Glasgow drug user scheme

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

Glasgow drug user scheme

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 3 of 3 << First < 1 2 3

georgenorman 28 Sep 23 11.55am
Originally posted by EverybodyDannsNow Sure, although there are examples in the article of ways marijuana is safer. And if we're accepting they carry similar risks, it still makes it hard to understand why one is legal and one isn't. I can't see anywhere in the article that says marijuana is safe - can you quote them. Tobacco is still legal because of the practical problems in an outright ban - public outcry from smokers, policing costs, illegal importation, underground sales. Tobacco smoking is historically embedded in society but the gradual measures in pricing, restrictions and education will eventually close it down. Just because it is still legal does not justify legalising and even more dangerous drug.
Alert a moderator to this post

georgenorman

28 Sep 23 11.55am

Originally posted by EverybodyDannsNow

Sure, although there are examples in the article of ways marijuana is safer.

And if we're accepting they carry similar risks, it still makes it hard to understand why one is legal and one isn't.

I can't see anywhere in the article that says marijuana is safe - can you quote them.

Tobacco is still legal because of the practical problems in an outright ban - public outcry from smokers, policing costs, illegal importation, underground sales. Tobacco smoking is historically embedded in society but the gradual measures in pricing, restrictions and education will eventually close it down. Just because it is still legal does not justify legalising and even more dangerous drug.

Alert a moderator to this post

EverybodyDannsNow SE19 28 Sep 23 12.24pm
Originally posted by georgenorman I can't see anywhere in the article that says marijuana is safe - can you quote them. Tobacco is still legal because of the practical problems in an outright ban - public outcry from smokers, policing costs, illegal importation, underground sales. Tobacco smoking is historically embedded in society but the gradual measures in pricing, restrictions and education will eventually close it down. Just because it is still legal does not justify legalising and even more dangerous drug. The opening paragraph says "However, research appears to show that while marijuana smoking is still dangerous, it is less so than smoking tobacco." "both marijuana smoke and tobacco smoke contain polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, but in marijuana smoke levels are lower in “mainstream” smoke (which is inhaled and exhaled by users) " It's interesting that many of the reasons you state for why we can't ban tobacco are consequences of the ban on marijuana; more criminality, more police resources, illegal importation, underground market - if those consequences are not a worthwhile price to pay to ban tobacco, why are they for other substances? It's purely a cultural thing that one is 'acceptable' and the other isn't. As you allude to, there are far more effective ways to reduce people's reliance on dangerous substances, most obviously in terms of educating people to the risks - cigarette usage has plummeted over recent decades, not through prohibition, but through education - so we know this is a better approach, but simply chose not to follow it.
Alert a moderator to this post

EverybodyDannsNow

SE19 28 Sep 23 12.24pm

Send a Private Message to EverybodyDannsNow

Originally posted by georgenorman

I can't see anywhere in the article that says marijuana is safe - can you quote them.

The opening paragraph says "However, research appears to show that while marijuana smoking is still dangerous, it is less so than smoking tobacco."

"both marijuana smoke and tobacco smoke contain polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, but in marijuana smoke levels are lower in “mainstream” smoke (which is inhaled and exhaled by users) "

It's interesting that many of the reasons you state for why we can't ban tobacco are consequences of the ban on marijuana; more criminality, more police resources, illegal importation, underground market - if those consequences are not a worthwhile price to pay to ban tobacco, why are they for other substances?

It's purely a cultural thing that one is 'acceptable' and the other isn't.

As you allude to, there are far more effective ways to reduce people's reliance on dangerous substances, most obviously in terms of educating people to the risks - cigarette usage has plummeted over recent decades, not through prohibition, but through education - so we know this is a better approach, but simply chose not to follow it.

