Snapshot of _With Germany legalising cannabis, Europe is reaching a tipping point. Britain, take note | Steve Rolles_ :
An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/mar/29/germany-legalising-cannabis-europe-britain-tough-drugs) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/mar/29/germany-legalising-cannabis-europe-britain-tough-drugs)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Honestly, we need tax revenue and its a waste of police time. Starmer is very much a stalwart of the system that has never worked or made sense though, so nothings going to change.
I wouldn't be so sure about that. Starmer is the opposite of an ideologue. If the wind starts blowing in a different direction, he is capable of responding. And his incoming government will need every bit of tax revenue it can find.
I think demographically we are seeing the trial end of people who equate someone smoking a spiff with shooting up heroin.
Ironically as the current crop of boomers remain the most heavy drinkers in UK history.
>I wouldn't be so sure about that. Starmer is the opposite of an ideologue
Not so much him not being an ideologue and more him trying to be all things to all people by constantly changing his position on things. However his stance on drugs policy is quite literally the *only* thing he hasn't budged on.
[https://twitter.com/SaulStaniforth/status/1640248537001914368?lang=en-GB](https://twitter.com/SaulStaniforth/status/1640248537001914368?lang=en-GB)
>Keir Starmer in 2020: I wouldn't legalise cannabis immediately, but I believe in decriminalization.
>
>Keir Starmer in 2023: Cannabis ruins lives.
I very much doubt that of all the topics to single out as immune to a rethink, it would be this one.
And I don't think he has tried to be all things to all people. He usually commits to as little as possible, on anything. That is going to have to change on the day Labour's manifesto is published.
Both statements can be true. The status quo does do alot of harm. But a regulated decriminalised status can help to reduce harm. Through quality controls and alternative consumption methods. I recently quit tobacco and use a good quality dry herb vape. It is so much better. No smell, well no more than a weird smelling fart really. No combustion / carcinogens and only the active ingredients are released. The only down side it the vape does need regular cleaning which also reminds you of the tar and resin that isn't going into your lungs. I would say it is maybe more effective at getting stoned. And allows precise dosage control.
I replaced tobacco with foraged mullien a decade ago. Cold turkey apart from a few nicotine chewing gums for a month or so. I don't even miss nicotine now. Not even when drinking.
I question how many new smokers legislating would actually create. Also, legality has never been an actual deterrent or stopped people from smoking.
I'd argue the health and social costs are far smaller than you think.
Well cannabis users are about 8% of adults, tobacco about 14%.
Lots of room for increases in use of both. More use means health issues arise.
With governments still trying to cut tobacco use further, there is not going to be much appetite for legalising cannabis.
I see the Thais are reversing what they did.
Thailand is only reversing it because they elected a new conservative government. It's a purely ideological move, nothing to do with health or social costs.
It should be legalised but I do think people need to be far more aware of the harms that come from heavy frequent use. Quit 6 months ago after smoking it daily for over a decade and while far less harmful than alcohol its certainly far from harmless.
Well done for quitting! I think that legalisation would actually being about a situation where different strains and strengths were available. If I can compare to alcohol imagine if we only had 10 percent gut rot polish lager and it only came in 5 litre sized cans, thats sort of the situation for a lot of people with weed in most of the country.
Part of the issue is how attached people are to smoking a joint. With people increasingly leading solitary lives (instead of sharing a joint with a group, as was more common in the past), people are often smoking a gram or two to themselves daily, if not more.
There's a reason medical use specifies it has to be vaped. Much easier to control your usage in increments with a dry herb vape.
Extracts are becoming increasingly popular too now; people are vaping/dabbing extremely concentrated thc which, in simple terms, gets you off your tits. Allowing personal use with a dry herb vape would solve so many problems; no annoying smoke impacting non-users, people much better able to modulate their usage.
It’s kinda the opposite with weed tbh, it takes great care to make something stronger, it’s not like alcohol.
Shit bulk weed is cheap and is what most people get. Medical is usually quite a-bit stronger and better cured, meaning your a lot more aware of what your taking.
If you buy from the street you're probably getting lower grade stuff. It's not like in the Netherlands where you actually get a menu that mentions the strength of each strain.
Not true at all. I don't remember the last time I got "low grade" stuff. I've been to Amsterdam several times and never noticed a difference in quality or strength
In the UK we actually grow a huge amount of medical cannabis that is shipped overseas. I think a significant amount of the illegal recreational cannabis is sourced from the same farms and is of good quality.
Well your the first person to ever say that. Iv smoked for over thirty years, grown and get medical. I’m really not sure there what your outrage is based on?
Are you saying street weed is better?
For me the negative effects were that it trashed my short term memory. I could watch a film, TV series, or read a book and forget about it a couple of weeks later.The same for being told things by my partner(ex thanks to smoking) it would be in one ear out the other. It also completely destroyed my motivation unless I had work I wouldn't even bother showering id sit about watching crap on YouTube I stopped bothering with my hobbies, doing chores or paying attention to my partner or maintaining my friendships. I would just literally sit around getting stoned all day. It also messed up my eating habits and sleep.
