 
Reclassification is pointless, will just cause confusion and waste money and police resources and act as zero deterrent.
Yes, it harms the minority who abuse it. No, it doesn't harm the majority who are occasional users. Just like most other drugs/substances/addictions etc.

Ignoring the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs is a great example of how party politics interferes too much with the legal sytem. Clearly changing the law for more votes/better PR.
Ban this, ban that, this is now an offence, that is now an offence

Do we need more?? See example below from August 2006 (so even more now)
Tony Blair's government has created more than 3,000 new criminal offences during its nine-year tenure, one for almost every day it has been in power.

The astonishing tally brought accusations last night of a "frenzied approach to law-making" that contrasts with falling detection rates and climbing levels of violent crime.

The figures emerged as police chiefs disclosed they were considering asking ministers for a set of new measures to allow them to impose "instant justice" for antisocial behaviour.

The 3,000-plus offences have been driven on to the statute book by an administration that has faced repeated charges of meddling in the everyday lives of citizens, from restricting freedom of speech to planning to issue identity cards to all adults.
Click to expand...

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...nce-for-every-day-spent-in-office-412072.html
 
What an absolute plonker! Way to go against a panel of experts. Labour and the Conservitives have both just sealed off any chance of getting my future vote. Idiots.
 
Skyfall said:
Experience is a precursor to understanding? I think not.
Click to expand...

I'd say that people who haven't tried drugs do not understand exactly what it is, no.

It can be described to you, as can sex. You may understand what happens in a numerical order of things for example, but there are things beyond the written word.
 
Biohazard said:
I'd say that people who haven't tried drugs do not understand exactly what it is, no.

It can be described to you, as can sex. You may understand what happens in a numerical order of things for example, but there are things beyond the written word.
Click to expand...


I've had this same discussion many times with a friend who has never tried any drug (not even alcohol or nicotine). He is convinced he knows exactly what it is like to be on a plethora of drugs.

There is no other arguement to offer other than "No... seriously, shut up. You don't know and never well." Sorry it's true.
 
While I do condone Cannabis being Legal, I firmly believe that if anything was to be banned first, it would be Alcohol followed by Tobacco.

They have serious cases of Mental anguish, just like Cannabis does. You stop smoking and have to endure the withdrawals of addiction and with that come psychological pressure on the mind.

You drink Alcohol and again, if drunk excessively, psychological problems occur again!

So why not ban the above. No, becasue they make far too much money in taxes and even to this day, it kills monstrous amounts of more people than Cannabis does.

This reclassification is just another sad attempt at some political joker wanting their piece of limelight.

Absolute **** imo.

And I will not be voting this time. **** em!!
 
A blatant stunt to make it look like they're doing something to stop crime and drug "abuse", when in reality, cannabis causes zero problems that can be resolved by reclassification. As a matter of fact, it's not proven that cannabis causes any problems.

The home secretary is an idiot - as are most politicians in this country.
 
Labour are desperate. Surprised? No.

The fact that they blunder again and again is shocking and the fact they choose to ignore experts here is truly churlish.
 
TBFH Ket is far worse than weed. Jaqui Smith... doesn't she enjoy going to kebab houses alone and late at night? :p
 
id say they where about the same

but then alcohol and caffeine are far worse than both.....

if it where my choice id let people take whatever drugs they wanted:p . the idiots would die the sensible would live. win win
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom