Advertisement
The Government's chief drug adviser has suggested that Ecstasy, LSD
and cannabis are less dangerous than both alcohol and cigarettes.
David Nutt, chairman of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs,
attacked the decision to make cannabis a Class B drug. He accused the
former Home Secretary Jacqui Smith, who reclassified the drug, of
'distorting and devaluing' scientific research.
Professor Nutt said smoking cannabis created only a 'relatively small
risk' of psychotic illness, adding that all drugs, including alcohol
and tobacco, should be ranked by a 'harm' index.
He said that alcohol came fifth behind cocaine, heroin, barbiturates
and methadone, while tobacco should rank ninth, ahead of cannabis, LSD
and Ecstasy. His views are published today as a briefing paper for the
Centre for Crime and Justice Studies at King's College London.
It is not the first time that Professor Nutt has courted controversy.
He first recommended the introduction of a drugs' harm scale in a
paper in The Lancet in 2007, when he also suggested that alcohol would
rate higher than substances such as LSD. Earlier this year he
suggested that the dangers of taking Ecstasy were no greater than
those of frequent horse riding, which he repeats in the latest paper.
Professor Nutt attacks the 'artificial' separation of alcohol and
tobacco from illegal drugs. No one is suggesting that drugs are not
harmful. The critical question is one of scale and degree.
'We need a full and open discussion of the evidence and a mature
debate about what the drug laws are for - and whether they are doing
their job.'
The paper - Estimating Drug Harms: A Risky Business? - criticises the
decision to increase penalties for supplying Class C drugs. The move
to double the maximum prison sentence from seven to 14 years was taken
as a 'tit-for-tat' move when cannabis was downgraded, Professor Nutt
said.
In recent years drug classification policy has become 'quite complex
and highly politicised', he said. The Advisory Council on the Misuse
of Drugs (ACMD) review of cannabis classification, ordered in 2007,
was the result of a 'skunk scare', he claimed.
Overall, cannabis users faced a 'relatively small' risk of getting a
psychotic illness compared with the risks of smokers contracting lung
cancer. Ms Smith's decision to reclassify it as a 'precautionary step'
sent mixed messages and undermined public faith in government science,
he said.
He added: 'I think we have to accept young people like to experiment '
with drugs and other potentially harmful activities - and what we
should be doing in all of this is to protect them from harm at this
stage of their lives.
We therefore have to provide more accurate and credible information.
If you think that scaring kids will stop them using, you are probably
wrong.
James Brokenshire, the Conservative home affairs spokesman, said that
Professor Nutt's comments only added to the confusion over drug
classification.
'Giving simple labels of levels of harm risk gives a false impression
of the dangers,' he said. Drugs like GBL [a 'party' drug] can be
lethal if taken in combination with alcohol.
'Rather than providing clearer evidence on the harms linked to illicit
drugs, Professor Nutt is making an overtly political pitch and that
isn't helpful.'
and cannabis are less dangerous than both alcohol and cigarettes.
David Nutt, chairman of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs,
attacked the decision to make cannabis a Class B drug. He accused the
former Home Secretary Jacqui Smith, who reclassified the drug, of
'distorting and devaluing' scientific research.
Professor Nutt said smoking cannabis created only a 'relatively small
risk' of psychotic illness, adding that all drugs, including alcohol
and tobacco, should be ranked by a 'harm' index.
He said that alcohol came fifth behind cocaine, heroin, barbiturates
and methadone, while tobacco should rank ninth, ahead of cannabis, LSD
and Ecstasy. His views are published today as a briefing paper for the
Centre for Crime and Justice Studies at King's College London.
It is not the first time that Professor Nutt has courted controversy.
He first recommended the introduction of a drugs' harm scale in a
paper in The Lancet in 2007, when he also suggested that alcohol would
rate higher than substances such as LSD. Earlier this year he
suggested that the dangers of taking Ecstasy were no greater than
those of frequent horse riding, which he repeats in the latest paper.
Professor Nutt attacks the 'artificial' separation of alcohol and
tobacco from illegal drugs. No one is suggesting that drugs are not
harmful. The critical question is one of scale and degree.
'We need a full and open discussion of the evidence and a mature
debate about what the drug laws are for - and whether they are doing
their job.'
