Reason why cannabis is going to be banned again

[JBChiangRai]

4 hours ago, Jayaroi said:

I read the concern is young Thais are going to use it. However cannabis is not addictive nor do young people have so much spare cash to make it for daily use nor is it so attractive to them. So any other proper reason?

You couldn’t be more wrong, Cannabis Use Disorder is a huge problem and on the subject of addiction…

 

Contrary to popular belief, people can become addicted to cannabis. Continued, frequent and heavy cannabis use can cause physical dependency and addiction. Some people can develop tolerance to the effects of cannabis. Tolerance is characterized by a need for larger doses of a drug to maintain the same effects.

 

https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/drugs-medication/cannabis/health-effects/addiction.html#

[JackGats]

23 minutes ago, HugoFastor said:

Portugal: Personal use of drugs, including cannabis, has been decriminalized, meaning individuals caught with small amounts face administrative rather than criminal penalties.

Indeed not exactly a legalization. And a joke if what I was told is right (ie CBD, not THC). 

 

Sadly too when you get questioned by police for drugs it often matters jack shyt what the law says. Would you test Mexico's, Costa Rica's or Peru's justice system on their "dosis personal" charade? Good luck.

 

Many countries in the EU have long decriminalized "consumption only'. However they have done so in order that police can consume and entrap without themselves breaking the law. If they catch you high you lose your driving license (even if you're not driving) and you escape arrest only if you give them names. Some decriminilization.

Edited March 3 by JackGats
language censorship

[LOWERCASEGUY]

1 hour ago, Hummin said:

You talking about those who is on a inner journey to find and seek their consciousness, and develop themselves with help of drugs. 

 

Im sure you know that can be done without drugs to?

 

No, there is no cure for abuse of stimuli, but we can limit the abuse to a minimum, giving those who need help the help they need. 

 

Not making every possible stimulants available for everyone at anytime. Do you understand the difference? 

 

This is just a politicsl bait same as the other side screaming for harder actions agsinst drugs destruction and use without solving the core of the problem first

 

I'm talking about everyone, not just those on an inner journey.  

 

Yes, the guy who goes off into the woods and meditates for a year is trying to alter their state of consciousness but his quest is born out of the same dissatisfaction that makes people drink booze, watch porn, exercise, or get high.  

 

You're trying to turn what I said into something else.  I'm not saying that getting high or taking shrooms is better than spending a few years meditating on the nature of reality.  I'm saying that both the meditator and the alcoholic are trying to alter their brain but they have different reasons 

 

But this desire to change our brain chemistry, thus our consciousness, is as old as humanity.  You can go back into human history as far back as there are artifacts and you'll always find beer, wine, shrooms, weed, or some other substance.  

 

In fact, while I'm not a subscriber to this theory myself, there is a theory that one of the reasons the human brain underwent such rapid expansion in such a short evolutionary timeline is because apes were eating shrooms and the shrooms caused mutations that accelerated our brain evolution.  There are a lot of holes in that theory but the fact that it's even made it this far as a theory means that people wanting to do drugs or alter their brain chemistry isn't some sort of new phenomenon.  

 

Quote

Not making every possible stimulants available for everyone at anytime. Do you understand the difference?  

 

And who gets to decide what's best for me?  You do realize that what you're proposing is a nanny state that has to tell each individual what they can and can't do based on . . . whatever some idiot in the government decides?  

 

Maybe, just maybe, instead of making rules about what people can and can't do, we embrace the fact that something deep down inside every human being craves to alter its consciousness.  

 

Keep in mind, that almost all drugs are manageable.  You can be a functioning meth addict.  You can be a functioning opioid addict.  

 

The problem is when the government says they're going to protect you from . . . you . . . and they create an environment that prioritizes penalties over concern over people's welfare.  

 

The fatality rate for opioids didn't skyrocket in the US until the US gov cracked down on legal opioids.  That forced people who had been tricked into getting hooked on opioids by the doctors and pharma companies to buy heroin (often laced with fentanyl) from street dealers.  

 

But what if they had just left everyone alone?  What if you could buy pharmaceutical opioids at any pharmacy?  And instead of spending billions of dollars a year incarcerating heroin users, you can use that money to offer people help if they want to kick heroin.  

 

Your solution sucks.  It's basically you forcing your ideals on me and everyone else.  Much like Bill Murry said, I'm paraphrasing, I find it off that the most dangerous aspect of cannabis is getting caught with it.  

 

There shouldn't be any drugs that are illegal to possess.  The real issue is whether or not someone can responsibly use them.  And the moment you make the penalty for responsible use greater than the harm caused by the drug, you are a bigger problem than the drug.  Way more lives have been ruined by the war on drug than if they would have just given free drugs to every man, woman, and child.  

[LOWERCASEGUY]

39 minutes ago, JBChiangRai said:

You couldn’t be more wrong, Cannabis Use Disorder is a huge problem and on the subject of addiction…

 

Contrary to popular belief, people can become addicted to cannabis. Continued, frequent and heavy cannabis use can cause physical dependency and addiction. Some people can develop tolerance to the effects of cannabis. Tolerance is characterized by a need for larger doses of a drug to maintain the same effects.

 

https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/drugs-medication/cannabis/health-effects/addiction.html#

 

It feels so strange being super pro-cannabis but also needing to correct people for making wildly inaccurate claims about weed.  

 

Anybody that says cannabis isn't addictive isn't worth taking seriously in any conversation about cannabis.  The fact that your link is the first result of millions all saying that cannabis can be addictive for some people means that OP didn't even do the cursory google search before making a medical claim.  What other topics can you possibly discuss with someone that is willfully ignorant?  

[LOWERCASEGUY]

1 hour ago, Tropicalevo said:

Doctors prescribe smoking cannabis?

I do not think that they would do that.

Sucking anything except air into your lungs is bad for you.

 

Cannabis has methods of consumption other than smoking.  

 

• Edibles (cookies, brownies, gummies, etc)
• Pills (I just got a bunch of micro-dose capsules as a sample from a grower)
• IV 
• Patches (transdermal) 
• I'm pretty sure PrikPot in Chiang Mai sells snus-like satchels with cannabis (decarb it in tea or coffee for a nice high) 
• Vaping (you claim sucking anything except air into your lungs is bad for you but many drugs are available as inhalers - ie asthma meds)

If there's a way for doctors to administer a medication, there's a good shot you can deliver cannabinoids via the same method.  

[Hummin]

30 minutes ago, LOWERCASEGUY said:

 

I'm talking about everyone, not just those on an inner journey.  

 

Yes, the guy who goes off into the woods and meditates for a year is trying to alter their state of consciousness but his quest is born out of the same dissatisfaction that makes people drink booze, watch porn, exercise, or get high.  

 

You're trying to turn what I said into something else.  I'm not saying that getting high or taking shrooms is better than spending a few years meditating on the nature of reality.  I'm saying that both the meditator and the alcoholic are trying to alter their brain but they have different reasons 

 

But this desire to change our brain chemistry, thus our consciousness, is as old as humanity.  You can go back into human history as far back as there are artifacts and you'll always find beer, wine, shrooms, weed, or some other substance.  

 

In fact, while I'm not a subscriber to this theory myself, there is a theory that one of the reasons the human brain underwent such rapid expansion in such a short evolutionary timeline is because apes were eating shrooms and the shrooms caused mutations that accelerated our brain evolution.  There are a lot of holes in that theory but the fact that it's even made it this far as a theory means that people wanting to do drugs or alter their brain chemistry isn't some sort of new phenomenon.  

 

 

And who gets to decide what's best for me?  You do realize that what you're proposing is a nanny state that has to tell each individual what they can and can't do based on . . . whatever some idiot in the government decides?  

 

Maybe, just maybe, instead of making rules about what people can and can't do, we embrace the fact that something deep down inside every human being craves to alter its consciousness.  

 

Keep in mind, that almost all drugs are manageable.  You can be a functioning meth addict.  You can be a functioning opioid addict.  

 

The problem is when the government says they're going to protect you from . . . you . . . and they create an environment that prioritizes penalties over concern over people's welfare.  

 

The fatality rate for opioids didn't skyrocket in the US until the US gov cracked down on legal opioids.  That forced people who had been tricked into getting hooked on opioids by the doctors and pharma companies to buy heroin (often laced with fentanyl) from street dealers.  

 

But what if they had just left everyone alone?  What if you could buy pharmaceutical opioids at any pharmacy?  And instead of spending billions of dollars a year incarcerating heroin users, you can use that money to offer people help if they want to kick heroin.  

 

Your solution sucks.  It's basically you forcing your ideals on me and everyone else.  Much like Bill Murry said, I'm paraphrasing, I find it off that the most dangerous aspect of cannabis is getting caught with it.  

 

There shouldn't be any drugs that are illegal to possess.  The real issue is whether or not someone can responsibly use them.  And the moment you make the penalty for responsible use greater than the harm caused by the drug, you are a bigger problem than the drug.  Way more lives have been ruined by the war on drug than if they would have just given free drugs to every man, woman, and child.  

Obviously, nanny state working better than no state caring for most peoples health and security!

 

A good example is world richest and most powerful country being ripped apart by to many individual egoistic selfish needed people. There is no common ground left to oppose all these conflicting forces. 

 

Read someone state 50% of germans between 18-40 smoke ganja? 

 

Well, that sounds promising for a healthy productive country with free individuals.

 

Back in the days, either you where productice and produced, or you where left behind. Today, you can float through life doing nothing in the western countries and live ok, but for how long? 

 

You understand there is a crossing point?  Between To much nanny and to little? 

 

I really do not care, but most people are stupid, and stupid people need guidance, simple as that. 

 

Average iq in the world is around 82-85, and in Germany 100, usa 97

Edited March 3 by Hummin

[LOWERCASEGUY]

1 hour ago, steven100 said:

 

agree absolutely ......  trying to convince that drugs are ok.   😂

 

First, define what a drug is.  

 

You know the definitions are completely arbitrary, right?  

 

Doctors used to use cocaine for medicinal purposes.  Now, doctors can't even possess it.  

 

Many of the founders of the United States grew cannabis.  Now it's illegal.  

 

Most drugs that are considered the biggest threats to society all happen to have been enjoyed by minority groups.  Weed, heroin, cocaine, etc were all re-classified as "drugs" as a way to control minority groups who used these drugs.  

 

Large parts of the world run their drug laws based on the whims of a racist called Harry Anslinger who targeted minority groups in the US via drug laws.  And then because the US was losing the drug war they started, they strong-armed many countries, including Thailand, into joining their drug war.

 

Anybody that celebrates drug laws is celebrating racism.    

[LOWERCASEGUY]

2 hours ago, HugoFastor said:

 

😂😂😂

Edited 1 hour ago by HugoFastor

I love the fact that you needed to edit your response for us to have the wisdom of your three laughing emojis.  Did you start with two and decide that wasn't enough or did you have four and decided it was too many?  

[Hummin]

15 minutes ago, LOWERCASEGUY said:

 

Many of the founders of the United States grew cannabis.  Now it's illegal.  

They grew hemp for making products made of hemp 😀 not drugs. They where outnumbered and made illegal by cotton producers. Interesting history, also the more conspiracy part behind it.

 

Cocaine was also legal for a brief moment in tge history 

Edited March 3 by Hummin

[LOWERCASEGUY]

13 minutes ago, Hummin said:

A good example is world richest and most powerful country being ripped apart by to many individual egoistic selfish needed people. There is no common ground left to oppose all these conflicting forces. 

 

Please cite your evidence that a causal relationship exists between drugs and what you just described.  Nobody is interested in your personal theories.  If you have research that shows a causal relationship, fine.  If not, it's not welcome in this discussion.  

 

15 minutes ago, Hummin said:

Back in the days, either you where productice and produced, or you where left behind. Today, you can float through life doing nothing in the western countries and live ok, but for how long? 

 

Hmmmm . . . well, I've had a pretty successful career and have been smoking weed since I was 14 so . . . jeez we both have anecdotal evidence.  