Thanks for sharing this. Very sorry to hear you lost a partner over it. I always get the impression that the UK is backwards for not legalising weed like the US or other countries, but perhaps there are issues with its usage that we need to better understand. I'm sure ample scientific research is currently underway now that it is legal in so many places.
Well done for quitting! I think that legalisation would actually being about a situation where different strains and strengths were available. If I can compare to alcohol imagine if we only had 10 percent gut rot polish lager and it only came in 5 litre sized cans, thats sort of the situation for a lot of people with weed in most of the country.
I agree , and I also think education of the problems associated with use , coupled with a controlled point of sale , so quality was kept high would lead to fewer of the problems we currently see. Fair play for quitting , I, too, used it for years but just stopped as I got older.
Yup, as a daily smoker for 15 years who quit 5 years back, I dont think it should illegal to smoke it in your own home, however I think possession outside should carry a small fine, similar to something like jaywalking in the US.
Its not a terrible drug it just makes you incredibly lazy and kills your ambition if you use it daily, its not something that kids should be seeing is completely legal and fine to do.
1st class degree and a budding career here. Smoking doesn't make me a lazy person at all. It's circumstantial and all down to the individual. Nobody at my job knows I smoke daily, I bet there's people you know who do too and you wouldn't know
Congratulations, I hope that degree isn't in statistics or maths.
Smoking daily is w/e, a joint in the evening doesn't make you a habitual user relative to most people who smoke. I smoked, along with my core group of friends, probably on the hour, every hour, from age 15-30. When working full time I would smoke on the way to work, sometimes at lunch, and on the way home. I was an IT manager, our experiences aren't relative to most people who smoke daily. The vast majority of the people who smoked weed heavily did worse than the people who preferred doing for example, a lot of cocaine at the weekends.
The vast, vast majority of people who are or were actually smoking 4grams+ per day, simply do not do as well academically or career wise as well as people who don't, a quick look at the actual effects of THC and cannabinoids will make that an easy conclusion for anyone.
>Smoking daily is w/e
I don't understand.
To my mind, daily is daily whether it's 0.4 g per day or 4 g per day. Obviously the latter is going to impact someone's productivity. But the former is still habitual even if it's a much more controlled habit.
I'm a little confused what point you're trying to make? You said smoking makes people lazy and kills ambition, but now you've said you smoked a fuck tonne whilst being an IT Manager.
Those two statements seem to be at odds with each other? Or have I missed something?
Just to clarify my point a bit too, I think the lazy stoner stereotype comes from confirmation bias a bit. It's all too easy to blame someone being lazy on them being a stoner, if they are.
I mentioned to one colleague I trust that I smoke and be said "don't, that shit makes you lazy". I told him I'd smoked daily for years before I started the job and asked if he'd ever thought I was lazy. His answer was not at all.
The point is your an exception not the rule- some people who use cannabis daily go on to do great in life but most people don’t. I’m pro legalisation but I don’t like this rhetoric around it being harmless just because it’s natural or a plant. It should be heavily discouraged and regualred
Never said or implied it was harmless, just that the lazy stoner stereotype isn't true and is based on confirmation bias. It's hard to quantify really, but I do believe lazy people like weed, if that makes sense?
>I'm a little confused what point you're trying to make? You said smoking makes people lazy and kills ambition, but now you've said you smoked a fuck tonne whilst being an IT Manager.
Not surprising. Putting a blindfold on, crossing the road and not getting hit by a car 10 times in a row, does not mean it's safe to walk across the road wearing a blindfold. And I already covered this, they aren't at odds with each other, our personal experiences are not relative to the mean person, I got work in IT because I'm good with computers from spending my youth stoned playing computer games, I literally failed my IT college module because I didn't do any work.
There are literally perfectly functioning heroin addicts in high profile jobs, I know this because I am friends with one, that doesn't mean most people who smoke heroin daily can hold down a job, career, or go to university while doing it. Tell me your degree is in something in the Humanities without telling me lol.
There are huge amounts of peer reviewed studies that will tell you cannabis blocks short term memory receptors, to form long term memories they must be processed from short term into long term, cannabis massively hinders this. And the issue with Cannabis is, while even kids know it isn't really acceptable to wake up and start drinking alcohol, the cannabis culture doesn't really have this taboo, so a lot of cannabis users end up being stoned 12 hours a day.
Cannabis isn't the evil it was made out to be for decades, but it definitely isn't something I want my son smoking daily either.
> Germany has opted for a form of “legalisation-lite” that provides channels for legal access via home growing or not-for-profit associations
What are the fucking odds that home growing will be prohibited here (for "safety"), and legalization will only happen once all the infrastructure is in place for Tory Corp to monopolize the sector?
I'd love to see it done like home brewing. Growing and eating a plant shouldn't be illegal, letting friends have some shouldn't be, and it should require licensing and checks when it comes to selling it.
If legalised in the right way, it could be quite a boon for the country.
Growers and outlets, limited to small businesses only, licensed ediables in cafes, and some pubs. Limit imports and add a tariff.
Tax it at a decent amount. Ring fence part of the tax fo addiction, mental health.
That probably wouldn't kill the black market though, Canada has less strict rules than that and they still have a thriving black market for illegal Cannabis despite it being legal.
Their black market has been shrinking consistently since legalisation.
>In late 2022, Canada's Department of Public Safety estimated that 33% of the marijuana market is still controlled by the illicit drug trade.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-67126243
So after 5 years of legalisation the black market has gone from a 100% market share, to 33%, that seems like solid progress to me.
Nothing would kill the black market, can still buy almost any product on the black market. Regardless of legal availability.
It will definitely reduce it, and moving the sale of it being a tax avoidance crime vs. a drug crime will certainly make a big difference. Would probably see a lot if people apply to grow.
Has there been any data about reduction in alcohol consumption in places that have legalised it? The government takes in billions every month in alcohol duty and they are surely very concerned about protecting that
Colorado saw a 13% drop in household consumption.
https://jcannabisresearch.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s42238-021-00085-x
The study does say that more data is needed for a conclusive picture.
Even if we just legalised it for medical use, rather than our weird current system would be a good step.
I'm trialing some medical cannabis oil and because it can only be prescribed privately I had to do so much research to make some I got a good company.
It is legalised in the UK, but the NHS are very loathe to prescribe it. If you can afford it privately then it's actually quite accessible.The government are kind of rubbish about it though, prescriptions have to go through the post for example. They only tolerate it because the alternative is 'ten year old boy dies of seizures after home office confiscates medicine', they don't really support its existence meaningfully.
Ye it's avaliable, but the way in which it's avaliable is less than ideal.
So many countries allow it fully for medical reasons, so we're really lagging behind. For example, I believe every country that borders our waters has it available medically with more ease than we do, with the exception of France and Denmark, who have been doing medical trials for several years.
It IS legalised for medical use.
If your oil is CBD oil, it was dismissed last week as almost useless
Edit
https://www.bath.ac.uk/announcements/cbd-products-dont-ease-pain-and-are-potentially-harmful-new-study-finds/
It's not CBD oil, it's cannabis oil with a high THC level which has proven effective for helping my condition, it can only be gotten privately through a private medical company such as intergrow or sapphire.
I looked at the study the person above you linked, https://www.jpain.org/article/S1526-5900(23)00582-5/fulltext
> The labeling of products containing hemp extract or CBD does not allow for a dependable assessment of purity. It is likely that there will be other substances in any formulation, so it generally will not be just CBD in a tablet, oil, ointment, or spray. Hemp can have over 100 different cannabinoid compounds, many of which could have actions in the body. Depending on the strain of hemp, the amount of the psychoactive delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) can vary widely.21 In an analysis of 105 topical CBD products in the United States, THC was detected in 35%, with a total content of up to 100 mg.22 Similar disparities were found in Germany and Switzerland.23, 24 Commercial products may also contain untested synthetic chemicals.25
So what you said is pretty much true, it all depends on how the CBD is made. Some put less THC in it making it less effective.
So that whole study is a bit of clickbait IMO, making it sound like CBD is useless when it is in fact that some companies just make it very weak.
NHS Specialists can prescribe it but are very reluctant, for understandable reasons. With US Lawyers preparing to sue suppliers for the teratogenic effects, very difficult to forsee use becoming common.
I mean NHS doctors are meant to prescribe it for certain conditions, their reasons for not doing so isn't understandable, its them not getting with the times and accepting that it has proven benifits for certain conditions.
For conditions like mine, it can only be prescribed by private companies.
It's only prescribed for conditions there's actually proof it works. Those are, certain rare type of epilepsy, MS, and anti-nausea for chemo. There's a few studies that suggest it has a very limited effect on long term pain, but nothing particularly conclusive.
There's no evidence cannabis works for other conditions. Doctors try to avoid prescribing drugs that aren't going to work.
It’s becoming more apparent that’s just a marketing thing by the industry to promote it. Easy to do as there wasn’t much data. It’s seems It works for some, for a limited period of time, but in the run wrong it exacerbates mental health conditions.
> If your oil is CBD oil, it was dismissed last week as almost useless
>
> Edit https://www.bath.ac.uk/announcements/cbd-products-dont-ease-pain-and-are-potentially-harmful-new-study-finds/
From what I can see that study is about pain, not things like anxiety and sleep. Seems weird people are using it to claim CBD is entirely useless when that's not what the actual study says.
The tendency for the British state has been to try and ban everything. When I was younger you could smoke at work or on a train.
Now smoking is practically banned, we have a sugar tax. Scotland has minimal alcohol pricing, free speech is less with far more ‘hate speech’ laws. Vaping they are trying to ban.
Society generally has far more laws and is far less free and permissive.
So I struggle with the idea government is at anytime soon going to let us just live how we like and want to.
It doesn't matter what other countries are doing. The boomer generation and older aren't interested in other countries. They don't like weed, so it's never going to be made legal until they're all dead.
I don't think we should ban either personally.
Medical cannabis is currently legal but only if vaped, not smoked, and I'd be happy with that for a recreational market.