The paper - Estimating Drug Harms: A Risky Business? - criticises the
decision to increase penalties for supplying Class C drugs. The move
to double the maximum prison sentence from seven to 14 years was taken
as a 'tit-for-tat' move when cannabis was downgraded, Professor Nutt
said.
In recent years drug classification policy has become 'quite complex
and highly politicised', he said. The Advisory Council on the Misuse
of Drugs (ACMD) review of cannabis classification, ordered in 2007,
was the result of a 'skunk scare', he claimed.
Overall, cannabis users faced a 'relatively small' risk of getting a
psychotic illness compared with the risks of smokers contracting lung
cancer. Ms Smith's decision to reclassify it as a 'precautionary step'
sent mixed messages and undermined public faith in government science,
he said.
He added: 'I think we have to accept young people like to experiment '
with drugs and other potentially harmful activities - and what we
should be doing in all of this is to protect them from harm at this
stage of their lives.
We therefore have to provide more accurate and credible information.
If you think that scaring kids will stop them using, you are probably
wrong.
James Brokenshire, the Conservative home affairs spokesman, said that
Professor Nutt's comments only added to the confusion over drug
classification.
'Giving simple labels of levels of harm risk gives a false impression
of the dangers,' he said. Drugs like GBL [a 'party' drug] can be
lethal if taken in combination with alcohol.
'Rather than providing clearer evidence on the harms linked to illicit
drugs, Professor Nutt is making an overtly political pitch and that
isn't helpful.'
posted by:
|
Houston
|
Advertisement
Advertisement
-
Re: LSD less dangerous than alcohol, says government's drug adviser
Fri, October 30, 2009 - 10:21 AMVidas ... could you pls provide the link to the source of this info ? thanks -
-
Re: LSD less dangerous than alcohol, says government's drug adviser
Fri, October 30, 2009 - 10:56 AM -
-
Re: LSD less dangerous than alcohol, says government's drug adviser
Fri, October 30, 2009 - 11:04 AM
thanks Nick .... chk this out >
"Professor David Nutt, the government's chief drug adviser, has been sacked one day after claiming that ecstasy and LSD were less dangerous than alcohol. ... "
news.google.com/news/more
Do we have an elite ruling us into ignorance or what ? -
-
Re: LSD less dangerous than alcohol, says government's drug adviser
Sat, October 31, 2009 - 7:18 AMWow!
"It is disturbing if an independent scientist should be removed for reporting sound scientific advice."
I find the American war on drugs to be something of an elite group of individuals that can use these same drugs in their tests and experiments as they see fit and can grow "government weed" yet they are actually worse than the cartels and mafia that they tend to seem to want to "rule". Doesn't their rule over the drug industry whether it be illicit drugs or the control of legal drugs seem very hypocritical in the way that America uses their power to control nature and the drugs that come from it?
I don't smoke or drink and I don't even consume caffeine but I feel that thousands of people could benefit from pot/weed if it were used as a medicine and I know many people who use it as a recreation drug that pose less dangers than drinking alcohol and most "potheads" seem to be twice as careful while driving a car while on pot which is a lot to be said in the many drivers that kill thousands of people every year by drinking and driving!
America has it's head up it's @ss when it comes to priorities in the drug industry and if the drug companies could make a reasonable profit from dispensing pot then I'm almost 100% certain that pot would be a legal drug used for prescription but since they it grows as a weed, it's not! So in my opinion the only reason pot isn't legal is because of money... *(the wrong people are getting the money)
There is even a study that ecstasy has medicinal purposes but won't ever be utilized because of its beginnings of abuse as a recreational drug! What a shame...
Yet you can receive all kinds of addicting "opiates" and their derivatives, even prescription heroin if you know the right doctor and drug companies make millions of $'s every day off of prescription heroin and the other derivatives of opium...
It's all about money and if you know someone in prison because of drugs, it's only because of an imbalanced political system that doesn't care about the individual but only about the money it can put in ones pocket... They say drugs are illegal for the safety of each individual but that is just a ploy to control everything so that they can control the money, if they wanted and cared about each individual, they would give help to addicts and not throw them into prisons across the country to only educate them in a life of being a convict.