 

But let's look at some other deadbeat drug users who have not produced anything:

• Michael Phelps
• Steve Jobs 
• Elon Musk
• Carl Sagan 
• Bill Gates
• Abraham Lincoln, US President, quoted as saying, "Two of my favorite things are sitting on my front porch smoking a pipe of sweet hemp, and playing my Hohner harmonica."
• Barack Obama 
• Ben Franklin
• Arnold Schwarzenegger
• Janet Yellen (US Secretary of the Treasury)

Are they all slackers?  I didn't want to get into musicians, artists, etc that are all avid drug users.  

 

You seem to have a stereotype of drug users in your head that isn't very accurate yet you also seem very close minded to changing that opinion with new information.  

27 minutes ago, Hummin said:

I really do not care, but most people are stupid, and stupid people need guidance, simple as that. 

 

You seem to like to think of yourself in the group of people that need to guide others but maybe you're the stupid one.  I'm not saying that you are in fact stupid but most stupid people don't think they're stupid either.  You might want to google, "Dunning–Kruger Effect"

 

The arrogance of your statement is truly amazing.    

 

 

[LOWERCASEGUY]

17 minutes ago, Hummin said:

They grew hemp for making products made of hemp 😀 not drugs. They where outnumbered and made illegal by cotton producers. Interesting history, also the more conspiracy part behind it.

 

Cocaine was also legal for a brief moment in tge history 

 

Is hemp cannabis?  Why, yes it is.  So, what are you babbling about?  

 

Cocaine was a medicinal product, not just legal.  It was in soda, cough syrup, and obviously used for dental procedures.  

 

If this was all done completely based on science, most illegal drugs would be legal and many legal drugs would be illegal.  

[Hummin]

8 minutes ago, LOWERCASEGUY said:

 

Please cite your evidence that a causal relationship exists between drugs and what you just described.  Nobody is interested in your personal theories.  If you have research that shows a causal relationship, fine.  If not, it's not welcome in this discussion.  

 

 

Hmmmm . . . well, I've had a pretty successful career and have been smoking weed since I was 14 so . . . jeez we both have anecdotal evidence.  

 

But let's look at some other deadbeat drug users who have not produced anything:

• Michael Phelps
• Steve Jobs 
• Elon Musk
• Carl Sagan 
• Bill Gates
• Abraham Lincoln, US President, quoted as saying, "Two of my favorite things are sitting on my front porch smoking a pipe of sweet hemp, and playing my Hohner harmonica."
• Barack Obama 
• Ben Franklin
• Arnold Schwarzenegger
• Janet Yellen (US Secretary of the Treasury)

Are they all slackers?  I didn't want to get into musicians, artists, etc that are all avid drug users.  

 

You seem to have a stereotype of drug users in your head that isn't very accurate yet you also seem very close minded to changing that opinion with new information.  

 

You seem to like to think of yourself in the group of people that need to guide others but maybe you're the stupid one.  I'm not saying that you are in fact stupid but most stupid people don't think they're stupid either.  You might want to google, "Dunning–Kruger Effect"

 

The arrogance of your statement is truly amazing.    

 

 

Okay, I let it be, Im done explaining my belief and also experiences. Most of the people you listed cant be reckon as recreational users even, so, leave it there. 

 

The above was an attempt to explain why a nanny state is necessary, but obviously failed. I am defeated, my arguments slaughtered, and I accept my defeat. You are the expert

[ABCDBKK]

2 hours ago, LOWERCASEGUY said:

 

I'm talking about everyone, not just those on an inner journey.  

 

Yes, the guy who goes off into the woods and meditates for a year is trying to alter their state of consciousness but his quest is born out of the same dissatisfaction that makes people drink booze, watch porn, exercise, or get high.  

 

You're trying to turn what I said into something else.  I'm not saying that getting high or taking shrooms is better than spending a few years meditating on the nature of reality.  I'm saying that both the meditator and the alcoholic are trying to alter their brain but they have different reasons 

 

But this desire to change our brain chemistry, thus our consciousness, is as old as humanity.  You can go back into human history as far back as there are artifacts and you'll always find beer, wine, shrooms, weed, or some other substance.  