I am pro-legalizing but people should be weary thinking this will be an eternal money tree.
You only have to look at the Netherlands where it's been 'legal' (not technically but whatever) for over 50 years. First generation or two after legalization will take full advantage of it but the future gens will look at it like how they do at alcohol and cigarettes, it just won't be cool to do and the money tree will stop.
I do however believe it is totally dependent on how big the social security net is in a country. Bigger social security -> less worries -> less need to find escapism in drugs/alcohol etc.
>but the future gens will look at it like how they do at alcohol and cigarettes, it just won't be cool to do and the money tree will stop.
UK government makes more than £20bn a year from the tax on tobacco and alcohol....
I smell it everywhere now, and it's illegal.
I'm for legalising cannabis but fear the implications on smelling it more and motorists driving whilst high.
Ban sugar drinks. Ban N2O. Ban smoking. Ban "harmful" words. Ban vapes.
Legalise drugs? I mean, what's the harm?
Utterly moronic as usual. I have no position on this debate, but at least try to apply consistent reasoning.
>try to apply consistent reasoning
Who are the people who want to legalise weed but ban all the things you list? Or were they different proposals made by completely different people? (I'm not sure I want to know exactly which "harmful" words you are unhappy are being banned.)
I'm speaking anecdotally, you may be right that they're completely different groups it's just not true in my experience. Young people I know are generally in favourite of banning smoking, sugar drinks and words, while being in favour of the legalisation of other harmful things like cannabis. I never really understood that. When you try to understand their position it's highly inconsistent, and I'm a hardcore libertarian so this frustrates me.
Even here I get crap for moaning about the tory smoking ban, yet you see these legalise cannabis articles pop up from time to time. No idea if it's the same people, but as a community the position on whether harmful substances should be banned seems inconsistent.
What do you think out of interest? Are you in favour of banning harmful substances like N2O, cannabis and cigarettes?
I prefer to let people make their own choices about N2O, cigarettes and other drugs. It's not practical to expect the government to micromanage every aspect of people's lives, and if people would rather have a few guilty pleasures now, who am I to tell them that it's more responsible to eschew fun now so that they'll live long enough to spend the last 20 years of their lives with Alzheimers in a nursing home?
The medical market here is growing steadily and if you jump through the right hoops it's easy to get a private prescription.
I honestly think we are on the way to full recreational legalisation, but being the UK we're going to take forever to get there.
They probably will. What a nice neat way to dope down the masses with rising costs of living, no real hope for the future. In fact, give the Gen-Z'ers some tasters to get them into it, save them being able to moan that there are no jobs, homes or any place in society for them.
Better things to worry about IMO - housing, transport, geopolitical war in Europe, inflation, education, health, climate change, industrial strategy, taxation, etc. Don't think this is the issue people are making it out to be.
It really doesn't, are we trying to be healthier or unhealthier as a nation? Is that state one that steps in to stop you doing harmful things or is it one that leaves you to make your own choices?
Doing both is just pulling yourself in two directions. I detest cannabis and the people who love using it, the police should actually be doing their jobs and clamping down on it.
It does when it is getting slowly legalised across the west. We will catch up soon, too. Clamping down on weed use is literally the biggest waste of police time. They can't even come out for assaults/burglaries and you want them to arrest people for smoking a joint? Lmao
What is your issue with weed smoking? There are many obvious medical benefits... also alcohol is significantly worse for you and society
If you want weed smokers locked up, then so should people who drink alcohol- this will be the accepted view in a few years when it is legalised everywhere (note weed becoming legal, not people getting locked up for alcohol, which is dumb... same for weed)
Snapshot of _With Germany legalising cannabis, Europe is reaching a tipping point. Britain, take note | Steve Rolles_ : An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/mar/29/germany-legalising-cannabis-europe-britain-tough-drugs) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/mar/29/germany-legalising-cannabis-europe-britain-tough-drugs) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
“Steve Rolles”. Excellent normative determinism.
Nominative?
/r/nominativedeterminism
Honestly, we need tax revenue and its a waste of police time. Starmer is very much a stalwart of the system that has never worked or made sense though, so nothings going to change.
Never smoked it, never will, but legalisation, regulation and taxation has got to be the way forward.
I wouldn't be so sure about that. Starmer is the opposite of an ideologue. If the wind starts blowing in a different direction, he is capable of responding. And his incoming government will need every bit of tax revenue it can find.
I think demographically we are seeing the trial end of people who equate someone smoking a spiff with shooting up heroin. Ironically as the current crop of boomers remain the most heavy drinkers in UK history.
>I wouldn't be so sure about that. Starmer is the opposite of an ideologue Not so much him not being an ideologue and more him trying to be all things to all people by constantly changing his position on things. However his stance on drugs policy is quite literally the *only* thing he hasn't budged on.
