Wales approves cannabis-based medicine

mattyfez said:
I'm sure you are already aware, that THC remains in fat cells for weeks or even months after consumption, long after any detectable psychoactive effect has worn off.



I'm sure that you are also aware that cannabis is not a one trick pony, CBD is also another chemical of scientific interest, along with a plethora of other unique chemicals the plant contains that have barely any real scientific research into how they may be of potential benefit.
Click to expand...

which is why i said half life, remaining in the body and metabolites detectable isn't the same.

and yes i know there's more than one chemical which is why i asked how much longer its half life in the blood is.

Ask yourself why there is no cannabis driving test like there is with alcohol?
Click to expand...

which is why for machinery your fired the instant its detected in the pot they hand you to **** in when suspected.

there isn't a breathalyzer because cannabis doesn't emit any metabolites into the air through your breath.

same way there isn't a breathalyzer for opiates or ecstasy.
 
Fr0dders said:
If he's referring to the UK's defined list of prohibited substances, how does he cope when going abroad with countries that have different lists ? Whose list is definitive ? Cannabis is legal in The Netherlands, are they wrong and us right ? What makes them wrong and us right ?
Click to expand...


First, cannabis is NOT legal in the Netherlands. All that has happened is that possession of cannabis has been decriminalised. It is still an offence to possess it, but you won't generally be prosecuted. However, if you spark up on the street you may get it seized if a fed sees it, and if you light up near children you probably will be arrested. This is why "coffee" shops exist: to keep the smoking of cannabis where only adults go. Production is only decriminalised for small numbers of plants (=<99 IIRC), and dealing of all but the small amounts in coffee shops is a no-no.

Second, actually the list of what is illegal is pretty similar for most of the world. In 1961 the UN drew up a list of drugs that they thought ought to be regulated, and then every country party to the treaty concerned (almost every country) passed a law banning these compounds. The original list in the MDA from 1971 is just that UN list, with a couple of extra bits added. One country at least just translated the UN document into their own language.

Since then the UK has added various compounds as they have appeared. But most countries with a functioning government have added these compounds as well. Impetus has come from revised UN lists (the last was in 1981 I think). The differences between countries mostly relate to very recent arrivals: it's difficult to see countries spending much time banning cannabinoid agonists if they haven't seen any.


Back on the original topic, I see the "pro" lobby is still playing the old game of trying to argue for legalising recreational use on the back of medicinal use. They are completely different issues. It is entirely possible that the authorities in England will allow a cannabis-based spray to be prescribed, but I'll bet money that the courts fill up with even more self-medicating "MS-sufferers" than they already have. If you want to argue for legalising or decriminalising recreational cannabis, be my guest. But whether cannabis turns out to be useful for treating illness is utterly unrelated. In fact, the constant conflating of the two issues will just make prescription of genuinely medicinal cannabinoids less likely. (I also get very suspicious of any compound which appears to be so close to being a Wonder Drug. I will be money that it is being oversold.)
 
Last edited:
How does the human population manage with such a short memory span.

To put it simply, prohibition does not work... as demonstrated in recent history.

Medicinal/recreational is almost irrelevant... the difference being, medicinal is easier to sell to the anti-weed brigade... deep

But... if anyone should be entitled to it, then it is of course those who can benefit from it medicinally.

Trying to make a plant illegal is, quite frankly, absurd... especially when there is a demand for it...

All we are doing by keeping it illegal is turning otherwise law abiding citizens into criminals... something which only benefits the prison industry (yes, prison is a for-profit industry) along with the policing industry & the pharmaceutical industry.

Prisons and pharma being large lobbying bodies in the political... industry ;)



I also happen to think that it is over-sold as a wonder drug... but it most certainly does have benefits for many people...

... relax after a stressful day at work? I'd rather have a spliff than a few pints...
... have a headache? I'd rather have a spliff than a pill...
... can't sleep? I'd rather have a spliff than a pill...

There are some minor things that can make a big difference in the long haul to many people... things that will never make it passed the lobbying body because people simply use the old "oh, that's only an excuse to get high"... ********... it is my body and I have the right to make an informed decision about what I put in it... these laws remove that right and are governed by people who love money, not people.
 
