Youtube clip of some random and police

[steve-h]

Were they any dogs around the area when you got pulled aside and searched? Because if so, the dog has probably indicated that you have the smell of drugs on you, and as such, it's the officers duty for you to be searched. It's happened to me several times, usually when I went to camden, as my mates smoke weed, it got into my clothes, and as such, I got stopped. I didn't have anything on me, so it was just a 5 minute inconvenience.

If a dog's not there they say they're there looking for knives and are 'randomly' searching people. Funnily enough they randomly choose the young and the hippiest looking people they can find.

No wonder they have such a low success rate for finding knives. Perhaps they're happier with successful drug finds.

 

[steve-h]

Wait, you're now dragging medicinal use into this?! LOL. That's a completely different debate!

Not when we have people with year+ sentences in jail for growing for medicinal use.

as I have concerns about the damage done to, in particular, developing brains.

me too, I haven't seen any studies done.

The discussion in this thread isn't about legalisation per se... it's that the police should follow the rules, not do what they want. I think the police should follow the rules, and your ~anger~ should be directed at the politicians.

I would like police officers, if they don't respect the laws, to speak out against them. I'm failing to see that, so I can only assume they're fine with continuing on with the ridiculous prohibition of cannabis and the like. Therefore I will show my lack of appreciation to police every chance I get, which sadly is quite frequent. I get the "just doing our job" idiocy in return...

 

[Elixir]

I would like police officers, if they don't respect the laws, to speak out against them. I'm failing to see that, so I can only assume they're fine with continuing on with the ridiculous prohibition of cannabis and the like. Therefore I will show my lack of appreciation to police every chance I get, which sadly is quite frequent. I get the "just doing our job" idiocy in return...

They are just doing their job. They would go about displaying their opinion on laws in the same way any other member of the public would, and you have no idea whether they do that or not.

You are clearly extremely bitter about getting your weed confiscated, but blame the law and not the police doing their job.

 

[steve-h]

So you're painfully uninformed about a cause you're such a vociferous supporter of? Shocker.

lolwut? I'm not supporting recreational or medicinal use of cannabis for kids, unless it is safe to do so. I simply stated that I had not seen any studies on the lasting effects of cannabis has on children.

Your ~beef~ shouldn't be with them, regardless... lobby parliament - I've done it, before... you could, too!

It's no great beef, it's just something I really don't appreciate. I'm never abusive or personal with officers; I just explain why I think what they're doing is disgusting and ridiculous.

For the most part I am glad we have a police force and I do appreciate most of they do.

They are just doing their job.

Their job, for that shift at least, was ridiculous and I feel the need to say so.

You are clearly extremely bitter about getting your weed confiscated, but blame the law and not the police doing their job.

Nothing confiscated yet. I don't appreciate having my balls bumped by other men though, nor being forcefully searched for a ridiculous reason.

 

[steve-h]

What ages are you supporting it for?

For however young is medically deemed appropriate. For recreational use, I would say 18 and over, like alcohol.

 

[Elixir]

Their job, for that shift at least, was ridiculous and I feel the need to say so.

Nothing confiscated yet. I don't appreciate having my balls bumped by other men though, nor being forcefully searched for a ridiculous reason.

Well good for you, but blame the laws governing what they do and not them for doing it.

 

[steve-h]

Well good for you, but blame the laws governing what they do and not them for doing it.

Oh I do. Like I said, I'm not going to be abusive, but I can't help but feel frustrated at police for upholding it. Voicing my concerns to officers and people in general is as far as it goes though, I'm not about to spit in a 9 year old's face just yet

 

[steve-h]

Brains are still developing past 18, no?

Also, lol at your assertion there have been no studies involving kids,

http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/198/6/442.abstract

I didn't say there we're no studies for kids, did I? Just none that I am aware of. recheck mah postz

 

[steve-h]

You said there were none you were aware of - I made the mistake of assuming that was made from a position of actually knowing something/having looked at the literature. The point is that you're painfully unaware! You've got no idea, yet still ~campaign~ for legalisation. Shouldn't you make yourself aware of the affects, before taking up such a position?

It's pretty obvious I'm not for legalising cannabis so kiddies can get high, no?

 

[steve-h]

But do you have any idea about the psychological harm that could be done?

To children, no. But I've not advocated children to be given access to cannabis.

You were unaware of the earlier info...

Well the majority of what I've read and documentaries I've watched are focused on adults, I hadn't really considered medicinal cannabis for children.

and you think it's okay for eighteen year olds (as you're unaware their brains are still developing). Instead of listing what you don't know, what do you know?!

Considering a lot of 18 year olds (and younger) smoke it already, I think it would be a step in the right direction. I don't see how prohibition makes for a safer situation here. What's going to be safer? Some idiot dealer spraying his weed with all sorts for greater weight and sparkle, or it being sold after being regulated in a coffee shop?

 

[steve-h]

The majority? What about the rest? And there's no harm to adults, based on your extensive research? Fancy linking to studies which back that up?

