Uruguay becomes first nation to legalise marijuana trade

Exporting weed became a lot less economical when the grow equipment became more affordable all around the world. I can't see much export going out of the uk at all. The main draw would be the gbp which would allow for the most money from sales. Would be interested to see that show as that would be a massive failure of prohibition if it was the case.

Compare to this:
 
Last edited:
groen said:
Exporting weed became a lot less economical when the grow equipment became more affordable all around the world. I can't see much export going out of the uk at all. The main draw would be the gbp which would allow for the most money from sales. Would be interested to see that show as that would be a massive failure of prohibition if it was the case.

Compare to this:
me neither seeing as there are various eu countries with conditions to grow it outside all year round and it would be far cheaper even if they used indoor grow rooms.
Click to expand...

probably harder to smuggle it out than it is to smuggle it in too.

they always say modern weed is stronger as well which sounds like BS

considering proper thai weed in the 60'/70's was dipped in pure opium, I bet most the stuff from afghanistan was originally as well.

watching documentaries of growers in afghanistan etc these days they always stick it in a large bag and beat it to collect the resin glands for hash before they sell the weed on too, so half the potency probably disappears there.
 
Last edited:
Freefaller said:
Well as long as it doesn't put anyone at risk I have no issues. I would still prefer to be in an environment free of drug users. But that's my personal stigma I have attached to drugs. I'm sure in general it causes less issues than is reported in a sensationalist way.

However if it affects you and isn't detectable then that should still be something to consider.
Click to expand...

You'd be astounded at how many recreational drug users manage to be perfectly productive members of society. Probably even some of your friends take drugs every now and again.

Cannabis users (I'm not including full time stoners here) that I know don't have hangovers. Unlike some of the morons I have to work with occasionally who come in on a morning, with no alcohol in their system, but are unable to function due to crippling hangovers.
 
zenf said:
There's a fair chance you already have.. It's not something most people would share unless they really know who they're talking to because as you say, most people don't want that "druggy" stigma attached to them.

My colleagues have no idea, and I'm pretty sure they wouldn't be at all impressed if they knew.

Apparently, 6.6% of the nation smoked it in 2010 in England and Wales (16-59 year olds). That figure is only for smoking it once though, I couldn't find the figures for regular use.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annual_cannabis_use_by_country
Click to expand...

Fair chance? In an office of any size it's a certainty.

I have never worked in a company where i haven't met people who hold down pretty good jobs and take drugs. Every single one of those companies you'd recognise the name of.

Christ, some of the stories I heard about "pilot school" from a friend of mine probably account for some of my slight aversion to flying!
 
FishFluff said:
You'd be astounded at how many recreational drug users manage to be perfectly productive members of society. Probably even some of your friends take drugs every now and again.

Cannabis users (I'm not including full time stoners here) that I know don't have hangovers. Unlike some of the morons I have to work with occasionally who come in on a morning, with no alcohol in their system, but are unable to function due to crippling hangovers.
Click to expand...

None of my friends do or even smoke!

However you're probably right that people can function after the occasional smoke of marijuana. It's just regular drug taking that I think is a pretty sad way to live (personally).
 
Freefaller said:
Which probably makes the tests pretty poor (it's only a breathalyser and peeing in a cup) however, it would still make me uncomfortable if I knew people were in a altered state - if I didn't know and their performance and behaviour was perfectly normal then of course I'd be happily in ignorance.
Click to expand...

yes the tests will detect positive for weeks after drug use because they arnt detecting the drug, but what your body made it into.

not telling you if the eprson is high or not./
 
Freefaller said:
However if it affects you and isn't detectable then that should still be something to consider.
Click to expand...

interestingly it's almost impossible to prove someone is on or has taken LSD and against tier will it is impossible (requires dangerous medical procedure to test)
 
I don't know what to suggest then. I don't want people to stop doing what they want to do, but I don't want them to be in a potentially degraded state when at work.
 
Freefaller said:
I don't know what to suggest then. I don't want people to stop doing what they want to do, but I don't want them to be in a potentially degraded state when at work.
Click to expand...

all comes back to trying to select trustworthy and responsible employees for critical tasks, and training them to the dangers.

in our place we've had guys come i9n from late nights out still drunk/hung over they've gone to the manger and told them and been sent home with "counseling", basically an informal meeting telling them not to do it again and why and thats it.

if they do it again it's either a stage 1 or they can agree to go on an alcohol course.

if they hadn't have told the manger but been caught and tested they'd have been fired. this place knows how important safety is so is willing to be lenient as long as you fess up say you don't think you're fit and go home an lose the days pay, rather than cover up a mistake/your inebriation.
 
I guess I'm a purporter of healthy living so just hope that people can do things in moderation without being selfish and affecting those around them. Hence why I tend to side with anti rather than glorifying drugs.
 
Freefaller said:
I guess I'm a purporter of healthy living so just hope that people can do things in moderation without being selfish and affecting those around them. Hence why I tend to side with anti rather than glorifying drugs.
Click to expand...

it's nothing to do with glorifying them, while they're illegal they're low quality and significantly worse for users health, and not monitored and of variable strength leading to potential overdoses and the money goes into violent criminals who now have more money than several governments and mroe firepower than some countries armies, and are known for killing hundreds of people in massacres.

legal this revenue is lost to them, the drugs are of a guaranteed quality and consistent strength.
 