Last edited:
Meridian said:
First, cannabis is NOT legal in the Netherlands. All that has happened is that possession of cannabis has been decriminalised. It is still an offence to possess it, but you won't generally be prosecuted. However, if you spark up on the street you may get it seized if a fed sees it, and if you light up near children you probably will be arrested. This is why "coffee" shops exist: to keep the smoking of cannabis where only adults go. Production is only decriminalised for small numbers of plants (=<99 IIRC), and dealing of all but the small amounts in coffee shops is a no-no.

Second, actually the list of what is illegal is pretty similar for most of the world. In 1961 the UN drew up a list of drugs that they thought ought to be regulated, and then every country party to the treaty concerned (almost every country) passed a law banning these compounds. The original list in the MDA from 1971 is just that UN list, with a couple of extra bits added. One country at least just translated the UN document into their own language.

Since then the UK has added various compounds as they have appeared. But most countries with a functioning government have added these compounds as well. Impetus has come from revised UN lists (the last was in 1981 I think). The differences between countries mostly relate to very recent arrivals: it's difficult to see countries spending much time banning cannabinoid agonists if they haven't seen any.


Back on the original topic, I see the "pro" lobby is still playing the old game of trying to argue for legalising recreational use on the back of medicinal use. They are completely different issues. It is entirely possible that the authorities in England will allow a cannabis-based spray to be prescribed, but I'll bet money that the courts fill up with even more self-medicating "MS-sufferers" than they already have. If you want to argue for legalising or decriminalising recreational cannabis, be my guest. But whether cannabis turns out to be useful for treating illness is utterly unrelated. In fact, the constant conflating of the two issues will just make prescription of genuinely medicinal cannabinoids less likely. (I also get very suspicious of any compound which appears to be so close to being a Wonder Drug. I will be money that it is being oversold.)
Click to expand...
And this ladies and gentlemen is what non biased i.e "i really want to be able to spark one up everywhere" writing looks like.
In other words some truth.
 
crinkleshoes said:
How does the human population manage with such a short memory span.

To put it simply, prohibition does not work... as demonstrated in recent history.

Medicinal/recreational is almost irrelevant... the difference being, medicinal is easier to sell to the anti-weed brigade... deep

But... if anyone should be entitled to it, then it is of course those who can benefit from it medicinally.

Trying to make a plant illegal is, quite frankly, absurd... especially when there is a demand for it...

All we are doing by keeping it illegal is turning otherwise law abiding citizens into criminals... something which only benefits the prison industry (yes, prison is a for-profit industry) along with the policing industry & the pharmaceutical industry.

Prisons and pharma being large lobbying bodies in the political... industry ;)
Click to expand...

Back on the conspiracies and radical thinking then i see ;)
 
I wouldn't mind it being legalised for the medical reasons, but the thing I hate about the drug is the bunch of annoying morons that come along with it. People that smoke weed seem to have a need to tell absolutely everyone that they smoke it. Oh look, you've got a weed t-shirt, keyring, phone case and tattoo, yes I get it already! Congrats.
 
crinkleshoes said:
Prisons and pharma being large lobbying bodies in the political... industry ;)
Click to expand...

it really helps if you don't repeat American arguments you found ont he internet when you're in the uk.


There are some minor things that can make a big difference in the long haul to many people... things that will never make it passed the lobbying body because people simply use the old "oh, that's only an excuse to get high"... ********... it is my body and I have the right to make an informed decision about what I put in it... these laws remove that right and are governed by people who love money, not people.
Click to expand...


ok so it's legal one very big important question.

we have no way to detect if you've had some a while ago and are no longer high or if you're still under its effects like we can with alcohol. so how does this work for driving, operating machinery, for working in dangerous industry or sensitive equipping areas?

currently it's easy they suspect you they test you it comes up positive you're out the door.

if its legal does that stay the same and anyone who drives cant take it at all, or anyone who operates machinery etc or some other system?
 
Last edited:
Eliot said:
Back on the conspiracies and radical thinking then i see ;)
Click to expand...

No... simply explanation of human nature and noticing of the greed that is rampant.

These are for-profit industries - do you disagree with this statement of fact?

Completely unrelated to this specific industry... things like car insurance... why should anything that is a requirement be a for-profit industry? This only drives abuse of the system that has been put in place to protect people.

Systems initialised with a publicised idea of protecting people, subsequently abused by those who are in the position to control those industries.

Do your research before you start belittling people for no good reason.
 
Tefal said:
it really helps if you don't repeat American arguments you found ont he internet when you're in the uk.
Click to expand...

Ummm... this isn't a repeat of any US argument... this is observation of how the UK system works, along with many other systems.

These political parties do, in fact, receive funding by donation... leading to potential influence from donors.
 
crinkleshoes said:
Ummm... this isn't a repeat of any US argument... this is observation of how the UK system works, along with many other systems.

These political parties do, in fact, receive funding by donation... leading to potential influence from donors.
Click to expand...

the prison argument is a mainly American one. its not very relevant in the uk.
 
Tefal said:
which is why i said half life, remaining in the body and metabolites detectable isn't the same.

and yes i know there's more than one chemical which is why i asked how much longer its half life in the blood is.



which is why for machinery your fired the instant its detected in the pot they hand you to **** in when suspected.

there isn't a breathalyzer because cannabis doesn't emit any metabolites into the air through your breath.

same way there isn't a breathalyzer for opiates or ecstasy.
Click to expand...

I don't recall saying anything about a breathalyse, tthat's kinda my point, there's no reliable way of setting a limit, legally, because to do so would be to say that x amount is OK.
 
G-MAN2004 said:
I wouldn't mind it being legalised for the medical reasons, but the thing I hate about the drug is the bunch of annoying morons that come along with it. People that smoke weed seem to have a need to tell absolutely everyone that they smoke it. Oh look, you've got a weed t-shirt, keyring, phone case and tattoo, yes I get it already! Congrats.
Click to expand...

Some of those people exist, yes. But they are far from the majority.
 
deltalinx said:
I can not wait for it become legal in England, the trouble is, pharmaceutical companies make money from chemotherapy and other drugs, cannabis is a cure to a lot of things and that's partly why they don't want it legalized.
Click to expand...

Is this nutter implying that weed treats cancer now?! hahaha
 
Tefal said:
So out right ban being the only workable solution atm.
Click to expand...

Or how about re-active policing instead of pre-emptive policing?

Stronger sentences etc...

Vehicular manslaughter with no influence = 1 year in prison
Vehicular manslaughter with high volume of thc in system = 3 years in prison

No reason to ban it all together... just because a few people might decide to do something silly.
 
crinkleshoes said:
Or how about re-active policing instead of pre-emptive policing?

Stronger sentences etc...

Vehicular manslaughter with no influence = 1 year in prison
Vehicular manslaughter with high volume of thc in system = 3 years in prison

No reason to ban it all together... just because a few people might decide to do something silly.
Click to expand...

errm i don't want the guy operating the crane over my head at work on ANYTHING.

if it was legal and he was suspected what stops him saying "oh i had some at thr weekend" when he'd had one that morning?

Also do stronger sentences have a deterrent effect?

also the sentences you've just stated are over 4 time SHORTER than the current sentences.
 
Last edited:
zegna said:
Is this nutter implying that weed treats cancer now?! hahaha
Click to expand...

Actually there is a lot of anecdotal evidence claiming that to be the case... at least for certain cancers... I would like to see it validated... but guess who funds these studies...

... yup, you guessed it... the industries that profit far more from treatment than cure.

That's not to say that people searching for a cure wouldn't have the right idea at heart.

It may be these reports have other mitigating factors, but it remains that more research should be completed.
 
Tefal said:
errm i don't want the guy operating the crane over my head at work on ANYTHING.

if it was legal and he was suspected what stops him saying "oh i had some at thr weekend" when he'd had one that morning?
Click to expand...

Easy with **** test / blood test.

I wouldn't much like him on alcohol either... nothing to stop that in the same vein, really...

Again... the idea of the odd silly person doing something silly stopping the majority from having their freedom... it's the kind of mentality that gets everything banned.

What if that crane operator had had no sleep the night before and came to work... this is a higher risk than having someone who had just smoked operating the crane.

Had that operator had a spliff the night before but not the morning before work... he would have had a good nights sleep and been refreshed for work... but no, he made a mistake due to lack of sleep and dropped a toilet on your fat head...

YOU do not have the right to dictate to me what I do in my own time with my own body... go **** yourself
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom