# Do spliffs facilitate carb replenishment?



## MessenJah (10 Mar 2009)

Me and my mate are gonna ride from Paris to Amsterdam soon. It's gonna be easy as long as we don't get lost. If we wanted to we could ride about 100 miles a day for 3 days and then spend the rest of the fortnight in Amsterdam smoking lots of spliffs. But we're gonna do about 40 miles a day really slowly and try to sample as much of France and Belgium as we can along the way. 

Anyway, what I wanna know is this. I have a very temperamental appetite, by which I mean sometimes I can't eat even though I know I need to feed my muscles. However, I've read that cannabis gives you something called the 'munchies' which is because some of the 'cannabinoids' in cannabis mimic the chemical messengers in your brain that make you hungry. In which case, if I smoked some, I would probably have to eat lots of food even if I wasn't hungry. Surely this is a good thing, after a hard day of cycling, I could light up a cannabis cigarette and then due to being 'stoned' I would want to eat lots of food, which would replace the carbs that I've burnt during the day. Surely this is better than failing to eat due to lack of appetite.


----------



## col (10 Mar 2009)

Iv been told using crack cocain is good for losing wieght too, mmmm I wonder?


----------



## Rhythm Thief (10 Mar 2009)

Have a spliff. Not for any sort of dietary reasons, just because getting mildly stoned is lots of fun.


----------



## bonj2 (10 Mar 2009)

if you eat loads of carbs in the evening, then if you don't burn them off within a few hours then they'll get stored as fat. Also wont' do much for your lung capacity.


----------



## mickle (10 Mar 2009)

Jah! Smoke dem chill an ting.  bim!! Yes I


----------



## Dave5N (10 Mar 2009)

Terrible


----------



## mickle (10 Mar 2009)

Dave5N said:


> Terrible


Yah.


----------



## TheDoctor (11 Mar 2009)

If you're going somewhere it's legal, it'd be almost rude not to IMHO. 

Shmoke?


----------



## Rhythm Thief (11 Mar 2009)

I haven't had any weed for ages, but I really fancy a spliff now.


----------



## zimzum42 (11 Mar 2009)

Am envious as hell, I'd get locked up for about 12 years for smoking up here.....


Hmmm, time for a trip to Cambodia!


----------



## ChrisCrc (11 Mar 2009)

Amsterdam and other parts of Holland are very tolerant and i think they have slightly changed there views on it recently, But i'm sure you will still be able to find COFFEE SHOPS that serve the need.

I will be going Via Holland next year on my tour and will definitely sample the delights of whats on offer along the way...

Yeah you will get the Munchies, Just make sure you EAT GOOD FOOD and not Crap food then everything will balance itself out nicely..

Just Beware that the WEED is very Strong in Holland and you will probably get so stoned that you wont want to eat.


Chris


----------



## Bodhbh (11 Mar 2009)

There's always old-fashioned beer, get zonked and replenish carbs at the same time.

Hrmm, just been thru that part of the world, can't say I had much problem with carb intake - beer, chocolate, waffles, 101 types of cake, advokat, jesus fill your boots!


----------



## zimzum42 (11 Mar 2009)

When i smoke up I tend to get the opposite of the munchies, I don't want to eat at all. Could be cos I'm always the one skinning up the next one, I'm by far the best roller of all my mates!


----------



## montage (11 Mar 2009)

I'm pretty dissapointed that people seem to be supporting you smoking cannibis...
...taking drugs isn't worth it...lay off is my advise.


----------



## zimzum42 (11 Mar 2009)

weed isn't a drug, it's a plant

skunk is a drug, but weed's not


----------



## Rhythm Thief (11 Mar 2009)

montage said:


> I'm pretty dissapointed that people seem to be supporting you smoking cannibis...
> ...taking drugs isn't worth it...lay off is my advise.



You mean "advice". Anyway, there's no harm in the odd spliff.


----------



## GOD! (11 Mar 2009)

"And I said, Let the earth bring forth *grass*, the *herb* yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so."


Dont drink and smoke and you will be Irie !


----------



## oxbob (11 Mar 2009)

Yes dope will make you hungry, but you will want to stuff your face with any readily available crap IE: fast food/crisps/biscuits/liquids better to tour with rules such as only 6 beers a day(2 on the road/4 at hostel/bb/hotel)


----------



## mr Mag00 (11 Mar 2009)

chill out montage, ther are far worst postings and views on this site than this thread


----------



## montage (11 Mar 2009)

mr Mag00 said:


> chill out montage, ther are far worst postings and views on this site than this thread




Sorry....I just see all drugs as wrong (apart from medical use etc etc)
But that is just my view.


----------



## Chuffy (11 Mar 2009)

zimzum42 said:


> weed isn't a drug, it's a plant
> 
> skunk is a drug, but weed's not


And todays prize for most misleading piece of b*ll*cks goes to....

THC is a drug. Present in all strains of cannabis used for recreational smoking, unless I'm really, _really_ wrong....

Stick it in a cake, kills two birds with one stone. Until you fall of your bike and lay in a ditch, giggling.


----------



## TheDoctor (11 Mar 2009)

Space cake is not big or clever. It can result in uncontrollable giggling.
Or so I've been told. Allegedly.


----------



## mr Mag00 (12 Mar 2009)




----------



## ChrisCrc (12 Mar 2009)

quote>Sorry....I just see all drugs as wrong (apart from medical use etc etc)
But that is just my view.<quote 

Yeah never mind all the Fluffy Furry Animals that are tested on in the name of Science/Medicine


----------



## Aperitif (12 Mar 2009)

ChrisCrc said:


> quote>Sorry....I just see all drugs as wrong (apart from medical use etc etc)
> But that is just my view.<quote
> 
> Yeah never mind all the Fluffy Furry Animals that are tested on in the name of Science/Medicine



What? They smoke dope too? Ba$tards...


----------



## TheDoctor (12 Mar 2009)

Fluffy Furry Animals? That's that band that sing in Welsh?
Ahhh - maybe it's English but really slurred. That'd explain it.

<chortle>


----------



## MessenJah (12 Mar 2009)

montage said:


> Sorry....I just see all drugs as wrong (apart from medical use etc etc)
> But that is just my view.



In that case I'd better stop drinking this beer, and stop drinking coffee in the morning...


----------



## MessenJah (12 Mar 2009)

Oh and tea. That must be wrong too


----------



## montage (12 Mar 2009)

> Yeah never mind all the Fluffy Furry Animals that are tested on in the name of Science/Medicine



Ok, I morally really disagree with animal testing...but very sadly I struggle to see alternatives without damaging humans...I guess this could backfire on me by somebody saying "what makes animals' lives less worthwhile than a humans?"  .... I guess (most) animals can't ride bikes..


----------



## montage (12 Mar 2009)

MessenJah said:


> In that case I'd better stop drinking this beer, and stop drinking coffee in the morning...



*sigh*
As if you didn't know what I meant.


----------



## MessenJah (14 Mar 2009)

montage said:


> *sigh*
> As if you didn't know what I meant.


Yes, you meant what you said. You said you see _all_ drugs as wrong.

If you meant you see illegal drugs as wrong, then perhaps that's what you should have said.

Bit of a blinkered view, but each to his own ignorance.


----------



## yello (14 Mar 2009)

I'm still trying to work out if it was a genuine question or not...


----------



## montage (14 Mar 2009)

MessenJah said:


> Yes, you meant what you said. You said you see _all_ drugs as wrong.
> 
> If you meant you see illegal drugs as wrong, then perhaps that's what you should have said.
> 
> Bit of a blinkered view, but each to his own ignorance.




I meant illegal.
Sorry if you could not deduce this..


----------



## col (14 Mar 2009)

MessenJah said:


> In that case I'd better stop drinking this beer, and stop drinking coffee in the morning...





MessenJah said:


> Oh and tea. That must be wrong too



Why are they illegal?


----------



## Rhythm Thief (15 Mar 2009)

montage said:


> I meant illegal.
> Sorry if you could not deduce this..



Personally, I think there's a massive difference between "illegal" and "wrong". I'm well aware of the difference between right and wrong, but the difference between illegal and wrong is much harder to define.


----------



## col (15 Mar 2009)

Rhythm Thief said:


> Personally, I think there's a massive difference between "illegal" and "wrong". I'm well aware of the difference between right and wrong, but the difference between illegal and wrong is much harder to define.




Could you define that please?


----------



## Riverman (16 May 2009)

Ah a favourite topic of mine.

Hi montage,

MessenJar is spot on. Drugs are drugs, whether they're illegal or not. It's cultural and historial presidence that has led to more harmful drugs like alcohol and tobbaco being legal and far less harmful drugs like cannabis and ecstasy being illegal.

It was cultural and historical presidence that was the basis of the slave trade, segregation, misogeny laws, laws on womens rights, laws against homosexuality, the list goes on.

Denying someones liberty (threatening them with a 5 year prison sentence) on the basis of historical presidence is morally wrong. 

It is also complete hypocricy to treat the user of one drug differently from the user of another especially when the illegal drug is much safer to both the individual and society.


----------



## montage (16 May 2009)

Riverman said:


> Ah a favourite topic of mine.
> 
> Hi montage,
> 
> ...




So Thomas the Thug who dabbers in a bit of harmless cannabis, but one day decideds to try a bit of heroine or speed, and then causes serious harm to an innocent bystander wether direct or indirect should be seen in the same light as Andrew the aids sufferer who is relying on drugs to keep him alive?


----------



## Riverman (16 May 2009)

No certainly not. I do apologise as I didn't word that properly.

I meant that it is hypocritical to treat the user of a more harmful drug different from the user of a less harmful drug.

Drugs should be regulated according to the harm they cause to the individual and society.

Thus, the most harmful drugs like heroin, speed, alcohol and tobbaco should be most heavily controlled.

Safer drugs such as cannabis and MDMA should have less controls placed on them. 

And montage if you read The Misuse of Drugs Act you will find that is the purpose of the law. However The Misuse of Drugs Act is not being applied properly by parliament, because both tobbaco and alcohol fall under its ambit. 

Incidently the two drugs you mention, diamorphine and amphetamine are both used medicinally for many things, for eg. diamorphine for pain and amphetamine for ADHD.

Heroin is also a very bad example. People under the influence of heroin do not cause serious harm to innocent bystanders. Heroin addicts generally cause harm to themselves and others when they are trying to get their drugs. In Switzerland this problem has been successfully dealt with for 15 years by legalising heroin on prescription

The drug that is most likely to make Thomas the Thug cause serious harm to an innocent bystander is ALCOHOL and that is legal.

A good start on this topic is to take a look at the lancet graph on the relative harm of several different drugs.









> So Thomas the Thug who dabbers in a bit of harmless cannabis, but one day decideds to try a bit of heroine or speed,


If you're talking about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gateway_drug_theory it's been disproved time and time again but if it exists there are two problems here.

1) The first drugs people tend to try are alcohol and tobbaco, thus they're the gateway drugs

2) In an illegal market, a drug dealer will sell people anything. There are no controls on use, they will sell and do sell to children, and if there isn't any cannabis available, then they will push harder drugs upon people. There is a simple solution to this.


----------



## montage (16 May 2009)

I agree that alcohol is an extremely dangerous drug ..... and I have not suggested otherwise. But because alcohol is so dangerous, does this make less dangerous drugs such as cannabis acceptable? It isn't like I am encouraging people to drink alcohol, nothing of the sort. I have just stated my opinion that it is wrong to encourage people to take drugs, even if they are less harmful than others


----------



## Riverman (16 May 2009)

No worries. I agree alcohol can be quite dangerous if misused. Out of interest, what do you think the solution is to drug misuse?




> I have just stated my opinion that it is wrong to encourage people to take drugs, even if they are less harmful than others


I respect that. Personally I would say there's nothing wrong in talking about and giving people advice about drugs, because people will always take mind altering substances, inevitably though some people may end up encouraging others.

Toe be honest I'd rather they came here and asked for advice rather than just took them without doing any research.

To be fair though, you did also say it was wrong to take drugs. That is very much a matter of opinion.