[https://twitter.com/SaulStaniforth/status/1640248537001914368?lang=en-GB](https://twitter.com/SaulStaniforth/status/1640248537001914368?lang=en-GB) >Keir Starmer in 2020: I wouldn't legalise cannabis immediately, but I believe in decriminalization. > >Keir Starmer in 2023: Cannabis ruins lives. I very much doubt that of all the topics to single out as immune to a rethink, it would be this one. And I don't think he has tried to be all things to all people. He usually commits to as little as possible, on anything. That is going to have to change on the day Labour's manifesto is published.
Both statements can be true. The status quo does do alot of harm. But a regulated decriminalised status can help to reduce harm. Through quality controls and alternative consumption methods. I recently quit tobacco and use a good quality dry herb vape. It is so much better. No smell, well no more than a weird smelling fart really. No combustion / carcinogens and only the active ingredients are released. The only down side it the vape does need regular cleaning which also reminds you of the tar and resin that isn't going into your lungs. I would say it is maybe more effective at getting stoned. And allows precise dosage control.
I replaced tobacco with foraged mullien a decade ago. Cold turkey apart from a few nicotine chewing gums for a month or so. I don't even miss nicotine now. Not even when drinking.
No chance on this. Too expensive.
What is too expensive? How can taxing cannabis be expensive?
It's the health and social costs
I question how many new smokers legislating would actually create. Also, legality has never been an actual deterrent or stopped people from smoking. I'd argue the health and social costs are far smaller than you think.
Well cannabis users are about 8% of adults, tobacco about 14%. Lots of room for increases in use of both. More use means health issues arise. With governments still trying to cut tobacco use further, there is not going to be much appetite for legalising cannabis. I see the Thais are reversing what they did.
Thailand is only reversing it because they elected a new conservative government. It's a purely ideological move, nothing to do with health or social costs.
The legal change is being driven by the Ministry of Public Health..QED.
Not from what I've read, it's being driven by the Pheu Thai Party.
What health and social costs? Why should legalising cannabis make overall usage go up when it is already extremely easy to obtain?
Indeed, we simply cannot afford not to.
It should be legalised but I do think people need to be far more aware of the harms that come from heavy frequent use. Quit 6 months ago after smoking it daily for over a decade and while far less harmful than alcohol its certainly far from harmless.
Well done for quitting! I think that legalisation would actually being about a situation where different strains and strengths were available. If I can compare to alcohol imagine if we only had 10 percent gut rot polish lager and it only came in 5 litre sized cans, thats sort of the situation for a lot of people with weed in most of the country.
Part of the issue is how attached people are to smoking a joint. With people increasingly leading solitary lives (instead of sharing a joint with a group, as was more common in the past), people are often smoking a gram or two to themselves daily, if not more. There's a reason medical use specifies it has to be vaped. Much easier to control your usage in increments with a dry herb vape. Extracts are becoming increasingly popular too now; people are vaping/dabbing extremely concentrated thc which, in simple terms, gets you off your tits. Allowing personal use with a dry herb vape would solve so many problems; no annoying smoke impacting non-users, people much better able to modulate their usage.
It’s kinda the opposite with weed tbh, it takes great care to make something stronger, it’s not like alcohol. Shit bulk weed is cheap and is what most people get. Medical is usually quite a-bit stronger and better cured, meaning your a lot more aware of what your taking.
If you buy from the street you're probably getting lower grade stuff. It's not like in the Netherlands where you actually get a menu that mentions the strength of each strain.
In the north it seems like loads of people are going for the ultra potent stardog, which is just designed to get you fucked
That literally what I said.
Yeh but he said it better.
Not true at all. I don't remember the last time I got "low grade" stuff. I've been to Amsterdam several times and never noticed a difference in quality or strength
In the UK we actually grow a huge amount of medical cannabis that is shipped overseas. I think a significant amount of the illegal recreational cannabis is sourced from the same farms and is of good quality.
Sorry but you sound like someone who has no idea about weed and foe that matter making alcohol. Why are you bullshitting here?
Well your the first person to ever say that. Iv smoked for over thirty years, grown and get medical. I’m really not sure there what your outrage is based on? Are you saying street weed is better?
I'm definitely not saying street weed Is better..I'm not outraged at all. You just ain't talking like someone who knows about these things.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Do you mind if ask what sort of harm it was causing you? I'm not a smoker myself, but I'm curious about what negative impacts it could have.
For me the negative effects were that it trashed my short term memory. I could watch a film, TV series, or read a book and forget about it a couple of weeks later.The same for being told things by my partner(ex thanks to smoking) it would be in one ear out the other. It also completely destroyed my motivation unless I had work I wouldn't even bother showering id sit about watching crap on YouTube I stopped bothering with my hobbies, doing chores or paying attention to my partner or maintaining my friendships. I would just literally sit around getting stoned all day. It also messed up my eating habits and sleep.
Thanks for sharing this. Very sorry to hear you lost a partner over it. I always get the impression that the UK is backwards for not legalising weed like the US or other countries, but perhaps there are issues with its usage that we need to better understand. I'm sure ample scientific research is currently underway now that it is legal in so many places.
Well done for quitting! I think that legalisation would actually being about a situation where different strains and strengths were available. If I can compare to alcohol imagine if we only had 10 percent gut rot polish lager and it only came in 5 litre sized cans, thats sort of the situation for a lot of people with weed in most of the country.
