SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Hague's call to legalise cannabis rejected by government
The government has rejected a call from Lord Hague to consider legalising the recreational use of cannabis. In an article for the Daily Telegraph, the former Tory leader said the war on cannabis had been "irreversibly lost" and a change of policy was needed. His call was prompted by the case of a boy with epilepsy who was given a special licence to use cannabis oil.
Home Secretary Sajid Javid has told MPs there will be a review of the medical use of cannabis in the UK. The Home Office has set up an expert panel to review the rules on the therapeutic use of the drug, but a spokesman stressed that the existing laws on the recreational use of cannabis would not be changed.
[...] Last week officials at Heathrow Airport confiscated Billy Caldwell's cannabis oil, which the 12-year-old's mother Charlotte had been attempting to bring into the UK from Canada. The Home Office returned some of the medicine after protests from Ms Caldwell, and assurances from the medical team treating Billy that the treatment was necessary. [...] Lord Hague said the debate about Billy Caldwell was "one of those illuminating moments when a longstanding policy is revealed to be inappropriate, ineffective and utterly out of date". By returning the medicine to the Caldwell family, the Home Office had "implicitly conceded that the law has become indefensible", he said.
[...] Prime Minister Theresa May remains firmly opposed to legalisation or decriminalisation of the drug because of the harm she says it does to individual users and communities.
Guardian editorial. Also at The Telegraph.
See also: Cannabis: What are the risks of recreational use?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 22 2018, @05:05AM (32 children)
Disclaimer: I don't use the stuff, neither do I smoke.
But I seriously question why tobacco is tolerated and weed not, even given statistics on the damage tobacco causes.
The only time I feel someone should be denied their desire is if their fulfillment comes at someone else's expense.
I don't want anyone smoking up the air in an eatery anymore than I want them running their motorcycle or old diesel truck in there.
But if they want to go enjoy their stuff in private, I am all for it.
I know they will fuss about people being high.. big deal, I know a few that are drunk all the time. We tried Prohibition. All that did was fund vast underground "criminal" empires. ( "criminal" in quotes because I consider it a matter of whose definition applies. To some they were liquor merchants, doing what was necessary to fulfill the wants of their customers. ).
My take.. its just another recreational thing... like tobacco, alcohol, or sharing music. Trying to regulate it will do little but erode the 99%'ers respect and compliance for law, and they will consider it a wish-list, not law, and it becomes just a huge whack-a-mole to administer. The country would well go bankrupt trying to apply all its resources into compliance enforcement.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday June 22 2018, @05:24AM (10 children)
It is the smoking of tobacco that produces all the nasty chemicals, not the nicotine. And, believe it or not, the same chemicals will be produced by the smoking MJ.
Ask your PM representative.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 22 2018, @10:04AM (3 children)
If that were true, people who chew/dip tobacco would not develop cancers of the mouth/gums/lips but they do.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday June 22 2018, @10:31AM (2 children)
You have a point [wikipedia.org]
This doesn't mean smoking MJ is safe.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Friday June 22 2018, @04:08PM (1 child)
Smoking MJ is much safer than tobacco, for one very simple reason: volume.
Ask any MJ smoker how much they smoke. Unless they're a very heavy user, they're probably just recreational user who lights up a little on the weekends or maybe a bit on weeknights. It's not addictive the way nicotine is, and they don't smoke continuously throughout the day the way that cigarette smokers do. The total volume of material they smoke is therefor a tiny fraction of that of a typical tobacco user. Therefore, they're just not going to have all the problems tobacco users do, just like an occasional wine drinker isn't going to have the problems that an alcoholic does.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Friday June 22 2018, @07:10PM
Hey hey hey hey. 81 blunts a day [reddit.com].
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 5, Informative) by pTamok on Friday June 22 2018, @10:28AM (5 children)
I don't believe it. This fairly comprehensive report on the The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine, Health Division:The Health Effects of Cannabis and Cannabinoids: The Current State of Evidence and Recommendations for Research (January 2017) [nationalacademies.org] says that:
A document listing the comittee's full conclusions is available here: National Academies: Cannabis Health Effects: Conclusions [nationalacademies.org]
You can find out more about the National Academies of the Sciences, Engineering and Medicine on their 'about' page:National Academies:Who We Are [nationalacademies.org]
As for why there is a such a difference between cannabis smokers and tobacco smokers, I don't know the answer. It could be down to smoking habits, the contents of the smoke, lifestyle confounders, or many other possible reasons - but the epidemiological statistics are clear. Cannabis smokers and tobacco smokers have different incidences of lung cancer.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday June 22 2018, @10:36AM (3 children)
We'll see when the MJ smoking will be as usual a habit as tobacco smoking - with cannabis being illegal, I don't think the statistics have the same relevance.
Until the, that's a nice info there.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 3, Insightful) by CoolHand on Friday June 22 2018, @01:10PM
Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job-Douglas Adams
(Score: 4, Informative) by digitalaudiorock on Friday June 22 2018, @01:27PM
A huge factor you're omitting completely is this: Even if the theoretical cancer risk etc from pot smoke where the same as tobacco, just how much pot do you think people will smoke? Smokers often smoke 1/2 to 2 or more packs a day. Typical weed these days will bake someone for hours with like three hits. I just don't see the comparison. And also, as others have pointed out, there are edibles as well.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Friday June 22 2018, @04:10PM
Marijuana simply is not physically addictive the way tobacco is, so it'll never be as usual a habit as tobacco smoking. There's outliers of course, but the vast majority of MJ users just don't use very much. Even the heavy users don't use as much as a typical cigarette smoker; the effect just doesn't lend itself to wanting to get another hit every hour like with tobacco.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 22 2018, @09:24PM
As for why there is a such a difference between cannabis smokers and tobacco smokers, I don't know the answer.
Nor do I, but there is a growing mountain of (admittedly anectdotal) evidence that cannabis has curative properties for most forms of cancer. I myself fought stage IV colon cancer for 6 years, and was given 2-6 months (tops) to live almost 3 years ago, when the cancer moved into my lungs (all 4 lobes riddled with the stuff). After 18 rounds of intense chemo (12 FolFox, 6 Folfiri for those to whom that means something), numerous sugeries, oral chemo & radiation, etc. the jig was up, I was going to die and there was nothing to do about it.
Except, my oncologist mentioned that the palliative care department had seen curative value in some high-THC cannabis oils, and another of her patients had cured himself using it. I went on a 6-month intense course of Rick Simpson cannabis oil (had to go on leave from work, obviously, because you're high about 20 hours/day, which might sound like fun but is actually quite a miserable experience). It's no cakewalk, but it sure beats chemo, and it definitely beats dying of cancer. I am now in complete remission, and am my oncologist's second patient to survive thanks to medical marijuana. My experience is not unique; there have been thousands of people with late-stage cancers who have survived, gone into remission, and cured themselves using this stuff. Current thinking is that it works by regulating the endocannabinoid system (ECS) and marshaling your own immune response to kill the cancer, but since the FDA has blocked pretty much all studies on the subject, the only studies I was able to reference were a small one in California, a couple if Israeli studies, and one from Spain. It's valid science, but not the gold-standard, double-blind statistical study required to have any chance of allowing it to become an FDA-approved and doctor-prescribed treatment. Which will probably not happen, since the FDA blocks said studies.
Which of course sucks for cancer patients, but is really nice for those who profit from the $5+Trillion dollar chemo industry.
Now, to prepare Rick Simpson oil you have to keep the temperatures low or you destroy many of the life-saving chemicals you need, so smoking and vaping are right out. You ingest the oil, or take it sublingually, but it may be that, even smoking it, some of the anti-cancer benefits remain and offset the carcinogenic effects of smoking. This would actually go a long way toward explaining those otherwise surprising, and very non-intuitive, results.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Whoever on Friday June 22 2018, @05:41AM (7 children)
Historically, it was because blacks used weed, while whites used alcohol. Racism. pure and simple.
(Score: 2) by Dr Spin on Friday June 22 2018, @07:03AM (2 children)
Historically, it was because muslims used weed, while whites used alcohol. Racism. pure and simple.
Correct about the cause (racism), but at least get your facts right.
Warning: Opening your mouth may invalidate your brain!
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Friday June 22 2018, @09:46AM
That's a nice sound bite, but can you substantiate it? Can you show that it was muslims (a religion) rather than any other group of people of any colour you wish that popularised the use of cannabis?
One source [themuslimvibe.com] quotes the following:
Perhaps it isn't the religion that is to blame, but those who decided to get rich by growing and supplying cannabis.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Thexalon on Friday June 22 2018, @05:45PM
In the US, it was racism and a hatred of left-leaning young people. The people doing this were quite explicit about it. Indeed, even the name "marijuana" was invented and used because the people restricting its use wanted the plant associated with Mexicans even though it had been cultivated in the US since colonial times. Richard Nixon was also very clear that the purpose of his ramping up of the War on Drugs didn't have anything to do with the drugs, and everything to do with having an excuse to arrest black people and hippies, especially anyone who was considering, say, leading a protest against the bombing of Cambodia.
Because drug crimes are written so that having an object is the crime rather than doing something with it, it means planting evidence is extremely easy to do. All a cop has to do to ruin the life of anybody they like is carry a bag of drugs around, make up an excuse to stop somebody and pat them down, and during the pat-down "find" the bag. They get a collar, and their victim gets jail time and legal discrimination against them the rest of their lives.
Another relevant point: After some states started legalizing cannabis, many cops complained that they could no longer arbitrarily search a vehicle by claiming to smell cannabis. Any doubts that this has anything at all to do with the effects of cannabis on humans should go away based on that alone.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 22 2018, @07:18AM (1 child)
Historically, it was because women used weed, while males used alcohol. Sexism. pure and simple.
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Friday June 22 2018, @11:43AM
Historically, it was because weeds used Roundup and alcohol Leeds to speling misstacks secksism poor anSimpel....gotsa go pee...
....BLEARRRGH!....
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 2, Funny) by Ethanol-fueled on Friday June 22 2018, @08:49AM
It was because both Blacks and Whites used weed, and having the upper hand in society at the time the Whites thought while high and paranoid, "Oh no, those scary Black men must be having the same thoughts I am about raping White women while high! And since I am high I'm now thinking about their huge Black weenies and can't get them out of my head! This madness, this Reefer Madness must stop!" Then the Whites self-flagellated in their self-loathing before outlawing weed because it causes scary Blacks to rape pristine virginal White women.
Everytime White men want to ban something it is because it is related to some variation of their personal experience above. Also see: politicians and Baptist preachers.
(Score: 1, Troll) by Weasley on Friday June 22 2018, @04:11PM
So, you're saying black people all smoke pot. Maybe you're the racist.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 22 2018, @07:38AM (1 child)
You speak as if this was in the past.
Yeah, the name was changed (from "prohibition" to "the war on drugs"), and there was a minor change removing alcohol from the list of prohibited drugs, but other than that, nothing really changed. We are still funding vast underground criminal empires, and they aren't any less rich than they used to be.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 22 2018, @03:15PM
"We are still funding vast underground criminal empires, and they aren't any less rich than they used to be."
yeah, like the cops and the prison system.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 22 2018, @08:17AM (3 children)
> But if they want to go enjoy their stuff in private, I am all for it.
While a good idea in principle, people vastly overextend "in private" in practice.
Just look at how many cigarette stubs are lying around everywhere.