----------



## montage (16 May 2009)

Blah - my long post deleted itself....I'll think about how to tackle drug misuse over the course of tomorrow, but I'm not an expert, so I doubt my idea will be used for some government initiative


----------



## Ben M (17 May 2009)

Getting baked to aid carbo-loading... hmm I might pose this to the guys, see if we should stock up for our tour


----------



## MessenJah (25 May 2009)

Well it worked. Constant bouts of 'the munchies' has certainly prevented me from failing to eat adequate quantities of energy-rich foodstuffs. Its sleep-inducing properties ensured that I was always fast asleep before 11pm and awake before 7am. Buying from coffeeshops meant that I was buying from someone who is only allowed to sell cannabis, thus I had almost zero chance of coming into contact with harder drugs - so-called 'gateway' effect is thus prevented, in theory at least. Tobacco and alcohol consumption are not allowed in coffeeshops either, so my exposure to those drugs was greatly reduced during my stay in the country. There is a limit to how much you may posess and how much a coffeeshop may sell to you, so I stayed well under the 5g limit. 2 grammes was more than enough though.

Opiates, cocaine derivatives and amphetamine derivatives are still being used for medical purposes. Chances are if you've ever had dental work done, you've done a bit of pseudo-coke for the old numb gum effect. 

It is perfectly possible to use recreational drugs without becoming an addict, or causing harm to other people, or significant harm to yourself. I've taken cocaine and amphetamine on three or four occasions (not both at the same time), and they are both pretty easy to get hold of for me, but I never made it a habit because I never felt the need to take more. I don't feel the need to take cannabis at all, despite the fact that I could phone one of ten people in order to get it, and faster than a pizza delivery. That's because the whole effect of drug use depends on the person taking them, and not just on the drug itself.

I'm not saying that this means that they're safe or that their use should be promoted or encouraged. Far from it. But what I'm saying is that taking any sort of drug is not inherently wrong or bad, regardless of its legal status. To think of any sort of recreational drug use as 'bad' or 'wrong' is quite an ignorant viewpoint, most often held by people who haven't read the scientific facts available, only taking in biased information and propaganda from those with vested interests - i.e. the media, the government and the police. If more people put their uninformed misconceptions aside and took some time to read scientific studies and history books, they might gain a better understanding of the whole subject of drugs...


----------



## Rhythm Thief (25 May 2009)

^^ Good post.


----------



## nigelnorris (25 May 2009)

montage said:


> I agree that alcohol is an extremely dangerous drug ..... and I have not suggested otherwise. But because alcohol is so dangerous, does this make less dangerous drugs such as cannabis acceptable? It isn't like I am encouraging people to drink alcohol, nothing of the sort. I have just stated my opinion that it is wrong to encourage people to take drugs, even if they are less harmful than others


You are [literally] many thousands of times more likely to hurt yourself [or someone else] riding a bike, skiing, mountaineering, or carrying out any number of other physically active recreational activities than if you just sit about and smoke a weed, take an acid, take a pill, or any number of other recreational drugs.

Why on earth should the people who do any of the former, who are damaging themselves and others, and costing the taxpayer a fortune on a measurable daily basis [read any accident stats you like], be allowed to judge those who do almost no damage to anyone [try and find a respectable survey on the subject of pot/lsd/ecstacy demonstrating actual physical harm - there aren't any]? OK cycling pays for itself, but you'll never convince me that skiing has any benefits to anyone other than the skiier, and that has a hideous accident/fatality rate. Why is it allowed? Because it is traditionally the recreation of the moneyed classes [in this country].

I'm all in favour of all of the above, personal choice - live and let live why not?


----------



## Riverman (26 May 2009)

Exactly, cycling can be regarded as a leisure activity; so is drug taking.

Based on numbers of deaths, cycling is more dangerous than using either cannabis, pure MDMA or LSD. 

However based on the same statistic, cycling is ALOT less dangerous than using alcohol and tobbaco.

On that basis it would be logical to think that cyclists would have quite liberal views on some illegal drugs (especially cannabis which has never killed anyone) but less liberal on legal ones. Yet on alcohol I bet their views are the opposite! 

Although montage, I take the point that you don't like either legal or illegal drugs, with the exception of caffeine (which btw can and does kill people).


----------



## Riverman (26 May 2009)

> Why on earth should the people who do any of the former, who are damaging themselves and others, and costing the taxpayer a fortune on a measurable daily basis [read any accident stats you like], be allowed to judge those who do almost no damage to anyone


I think it goes deeper than that. It is a case of discrimination and persecution of a low risk minority by a high risk taking majority through punitive measures



> Users of controlled drugs are the unspoken victims of an extreme, yet almost invisible, form of discrimination. The belief that some drugs are "evil" is pervasive, yet strangely absent when it comes to other equally or more harmful drugs approved of by the majority such as the drugs alcohol and tobacco. To put things into perspective, according to the UK National Office of Statistics in 2005, there were 6,627 alcohol-related deaths and 86,500 tobacco-related deaths, compared for example with 58 ecstasy-related deaths and 19 aspirin-related deaths. Yet it is ecstasy and not alcohol or tobacco which is most often referred to as a "killer drug" whilst a person sharing an ecstasy pill with a friend is committing a crime which carries a potential life sentence since this would legally be considered supply of a Class A drug. Although some argue that this disparity in the number of deaths is due to the fact that alcohol and tobacco are more widely used because of their legal status, this is not the case. In a factsheet on drug-related deaths issued in September 1996, the Institute for the Study of Drug Dependence (ISDD) compared the annual mortality rates for four different types of drugs, the reported mortality rates (as a percentage of total users for each type of drug) were 1.5% to 3% for opiate users, 0.9% for tobacco users, 0.5% for alcohol users, and 0.0002% for ecstasy users.
> In March 2007, scientists, including members of the UK Parliament's top advisory committee on drug classification, published a rigorous assessment of the social and individual harm caused by 20 substances in a report entitled "Development of a rational scale to assess the harm of drugs of potential misuse". The report rated most "illicit" drugs as far less harmful than the drugs alcohol and tobacco and called for an urgent review of the drug classification system which was deemed arbitrary.
> 
> 
> ...


http://www.drugequality.org/background.htm


----------



## montage (26 May 2009)

Riverman said:


> Although montage, I take the point that you don't like either legal or illegal drugs, with the exception of caffeine (which btw can and does kill people).



I think there are two dangers with taking illegal drugs - health risks from the drug aside.

Firstly, you don't know what is in the drug, it could be 55% dandruff for all the user knows (I guess this is ruled out by the OP as he was sold them legally).

Secondly, "small/harmless" drugs can be a pathway to a dangerous main road. So long as the user sticks to the small pathway now and again, fine. But should the user get bored of these drugs, want more of a kick, then this is where the dangerous drugs come in.

Alcohol is a tricky one to discuss, as it is the biggest killer - perhaps because it is the most widely available. The problem with alcohol is that making it illegal would be impossible, people could veeeery easily brew their own. Also to make alcohol illegal, we also open up to the dangers of not knowing exactly what is in the drink etc.

Nicotine - by no means a directly "dangerous drug", but in the long run, causes HUGE amounts of damage and strain on the NHS... In my opinion, this should go into the "banned" pool - but the process of doing so would be impossible. To many people would break the rules, ciggerettes would still be too easy to obtain, government would loose huuuge amounts via tax...


----------



## onlyhuman (26 May 2009)

zimzum42 said:


> weed isn't a drug, it's a plant
> 
> skunk is a drug, but weed's not



Nonsense. Anti-cannabis campaigners needed a reason to claim that cannabis has changed, to justify changing the law. So the "superskunk" myth was born, and you've fallen for it, along with every politician I know of, most journalists and many users. 

The effects of the strongest "skunk" you can get today are no different to the effects of decent quality hashish from India. This is made using traditional techniques and plant varieties that haven't changed for centuries.

The superskunk lie has been a strikingly effective piece of propaganda. It allowed the UK government to ignore the advice of their own Advisory Committee on the Misuse of Drugs, and reclassify cannabis as more dangerous than it actually is.


----------



## zimzum42 (27 May 2009)

onlyhuman said:


> Nonsense. Anti-cannabis campaigners needed a reason to claim that cannabis has changed, to justify changing the law. So the "superskunk" myth was born, and you've fallen for it, along with every politician I know of, most journalists and many users.
> 
> The effects of the strongest "skunk" you can get today are no different to the effects of decent quality hashish from India. This is made using traditional techniques and plant varieties that haven't changed for centuries.
> 
> The superskunk lie has been a strikingly effective piece of propaganda. It allowed the UK government to ignore the advice of their own Advisory Committee on the Misuse of Drugs, and reclassify cannabis as more dangerous than it actually is.


Dude, I've not fallen for anything, trust me, when not in Singapore I smoke a lot, and I used to grow too...

Whilst the idea of 'superskunk' may have some extra hype added to it, there are things out there which are adulterated with other stuff. You know when you get it, the bud is all hard and plasticky, sometimes it has strange dust on it, sometimes they spray the buds with chemicals to make you feel high when in fact it's really low grade bud.

What you say about skunk being stronger than indian hash or whaever is true, so long as you are buying good skunk though. Because it's criminalized however, there are people out there who are less than scrupulous and not in it for the love of the bud, they know there's money to be made, so they make low quality bud and add all sorts to it.

Sorry if my oversimplified statement was misleading, I was only referring to the addition of chemicals as opposed to the growing of a plant naturally, be that plant a hybrid or not....


----------



## Riverman (27 May 2009)

montage said:


> I think there are two dangers with taking illegal drugs - health risks from the drug aside.
> 
> Firstly, you don't know what is in the drug, it could be 55% dandruff for all the user knows



Exactly. A direct consequence of the 'illegatily of drugs'. The solution to this is to control and regulate their use, manufacture and supply. Handing the market over to organised criminals is what results in a more harmful product. I hold those in support of this 'war on drugs' as responsible for the prevalence of contamination, disease and death that results from this.

When alcohol was prohibted in America during the 20s/30s, people were dying and going blind from using moonshine, criminals were running the whole operation, America was awash with a contaminated alcohol product as there were no controls on manufacture, use or supply. Sounds familar doesn't it.



> (I guess this is ruled out by the OP as he was sold them legally).


Unfortunately, cannabis is still illegal in Holland, a consequence of the impediment that is UN conventions on drugs, however it is tolerated. It's worth mentioning here that people use cannabis less in Holland, particuarly among the young.



> Secondly, "small/harmless" drugs can be a pathway to a dangerous main road. So long as the user sticks to the small pathway now and again, fine. But should the user get bored of these drugs, want more of a kick, then this is where the dangerous drugs come in.


Is it? The gateway effect has been disproved so many times. Even if it were true, you are maximinsing the harms to users by making the drugs illegal. Anyway your argument makes no sense because alcohol is legal. Therefore that should be the gateway drug to everything. It's not rational to ban a some drugs because there are more harmful drugs. 



> Alcohol is a tricky one to discuss, as it is the biggest killer -


The biggest killer is tobbaco.



> perhaps because it is the most widely available.


Cannabis, cocaine, crack cocaine, ecstasy etc etc are also widely available.



> The problem with alcohol is that making it illegal would be impossible, people could veeeery easily brew their own.


The problem is there would be a massive crimewave and a regulated, controlled market run by companies would be replaced by a market run by violent criminals. There would be massive gang violence and many people would be killed. abit like the 10,000 people that got killed last year in Mexico last year over cocaine.

Besides, illegal drugs have never been cheaper, more available and stronger than ever for the price. And they've never been so popular! Making a drug illegal doesn't appear to have much of an effect on use, infact the reverse seems true.



> Also to make alcohol illegal, we also open up to the dangers of not knowing exactly what is in the drink etc.





> Nicotine - by no means a directly "dangerous drug",


I'd rank it as probably the MOST dangerous. It's directly dangerous because it's the most addictive drug on the planet. It doesn't take long to get hooked and once hooked the chances are you will die a horrible slow early death.



> but in the long run, causes HUGE amounts of damage and strain on the NHS... In my opinion, this should go into the "banned" pool - but the process of doing so would be impossible.


Indeed because again it would create another crimewave. We can place heavy restrictions on tobbaco, however these need to extend to developing countries where multinational tobbaco companies are exploiting people.



> government would loose huuuge amounts via tax...


Then legalise the other drugs, particuarly the safer ones and tax them


----------



## Riverman (27 May 2009)

> What you say about skunk being stronger than indian hash or whaever is true, so long as you are buying good skunk though


'skunk' is just a strain of cannabis. There are about 1500 different strains, all with slightly different effects. Real 'Skunk', Skunk No1, isn't actually that strong. 'Skunk' is just a term that's been used by shitty dealers to describe sinsemilla.

The strongest form of cannabis should be hash and was in the 70s. However these days, hash is full of shoot! SOAPBAR cannabis contains all kinds of carcinogenic crap, like used petrol, plastic etc and about 1% low grade resin. This accounts for about 50% of the UK market.

All the result of prohibition! Not much of a effective health policy really making drugs illegal and criminalising people.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (27 May 2009)

Does anyone else really fancy a big fat spliff after reading all this? I know I do.


----------



## montage (27 May 2009)

Riverman said:


> Exactly. A direct consequence of the 'illegatily of drugs'. The solution to this is to control and regulate their use, manufacture and supply. Handing the market over to organised criminals is what results in a more harmful product. I hold those in support of this 'war on drugs' as responsible for the prevalence of contamination, disease and death that results from this.
> 
> When alcohol was prohibted in America during the 20s/30s, people were dying and going blind from using moonshine, criminals were running the whole operation, America was awash with a contaminated alcohol product as there were no controls on manufacture, use or supply. Sounds familar doesn't it.
> 
> ...





Riverman said:


> 'skunk' is just a strain of cannabis. There are about 1500 different strains, all with slightly different effects. Real 'Skunk', Skunk No1, isn't actually that strong. 'Skunk' is just a term that's been used by shitty dealers to describe sinsemilla.
> 
> The strongest form of cannabis should be hash and was in the 70s. However these days, hash is full of shoot! SOAPBAR cannabis contains all kinds of carcinogenic crap, like used petrol, plastic etc and about 1% low grade resin. This accounts for about 50% of the UK market.
> 
> All the result of prohibition! Not much of a effective health policy really making drugs illegal and criminalising people.



What a waste of internet ink


----------



## Rhythm Thief (27 May 2009)

montage said:


> What a waste of internet ink



Why so? Struck me as a reasonable response to points raised, more than anything.


----------



## montage (27 May 2009)

Sorry but I don't see the point in this thread... it is dead now. If those of you who want to debate and encourage the fact that taking drugs is a good thing really want to, then carry on....


----------



## Riverman (28 May 2009)

> If those off you who want to debate and encourage the fact that taking drugs is a good thing really want to, then carry on....


I'm off to grab a coffee, need something to wake me up a little. When I get home I might have a fat spliff to relax... (best to use a vapourizer instead of burning it though)

Actually I'm not a cannabis user, although I do appreciate that it has very legitimate uses and is used responsibly by a large number of people. Whether that makes it a 'good thing' is a matter of opinion. 

I don't think it's a 'good thing' to criminalise people for these non violent acts, neither is it a "good thing" to encourage people to do so,, especially when there are people using more harmful drugs who don't face punishment (alcohol and tobbaco users) and who are even encouraged by society to use their drugs of choice!

Lastly I don't thinkn I've encouraged anyone to use illegal drugs during these posts. I have merely exposed the hypocrisy and absurdity of the status quo.


----------



## col (28 May 2009)

I dont remember anyone mugging or breaking into houses to finance coffee or fags, even though nicotine is probably the most addictive substance. Now mugging for crack and similar drugs I have heard of.
On that sort of basis there are some things drug wise which need to stay illegal. But as far as a pint or a coffee or fag is concerned, they just dont compare to the problems with so called harder drugs.
Some people get violent after a few drinks, even after a spliff, but nowhere near to the numbers who do and then get violent to get what they need when they dont have hard drugs, so to compare fags drink and coffee to these is a bit over the top I think?


----------



## Riverman (28 May 2009)

col said:


> I dont remember anyone mugging or breaking into houses to finance coffee or fags, even though nicotine is probably the most addictive substance. Now mugging for crack and similar drugs I have heard of.
> On that sort of basis there are some things drug wise which need to stay illegal. But as far as a pint or a coffee or fag is concerned, they just dont compare to the problems with so called harder drugs.
> Some people get violent after a few drinks, even after a spliff, but nowhere near to the numbers who do and then get violent to get what they need when they dont have hard drugs, so to compare fags drink and coffee to these is a bit over the top I think?



People steal to fund crack cocaine and heroin habits. By making these completely illegal you firstly make the drugs very expensive for the users and you also make them associate with violent criminals to obtain their hit. You also criminalise the users. 

Naturally, many then turn to crime to fund their habit. They become theifs or even prostitutes.

This is a bad way of dealing with it. Drug addiction is a disease. Both drugs should be available on prescrpition to known addicts as a _medicine_.

