Marijuana bill shortened to allow quicker legislation

[hobz]

3 minutes ago, lvr181 said:

An interesting (but technical) article on Safety and Side Effects of CBD:-

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5569602/

 

 

One small measured step at a time, until ALL negative side effects and risks are fully understood e.g. long term hormonal effects.

"Fools rush in where angels fear to tread"! Fools can be reckless. An "Essay on Criticism" by Alexander Pope.

 

Just like Iboprufen - we are only now understanding the side effects and doing something about them.

 

 

Good points. Hopefully results will keep rolling in from countries where its been used medicinally for a while already. So far it looks very promising.

[stanleycoin]

56 minutes ago, hobz said:

 

It has awesome anti inflammatory effects, great for backpain, sleep, etc. 

Also sex on pot is pretty dam good as well.  ( so I'm told)  

[hobz]

28 minutes ago, lvr181 said:

An interesting (but technical) article on Safety and Side Effects of CBD:-

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5569602/

 

 

One small measured step at a time, until ALL negative side effects and risks are fully understood e.g. long term hormonal effects.

"Fools rush in where angels fear to tread"! Fools can be reckless. An "Essay on Criticism" by Alexander Pope.

 

Just like Iboprufen - we are only now understanding the side effects and doing something about them.

 

 

I gotta add something to the whole safety debate.. sure there may not have been clinical trials etc.. but people have been using cannabis for a loooong time. If there was actual safety issues they would be known already... It is safe. Period. Science just needs to catch up and confirm it with whatever procedures they need. And it will happen soon.

 

Also, if the concern is actually safety.. would you want people to get illegally obtained

Tainted drugs or would you want them to get clean products? 

People always have been and always will be using cannabis. Period. If you care about safety you want it to be legal and regulated and quality controlled. Having it illegal actually is worse for safety and doesn't prevent use.

NO matter how you look at it legalization is the only sane option.

Edited November 10, 2018 by hobz

[nervona81732]

On 11/9/2018 at 4:27 PM, hobz said:

People that are for personal freedom and responsibility.

People that are pragmatic.

People that look at evidence.

People that want less harm and more good.

People that don't want prisons overfilled with nonviolent drugoffenders.

People that don't want to keep wasting tons of money and resources fighting a failed war on drugs.

People that want to see those resources spent on harm reduction and stuff.

Those are all for this step towards sanity.

GOD Bless you, I couldn't have said it better my self. Cheers.

[lvr181]

16 hours ago, nervona81732 said:

GOD Bless you, I couldn't have said it better my self. Cheers.

If "non-violent drug offenders" was a reality I could maybe agree.

[BritManToo]

On 11/10/2018 at 11:47 AM, hobz said:

lso, if the concern is actually safety.. would you want people to get illegally obtained

Tainted drugs or would you want them to get clean products? 

Not really a problem with cannabis, about the worst that can happen is an excess of stems.

[lvr181]

2 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

an excess of stems.

Just juice them with the rest of your vegetables and fruit and nuts?     

[Small Joke]

I just thought I'd leave this here:https://globalnews.ca/news/4665166/cannabis-impaired-driving-legalization-data/

[Small Joke]

1 hour ago, lvr181 said:

If "non-violent drug offenders" was a reality I could maybe agree.

Yes, those drunken brawls really ruin the peaceful mood for chilled out cannabis and opium users. And for every psychotic episode created by the ice 'epidemic', police will show you a dozen or so drunken thugs clogging up ER, in any given night in any given city.

Time to realise the narrative is complete BS. What does "non-violent drug offender" even mean?

Assault and being in posession of illicit substances, are two seperate offences. Linking them is a politically acceptable way to make drugs 'scary', that only a citizen with the reasoning power of a rocking horse, would applaud.

 

Edited November 18, 2018 by Small Joke

[lvr181]

4 minutes ago, Small Joke said:

Yes, those drunken brawls really ruin the peaceful mood for chilled out cannabis and opium users. And for every psychotic episode created by the ice 'epidemic', police will show you a dozen or so drunken thugs clogging up ER, in any given night in any given city.

Time to realise the narrative is complete BS. What does "non-violent drug offender even mean?"

Assault and being in posession of illicit substances, are two seperate offences. Linking them is a politically acceptable way to make drugs 'scary', that only a citizen with the reasoning power of a rocking horse, would applaud.