Tefal said:
it's nothing to do with glorifying them, while they're illegal they're low quality and significantly worse for users health, and not monitored and of variable strength leading to potential overdoses and the money goes into violent criminals who now have more money than several governments and mroe firepower than some countries armies, and are known for killing hundreds of people in massacres.

legal this revenue is lost to them, the drugs are of a guaranteed quality and consistent strength.
Click to expand...

How's the revenue lost to them? They can still produce them. Legally or quite likely, can continue illegally. They won't just think "aw man, this junks gone mainstream, I won't sell it anymore, that'd be too square, I'd be a sell out".
As it is they use forced or slave labour so they'd just continue to act as they do outside the law and be able to under cut the prices of anything produced legally which will have massive overheads and thus higher prices to pay for it.
 
Tefal said:
it's nothing to do with glorifying them, while they're illegal they're low quality and significantly worse for users health, and not monitored and of variable strength leading to potential overdoses and the money goes into violent criminals who now have more money than several governments and mroe firepower than some countries armies, and are known for killing hundreds of people in massacres.

legal this revenue is lost to them, the drugs are of a guaranteed quality and consistent strength.
Click to expand...

The thing is illegal activities because of drugs will continue as more people get access to them and want and or depend on them possibly.

It is daft as I understand that alcohol and cigarettes are possibly worse than some.

However I still have a big suspicion of drugs and their effects on people and society we still can't control ourselves with alcohol! We're getting better at moderating smoking.
 
SlyReaper said:
I can't believe there are actually still people who think marijuana shouldn't be legalised. I thought the case was clear as day, and it was just politics getting in the way of actually doing it. Apparently not.

Under prohibition, the only way for a person to obtain it is for them to give money to criminals. Legalise it, and you weaken the criminal gangs. As for the health effects, there are Class A drugs which have less impact on a person's health and are less addictive than alcohol, and yet that's legal. Weed is a lightweight as far as recreational drugs are concerned, and yet it's banned. It's a ridiculous double standard.

Personally, I'm of the opinion that we should legalise all recreational drugs. What a person puts into their body is their own business, and so long as they're not hurting others, I fail to see why the law should get involved. Obviously caveat that with the requirement to be clear-headed for certain tasks such as driving, etc, like we currently do with alcohol.
Click to expand...

This guy talks sense, Fully agree.
 
Elixir said:
Ok, so it's a compound derived from cannabinol and involves synthesis in a lab because of the concentrated dose required, ie you can't just "grow your own medicine."

Legalising cannabis will have no effect on this and it's something that drug companies would be all over if it was more effective than current methods.

EDIT: it's also worth being aware that there are dozens if not hundreds of drugs every yearwhich show promise in treatius forms of cancer, but simply aren't an improvement on current drugs. Cannabis just gets more exposure because the headline is CANNABIS CURES CANCER BUT EVIL DRUG COMPANIES DONT CARE rather than TCT2546-L SHOWS POTENTIAL IN EARLY STAGE CANCER TRIALS.
Click to expand...



The problem is there are a number of components of cannabis that are of massive interest to science, in particular the treatment of cancer, often there are positive result, and some times negative, we need to be looking at this seriously.. The following referenced article shows a 60% reduction in some types of cancer, whilst seemingly aggravating other types when using thc (a component of cannabis) other research shows cbd (another component) to enhance the uptake of toxins to malignant cells which doesn't seem to affect healthy cells.

There are around 100 compounds in cannabis that could potentially be of scientific relevance, they are just two. Coupled with the fact it's been used as medicine for thousands of years by various ancient cultures.. It seems strange its become so taboo in the last hundred.. Well maybe not so strange, the cotton industries and now big pharma have a lot at stake, in particular pharma, as you can't copyright a silly plant in the same way you can copyright a synthetic drug.

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/cam/cannabis/healthprofessional/page4
 
some of the current "green" is way too strong to be used on a daily basis over long term this could cause medical issues. being an ex smoker lower thc content stuff would be safer rather than the genetically enhanced weed people smoke today

and don't forget the bigger issue is the tobacco consumption aswell.
 
danmck said:
some of the current "green" is way too strong to be used on a daily basis over long term this could cause medical issues. being an ex smoker lower thc content stuff would be safer rather than the genetically enhanced weed people smoke today

and don't forget the bigger issue is the tobacco consumption aswell.
Click to expand...

Tobacco is a real problem but that's really a separate issue, the government can't afford to ban it due to the tax revenue and potential rights issues as it's currently legal, a tral hot potato, that one.

I fully agree that weed is getting to strong but this is purely a product of prohibition, its a bulky commodity so it's in the interests of suppliers to increase potency of products, ie increase thc content.. But high thc a good smoke does not make.

You'll find in Amsterdam and other places, the locals general buy more old school weaker strains rather than things like blueberry and white widow as they are a bit too strong, it's much like drinking habits in this sense, you see people drinking wine and craft beer, maybe lager and spirits, but you don't see people drinking tiny shots of pure ethanol.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom