Cannabis - Best as a Class B or C

Man of Honour
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
12,119
Location
Vvardenfell
I find it useful in one respect: sometimes people list their profession. Knowing what someone does for a living can help in working out whether they might know something about a certain topic - especially when they are trying to sound like they might have specialist knowledge. But if you prefer to guess, then that's fine with me.


M
 
Associate
Joined
3 Jan 2007
Posts
2,383
Location
Derby
Pills are actually less harmful than alcohol and cannabis.

Usually thats only when you pretty much get pure MDMA, most pills are cut with all sorts which can **** you up.

FWIW, pure THC is a class A controlled drug.

Yes but pure THC (budder as its called i think) is ultra ultra rare to find. You will never be able to get it off any street dealer in britain.
 
Man of Honour
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
12,119
Location
Vvardenfell
most pills are cut with all sorts which can **** you up.


No they aren't. I'm only aware of one drug (4-MTA) which is more dangerous that MDMA which has ever been found in a tablet. And that seemed to be just one small batch several years ago. But people who like taking MDMA refuse to admit that the stuff can kill, so every time someone karks it after dropping a couple of perfectly normal ecstacy tablets they bang on about "rogue batches" and "extra strong pills". All of which are rubbish. Yet again. For the last time: taking drugs does not make you an expert on what is in them.



M
 
Suspended
Joined
22 Oct 2004
Posts
1,884
That's what I thought - I seem to recall my mate saying he reckoned some of his had heroin in then a few weeks later he said it had speed in.

The main reason against heroin being in it would purely be cost I should imagine - not much point in putting a really expensive drug in a really cheap drug for free really is there!
 
Associate
Joined
3 Jan 2007
Posts
2,383
Location
Derby
Off topic @ Meridian:

I thought it was usually an overdose of water that killed ecstasy users (Leah Betts et al)?

Yes most users do actually die from water poisoning as MDMA dehydrates your body so people drink letres upon litres of water which eventualy kills them.
 
Man of Honour
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
12,119
Location
Vvardenfell
Yes most users do actually die from water poisoning as MDMA dehydrates your body so people drink letres upon litres of water which eventualy kills them.



They die because MDMA shuts their kidneys down. (That's my understanding - I'm a chemist, not a pharmacologist.) Saying it was because they drank too much water (or too little, or at the the wrong time) is missing the point completely. What is ironic is that the MDMA-apologists usually follow at some point by saying that it's a side effect of MDMA causing all the problems, not MDMA itself, but you should look at paracetamol because that kills more people. Of course it's a side-effect of paracetamol which does the killing there too.

Leah Betts dies because she took ecstasy - the water had nothing to do with it (except in the sense that if a drunk-driver hits a tree and dies then technically the tree killed them). Oh - and it wasn't a rogue batch of tablets eithereither. Or extra strong.


M
 
Soldato
Joined
15 Mar 2007
Posts
3,160
One is the liklihood of anything killing you the first time without an overeaction to it. I am sure that a small proportion of the population is prone ot die from taking something legal like peanuts etc due to allergies and indeed some people who have taken e, speed, etc may have an adverse reaction much like being stung by a bee.

Everyone is paranoid about dying these days, doctors will save us regardless of the consequences (the hypocratic oath). Drinking is now bad and you are an alcoholic when once you were just having a drink.

Bonkers nanny state gone made because discipline has gone and tradition is being replaced by liberal people who want to stop everything potentially enjoyable.
 
Man of Honour
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
12,119
Location
Vvardenfell
replaced by liberal people who want to stop everything potentially enjoyable.



Er - that's the exact opposite of what liberals stand for. And believe it or not, most drugs are illegal because it is believed that the cause damage. But please note: the are believed to cause damage to society as a whole. Of course the point of this thread is debate about whether that assessment is accurate as applied to cannabis - or whether indeed the assessment is too generous.


And I should point out that most people who die after taking illegal drugs are NOT taking it for the first time. That includes Leah Betts.


M
 
Soldato
Joined
15 Mar 2007
Posts
3,160
Drugs do cause hard to society by runining lives are by allowing massive organised crime syndicates to exist to deliver the stuff globally.