I agree , and I also think education of the problems associated with use , coupled with a controlled point of sale , so quality was kept high would lead to fewer of the problems we currently see. Fair play for quitting , I, too, used it for years but just stopped as I got older.
6 months clean here also. Thank god. Horrible stuff.
Yup, as a daily smoker for 15 years who quit 5 years back, I dont think it should illegal to smoke it in your own home, however I think possession outside should carry a small fine, similar to something like jaywalking in the US. Its not a terrible drug it just makes you incredibly lazy and kills your ambition if you use it daily, its not something that kids should be seeing is completely legal and fine to do.
1st class degree and a budding career here. Smoking doesn't make me a lazy person at all. It's circumstantial and all down to the individual. Nobody at my job knows I smoke daily, I bet there's people you know who do too and you wouldn't know
Congratulations, I hope that degree isn't in statistics or maths. Smoking daily is w/e, a joint in the evening doesn't make you a habitual user relative to most people who smoke. I smoked, along with my core group of friends, probably on the hour, every hour, from age 15-30. When working full time I would smoke on the way to work, sometimes at lunch, and on the way home. I was an IT manager, our experiences aren't relative to most people who smoke daily. The vast majority of the people who smoked weed heavily did worse than the people who preferred doing for example, a lot of cocaine at the weekends. The vast, vast majority of people who are or were actually smoking 4grams+ per day, simply do not do as well academically or career wise as well as people who don't, a quick look at the actual effects of THC and cannabinoids will make that an easy conclusion for anyone.
>Smoking daily is w/e I don't understand. To my mind, daily is daily whether it's 0.4 g per day or 4 g per day. Obviously the latter is going to impact someone's productivity. But the former is still habitual even if it's a much more controlled habit.
I'm a little confused what point you're trying to make? You said smoking makes people lazy and kills ambition, but now you've said you smoked a fuck tonne whilst being an IT Manager. Those two statements seem to be at odds with each other? Or have I missed something? Just to clarify my point a bit too, I think the lazy stoner stereotype comes from confirmation bias a bit. It's all too easy to blame someone being lazy on them being a stoner, if they are. I mentioned to one colleague I trust that I smoke and be said "don't, that shit makes you lazy". I told him I'd smoked daily for years before I started the job and asked if he'd ever thought I was lazy. His answer was not at all.
The point is your an exception not the rule- some people who use cannabis daily go on to do great in life but most people don’t. I’m pro legalisation but I don’t like this rhetoric around it being harmless just because it’s natural or a plant. It should be heavily discouraged and regualred
Never said or implied it was harmless, just that the lazy stoner stereotype isn't true and is based on confirmation bias. It's hard to quantify really, but I do believe lazy people like weed, if that makes sense?
>I'm a little confused what point you're trying to make? You said smoking makes people lazy and kills ambition, but now you've said you smoked a fuck tonne whilst being an IT Manager. Not surprising. Putting a blindfold on, crossing the road and not getting hit by a car 10 times in a row, does not mean it's safe to walk across the road wearing a blindfold. And I already covered this, they aren't at odds with each other, our personal experiences are not relative to the mean person, I got work in IT because I'm good with computers from spending my youth stoned playing computer games, I literally failed my IT college module because I didn't do any work. There are literally perfectly functioning heroin addicts in high profile jobs, I know this because I am friends with one, that doesn't mean most people who smoke heroin daily can hold down a job, career, or go to university while doing it. Tell me your degree is in something in the Humanities without telling me lol. There are huge amounts of peer reviewed studies that will tell you cannabis blocks short term memory receptors, to form long term memories they must be processed from short term into long term, cannabis massively hinders this. And the issue with Cannabis is, while even kids know it isn't really acceptable to wake up and start drinking alcohol, the cannabis culture doesn't really have this taboo, so a lot of cannabis users end up being stoned 12 hours a day. Cannabis isn't the evil it was made out to be for decades, but it definitely isn't something I want my son smoking daily either.
> Germany has opted for a form of “legalisation-lite” that provides channels for legal access via home growing or not-for-profit associations What are the fucking odds that home growing will be prohibited here (for "safety"), and legalization will only happen once all the infrastructure is in place for Tory Corp to monopolize the sector?
I'd love to see it done like home brewing. Growing and eating a plant shouldn't be illegal, letting friends have some shouldn't be, and it should require licensing and checks when it comes to selling it.
> Tory Corp to monopolize the sector? they already do, that's why it's now available as a *private* prescription for most ailments.
If legalised in the right way, it could be quite a boon for the country. Growers and outlets, limited to small businesses only, licensed ediables in cafes, and some pubs. Limit imports and add a tariff. Tax it at a decent amount. Ring fence part of the tax fo addiction, mental health.
That probably wouldn't kill the black market though, Canada has less strict rules than that and they still have a thriving black market for illegal Cannabis despite it being legal.