But I think what I'm saying in this post, most people already know and realize and they know that America's problem with drugs is way deeper than just recreation and power and that America and the drug enforcement section of this country is big business in itself... Whenever there is a raid or bust, all the possessions that belonged to that person are seized and become property of the agency that performed the bust! Is that not the biggest scam ever to be had in America? -
-
Re: LSD less dangerous than alcohol, says government's drug adviser
Sat, October 31, 2009 - 7:48 AM<<I find the American war on drugs >>
The war against cannabis seems worst in the UK -
-
Re: LSD less dangerous than alcohol, says government's drug adviser
Sat, October 31, 2009 - 8:16 AMhaving been arrested for being found to have such a plant on me in the UK recently I learned a lot.
The police man that arrested me was shaking and I was not.
The police people that interviewed me were somewhat confused in that I was sharing knowledge them rather than shouting at them.
The solicitor who advised me learned that 10 minutes of research on the internet can completely change your understanding about everything you experience in your job. :)
it is not so much a war on a plant as it is a whole package of limiting beleifs which are all built on fundamental misundertandings about the nature of who we are.. as much as anything else... one way this is manifested is that any drug which promotes individuals to function creatively and freely rather than also buying in to the concensus packaged reality are deemed to be a threat.. the irony, in a sense, is that what appears to be under threat is actually a way of life which promotes suffering (fear based).. I explained some of this.. and was released...
Will I allow this to be experienced again? nope...
The UK governmental representative fight daily a battle which almost no-one believes is of benefit to anyone! They are really more psychotically addicted than the people they project this on to, its just that they are addicted to fear based thinking which is so 'internal' as to be invisible.
just quit your job, move to the country and understand the nature of who you are.. :)
here's a link which expresses some wisdom on the subject that you may or may not find revealing:
finalresponsibility.wordpress.com/2...n/ -
-
Re: LSD less dangerous than alcohol, says government's drug adviser
Sat, October 31, 2009 - 8:36 AM<<UK recently >>
People think that the modern war on drugs started in the US with Nixon .... but to me, the orders to start the war came from deep within the same elites of elites that has everyone in the world hypnotized with money and power, some of these powerful elites have their home in Britain ..... they didn like what was happening in the 60's .... too much Revolution
(almost) everyone wants to be "on top" of the social piramid created by the elites trough time, thats how the system is designed to be .... as long as one plays the elite game one benefits, but we all know who caries the weight and and who has the profit is according to their place in the piramid game of (violently impossed) power
<<<just quit your job>>>
is hard to make people change their mind when their income (job) deppends on them representing a particular policy, thats how the shitstem works .... if you support them, you have a job, and a pension, and medical .... all that stuff ... but if you dont .... -
-
Re: LSD less dangerous than alcohol, says government's drug adviser
Sat, October 31, 2009 - 10:03 AMThe war on marijuana started in the U.S. when alcohol was no longer prohibited. There were all those FBI guys who needed a new job, and they chose marijuana.It was almost instantly demonized and was made illegal in the year I was born, 1937. Just check it out if you haven't. And, yes, it was definitely done by and appealed to racist elites: the bad guys were the Mexicans, blacks, jazz icons, and others "like them." -
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: LSD less dangerous than alcohol, says government's drug adviser
Sat, October 31, 2009 - 5:44 PMYeah I think I saw a show on the History channel about drugs and about how it was a racist thing about the Mexicans. It's really a shame though because I know a lot of people who have smoked all their life practiacally and I don't see them doing any harm to anyone, in fact the people who smoke pot are usually more laid back than most people and are the ones wanting to save the planet and the law puts these people in the same catagory as murders and theives when they get busted... Such a shame...
I didn't know the marijuana laws were more strict in the UK... I thought the laws were more relax there? Shows how much I know(grin)... Maybe I'm thinking of Amsterdam... -
-
Re: LSD less dangerous than alcohol, says government's drug adviser
Sat, October 31, 2009 - 6:42 PMAmerican pressure led to the first International Opium Conference in 1909 at Shanghai with representatives from countries with colonial possessions in the Far East and Persia. This conference laid the foundation for the International Opium Conference in The Hague in 1911.
www.guidinglightfoundation.com/gl...htm
California was the first state in 1915 to make Cannabis Ilegal ....
that was after the International Opium Convention in 1912
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inte...Convention
www.rism.org/isg/dlp/gan...vention.html
In the years that followed, however, the U.S. lobbied continually and forcefully around the world for a new conference. Addressing the opium problem directly, publicly and internationally was a way for the U.S. to achieve its domestic control objectives, to put an end to the profitable drug trade dominated by the colonial powers, and to curry favour with the Chinese and thereby improve Sino-American economic relations.
www.druglibrary.org/schaffer...hague.htm
British had some interest on this also
"Once again, the meeting was chaired by Brent, and Wright led the U.S. delegation. Most states had demanded amendments to the U.S. draft agenda, which focused on stringent control of opium production, manufacture and distribution in Asia. For example, Britain insisted that manufactured drugs such as morphine, heroin, and cocaine be considered. This was an attempt to dilute the opium agenda and deflect attention from Indian opium production. Britain also hoped that a fair treaty would create a level playing field for British pharmaceutical companies to compete with the dominant German synthetic drug industry."
the next state that passed laws against Cannabis in the US was Texas in 1919
The convention of 1925 was the one that made Cannabis illegal
www.druglibrary.org/schaffer...eneva.htm
so, yes, the war on drugs was started by the US, but not by Nixon
Harry J. Anslinger came later, 1930
www.drugwarrant.com/articles...-illegal/ -
-
Re: LSD less dangerous than alcohol, says government's drug adviser
Sat, October 31, 2009 - 7:28 PM"Professor Nutt"... an unfortunate name for a drug decriminalization proponent!
BTW, even though forces were afoot before 1937, that's when Anslinger and others here falsified testimony from doctors testifying before Congress about the efficacy of marijuana as a universal analgesic to get the first federal prohibition in the U.S. -
-
Re: LSD less dangerous than alcohol, says government's drug adviser
Sat, October 31, 2009 - 10:55 PMLegal history of cannabis in the United States
Prohibitions of cannabis arose in many states from 1906 and onward. By the mid-1930s, cannabis was regulated in every state by laws instituted through The Uniform State Narcotic Act.
Mandatory sentencing and increased punishment were enacted when the United States Congress passed the Boggs Act of 1952 and the Narcotics Control Act of 1956. The acts made a first time cannabis possession offense a minimum of two to ten years with a fine up to $20,000; however, in 1970, the United States Congress repealed mandatory penalties for cannabis offenses
During the Reagan Administration the Sentencing Reform Act provisions of the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984 created the Sentencing Commission, which established mandatory sentencing guidelines.The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 reinstated mandatory prison sentences, including large scale cannabis distribution. Later an amendment created a three-strikes law, which created mandatory life sentences for repeat drug offenders and allowed the death penalty to be used against "drug kingpins."
In the 1990s many places began to legalize medical cannabis, which conflicts with federal laws, as cannabis is a Schedule I drug according to the Controlled Substances Act of 1970, which classified cannabis as having high potential for abuse, no medical use, and not safe to use under medical supervision.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lega...ted_States -
-
Re: LSD less dangerous than alcohol, says government's drug adviser
Tue, November 3, 2009 - 3:24 PMI will say mind, though i agree weed is probably one of the least dangerous drugs, compared to alcohol, tobacco, etc, you can have problems with it.
My usage over the last 7 years steadily crept up till last year i was smoking way too much, every night, and i like to smoke it neat in a bong, largely because of stress i was under.
Its been long hard slog getting my usage down to OK levels, and im still working on it, i now smoke about 3 times a week, but it hasnt been easy getting it down to that level, and im only just starting to get comfortable with that, my target is to be comfortable smoking just twice a week.
This debate often gets way to polarised, with the government people on the one hand saying its bad bad bad, and the smokers on the other hand saying it does no harm at all.
The truth I think is something in between. Its on about the same par as alcohol, but as we all know, many people DO run into problems with alcohol.
Everyone is different too. I know people who smoke every night and dont have a problem with that, yet others do, like myself, do.
Everything in moderation, unless your the kind of person that can take excess in there stride.
-
-
Re: LSD less dangerous than alcohol, says government's drug adviser
Tue, November 3, 2009 - 3:26 PMand by the way this is turning into quite a big deal here now.
There have been senior scientist resign from the government advisor board or whatever its called, because Nutt was sacked, with more threating to leave, and its headline news about the governments reaction.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Re: LSD less dangerous than alcohol, says government's drug adviser
Sat, October 31, 2009 - 10:47 PMIt seems the British where the first "drug pushers"
As the museum makes clear, the opium trade has long fuelled wars and revolutions, while generating huge profits for merchants and governments around the world.
Among the most memorable exhibits is a mock-up of a British clipper ship used to carry opium from India to China, where it was exchanged for tea and other spices.
This trade sparked resistance from China's ruling dynasty, which was rudely crushed by British forces in the Opium Wars of the 19th Century.
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-...2684089.stm -
-
Re: LSD less dangerous than alcohol, says government's drug adviser
Tue, November 3, 2009 - 3:18 PM<This trade sparked resistance from China's ruling dynasty, which was rudely crushed by British forces in the Opium Wars of the 19th Century. >
The Chinese are still well aware and bitter about this today, the British intentionally turned a huge proportion of them into opium addicts by shifting the opium from India and selling to China.
Many believe they done this intentionally to destabilise China to make economic domination of them easier, because unlike other countries such as India and Africa, the Chinese were just too big and powerful to win and conquer with outright war.
-
-
Re: LSD less dangerous than alcohol, says government's drug adviser
Thu, November 5, 2009 - 8:48 AM
(Here comes the Sun ......)
The government's drug advice body is "fatally flawed" and should be reconstituted as an independent organisation along the lines of the Bank of England, according to former government drugs adviser David Nutt, who was sacked last week in a row over the classification of cannabis. Nutt said that if the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) was not given more autonomy in future he would consider setting up an alternative committee to provide independent advice on drugs.
"Unless this issue is resolved properly, you're going to have to have an independent group. I know several members of the council will join me if things aren't resolved next Tuesday," he said. "It's obvious the politicians are out of step, that the rest of the world has a more mature view about drugs than politicians.
Next week the remaining members of the ACMD will meet the home secretary, Alan Johnson, to decide on the future for the group. Speaking at a briefing today, Nutt said that an independent drug advisory body would keep the issue out of party politics. "Most scientists would prefer an independent body that says 'these are the harms of drugs, we'll rate them on a classification system then you decide on what the appropriate penalties are'. Politicians cannot decide on harm, they can only decide on matters in their province."
www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/...dependent
Prof Beddington, the country's top science adviser, said the evidence was "absolutely clear cut" but stopped short of criticising the removal of Prof Nutt. However, he is now consulting other heads of expert committees to see if they have experienced difficulties or political interference in their roles.
Only in August this year, Prof Beddington warned leading academics will be discouraged from working with government if they fear being reprimanded for expressing their views.
It came as Gordon Brown, the Prime Minister, backed the decision by his Home Secretary, Alan Johnson, to force Prof Nutt to resign as chairman of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) for criticising government policy, especially on cannabis.
The move has sparked a bitter row between the science community and politicians amid concerns over the future use of independent scientific advice.
Two ACMD members have already resigned and there remains the prospect a mass resignation of the remaining 28 if they do not receive sufficient reassurances about the future from Mr Johnson in a meeting next week.
One member said last night that the situation is on a "razor's edge". The row over Prof Nutt followed a series of public comments including a view that alcohol and tobacco is more harmful than cannabis, ecstasy and LSD. He has also criticised the Government's decision to move cannabis back to Class B, against the recommendation of the ACMD.
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...abis.html -
-
Re: LSD less dangerous than alcohol, says government's drug adviser
Thu, November 5, 2009 - 11:58 AMThe main argument against Marihuana in the States is that it's a gateway drug to other more serious drugs. However when following this train of thought, wouldn't cigarettes be the gateway to smoking pot?
The "War on Drugs"... One look in a pharmacy or liquor store should be enough to realize it's just hypocritical and insane beyond belief, but I guess privatized prisons are pretty profitable these days...
Just another crooked War to add to the list...
-
-
Is Pot acceptable? Not for the young and nonwhite
Sat, November 7, 2009 - 5:55 PM
Marijuana Arrests Are Up, Especially Among Blacks
As more and more states move toward marijuana legalization, law enforcement authorities have been cracking down heavily on pot and targeting African Americans. According to a new report, marijuana arrests have doubled nationwide since 1991 even though pot use has remained about the same. In addition, the report states that blacks are 270 percent more likely to be arrested on pot charges than whites, according to the Chron. Overall marijuana arrests also have increased at a faster rate in California than they have nationwide, despite generally liberal views on cannabis in the Golden State.
