Would the world be a better place if everyone smoked weed?

Daruk

Honorary Master
Joined
Jul 18, 2008
Messages
36,506
#61
Be fair: that is an anecdotal statement at best.
It's my opinon. What were you expecting? A randomised control trial in South Africa?
It's an opinion formed in working with marginalised communities in different contexts for the past 14 years, but yes, it's an opinion.
 

LCBXX

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 11, 2006
Messages
10,200
#62
It's my opinon. What were you expecting? A randomised control trial in South Africa?
It's an opinion formed in working with marginalised communities in different contexts for the past 14 years, but yes, it's an opinion.
No. That said it is not the results of a randomised control trial that led to the criminalisation of dagga in the first place. It was an opinion.
 

Daruk

Honorary Master
Joined
Jul 18, 2008
Messages
36,506
#63
So a recent comprehensive study found this:
http://nationalacademies.org/hmd/~/...Health-Effects/Cannabis-report-highlights.pdf
There is substantial evidence of a statistical association between cannabis use and:
• The development of schizophrenia or other psychoses, with the highest risk among the most frequent users (12-1)
Released Jan 2017
Full report is linked here: http://nationalacademies.org/hmd/reports/2017/health-effects-of-cannabis-and-cannabinoids.aspx

In one of the most comprehensive studies of recent research on the health effects of recreational and therapeutic cannabis use, a new report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine offers a rigorous review of relevant scientific research published since 1999. This report summarizes the current state of evidence regarding what is known about the health impacts of cannabis and cannabis-derived products, including effects related to therapeutic uses of cannabis and potential health risks related to certain cancers, diseases, mental health disorders, and injuries. Areas in need of additional research and current barriers to conducting cannabis research are also covered in this comprehensive report.
 

Arksun

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2010
Messages
1,301
#64
Would be funnier, not necessarily better.

Robbers plan to rob a bank, end up robbing the wrong bank. Cop aims for robber, ends up shooting partner. Partner tries to call ambulance, ends up calling home affairs. Queue hour long wait, partner dies, everyone starts laughing...
I know a lot of potheads. None of them are high on the job. People just don't smoke weed when they have important things to do.
 

f2wohf

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 15, 2014
Messages
15,065
#69
If everyone included me and i was forced to smoke weed, I’d probably commit suicide after a while.

I get panic attacks when I smoke it, hate losing control, hate feeling slow, hate feeling dizzy...
 

Daruk

Honorary Master
Joined
Jul 18, 2008
Messages
36,506
#73
Then they are the first several cases ever recorded.

Does their death certificate say cause of death cannabis ?
Yeah, like people who die from HIV in this country... TB and other OIs are often on their certificate.
 

Daruk

Honorary Master
Joined
Jul 18, 2008
Messages
36,506
#75
Well you can't die from HIV.
Of course not, you always die of lack of oxygen to the brain.
But seriously, AIDS is generally acceptable to include on the certificate for medical accuracy.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Apr 5, 2018
Messages
2,809
#76
Then they are the first several cases ever recorded.

Does their death certificate say cause of death cannabis ?
I doubt it. But I have not inspected any such death certificates. JetsetWilly puts it very well in his contribution. I have relatives with HIV/AIDS. I also have relatives who 'use' cannabis. I was also involved with anti-smuggling work before retirement, and dealt with many varieties of drug addict. I also have relatives who 'use' alcohol to the point of drunkenness.

There is a case for decontrolling drugs. If they are not in fact deadly dangerous, then little harm will be done, except to perhaps road users damaged in accidents. But that risk is accepted with alcohol, so why not with presently controlled drugs? If they are not so harmless, then 'users' will die and stop breeding. That could in the long term reduce the (perceived) problem. I was not around when the controls were implemented, so cannot be sure what the perceived problem leading to the imposition of controls was, although I could look up the proceedings in the UK Parliament and others if I really wanted to know. I am not that interested. I have taken dihydrocodeine long term as a prescribed pain killer, which carried the risk of addiction, but was not addicted, as I stopped taking the tablets after a knee operation. I had no withdrawal symptoms. So maybe the risk of addiction is overstated. But it is logically unsound to argue from the particular to the general. Maybe the risk of addiction is a matter of genetics?

I have as you might expect met and spoken with many smokers of weed. I do not consider that their smoking of weed made them better to associate with. But that is simply my opinion: yours can quite legitimately differ. You can get some assessed facts from the links in JetsetWilly's post above. Inevitably it indicates more research is needed: those guys never miss a chance to tout for funds! (The classic research method is to identify a problem or a potential problem, and then persuade someone to fund the research, giving you an income as a bye-product. What do you think global warming - now morphed into global change because it became clear that the warming predictions were way off - is all about? It HAS to be a problem to justify the search for funding.)

It is often said that change is inevitable. Burke also said that it is for he who proposes change to justify that change. Temperamentally I go with him. But it is true that many changes will happen whether we wish it or not. Climate change is nothing new: it has been going on for many millenia. Some of the consequential changes were beneficial, some not. The real question is whether or not the changing climate is caused by human activity that we can control. The puritans amongst us say we should wear sack cloth and ashes and abstain from risky behaviour. The predictions so far have not been fulfilled as planned. So I have no intention of inconveniencing myself by getting my knickers in a twist over pollution allegedly caused by my motoring, essentaily to justify a group of researchers who seek to attract funds.
In the same way I am not going to start smoking tobacco or cannabis, or take opiates inadvisably. I am not going to argue for the decontrolling of Cannabis. You may if you wish: it is your privilege. But I will go along with Burke and leave it to you to justify a change in the law. The available evidence seems to be that there is probable cause to impose controls.

It is often said that "everyone is entitled to his/her opinion". That to my mind should be qualified to some extent: the opinion should be carefully considered in the first place. The freedom to have an opinion carries with it the responsibility to form the opinion with due care.
 

daveza

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 5, 2004
Messages
35,096
#77
The available evidence seems to be that there is probable cause to impose controls.
Sure, the same controls as on alcohol - not for sale to anyone under 18.

Unless anyone can argue why weed should be controlled more harshly than alcohol then that's all the control needed.
 
Joined
Apr 5, 2018
Messages
2,809
#78
Sure, the same controls as on alcohol - not for sale to anyone under 18.

Unless anyone can argue why weed should be controlled more harshly than alcohol then that's all the control needed.
I have some sympathy with your point, as you will have realised. But the 'need' for the controls was debated in various legislatures, and was accepted at that time. So to my mind, given that I go along with Burke, it is for you to demonstrate the need for a change if you are to convince me. But you are welcome to disagree with Burke, and take the line that because you say so, it is so. How many you will convince in that way remains to be seen.

A possible alternative viewpoint, embodying your reasoning, is that any controls should be like those on tobacco. I am not a smoker, and never have been, but I do feel that the 'do gooders' are having it all their own way. The subsequent hounding of the 'vapes' trade shows their mindset all too clearly. The philosophy seems to be that "if you like it, you can't have it". The UK Civil War Roundheads v. Cavaliers set up all over again.
 
Top