Take heroin. In the UK we have around 300 heroin deaths a year and 280,000 addicts roughly but only 200 people recieving heroin on prescription. Switzerland has had a prescription heroin programme for the last 15 years. During this time, there has never been a death from heroin use and there has been a significant reduction in associated crime. There have been similar results from a programme in British Columbia.

Crack cocaine is a very strong form of cocaine. It is a well known fact that the illegaility of drugs has overtime meant that drugs have become stronger. There is no control over this. By regulating drugs we can exercise control over their use, manufacture and supply.

By the way. People do not get violent when they're _on_ heroin. It is simply not that kind of drug. It's when they can't it that they become violent. It is their inability to obtain heroin that leads to them commiting violence. Prohibitionists offer very ineffective solutions to this problem.

And as for cannabis. I've never known anyone to be violent whilst under its influence. Quite the opposite to be honest. Whereas I've lost count of the number of people even I know who lose their temper sometimes whilst under the influence of alcohol.


----------



## montage (28 May 2009)

Can I suggest that the latter part of this thread - starting from Riverman's post be moved into Politics and Life? Or Riverman if you copy and paste some of this and create a thread in PandL.... drug legalisation is a difficult topic to debate.....and people in PandL like debating difficult topics.


----------



## col (28 May 2009)

Riverman said:


> People steal to fund crack cocaine and heroin habits. By making these completely illegal you firstly make the drugs very expensive for the users and you also make them associate with violent criminals to obtain their hit. You also criminalise the users.
> 
> Naturally, many then turn to crime to fund their habit. They become theifs or even prostitutes.
> 
> ...




Our area uses methadone and others as a substitute, it stops the bodily reactions, or the rattle. That was my point wrongly put, its what they get up to when they cant get it. I dissagree that its a disease, its a self inflicted addiction, where ignorance of its effect is an excuse for most on it for years, but not newer addicts. Just like smokers, years ago we didnt know the possible effects and the addiction rate, but we do now, that doesnt make it a disease.
As has been said, cannabis is a jump start for some who want more of a kick when it doesnt do it for them anymore, so experimentation can start.


----------



## Riverman (31 May 2009)

Hi Col,

Methadone use is problematic. It is not ideal to give a drug out to addicts to take into the community. Most methadone users still use heroin if they can get hold of it, so why not just prescribe heroin?

Better still if you prescribe heroin and administer it in clinics under medical supervision there are several positive outcomes.

1) Methadone is not taken into the community and sold to people
2) Users no longer have to buy their heroin and commit crime to obtain it
3) Needles are safely discarded in the clinics, largely removing the danger of discarded needles in the community
4) The dealers make a lot less money!
5) People (touch wood) do not die of heroin overdoses
6) There is no risk of HIV or Hepetitus B infection

If you don't think methadone use is problematic, why is there a black market in methadone and why do methadone users also take heroin?



> I dissagree that its a disease, its a self inflicted addiction,





> Disease
> 
> _n._
> 
> ...


Whether it's self-inflicted is not the debate here. It is a physical illness brought on by environmental stress or genetic defect.



> where ignorance of its effect is an excuse for most on it for years, but not newer addicts.


Ignorance yes to a certain degree. However, take alcohol. I think the typical alcohol user is completely ignorant of the dangers of addiction. Their image of addiction is nothing like the reality. The reality is that such physical addiction is a horrible disease. 

Also not everyone who drinks becomes addicted and I think it would be foolhardy to put that simply down to ignorance.



> As has been said, cannabis is a jump start for some who want more of a kick when it doesnt do it for them anymore, so experimentation can start.


This Gateway Theory has been mentioned several times already in this thread. The vast majority of research that has been undertaken has shown that it's largely non existant. 

Anyway even if there was a gateway effect, surely it would be a strong argument to legalise the softer drugs. If your so convinced alcohol is not a gateway drug (as you keep implicating cannabis in your gateway thesis), as a legal drug shouldn't that be how we deal with others that are as safe or safer than alcohol? Why not seperate the softer drugs from the harder ones?

Hey, maybe if we legalized cannabis some people would use it as a safer alternative to alcoho because I can tell you 100% that it's a lot safer. It would drastically reduce the burden of disease caused by alcohol.


----------