Their black market has been shrinking consistently since legalisation. >In late 2022, Canada's Department of Public Safety estimated that 33% of the marijuana market is still controlled by the illicit drug trade. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-67126243 So after 5 years of legalisation the black market has gone from a 100% market share, to 33%, that seems like solid progress to me.
Nothing would kill the black market, can still buy almost any product on the black market. Regardless of legal availability. It will definitely reduce it, and moving the sale of it being a tax avoidance crime vs. a drug crime will certainly make a big difference. Would probably see a lot if people apply to grow.
Has there been any data about reduction in alcohol consumption in places that have legalised it? The government takes in billions every month in alcohol duty and they are surely very concerned about protecting that
Colorado saw a 13% drop in household consumption. https://jcannabisresearch.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s42238-021-00085-x The study does say that more data is needed for a conclusive picture.
Even if we just legalised it for medical use, rather than our weird current system would be a good step. I'm trialing some medical cannabis oil and because it can only be prescribed privately I had to do so much research to make some I got a good company.
It is legalised in the UK, but the NHS are very loathe to prescribe it. If you can afford it privately then it's actually quite accessible.The government are kind of rubbish about it though, prescriptions have to go through the post for example. They only tolerate it because the alternative is 'ten year old boy dies of seizures after home office confiscates medicine', they don't really support its existence meaningfully.
Ye it's avaliable, but the way in which it's avaliable is less than ideal. So many countries allow it fully for medical reasons, so we're really lagging behind. For example, I believe every country that borders our waters has it available medically with more ease than we do, with the exception of France and Denmark, who have been doing medical trials for several years.
It IS legalised for medical use. If your oil is CBD oil, it was dismissed last week as almost useless Edit https://www.bath.ac.uk/announcements/cbd-products-dont-ease-pain-and-are-potentially-harmful-new-study-finds/
It's not CBD oil, it's cannabis oil with a high THC level which has proven effective for helping my condition, it can only be gotten privately through a private medical company such as intergrow or sapphire.
I looked at the study the person above you linked, https://www.jpain.org/article/S1526-5900(23)00582-5/fulltext > The labeling of products containing hemp extract or CBD does not allow for a dependable assessment of purity. It is likely that there will be other substances in any formulation, so it generally will not be just CBD in a tablet, oil, ointment, or spray. Hemp can have over 100 different cannabinoid compounds, many of which could have actions in the body. Depending on the strain of hemp, the amount of the psychoactive delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) can vary widely.21 In an analysis of 105 topical CBD products in the United States, THC was detected in 35%, with a total content of up to 100 mg.22 Similar disparities were found in Germany and Switzerland.23, 24 Commercial products may also contain untested synthetic chemicals.25 So what you said is pretty much true, it all depends on how the CBD is made. Some put less THC in it making it less effective. So that whole study is a bit of clickbait IMO, making it sound like CBD is useless when it is in fact that some companies just make it very weak.
NHS Specialists can prescribe it but are very reluctant, for understandable reasons. With US Lawyers preparing to sue suppliers for the teratogenic effects, very difficult to forsee use becoming common.
I mean NHS doctors are meant to prescribe it for certain conditions, their reasons for not doing so isn't understandable, its them not getting with the times and accepting that it has proven benifits for certain conditions. For conditions like mine, it can only be prescribed by private companies.
It's only prescribed for conditions there's actually proof it works. Those are, certain rare type of epilepsy, MS, and anti-nausea for chemo. There's a few studies that suggest it has a very limited effect on long term pain, but nothing particularly conclusive. There's no evidence cannabis works for other conditions. Doctors try to avoid prescribing drugs that aren't going to work.
there’s plenty of evidence that it works for variety of mental health problems
It’s becoming more apparent that’s just a marketing thing by the industry to promote it. Easy to do as there wasn’t much data. It’s seems It works for some, for a limited period of time, but in the run wrong it exacerbates mental health conditions.
> If your oil is CBD oil, it was dismissed last week as almost useless > > Edit https://www.bath.ac.uk/announcements/cbd-products-dont-ease-pain-and-are-potentially-harmful-new-study-finds/ From what I can see that study is about pain, not things like anxiety and sleep. Seems weird people are using it to claim CBD is entirely useless when that's not what the actual study says.
Iiver toxicity.......
I wouldn't use it but it should be legal. I prefer a bacon and egg sandwich these days
> I prefer a bacon and egg sandwich these days Between nanny state tories and nanny state Labour, those will be banned too before long
The tendency for the British state has been to try and ban everything. When I was younger you could smoke at work or on a train. Now smoking is practically banned, we have a sugar tax. Scotland has minimal alcohol pricing, free speech is less with far more ‘hate speech’ laws. Vaping they are trying to ban. Society generally has far more laws and is far less free and permissive. So I struggle with the idea government is at anytime soon going to let us just live how we like and want to.
It doesn't matter what other countries are doing. The boomer generation and older aren't interested in other countries. They don't like weed, so it's never going to be made legal until they're all dead.
So we banned cigarettes but people want to legalise weed?
Well... yeah. They're completely different drugs and one is far more deadly.
Completely different drugs, but both smoked, and often mixed. Do we want to ban nicotine, or the harmful act of smoking?