Liberals want the state to nanny everyone, show us the error of our eays through education and rational, to give up childish things except children themselves of course. Liberals believe that through science and education everyone can be miracuously cured of all ills - a totally misplaced although not entirely bad notion.

I am know advocate for recreational pharmaceuticals but society is not taking the issue seriosuly enough and will not take the step towards legalisation even though that would probably with education and other measures (Ohh I sound liberal now - I must be one) reduce this problem at least to one that crime syndicates do not get rich through.
 
Soldato
Joined
26 Dec 2003
Posts
16,522
Location
London
Saying it was because they drank too much water (or too little, or at the the wrong time) is missing the point completely.
[...]
Leah Betts dies because she took ecstasy - the water had nothing to do with it (except in the sense that if a drunk-driver hits a tree and dies then technically the tree killed them).

The inquest following her death ruled that she died due to hyperhydration. Sure, she probably wouldn't have consumed that much water had she not taken ecstasy (particularly with the campaigns telling users to drink lots of water to avoid dehydration) but it wasn't a "side-effect" of the ecstasy that killed her at all, nor was it her "kidneys shutting down".

I'm not a pharmacologist either, obviously, but as far as I'm aware (supported by what sources I can find) MDMA doesn't have any effects on the kidneys: the stimulating effects simply serve to mask the fact that one is dehydrated (the dehydration exacerbated by the fact that most users spend all night dancing in nightclubs, sweating buckets). This can cause one of two problems: either the user continues to ignore their thirst and suffers from dehydration, or zealously tries to combat dehydration and suffers from hyperhydration.

I don't think it's missing the point to say she died from hyperhydration at all. In fact, I'd place more blame on misinformation (the campaigns essentially telling ecstasy users to drink as much as possible) than on the drug itself.
 
Permabanned
Joined
30 Aug 2007
Posts
394
Location
Cheshire
Making it class B or A is a good idea in my opinion, but i'm just curious, what do you think this will acomplish? it's still going to be easy for users to find it no matter what class it is, and I don't think users will see it as a threat either because in their mind it's harmless
 
Soldato
Joined
12 Dec 2006
Posts
3,421
Location
Worthing, West Sussex
Making it class B or A is a good idea in my opinion, but i'm just curious, what do you think this will acomplish? it's still going to be easy for users to find it no matter what class it is, and I don't think users will see it as a threat either because in their mind it's harmless

Making Cannabis a class A would cost you tax money and you would see no benefit from it.

It would make people like me a criminal.

I would take up prison space, despite the fact that I am no danger to anyone and am actually a good contribution to society.

Just because I smoke Cannabis, I deserve to have my life completely ruined by a criminal record? I deserve to go to prison? I deserve to be fined stupid amounts?

No. The only problems I see with me smoking cannabis are personal health problems which are very over-exaggerated (I hate the way that word's spelt! It reads like eczaggarated not eczadurated) by the media. Any other problem I can think of is pretty much solved by legalising Cannabis.

A lot of peoples opinions of Cannabis, and these "armchair experts", really anger me with their stubbornness or the "I'll find a weak point in your statement and emphasis it until everyone agrees with me" style arguments. Shame these people run the country.
 
Associate
Joined
24 Mar 2006
Posts
1,009
Location
UK
As far as I'm aware, most of the problems that drugs in general and cannabis to a degree cause are caused by the illegal nature of the substances. The fact that they have to be bought off the street entails that they are going to be impure, unregulated, and expensive. This leads to health dangers and all the problems that are generated by an illegal trade (suppliers, dealers, runners, gangs, scoring down dark lanes etc. etc.)

There is a group of ex-cops in america that actively campaign against prohibition. In their years on the force they have seen that prohibition doesn't cure the problems that it creates- So what if you take out one dealer, all you do is create a war (excuse the terminolgy) between dealers lower down that want to take his place.

Drug users generally don't cause problems (there are alway some ****heads regardless), it's the whole system they need to employ to score that causes trouble.
 
Soldato
Joined
15 Mar 2007
Posts
3,160
According to an article in the Independent on Sunday youth now sees cannabis as relatively harmless and easy to acquire hence making it seemingly legal regardless of its classification. Apparantly it is fueling a crime wave amongst youngsters who are seemingly getting hooked on the stronger varieties produced by organised criminal gangs.
 
Top