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 28 Sep 23 12.35pm
Originally posted by EverybodyDannsNow The opening paragraph says "However, research appears to show that while marijuana smoking is still dangerous, it is less so than smoking tobacco." "both marijuana smoke and tobacco smoke contain polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, but in marijuana smoke levels are lower in “mainstream” smoke (which is inhaled and exhaled by users) " It's interesting that many of the reasons you state for why we can't ban tobacco are consequences of the ban on marijuana; more criminality, more police resources, illegal importation, underground market - if those consequences are not a worthwhile price to pay to ban tobacco, why are they for other substances? It's purely a cultural thing that one is 'acceptable' and the other isn't. As you allude to, there are far more effective ways to reduce people's reliance on dangerous substances, most obviously in terms of educating people to the risks - cigarette usage has plummeted over recent decades, not through prohibition, but through education - so we know this is a better approach, but simply chose not to follow it. Sure, but cost...ugly pictures forced onto packages, display restrictions and a lack of role models smoking probably has a higher effect. I'm skeptical of calls to increase our medical problems....the state already makes money from mental suffering and addiction....we can add gambling to alcohol and fags.....adding to that doesn't seem like a good argument. 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays

28 Sep 23 12.35pm

Originally posted by EverybodyDannsNow

The opening paragraph says "However, research appears to show that while marijuana smoking is still dangerous, it is less so than smoking tobacco."

"both marijuana smoke and tobacco smoke contain polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, but in marijuana smoke levels are lower in “mainstream” smoke (which is inhaled and exhaled by users) "

It's purely a cultural thing that one is 'acceptable' and the other isn't.

As you allude to, there are far more effective ways to reduce people's reliance on dangerous substances, most obviously in terms of educating people to the risks - cigarette usage has plummeted over recent decades, not through prohibition, but through education - so we know this is a better approach, but simply chose not to follow it.

Sure, but cost...ugly pictures forced onto packages, display restrictions and a lack of role models smoking probably has a higher effect.

I'm skeptical of calls to increase our medical problems....the state already makes money from mental suffering and addiction....we can add gambling to alcohol and fags.....adding to that doesn't seem like a good argument.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert a moderator to this post

georgenorman 28 Sep 23 12.48pm
Originally posted by EverybodyDannsNow The opening paragraph says "However, research appears to show that while marijuana smoking is still dangerous, it is less so than smoking tobacco." "both marijuana smoke and tobacco smoke contain polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, but in marijuana smoke levels are lower in “mainstream” smoke (which is inhaled and exhaled by users) " It's interesting that many of the reasons you state for why we can't ban tobacco are consequences of the ban on marijuana; more criminality, more police resources, illegal importation, underground market - if those consequences are not a worthwhile price to pay to ban tobacco, why are they for other substances? It's purely a cultural thing that one is 'acceptable' and the other isn't. As you allude to, there are far more effective ways to reduce people's reliance on dangerous substances, most obviously in terms of educating people to the risks - cigarette usage has plummeted over recent decades, not through prohibition, but through education - so we know this is a better approach, but simply chose not to follow it. As I have said, just because tobacco smoking is still legal, that does not justify legalising other dangerous drugs. The scale of the problems that a complete ban on tobacco smoking would cause is hugely higher than those of marijuana being (somewhat) illegal. As I have also said, the one or two quotes from your article are miles away from the "considerably less harmful" stated by Silvertop. There are also plenty of articles available that contradict the one you are using. Edited by georgenorman (28 Sep 2023 12.49pm)
Alert a moderator to this post

georgenorman

28 Sep 23 12.48pm

Originally posted by EverybodyDannsNow

The opening paragraph says "However, research appears to show that while marijuana smoking is still dangerous, it is less so than smoking tobacco."

"both marijuana smoke and tobacco smoke contain polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, but in marijuana smoke levels are lower in “mainstream” smoke (which is inhaled and exhaled by users) "

It's purely a cultural thing that one is 'acceptable' and the other isn't.

As I have said, just because tobacco smoking is still legal, that does not justify legalising other dangerous drugs. The scale of the problems that a complete ban on tobacco smoking would cause is hugely higher than those of marijuana being (somewhat) illegal.

As I have also said, the one or two quotes from your article are miles away from the "considerably less harmful" stated by Silvertop. There are also plenty of articles available that contradict the one you are using.

Edited by georgenorman (28 Sep 2023 12.49pm)

Alert a moderator to this post

silvertop Portishead 28 Sep 23 12.49pm
I didn't say marijuana was safe or should be legalized, I said it was considerably less harmful than tobacco. I now accept the word "considerably" was possibly an emotive addition. However, that alien would still argue: ban one, ban both; keep one, keep both?? Good reasons cited for why one is legal and the other is not, but they are not rational today. And cannabis has medicinal qualities proven over millennia of use, but it is taking too long to overcome the political hurdles of licensing the extraction of the good bits. This, in turn, is possibly the government's (of all colours) reluctance to anger voters with what appears to be legalizing through the back door. Again, patent bollox but people strongly hold those views. Moreover, pharmaceutical use could be a possible boon to poor countries like Nepal where the plant grows in abundance (it's as widespread as bramble is here).
Alert a moderator to this post

silvertop

Portishead 28 Sep 23 12.49pm

I didn't say marijuana was safe or should be legalized, I said it was considerably less harmful than tobacco. I now accept the word "considerably" was possibly an emotive addition. However, that alien would still argue: ban one, ban both; keep one, keep both??

Good reasons cited for why one is legal and the other is not, but they are not rational today.

And cannabis has medicinal qualities proven over millennia of use, but it is taking too long to overcome the political hurdles of licensing the extraction of the good bits. This, in turn, is possibly the government's (of all colours) reluctance to anger voters with what appears to be legalizing through the back door.
Again, patent bollox but people strongly hold those views.

Moreover, pharmaceutical use could be a possible boon to poor countries like Nepal where the plant grows in abundance (it's as widespread as bramble is here).

Alert a moderator to this post

georgenorman 28 Sep 23 12.53pm
Originally posted by silvertop I didn't say marijuana was safe or should be legalized, I said it was considerably less harmful than tobacco. I now accept the word "considerably" was possibly an emotive addition. However, that alien would still argue: ban one, ban both; keep one, keep both?? Good reasons cited for why one is legal and the other is not, but they are not rational today. And cannabis has medicinal qualities proven over millennia of use, but it is taking too long to overcome the political hurdles of licensing the extraction of the good bits. This, in turn, is possibly the government's (of all colours) reluctance to anger voters with what appears to be legalizing through the back door. Again, patent bollox but people strongly hold those views. Moreover, pharmaceutical use could be a possible boon to poor countries like Nepal where the plant grows in abundance (it's as widespread as bramble is here). Sure cannabis should be used in a medical setting if beneficial. Morphine is used for pain relief, that's doesn't mean it should be freely available to the general public.
Alert a moderator to this post

georgenorman

28 Sep 23 12.53pm

Originally posted by silvertop

Good reasons cited for why one is legal and the other is not, but they are not rational today.

Moreover, pharmaceutical use could be a possible boon to poor countries like Nepal where the plant grows in abundance (it's as widespread as bramble is here).

Sure cannabis should be used in a medical setting if beneficial. Morphine is used for pain relief, that's doesn't mean it should be freely available to the general public.

Alert a moderator to this post

Nicholas91 The Democratic Republic of Kent 28 Sep 23 12.57pm
Originally posted by EverybodyDannsNow The opening paragraph says "However, research appears to show that while marijuana smoking is still dangerous, it is less so than smoking tobacco." "both marijuana smoke and tobacco smoke contain polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, but in marijuana smoke levels are lower in “mainstream” smoke (which is inhaled and exhaled by users) " It's interesting that many of the reasons you state for why we can't ban tobacco are consequences of the ban on marijuana; more criminality, more police resources, illegal importation, underground market - if those consequences are not a worthwhile price to pay to ban tobacco, why are they for other substances? It's purely a cultural thing that one is 'acceptable' and the other isn't. As you allude to, there are far more effective ways to reduce people's reliance on dangerous substances, most obviously in terms of educating people to the risks - cigarette usage has plummeted over recent decades, not through prohibition, but through education - so we know this is a better approach, but simply chose not to follow it. I'd argue against that EDN as a standalone point, given your other points have validity in the debate and I've not kept up with the discussion on this thread. One is a mind altering substance and the other is not. The reality of Marijuana affecting people's state of mind, the consequences of that societally and the potential for the renowned 'gateway' to worse would be the strongest argument against it IMHO. That is without the context of all other factors however including the fact that tobacco must have a far worse current effect of the nation's health before we even arrive at alcohol or the vast majority of food available en masse to the population. Now Zaha's got a bit of green grass ahead of him here... and finds Ambrose... not a bad effort!!!!
Alert a moderator to this post

Nicholas91

The Democratic Republic of Kent 28 Sep 23 12.57pm

Originally posted by EverybodyDannsNow

The opening paragraph says "However, research appears to show that while marijuana smoking is still dangerous, it is less so than smoking tobacco."

"both marijuana smoke and tobacco smoke contain polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, but in marijuana smoke levels are lower in “mainstream” smoke (which is inhaled and exhaled by users) "

It's purely a cultural thing that one is 'acceptable' and the other isn't.