 

In fact, while I'm not a subscriber to this theory myself, there is a theory that one of the reasons the human brain underwent such rapid expansion in such a short evolutionary timeline is because apes were eating shrooms and the shrooms caused mutations that accelerated our brain evolution.  There are a lot of holes in that theory but the fact that it's even made it this far as a theory means that people wanting to do drugs or alter their brain chemistry isn't some sort of new phenomenon.  

 

 

And who gets to decide what's best for me?  You do realize that what you're proposing is a nanny state that has to tell each individual what they can and can't do based on . . . whatever some idiot in the government decides?  

 

Maybe, just maybe, instead of making rules about what people can and can't do, we embrace the fact that something deep down inside every human being craves to alter its consciousness.  

 

Keep in mind, that almost all drugs are manageable.  You can be a functioning meth addict.  You can be a functioning opioid addict.  

 

The problem is when the government says they're going to protect you from . . . you . . . and they create an environment that prioritizes penalties over concern over people's welfare.  

 

The fatality rate for opioids didn't skyrocket in the US until the US gov cracked down on legal opioids.  That forced people who had been tricked into getting hooked on opioids by the doctors and pharma companies to buy heroin (often laced with fentanyl) from street dealers.  

 

But what if they had just left everyone alone?  What if you could buy pharmaceutical opioids at any pharmacy?  And instead of spending billions of dollars a year incarcerating heroin users, you can use that money to offer people help if they want to kick heroin.  

 

Your solution sucks.  It's basically you forcing your ideals on me and everyone else.  Much like Bill Murry said, I'm paraphrasing, I find it off that the most dangerous aspect of cannabis is getting caught with it.  

 

There shouldn't be any drugs that are illegal to possess.  The real issue is whether or not someone can responsibly use them.  And the moment you make the penalty for responsible use greater than the harm caused by the drug, you are a bigger problem than the drug.  Way more lives have been ruined by the war on drug than if they would have just given free drugs to every man, woman, and child.  

How many walls of driveling text that nobody is going to read are you going to write today? Don't you have anything better to do on a weekend? I guess you didn't get the memo. 🤦🏻‍♂️

 

 

[Tropicalevo]

2 hours ago, LOWERCASEGUY said:

 

Cannabis has methods of consumption other than smoking.  

 

• Edibles (cookies, brownies, gummies, etc)
• Pills (I just got a bunch of micro-dose capsules as a sample from a grower)
• IV 
• Patches (transdermal) 
• I'm pretty sure PrikPot in Chiang Mai sells snus-like satchels with cannabis (decarb it in tea or coffee for a nice high) 
• Vaping (you claim sucking anything except air into your lungs is bad for you but many drugs are available as inhalers - ie asthma meds)

If there's a way for doctors to administer a medication, there's a good shot you can deliver cannabinoids via the same method.  

OK - lots of cross purposes here.

Cannabis was decriminalised for medicinal reasons.

The threat to make it illegal is for the recreational use.

All that I have read to date, says that medicinal cannabis will remain decriminalised.

Vaping is not the same as inhalers. (and vaping is illegal).

Yes, I admit that inhalers are good - I take two of them for my COPD but this article is about banning cannabis.

There is lots of research currently that says that vaping is just as bad for you lungs as smoking.

[CashMoon]

I don't expect a ban, on the contrary, I believe that the law will be expanded. I think they will legalize magic mushroom within this year.  It would be perfect for the continuity of tourism if they legalized one product every year. I am sure that those who came before for marijuana will come again for magic mushroom.  

 

And let's not forget that in no other country in the world can we prevent young people from drinking alcohol.  Alcohol, which has been implanted in our brains for years as normal, is much, much worse. It's a chemical mixture, it's like drinking a potion.  If cannabis should be banned, alcohol should be banned too. 

