Cannabis - can we have an informed and gentle discussion on this, please

Cannabis is not physically addictive. Alcohol and tobacco are. Any attempt to compare the substances on this basis alone amounts to little more than an erroneous conflation. Furthermore, it’s worth noting that globally, the WHO estimates that tobacco and alcohol are responsible for over 10 million deaths a year annually, whereas the number of deaths attributed to cannabis stands at a whopping … ZERO.

Conversely, do you think that banning alcohol and tobacco would “solve” the addiction problem? No—it would probably lead to people going blind due to drinking “dodgy moonshine”. Therefore, would it not be preferable to have a regulated market for cannabis where such things as contaminants and cannabinoid levels could be properly tested and labelled and adult consumers could make an informed choice?

1 Like

Thanks for sharing your Amsterdam experience, however I am not sure that cannabis rightfully belongs in the “same category” as alcohol. The latter is responsible for over 3.3 million deaths annually and is physically addictive. Cannabis is not physically addictive and zero deaths have been directly attributed to it.

Is that right Dan? Hands up I don’t know much about cannabis but I thought the issue was with the smoking side of it i.e lung disease / cancer - isn’t the act of smoking anything simply a carcinogenic risk?

Hello Dan… where have you been… :thinking: thanks for the photo :relaxed:

this cannabis conversation is a complex one and IMO may well have run its course… you have actually replied to someone who is no longer on the forum…:sunglasses::sunglasses:

It is right that few deaths are attributed to cannabis but that is probably not the whole story - for one thing, being illegal, it is rather likely that people “forget” to mention cannabis use when they interact with healthcare professionals so deaths don’t get attributed.

As to physically addictive or not - well, the notion of physical vs psychological addition is a bit old hat - addicted is addicted.

2 Likes

Cannabis can be addictive with 10% of regular users becoming dependent, in addition you can develop a tolerance to it just like heroin and cocaine so you need more to feel the same effect.

1 Like

There’s actually a big difference between physical and psychological addiction. You don’t get the shakes and diarrhea, for instance, with merely psychological addiction although I readily concede the mind is a powerful thing. Moreover, the benefits of cannabis - both the psychoactive THC and the more corporeal CBD are manifold and not yet fully understood. I believe every adult has an inalienable right to grow and use their own medicine and, for that matter, recreational / spiritual substances - although such activities are often regarded as onanistic, particularly by those lacking direct experience. It’s a truly magic plant with which we have likely co-evolved as evidenced by the existence of our bodies’ endocannabinoid systems. Anyway, as this thread gathered dust a while back I’ll step away from the keyboard and find something else to do with my hands… :slight_smile:

1 Like

As I understand it Tim, the most effective way to enjoy the recreational / spiritual benefits of cannabis is to take a single substantial dose once a week. Admittedly very few cannabis enthusiasts follow this pattern and build up a tolerance, especially if used heavily. As with so many things, a heuristic about moderation springs to mind.

I came across this today and found it interesting…another Shaman’s medicine and PTSD…

“Wars should not be waged so frivolously as they are today, for the human spirit is too fragile to engage in such barbarity without suffering terrible consequences…”

https://www.wakingtimes.com/2015/12/03/how-a-shamans-medicine-is-curing-combat-veterans-of-ptsd/

Regrettably, and no doubt notwithstanding your best intentions, Channel 5 has failed you. Firstly, “skunk” is not a “derivative” of cannabis. It is simply a hybrid of Colombian, Mexican and Afghani landrace cannabis cultivars that have been grown for millennia and are themselves the result of many, many selections made by growers over many, many years. Developing cultivars according to our tastes, growing environment and increasing need for productivity is part of agriculture.

Secondly, hybridised cannabis has not been shown to be physically addictive. The “whacky baccy” as you endearingly call it—that which folks [of diverse footwear preferences] enjoyed in the 1960s—was predominantly imported hashish which, being a concentrate, invariably contained a higher percentage of cannabinoids than the strongest of cannabis flowers available on the market today. The whole “it’s not the same as the stuff we used to smoke” is a tired and discredited yarn.

Thirdly, your notion of “carte blanch” [sic] legalisation is, at best, wrongheaded. Currently cannabis, as an illegal substance in the UK, does not fall under any regulation schedule. Legalisation would cause it to be treated like other similar commodities whether that’s a medicine, herbal remedy or food and, thus, be subject to tight controls on quality and safety. Legalisation does not equate to a “free for all” — that’s more akin to the current state of affairs arising from its prohibition. Thus, I’m left a little unsure what you mean—in practical terms—when you refer to keeping cannabis within “legal boundaries”. How do those boundaries currently operate?

Fourthly and finally—should free-thinking adults really seek any “authority” to grow or use cannabis in the first place? Humans have benefited from cannabis for millennia and will continue to do so, regardless of permission being granted (or denied) from uninvolved and uninvited third parties. Cannabis grows all over the planet. Any attempt to prohibit it is utterly futile. Nepali farmers use it to help their cows get over diarrhoea. The ancient Greeks used to throw a few branches on the sauna coals. The Chinese have used it in medicines since the beginning of recorded time. What we have seen, across many jurisdictions, is the abuse of anti-cannabis laws to target otherwise peaceful and law abiding people involved with, as just one example, the environmental or anti-war movement.

I believe that the notion of “illegal plants” in any so-called civilisation is, in itself, obnoxious and absurd. What we need is more understanding — primarily as a result of direct experience rather than second-hand propaganda spewed out by the broadcast media.

In any case, Graham, may I wish you a very peaceful and happy day in the beautiful Charente and I hope that you will consider my response in the open-minded, accepting and friendly spirit it’s intended.

3 Likes

Did you just equate possession of cannabis with attempted manslaughter or grievous bodily harm / assault? I think you did. Let me guess, your neighbour pops his copy of the Daily Mail through your letterbox when he’s done with it. Tawdry.

Dan… you are replying to a member who is now Anon… ie left the forum.

Thanks Stella. It felt good to leave a more sane and reasonable comment, just for the record. :slight_smile:

1 Like

If that’s a sane and reasonable response gawd help us if you get stressed

1 Like

It was at least a very thorough response…& not typed in capitals.

2 Likes

@Dan_Fox @anon22869222 @Codfanglers

I’m in the mood to like everything… :wink: we need a little fun today, the weather is grim and the news even grimmer…

so, let’s have a few more sane and reasonable posts… please :rofl: (and no capitals :crazy_face:)

2 Likes

My thoughts on Cannabis - make it a prescription drug first. It is already proven in many countries to have health benefits. Looking at the experience in various US states that have legalized recreational use, shows that overall use has not increased. What has increased is the taxes those states have raised. Highly controlled shops sell all kinds of cannabis products and pay taxes. Best of both!
Also - the only thing ever murdered while high on weed was probably a bag of Doritos…
Not saying it’s not dangerous, but so is alcohol and texting while driving

1 Like

Should it be a requirement that cannabis only be made legal in France in areas that there is a pizza delivery service?

Just thinking of those who get a little peckish afterwards!

3 Likes

That’s the take on it for many in France, Bettina. We’ve got the logistics already in place: as a buraliste it’s been talked about for a number of years in the trade and we’re just waiting for it to happen. We’re a controlled industry effectively collecting tax for the state: 82% in the case of tobacco and I presume it’ll be the same if or when it is legalised. France is one of the biggest consummers in Europe of cannabis, it’s everywhere, so why not get it legalised and controlled?

4 Likes

That should IMO be the definitively final word on the subject. Bravo that man.

2 Likes