The report shows there is a clear disconnect between law enforcement and the public over pot. It also provides definitive proof that arresting people and locking them up has had no effect on marijuana use.
www.eastbayexpress.com/blogs/...Content
The increase in marijuana possession arrests of California teenagers of color since 1990 is quadruple that group's population growth.
In New York City, blacks and Latinos -- who represent about half the city's population -- accounted for 86 percent of everyone charged with pot possession in 2008. The NYCLU report says federal studies show young whites use marijuana at higher rates than blacks and Latinos.
www.cnn.com/2009/OPINION...cial.arrests/
-
-
AMA Calls for Review of Medical Marijuana’s Legal Status
Tue, November 10, 2009 - 12:57 PM
New Policy Marks Historic Shift From Prior Stance
HOUSTON - November 10 - In a move considered historic by supporters of medical marijuana, the American Medical Association's House of Delegates today adopted a new policy position calling for the review of marijuana's status as a Schedule I drug in the federal Controlled Substances Act. The old language in Policy H-95.952 had previously recommended that "marijuana be retained in Schedule I," which groups marijuana with drugs such as heroin, LSD and PCP that are deemed to have no accepted medical uses and to be unsafe for use even under medical supervision.
The revised policy, adopted today, states, "Our AMA urges that marijuana's status as a federal Schedule I controlled substance be reviewed with the goal of facilitating the conduct of clinical research and development of cannabinoid-based medicines, and alternate delivery methods." It goes on to explain that this position should not be construed as an endorsement of state medical marijuana programs.
"This shift, coming from what has historically been America's most cautious and conservative major medical organization, is historic," said Aaron Houston, director of government relations for the Marijuana Policy Project, who attended the AMA meeting. "Marijuana's Schedule I status is not just scientifically untenable, given the wealth of recent data showing it to be both safe and effective for chronic pain and other conditions, but it's been a major obstacle to needed research."
Drugs listed in Schedule II, for which medical use is permitted with strict controls, include cocaine, morphine and methamphetamine. A pill containing THC, the component responsible for marijuana's "high," is classed in Schedule III, whose looser requirements allow phoned-in prescriptions.
.###
With more than 26,000 members and 100,000 e-mail subscribers nationwide, the Marijuana Policy Project is the largest marijuana policy reform organization in the United States. MPP believes that the best way to minimize the harm associated with marijuana is to regulate marijuana in a manner similar to alcohol.
For more information, please visit MarijuanaPolicy.org. -
-
Re: AMA Calls for Review of Medical Marijuana’s Legal Status
Tue, November 10, 2009 - 3:23 PM
-
Re: AMA Calls for Review of Medical Marijuana’s Legal Status
Wed, November 11, 2009 - 4:33 AM -
-
Re: AMA Calls for Review of Medical Marijuana’s Legal Status
Wed, November 11, 2009 - 10:17 AM<<Marijuana University>>
they are poping everywhere, but they are not real Universities at all ....
just a few cats that know how to grow and want to cash in with folks that think they are going to make instant millions .... well it does not work like that ...... in fact, here in California i know of dispensaries that hardly have anyone comming in .... not all dispensaries are making a "killing" selling Medical Cannabis likes the (big) ones in San Diego, San Fransico and Oakland ..... there is a lot of competition these days .... especially at harvest season
anyway ... i have my "PhD" in that science (for over a decade now ; ) -
-
Re: AMA Calls for Review of Medical Marijuana’s Legal Status
Wed, November 11, 2009 - 10:32 AMya
I saw something like that on tv one time. it looked more like a class you sign up for at the rec center. 6 weeks for so many $$ plus supplies... -
-
Re: AMA Calls for Review of Medical Marijuana’s Legal Status
Wed, November 11, 2009 - 10:43 AM<<I saw something like that on tv one time>>
and you will see more ..... the new gold rush ......
open a hydroponics store and sell growing supplies !