I'd argue against that EDN as a standalone point, given your other points have validity in the debate and I've not kept up with the discussion on this thread.

One is a mind altering substance and the other is not. The reality of Marijuana affecting people's state of mind, the consequences of that societally and the potential for the renowned 'gateway' to worse would be the strongest argument against it IMHO.

That is without the context of all other factors however including the fact that tobacco must have a far worse current effect of the nation's health before we even arrive at alcohol or the vast majority of food available en masse to the population.

Now Zaha's got a bit of green grass ahead of him here... and finds Ambrose... not a bad effort!!!!

Alert a moderator to this post

EverybodyDannsNow SE19 28 Sep 23 1.14pm
Originally posted by Nicholas91 I'd argue against that EDN as a standalone point, given your other points have validity in the debate and I've not kept up with the discussion on this thread. One is a mind altering substance and the other is not. The reality of Marijuana affecting people's state of mind, the consequences of that societally and the potential for the renowned 'gateway' to worse would be the strongest argument against it IMHO. That is without the context of all other factors however including the fact that tobacco must have a far worse current effect of the nation's health before we even arrive at alcohol or the vast majority of food available en masse to the population. That's fair, but then alcohol does the same thing in terms of altering your state of mind, arguably in a much more problematic way - the weed/gateway argument has never particularly been proven to be true from what I've read. To be clear my argument is not really that smoking weed is 'safe' or should be encouraged, but more than it's really hard to argue it's more dangerous than many substances which are legal in our society - I think silvertop's alien analogy is quite a good way of framing this. And I think my view more broadly is a matter of principle; I'm not at all convinced it's the state's job to tell you can or can't smoke a plant, it is simply to advise you of the risks of doing so. Finally, my main issue with the policy is it simply doesn't work; weed is as prevalent now as it ever has been, if not more so, and that's despite it being recently re-classified. Given that, and given a demand clearly exists for the stuff, I'd rather our resources were invested in educating people to the risks and ensuring there is a safe way for people who want to engage with the substance to do so. It would also more than pay for itself in tax revenue.
Alert a moderator to this post

EverybodyDannsNow

SE19 28 Sep 23 1.14pm

Originally posted by Nicholas91

I'd argue against that EDN as a standalone point, given your other points have validity in the debate and I've not kept up with the discussion on this thread.

That's fair, but then alcohol does the same thing in terms of altering your state of mind, arguably in a much more problematic way - the weed/gateway argument has never particularly been proven to be true from what I've read.

To be clear my argument is not really that smoking weed is 'safe' or should be encouraged, but more than it's really hard to argue it's more dangerous than many substances which are legal in our society - I think silvertop's alien analogy is quite a good way of framing this.

And I think my view more broadly is a matter of principle; I'm not at all convinced it's the state's job to tell you can or can't smoke a plant, it is simply to advise you of the risks of doing so.

Finally, my main issue with the policy is it simply doesn't work; weed is as prevalent now as it ever has been, if not more so, and that's despite it being recently re-classified. Given that, and given a demand clearly exists for the stuff, I'd rather our resources were invested in educating people to the risks and ensuring there is a safe way for people who want to engage with the substance to do so. It would also more than pay for itself in tax revenue.

Alert a moderator to this post

Nicholas91 The Democratic Republic of Kent 28 Sep 23 1.33pm
Originally posted by EverybodyDannsNow That's fair, but then alcohol does the same thing in terms of altering your state of mind, arguably in a much more problematic way - the weed/gateway argument has never particularly been proven to be true from what I've read. To be clear my argument is not really that smoking weed is 'safe' or should be encouraged, but more than it's really hard to argue it's more dangerous than many substances which are legal in our society - I think silvertop's alien analogy is quite a good way of framing this. And I think my view more broadly is a matter of principle; I'm not at all convinced it's the state's job to tell you can or can't smoke a plant, it is simply to advise you of the risks of doing so. Finally, my main issue with the policy is it simply doesn't work; weed is as prevalent now as it ever has been, if not more so, and that's despite it being recently re-classified. Given that, and given a demand clearly exists for the stuff, I'd rather our resources were invested in educating people to the risks and ensuring there is a safe way for people who want to engage with the substance to do so. It would also more than pay for itself in tax revenue. Yeah that's fair I agree with all of that bar the gateway theory, as just about everybody I knew growing up smoked it and I've seen the gateways being walked through which is a lived experience as opposed to an academic one. I'd also argue if you generally adopt a culture or way of life that revolves around 'not being sober' most of the time this will inevitably accelerate or exacerbate any likelihood to explore other avenues. I agree, certainly around alcohol most of all, that the comparison is valid and it is cultural as to why one is treated one way and the other differently, but to the same extent I would not adopt a 'this is legal, can do this to you, so up to you' approach to a mind altering substance, whereas cigarettes are not. Government intervention is there for law and more relatively order, and Marijuana is deemed to threaten this and I think fairly. A government's right to tell you that you cannot smoke a plant is surely comparable to saying at what age you can smoke tobacco, or where you can and can't walk freely in the body God gave you without covering up, or where you can build a house for yourself etc. It's a too loose and sentimentally based statement to make I'd suggest. I should point out that I am not arguing against you however, I just thought Cigarettes and Marijuana are two different things and should not be compared in the context of why one is legal and the other not. Cigarettes are extremely harmful for you, even more so than I think most people realise, but so is the likes of obesity and inactivity, sugar etc however these are lifestyle choices, very hard to control. Marijuana is a mind altering substance, whether it be a plant or not, and any government must therefore take responsibility for determining it's legality given the potential consequences for society in having people en masse legally able to change their state of mind quite quickly (as with alcohol). Whether they do that well or not, especially when other mind altering substances are legally available, is a whole different conversation and one I'd happily get into and most likely agree with you on, if I had the time (this has taken me a good few minutes lol)! Now Zaha's got a bit of green grass ahead of him here... and finds Ambrose... not a bad effort!!!!
Alert a moderator to this post

Nicholas91

The Democratic Republic of Kent 28 Sep 23 1.33pm

Originally posted by EverybodyDannsNow

And I think my view more broadly is a matter of principle; I'm not at all convinced it's the state's job to tell you can or can't smoke a plant, it is simply to advise you of the risks of doing so.

Yeah that's fair I agree with all of that bar the gateway theory, as just about everybody I knew growing up smoked it and I've seen the gateways being walked through which is a lived experience as opposed to an academic one. I'd also argue if you generally adopt a culture or way of life that revolves around 'not being sober' most of the time this will inevitably accelerate or exacerbate any likelihood to explore other avenues.

I agree, certainly around alcohol most of all, that the comparison is valid and it is cultural as to why one is treated one way and the other differently, but to the same extent I would not adopt a 'this is legal, can do this to you, so up to you' approach to a mind altering substance, whereas cigarettes are not.

Government intervention is there for law and more relatively order, and Marijuana is deemed to threaten this and I think fairly. A government's right to tell you that you cannot smoke a plant is surely comparable to saying at what age you can smoke tobacco, or where you can and can't walk freely in the body God gave you without covering up, or where you can build a house for yourself etc. It's a too loose and sentimentally based statement to make I'd suggest.

I should point out that I am not arguing against you however, I just thought Cigarettes and Marijuana are two different things and should not be compared in the context of why one is legal and the other not. Cigarettes are extremely harmful for you, even more so than I think most people realise, but so is the likes of obesity and inactivity, sugar etc however these are lifestyle choices, very hard to control. Marijuana is a mind altering substance, whether it be a plant or not, and any government must therefore take responsibility for determining it's legality given the potential consequences for society in having people en masse legally able to change their state of mind quite quickly (as with alcohol).

Whether they do that well or not, especially when other mind altering substances are legally available, is a whole different conversation and one I'd happily get into and most likely agree with you on, if I had the time (this has taken me a good few minutes lol)!

Now Zaha's got a bit of green grass ahead of him here... and finds Ambrose... not a bad effort!!!!

Alert a moderator to this post

Teddy Eagle 28 Sep 23 1.40pm
Humans have an attraction to anything mind or mood altering. From magic mushrooms to toad licking lots of people are willing to give it a go and legal restrictions haven't made any difference. [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

Teddy Eagle

28 Sep 23 1.40pm

Humans have an attraction to anything mind or mood altering. From magic mushrooms to toad licking lots of people are willing to give it a go and legal restrictions haven't made any difference.

[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 3 of 3 << First < 1 2 3

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

Glasgow drug user scheme

Site Map

New users

Existing users

Sponsors