 

NOT all drug (alcohol or other "drug" types, legal, prescription or not) users are sublime/harmless or whatever you may classify them as!

 

So don't give me this "rocking horse sh$t! Yes, "drug use and "users" could be better treated in law, perhaps, but it should not be a free for all on the basis of freedom and responsibility. We do not live in Utopia and too many ARE NOT responsible! Legal "drugs" come with heavy penalties for misuse and that should apply to all drugs, legal or not.

[Small Joke]

1 hour ago, lvr181 said:

NOT all drug (alcohol or other "drug" types, legal, prescription or not) users are sublime/harmless or whatever you may classify them as!

 

So don't give me this "rocking horse sh$t! Yes, "drug use and "users" could be better treated in law, perhaps, but it should not be a free for all on the basis of freedom and responsibility. We do not live in Utopia and too many ARE NOT responsible! Legal "drugs" come with heavy penalties for misuse and that should apply to all drugs, legal or not.

Ok, let's both get on the same page. 

Drugs are harmful, agreed.

Ending prohibition is not calling for a free for all.

Legalizing everything -which several high profile judges, cops, and doctors, have called for- is not calling for a free for all.

Do you think alcohol is a free for all? 

I do.

Any adult in most of the world can legally buy enough alchol to kill themselves in a single sitting.

Please explain then, your reasoning why we can't buy opium under the same freedom to use responsibly?

Here's a fact, on a level playing field, the ratio of opium addiction and alcoholism are about the same.

Alcoholism will kill you quicker than clean regulated heroin. In other words, if we had a death race, whereby two people respectively took a non lethal dose of either drug, to the point of black out each time, the heroin user would be trundling along years after the drinker expired.

 

To have a drug harm reduction debate, we need to be in posession of the facts, not the populist narrative the US anti drug lobby foist on a fearful and gullible world.

 

All of this would be moot if prohibition worked.

It doesnt, it creates a bigger monster.

 

Spice is a mind rotting drug, it was synthesised to get around cannabis laws. Thank prohibition.

 

 25i-NBOMe or N-BOMB is sold (and its a crappy psychoactive at best) because Nixon banned LSD out of an irrational fear of Americas own children, the Woodstock generation, many of whom will be reading this now.

 

Meth is endemic because the authorities think everyone who uses Cocaine will turn into Tony Montana, the worst case scenario in reality, is Charlie Sheen. ????

 

Apart from that, meth CAN be used in doses that are less harmful than

Coke, and administered in ways that reduce addiction risk. And used to greatly help people get through boring robotic tasks like harvesting crops by hand.

 

Almost all of these drugs, contrary to the hubristic pronouncements of the DEA and their equally clueless 'scientists', have now been found to have some profound benefits to society in medical terms.

But we can't research criminalised substances! Catch 22.

 

This idea that humanity should soldier on, and grin and bear the emotional pain of living modern life without any respite save alcohol, or poisonous 'legally' prescribed, dangerously addictive  anti depressants, is as tragic as the ignorant churchmen who denied the world progress by persecuting Galileo, a scientist, to perpetuate their own myopic view of the 'natural order' of things. Sound familiar? 

 

I agree there are irresponsible stupid, people out there. I agree that drugs are harmful when misused, as well as also being wonderful gifts to humanity that we're squandering through fear and ignorance.

 

Having tried it, anyone who dies without trying a controlled LSD trip, is missing out on one of the most profound experiences we can have as living beings this side of death, the unknown curtain.

 

I am happy to stand corrected, but you appear to be arguing for the punishment of everyone, just to save idiots from themselves? 

 

If we took your drug control philisophy, and applied it to the roads, we'd all be catching buses, just because some irresponsible idiots can't drive their car or bike safely.

 

Why do people reduce their otherwise rational responses to life, down to a disproportionate panic mode with drugs? I'm tired of politicians crapping on about 'slippery slopes' and 'sending the wrong messages' and 'giving drugs a green light', etc etc as if these mealy mouthed philosophies actually make happy users change their wicked ways.

 

Why no slippery slopes and criminalised bans for learner drivers, or teenage drinkers? Surely some of them will be idiots who'll abuse alcohol and vehicles, which could kill them -and even worse than drugs, kill or maim innocently bystanding others- just as effectively as any other misused substance?

 

Separating drugs into some special legislative corral is simply not justified by the realities of growing drug use, emerging science, the cost and futility of criminalisation, and the increasingly discredited attempts by one segment of the population, to dictate to the other what they can consume, without looking ridiculously hypocritical, comically clueless, and hysterically bent on the prohibition and control of things they don't fully understand, and therefore, fear.

 

If aliens could see this play out, they'd think the prohibitionists were the ones on the drugs!

 

 

Edited November 18, 2018 by Small Joke

[seancbk]

1 hour ago, lvr181 said:

NOT all drug (alcohol or other "drug" types, legal, prescription or not) users are sublime/harmless or whatever you may classify them as!

 

So don't give me this "rocking horse sh$t! Yes, "drug use and "users" could be better treated in law, perhaps, but it should not be a free for all on the basis of freedom and responsibility. We do not live in Utopia and too many ARE NOT responsible! Legal "drugs" come with heavy penalties for misuse and that should apply to all drugs, legal or not.

 

Why are you lumping all drugs into one category?   Alcohol is a drug and some people when drunk get violent.  Marijuana is a drug but no-one consuming that drug is going to get violent.   

If you can't differentiate between different drugs and their vastly different effects then your reasoning powers are seriously lacking.

[lvr181]

3 hours ago, seancbk said:

If you can't differentiate between different drugs

I can, but claiming that people should have the freedom and responsibility to use, seemingly do not. No answer required or read. Laa gawn. 

[seancbk]

1 hour ago, lvr181 said:

4 hours ago, seancbk said:

If you can't differentiate between different drugs

I can, but claiming that people should have the freedom and responsibility to use, seemingly do not. No answer required or read. Laa gawn.

 

I really wish people could construct a coherent sentence.  You started off ok, but then after the second comma you lost me.  How does 'Seemingly do not' fit with the first part of your sentence?   'Seemingly do not' what? or maybe it should be 'who seemingly does not what?'   Did you just type too fast for your brain?   Did you forget to read what you'd typed to see if it made any sense?


 

[fforest1]

On 11/8/2018 at 7:51 AM, TurkAussie said:

 

It would be great for tourism if it was legalized across the board! Just remember there is not 1 documented death caused by Marijuana, hemp can replace fossil fuels including coal and plastics , it’s the only illegal substance known to man that our bodies have a whole system to process it , the cannibinoid system. 

I passed my car Licience , motor cycle Licience and 2 different classes of Truck Licience all while high on Marijuana!!

There may not be one death from weed but there are loads of lazy unmotivated emotionally stunted people sitting around playing video games and stuffing their face from the munchies all over the world...

[Small Joke]

1 hour ago, seancbk said:

 

I really wish people could construct a coherent sentence.  You started off ok, but then after the second comma you lost me.  How does 'Seemingly do not' fit with the first part of your sentence?   'Seemingly do not' what? or maybe it should be 'who seemingly does not what?'   Did you just type too fast for your brain?   Did you forget to read what you'd typed to see if it made any sense?


 

Mate, lvr181, and Faraday, 

When anyone responds with a detailed explanation of why the law needs changing, to actually get control of drugs back from criminals, and why prohibition has made things worse, they both proudly puff up, and post that they have not even bothered to read the reply.

And the kicker is, they dont want irresponsible people ???? to use drugs.

 

 

Edited November 18, 2018 by Small Joke

[Small Joke]

30 minutes ago, fforest1 said:

There may not be one death from weed but there are loads of lazy unmotivated emotionally stunted people sitting around playing video games and stuffing their face from the munchies all over the world...

There are millions of that type already who wouldnt know weed if you shoved it up their nostrils in flames.

Sourcing drugs in a dangerous, hostile, brainwashed world takes no uncertain degree of motivation and resourcefulness. 

Stereotyping and demonisation is just another form of crude propaganda. So on that score, I have to call it as I see it.

Edited November 18, 2018 by Small Joke

[Shiver]

On 11/8/2018 at 10:15 AM, hobz said:

I would rather share the road with high people (friendly, cautious) than share the road with tired and angry people. 

Have a minor fender nearly bender, say "hey whoa dude" a few times, belly laugh about it for 20 mins, swap christmas cards, and joke about it for decades more. 

We need the economy sector (fast food and insurance companies) to displace the political and military sectors.

[KhunFred]

Should be "shortened" to allow unlimited use for any "condition" real or imaginary. ????

[tominbkk]

Government is sitting on tons and tons of thai dirt weed and desperately wants to make money off it.