 

Edited March 7 by CashMoon

[Yagoda]

On 3/3/2024 at 5:52 PM, steven100 said:

That's fine ... how's their crime rate figures?   anyway,  doesn't matter .... I would sooner live in Singapore if it wasn't so damn expensive, you don't see drug addicts walking the streets their.. unlike Thailand ..where they will kill the grandparents if they don't give them money for more drugs.  

 

I'd prefer to live in a place free of pot heads with a common sense civilized society. but that's hard to find these days .😂

Tough to slum here in SE Asia innit?

[steven100]

13 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

Tough to slum here in SE Asia innit?

aha ... sometimes it can be quite stressful ....

[Pouatchee]

On 3/3/2024 at 8:54 PM, LOWERCASEGUY said:

Anybody that celebrates drug laws is celebrating racism.  

 

that would describe the guy you are replying to very well. his avatar before was prayut but he denies it now

[marin]

17 minutes ago, Pouatchee said:

that would describe the guy you are replying to very well. his avatar before was prayut but he denies it now

That it was, he also has expressed a dislike of Thai's in general. Waste of space with his 1930's outlook on drug laws. 

[PJ71]

On 3/3/2024 at 10:24 AM, HugoFastor said:

Literally translates to "crazy drug" in English.

Thanks for the translation, it's unlikely man knew that on here 🤥

[Pouatchee]

48 minutes ago, marin said:

That it was, he also has expressed a dislike of Thai's in general. Waste of space with his 1930's outlook on drug laws. 

i reported him to the mods. if he is against weed then he should stay away rather than flame us here...hope it works

[Mike Lister]

On 3/3/2024 at 5:18 PM, Lemsta69 said:

 

What the hell is "yabba"? Sounds like something Fred Flintstone shouts out when he's on the job with Wilma.

 

A very lose translation, solely for the benefit of the poster who said he didn't know what it meant....no Thai lessons please!

 

Ya - a drug or medicine in Thai

Ba - crazy

[Mike Lister]

Er, a couple of posts removed, mostly impolite name calling stuff.

 

Look, if you can't debate without calling each other names, go away and read something else.

 

And if you hate cannabis that much that you can't debate rationally, go away also.

[JBChiangRai]

2 hours ago, Pouatchee said:

i reported him to the mods. if he is against weed then he should stay away rather than flame us here...hope it works

This forum topic is about “All things cannabis”.  That includes the negative and the positive. 

[Lemsta69]

5 hours ago, Mike Lister said:

 

A very lose translation, solely for the benefit of the poster who said he didn't know what it meant....no Thai lessons please!

 

Ya - a drug or medicine in Thai

Ba - crazy

 

Of course I know what yaba is, was the Fred and Wilma comment not enough to show that I was poking fun at the serial Thai basher?

[Mike Lister]

3 hours ago, Lemsta69 said:

 

Of course I know what yaba is, was the Fred and Wilma comment not enough to show that I was poking fun at the serial Thai basher?

Not when it has a question mark at the end it doesn't!

[Jingthing]

Different reasons but I reckon a big part is that Thailand is in actuality a very conservative country. It's one of if not the most religious country in the world. Where are the casinos? Nowhere. It was "legalized" sort of accidentally and I wonder if the shops that opened up were much fewer and more dignified in presentation instead of mostly being about in your face getting stoned, that this may have been avoided. I don't think the people in power like all the the wild wild east more Amsterdam than Amsterdam international publicity. Plus of course the money issues, even probably seen as a threat to the alcohol establishment.

[Mike Lister]

15 minutes ago, Olmate said:

 

Perhaps you missed this one then or am I on the wrong team? 

13. You will not publicly comment on moderation in an open forum. You will not comment on actions taken by individual moderators or on specific or general policies and issues.

[stoner]

16 hours ago, JBChiangRai said:

This forum topic is about “All things cannabis”.  That includes the negative and the positive. 

 

yes it does. thumbs up.

Edited March 9 by stoner

[HugoFastor]

18 hours ago, JBChiangRai said:

This forum topic is about “All things cannabis”.  That includes the negative and the positive. 

There are negative things about cannabis? Really? Wow. You mean getting high, feeling good, and eating chocolate bars all day is a negative thing?