safer and you will make lots $'s from the idiots that think they are going to be millionaries in a year growing ganja in their closet ; )
-
-
-
-
-
-
California Medical Cannabis Ballot Measure Update as of November 12, 2009
Sun, November 15, 2009 - 1:14 PM
Yesterday i ran into someone that was collecting signatures for a Medical Cannabis prop in California .... i saw that he had quite a few signatures ... when i asked which one he had ... i noticed he had no idea what i was asking about .... he had no idea that currently there 3 different Ballot Initiatives .... all want to Tax Medical Cannabis .... one of them @ a rate of $50.00 per OZ ..... people should take time to read this stuff and also pass this info to others
pls read section 11302 on this one
Proponent: Joe Rogoway, Omar Figueroa, and James J. Clark (415) 946-5591
ag.ca.gov/cms_attachmen...ve_09-0022.pdf
Proponents: Richard Seib Lee and Jeffrey Wayne Jones (510) 208-4554
ag.ca.gov/cms_attachmen...4_amdt_1-s.pdf
Proponent: John Donohue
ag.ca.gov/cms_attachmen...ve_09-0025.pdf
-
Re: LSD less dangerous than alcohol, says government's drug adviser
Sun, November 15, 2009 - 2:14 PMI just read that Crick, co-discoverer of DNA was experimenting with working on small doses of acid when he made the discovery. I did not believe it, but looked into it and found an interview in a journal where he was enthusiastically talking about experimenting with small doses. He never said publicly that he was on acid when he made his major contribution to the discovery, but he is widely reported to have admitted so privately.
-
-
Re: LSD less dangerous than alcohol, says government's drug adviser
Mon, November 16, 2009 - 6:51 AMI just found this artlcle on the subject..
The jaw-jaw after the war on drugs
A new book addresses the idea of responsible drug-taking. Anarchy is not the inevitable outcome of ending prohibition
www.guardian.co.uk/commenti...war-drugs -
-
Re: LSD less dangerous than alcohol, says government's drug adviser
Mon, November 16, 2009 - 4:14 PMExcellent Article SenZ! I agree with it whole-heartedly even though I don't do drugs... I don't even smoke and rarely drink but I see too many problems with todays order on drugs and that article seemed almost too advanced but truely one that could take care of the problems with drugs and allow a social/legal venue that would lower punishment that accompanies drug use along with the death and crime involved with illigal drugs... -
-
Re: LSD less dangerous than alcohol, says government's drug adviser
Mon, November 16, 2009 - 5:29 PMI agree with it too.
At least it seems this information is getting into the right hands. Officials who can actually change the laws....
"Transform is pleased to announce that our latest publication, 'After the War on Drugs: Blueprint for Regulation' will be launched at an event in the House of Commons on November the 12th, with simultaneous launches taking place in the US (at the Drug Policy Alliance conference in Albuquerque), Australia and Mexico. December will see further launch events in Brazil and the EU parliament."
I seemed to have missed these links from inside the article
transform-drugs.blogspot.com/200...html
www.tdpf.org.uk/blueprint%20download.htm
PDF of the Blueprint - www.tdpf.org.uk/downloads/...ueprint.pdf
-
-
Re: LSD less dangerous than alcohol, says government's drug adviser
Mon, November 16, 2009 - 5:41 PMHey Vidas,
thanks for standing up for our ethnogenic choices even though you abstain. -
-
Re: LSD less dangerous than alcohol, says government's drug adviser
Tue, November 17, 2009 - 6:55 AM(grin)... I just think that some of the funniest comedians smoke a little weed and shouldn't be considered "armed and dangerous" just because they enjoy life. The same with a lot of people who do a little recreation drugs, the cops treat them just like murderers and rapists just because they got caught??? Where did we turn people into criminals just because they did drugs? Makes no sense...
If someone has a problem with drugs, then help should be the means not throwing them into prison and letting them "learn" a life of crime after that from all the cons. Government say that drugs are outlawed for our own good yet if we go against the law then the government really cares about you by throwing you into prison to be raped, beat up and changed into a con to learn the ways of hardened criminals? Yeah they really care about us don't they? When it all comes down to money (law enforcement agencies confiscating ALL you own because you were caught with drugs) then the government IS wrong in their actions against our civil rights.
If I were to eat a mushroom that just happened to be of the hallucinary kind or smoke a little weed that grew wild on my ranch and got caught doing either one, I would be punished for my own good? I'm guessing government thinks that a lifestyle with another guy in prison is a lot better for my life than doing drugs but then they won't let two gay guys get marry after living together in prison for years on end... The government is kind of hypocritical wouldn't you say?
I've never been to prison but I wouldn't wish it on anyone and drugs are not a very good reason to send many, many people to a place like that.
-
-
-
-
-