Some people are smoking that much, that it becomes hard to stand next to them in the bus without throwing up. Even your average homeless drunk smells a lot better (plus, they usually aren't on the bus).
Or check out Russia, Moskva airport, all the toilets stink of smoke because people just ignore that it's forbidden to smoke there (which if course also means they can't have properly working fire alarm systems).
Admittedly to be honest I am fine with the state as it is now, but a lot of addicts are totally kidding themselves when they claim it's about "enjoy their stuff in private", or their ability to actually keep their addiction private (not that alcohol is better though). But maybe your average weed smoker is better than your average cigarette smoker...
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday June 22 2018, @08:44AM (2 children)
Best me if I imagine a rational reason a toilet would need fire alarm sensors.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 22 2018, @08:46AM (1 child)
For when cyka bylatman lights his arse on fire on the john?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 22 2018, @08:52AM
What kind of exploding shit is this?
(Score: 1) by Ethanol-fueled on Friday June 22 2018, @08:52AM (2 children)
CBD oil isn't psychoactive as smokin' da reefer is, you nincompoop. The only reason why it's such a pain in the ass to legally get is because it threatens big pharma and old White men who think smoking a telegraph-sized pole of hemp rope makes scary Black men wanna rape White women.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 22 2018, @08:56AM (1 child)
They do. But not because of the hemp, this is how they are all the time.
(Score: 1) by Ethanol-fueled on Friday June 22 2018, @09:49AM
Methinks if White men back in those days had easy and private access to something like Blacked.com, then they would be too "distracted" by their own fetishes to ban hemp and modern Americans would be federally and legally smoking Marijuana legally alongside drinking Ethyl Alcohol. And Beaver Cleaver's wholesome dad wouldn't have had to have been talked out of suicide off-camera as a result of the cognitive dissonance caused by the social pressures of the time.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Friday June 22 2018, @03:56PM (2 children)
We tried Prohibition. All that did was fund vast underground "criminal" empires. ( "criminal" in quotes because I consider it a matter of whose definition applies. To some they were liquor merchants, doing what was necessary to fulfill the wants of their customers. ).
No, they really *were* criminal enterprises. What made them criminal was that they used extreme violence and murder in the course of their business; they weren't just giving customers what they wanted, they were murdering their competition (and the police).
But you're still right: we tried it, and it doesn't work. When something is that popular and desired by the overall population, you end up creating a big black market for it, and that necessarily includes violence because it operates outside of the legal system which exists to resolve disputes.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 22 2018, @10:10PM (1 child)
When you make things illegal you encourage violence. They are already breaking the law, why not knock it up a few notches and REALLY make some money?
Not how I'd go about it, but plenty enough humans do.
(Score: 2) by Aiwendil on Saturday June 23 2018, @03:22PM
Take a look at some of the lesser know people of the prohibition era, like Al Capone. He went from being a school thug, to a bouncer at brothels to being a bodyguard for the head honco for a bootleg liquor racket which he later on ended up running, with increasingly agressive means for that racket.
So no, he didn't bring it up a few notches, he brought the game from a smaller field into a less violent field.
Also, when making something illegal you don't really encourage violence but rather you remove the discouraging elements that prevents the escalation of violence (in a completly legal playing field the capacity for violence tends to include annexing whole countries and involving armies, see letters of marque for this)
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Friday June 22 2018, @03:59PM
I don't smoke or drink. I question why alcohol is tolerated if weed is not. Alcohol is a huge societal problem in multiple ways (because of some people).
Like you, I don't mind if someone drinks, smokes or gets high in private. Once done in public, there are other factors, like how it affects others, and do you have a way to get home safely while avoiding Uber?
Making alcohol illegal will not stop people from drinking.
Making weed illegal will not stop people from getting high.
Making abortions illegal will not stop people from getting them in a dark alley with no medical care.
And I could bring up Opioids.
If you're trying to fix what is wrong inside people by passing laws to make it illegal, you're doing it wrong.
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.