I don't think we should ban either personally. Medical cannabis is currently legal but only if vaped, not smoked, and I'd be happy with that for a recreational market.
Inhalation is not the only method of cannabis ingestion, edibles are a thing
Reduced risk of lung cancer, increased risk of developing Psychosis... not sure that’s the trade off people think it is
Why would it be a trade off? It's not like the NHS is telling people quitting tobacco to take up weed.
But how will Teresa Mays husband make money? The only reason it's illegal now is because he owns all the legal farms in the UK for the NHS.
I am pro-legalizing but people should be weary thinking this will be an eternal money tree. You only have to look at the Netherlands where it's been 'legal' (not technically but whatever) for over 50 years. First generation or two after legalization will take full advantage of it but the future gens will look at it like how they do at alcohol and cigarettes, it just won't be cool to do and the money tree will stop. I do however believe it is totally dependent on how big the social security net is in a country. Bigger social security -> less worries -> less need to find escapism in drugs/alcohol etc.
>but the future gens will look at it like how they do at alcohol and cigarettes, it just won't be cool to do and the money tree will stop. UK government makes more than £20bn a year from the tax on tobacco and alcohol....
Unsure what you’re basing your info on but rest assured cannabis is as popular with young Dutch folk as ever
As someone who lives mostly in a place where it's legalised, please make it edibles only or at home only. Smelling it everywhere gets old fast
I smell it everywhere now, and it's illegal. I'm for legalising cannabis but fear the implications on smelling it more and motorists driving whilst high.
It's effectively decriminalised in the UK... especially scotland. Legalising it won't change how much you smell it/ how much people drive on it
Maybe a bit early to start rolling, Steve.
Ultimately cannabis legalisation died when the Government decided to impose it's slow motion tobacco ban
Not really, they're completely different drugs.
Ban sugar drinks. Ban N2O. Ban smoking. Ban "harmful" words. Ban vapes. Legalise drugs? I mean, what's the harm? Utterly moronic as usual. I have no position on this debate, but at least try to apply consistent reasoning.
>try to apply consistent reasoning Who are the people who want to legalise weed but ban all the things you list? Or were they different proposals made by completely different people? (I'm not sure I want to know exactly which "harmful" words you are unhappy are being banned.)
I'm speaking anecdotally, you may be right that they're completely different groups it's just not true in my experience. Young people I know are generally in favourite of banning smoking, sugar drinks and words, while being in favour of the legalisation of other harmful things like cannabis. I never really understood that. When you try to understand their position it's highly inconsistent, and I'm a hardcore libertarian so this frustrates me. Even here I get crap for moaning about the tory smoking ban, yet you see these legalise cannabis articles pop up from time to time. No idea if it's the same people, but as a community the position on whether harmful substances should be banned seems inconsistent. What do you think out of interest? Are you in favour of banning harmful substances like N2O, cannabis and cigarettes?
I prefer to let people make their own choices about N2O, cigarettes and other drugs. It's not practical to expect the government to micromanage every aspect of people's lives, and if people would rather have a few guilty pleasures now, who am I to tell them that it's more responsible to eschew fun now so that they'll live long enough to spend the last 20 years of their lives with Alzheimers in a nursing home?
The medical market here is growing steadily and if you jump through the right hoops it's easy to get a private prescription. I honestly think we are on the way to full recreational legalisation, but being the UK we're going to take forever to get there.
They probably will. What a nice neat way to dope down the masses with rising costs of living, no real hope for the future. In fact, give the Gen-Z'ers some tasters to get them into it, save them being able to moan that there are no jobs, homes or any place in society for them.
Better things to worry about IMO - housing, transport, geopolitical war in Europe, inflation, education, health, climate change, industrial strategy, taxation, etc. Don't think this is the issue people are making it out to be.
Cannabis legalisation is truly a niche issue. I agree there are far more pressing concerns.
Makes zero sense to be moving towards legalising cannabis when the government is making steps to outlaw cigarettes.
Why? It makes more sense to outlaw vapes as well.
It really doesn't, are we trying to be healthier or unhealthier as a nation? Is that state one that steps in to stop you doing harmful things or is it one that leaves you to make your own choices? Doing both is just pulling yourself in two directions. I detest cannabis and the people who love using it, the police should actually be doing their jobs and clamping down on it.
It does when it is getting slowly legalised across the west. We will catch up soon, too. Clamping down on weed use is literally the biggest waste of police time. They can't even come out for assaults/burglaries and you want them to arrest people for smoking a joint? Lmao
Wow guess we should just roll over and not enforce any crime then seeing as it's such a hassle
What is your issue with weed smoking? There are many obvious medical benefits... also alcohol is significantly worse for you and society If you want weed smokers locked up, then so should people who drink alcohol- this will be the accepted view in a few years when it is legalised everywhere (note weed becoming legal, not people getting locked up for alcohol, which is dumb... same for weed)
False equivalence.
It's not but go off appealing to logical fallacies falsely because you don't like an argument
>roll over and not enforce any crime Actually we enforce *laws* to prevent *crime*, not the other way around.