Question about the misuse of drugs act.

[mjt]

BOOM

 

[Macro]

There is no evidence for 2012 at all. It's not shaky or tenuous at best. It's entirely fake. It's based on nothing. There have been hundreds of apocalyptic events prophesised, and so far the success rate is 0%. That's stastically enough to make a preduction on 2012. The people who keep talking about it are the ones selling books.

Blatently nicked from another thread

 

[anything I don't mind]

Prohibition ruining another life. next.

 

[Deadbeat]

There is no evidence for 2012 at all. It's not shaky or tenuous at best. It's entirely fake. It's based on nothing. There have been hundreds of apocalyptic events prophesised, and so far the success rate is 0%. That's stastically enough to make a preduction on 2012. The people who keep talking about it are the ones selling books.

Evidence was the wrong word, I'll admit, and I really should have known better after so long in GD. There's a correlation between the joint conclusions of the long & short Mayan calendars and major shifts in the evolution of humanity or its environ, and some other correlation between these events and patterns in solar activity, but nothing that can be called evidence as such. There are indcations, and while it's perfectly fine to disbelieve cries of doomsday, dismissing the entire thing out of hand is a bit naive.

Edit: I think the thread rail went that way ---->

 

[aproctor]

Care to find an independent source rather than a site written by bob marley?

It was in the news recently when a senior drug advisor got sacked for expressing his views to the media.

I think what it boils down to is availability, if you could buy weed legally and smoke 20 joints a day the effects of lung cancer etc might not be in "Bobs" favour.

If tobacco was illegal and people smoked 20 fags a month opposed to a day, the effects would not be as prevalent and people would not see the harm.

In an ideal world, everything would be legal. Once you take out the criminal element you can spend more money on dealing with the no hopers who will take it to the nth degree regardless of legal classification.

 

[Macky]

There is no evidence for 2012 at all. It's not shaky or tenuous at best. It's entirely fake. It's based on nothing. There have been hundreds of apocalyptic events prophesised, and so far the success rate is 0%. That's stastically enough to make a preduction on 2012. The people who keep talking about it are the ones selling books.

I was taking the **** mate!

 

[xJcBx]

20 joints a day

Just think about that.
Really!?

 

[aproctor]

Just think about that.
Really!?

I'm not talking about really strong 100% weed joints.

I'm saying in general if a product is legal, people consume more.

 

[The Halk]

I'm not talking about really strong 100% weed joints, I'm saying in general if a product is legal, people consume more.

But they also consume more safely.

And do we know which is best? No.

 

[mjt]

I'm not talking about really strong 100% weed joints.

I'm saying in general if a product is legal, people consume more.

Even if they're weak, 20 a day is just silly.
But if they're weak enough that it's possible to smoke 20 in a day, then I think you find they're effectively cigarettes without filters

 

[aproctor]

Even if they're weak, 20 a day is just silly.
But if they're weak enough that it's possible to smoke 20 in a day, then I think you find they're effectively cigarettes without filters

I think you have missed my point.

 

[mjt]

I think you have missed my point.

Perhaps, but even if it were legalised, very few would suddenly increase the amount they smoke.
And those who had never smoked before would hardly start doing it that much.

In the Netherlands legalisation hasn't really had a massive effect on the numbers of people smoking afaik..
It has increased drug tourism though, especially in Limburg, which is banning foreigners from buying it.

 

[semi-pro waster]

I highly doubt your body could metabolise it quick enough, not to mention the fact that you probably couldn't actually eat the quantity required.

So in theory, I imagine its more "likely" to do it through ingesting than smoking, yes.

You most certainly could. And unlike smoking where a lethal or even very dangerous overdose is unlikely, by eating it there's vitrtually no limit to consumption, so it's very like the drinking vodka and dying in your sleep example.

No you can't (not practically) THC has extremely low toxicity.

Thank you all gentleman, I'm not sure I'm any the wiser but it seems it is a (very) vague possibility. It's only idle curiosity since I imagine it would be extremely hard to reach a significant and damaging level of toxicity even by ingesting it but I thought I'd ask in case anyone knew for sure.

Since when can you be searched because you look dodgy?

If the police have reasonable suspicion that you've committed a crime then you can be searched can you not? In which case looking dodgy could be sufficient grounds to create the necessary suspicion.

 

[Al Vallario]

If the police have reasonable suspicion that you've committed a crime then you can be searched can you not? In which case looking dodgy could be sufficient grounds to create the necessary suspicion.

The law regarding vehicle searches seems far too ambiguous in the UK. Personally I would not consider 'looking dodgy' (in the sense used here; a passenger reaching into the back of the car and shuffling about) to be a sufficient justification for stopping a vehicle, much less for a search of that vehicle.

In the US, the incident in the OP simply would not have occurred. The police would not have had probable cause to stop and search the vehicle. I'd much rather that were the case.

How can we possibly justify the OP and his friend having their privacy violated simply on the basis of 'looking dodgy'?

 

[Will Gill]

Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 I believe allows the police to stop anyone they want for any reason they deam fit.

correct me if I'm wrong, as you will have already seen that's pretty frequently

 

[The Halk]

correct me if I'm wrong, as you will have already seen that's pretty frequently

Yeah. Did you know there's a high score table on GD. I can't even see my score, never mind the high score table. But it's obvious one exists, otherwise why would people be trying to hard to score points

 

[Will Gill]

I've RTM'd your post, its double bubble on your head at the moment in the don's room, sorry I really need the extra points!!

 

[^TANK^]

Why TUT TUT? Cannabis is a safer drug than alcohol ... and yet you are allowed to drink

I wouldn't agree with that, but of course thats from my own personal experiences.

 

[The Halk]

I've RTM'd your post, its double bubble on your head at the moment in the don's room, sorry I really need the extra points!!

Aw man

 

[Meridian]

Straight from Wikipedia:

...a typical marijuana "joint" contains less than 10 mg of THC...

Actually it's about 20mg, with a rough spread from 10 - 40, but the point is still generally correct. About 200mg per cig, with about 10% THC on average. But both are very variable.


Also, cannabis has been decriminalised in the Netherlands, not legalised. It is still illegal to possess it, and it is illegal for a "coffee" shop to sell it to you. But you won't be prosecuted for low-level offences.


M