Well there's a lot on the uses of hemp, which isn't a thing since it's in the cannabis family. I'll post some tomorrow, I'm off to bed now.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rsC4IZhlx4I There's the best documentary ever on marijuana ever. I know this because it says it in the title.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJ4QR2NqgWU I think I remember this being quite good also, and it's much shorter.

So you think eighteen year olds should be able to smoke it, just because legalised cannabis would be better than illegal stuff? The point was about damage to developing brains - pure/impure cannabis isn't the point, there.

They smoke regardless, whether it's illegal or not. Imagine moving the money spent the losing battle of enforcing this law and putting it into education for young people on drugs and perhaps rehabilitation for people who've used hard drugs. I hear Spain have had some good results from doing this: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=portugal-drug-decriminalization

Cya tomorrow, x

 

[steve-h]

No, recognised journal articles/reports... not Youtube videos .

They are documentaries that happen to have been uploaded to youtube. As for studies, I'll link the ones I've read tomorrow.

I know the status quo, I was asking what you wanted - you were saying it's fine for eighteen year olds to smoke it, after also saying developing brains shouldn't have it... that doesn't make sense.

No, I said I had not read any studies conducted on the negative effects of cannabis on developing brains, so I'm not advocating it at this point in time.

 

[Burnsy2023]

I would like police officers, if they don't respect the laws, to speak out against them. I'm failing to see that, so I can only assume they're fine with continuing on with the ridiculous prohibition of cannabis and the like. Therefore I will show my lack of appreciation to police every chance I get, which sadly is quite frequent. I get the "just doing our job" idiocy in return...

Police seek and preserve public favour not by catering to public opinion, but by constantly demonstrating absolute impartial service to the law.

 

[Threepwood]

Well, thing is, most cops do have a brain and some common sense and I bet most of them have let someone off at some point for those very reasons. It's not like they are total robots.

The counter argument is they can also make a mountain out of a molehill at times too.

But hey, police are like a box of chocolates, as are the general public!

 

[Kenai]

I would like police officers, if they don't respect the laws, to speak out against them. I'm failing to see that, so I can only assume they're fine with continuing on with the ridiculous prohibition of cannabis and the like.

Have you ever considered perhaps, that in the likely circumstance they're not dopeheads, they probably don't disagree with the prohibition of cannabis in quite the way you do and do in fact respect the law they are upholding?

 

[steve-h]

Have you ever considered perhaps, that in the likely circumstance they're not dopeheads, they probably don't disagree with the prohibition of cannabis in quite the way you do and do in fact respect the law they are upholding?

Of course, I've said that many times.

I opened both and they look like jokes - just terrible documentaries. There are 9/11 conspiracy 'documentaries' on Youtube... it doesn't mean they're legit.

If you try to use the fact it's been hosted on Youtube to discredit it, you're going to have a bad time.

But you said it'd be fine for eighteen year olds, whose brains are still developing .

Sigh... another thing I didn't say. If you're going to say that I'm for something, can you now start providing the actual quote where I've said it, because this is getting silly now... I'm tired of correcting you.

Saying something should be legal for a certain age range does not mean I'm saying it's 'fine' for them. My point is that prohibition does not work. So I would rather people have safe access to safe cannabis, because they'll smoke it regardless of its legality.

Studies incoming after breakfast~

 

[Skull]

Moses I'd just stick him on ignore, he's your typical teenage slacktivist trying to dress up his desire to smoke cannabis and a trendy dislike of the police with pseudo-intellectual "arguments", skirting around the central issues and unable to pursue a line of debate.

The incredibly short-sighted suggestion that the police selectively ignore laws that they don't agree with should tell you enough about the quality of debate you're going to get.

 

[steve-h]

Moses I'd just stick him on ignore, he's your typical teenage slacktivist trying to dress up his desire to smoke cannabis and a trendy dislike of the police with pseudo-intellectual "arguments", skirting around the central issues and unable to pursue a line of debate.

The incredibly short-sighted suggestion that the police selectively ignore laws that they don't agree with should tell you enough about the quality of debate you're going to get.

All I heard were personal attacks, falsities regarding what I've said coupled with a lack of substance.

 

[steve-h]

So you'd legalise it, even if it's dangerous?

Does prohibition work?
Would it be safer to have the drug regulated or not?
Have we established that it's dangerous for 18+ year olds?
What minimum age does Amsterdam enforce?

Great debate I've just started watching:

It has been hosted on youtube though, so it's probably nonsense.

 

[semi-pro waster]

If you try to use the fact it's been hosted on Youtube to discredit it, you're going to have a bad time.

It's at a bit of a tangent to your point but it would be nice if for conspiracy theories (and various other nonsense such as Freeman on the Land) the immediate recourse wasn't to either a rambling and unclear YouTube video or a rambling and unclear website - neither of which tend to address the point they're supposed to.

I know I'm asking a lot but some days it would be nice just to have a succinct, clear and well-laid out argument put forward on such matters so that there wasn't a demand to spend 30+ minutes watching a daft video or reading a website that meanders all over the place. Brevity can sometimes be a virtue, hoping that people get bored reading and concede the point seldom is.