1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

General News Cannabis legalisation to be debated in UK Parliament

Discussion in 'Current Events, World News, & LGBT News' started by 741852963, Sep 9, 2015.

  1. 741852963

    Regular Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2014
    Messages:
    1,522
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    MPs to debate cannabis legalisation after petition reaches 200,000 signatures | Politics | The Guardian

    After a petition was set up and has gained a staggering 212,000 signatures (see below thread and the petition), the government has declared today that there will be an official debate next month with regards to the legalisation of cannabis.

    Whilst I am doubtful this debate will lead to cannabis' legalisation anytime soon, particularly with the very negative, hypocritical and scaremongering government response given on the petition site, I do think this is quite an interesting development.

    It was only 7 years ago when the then Labour government returned cannabis back to a harsher Class B classification after it was reduced to a Class C from 2001-2008. Again it appears the current Conservative government have made their minds up already on this issue, however I think a debate might put them under increased pressure and scrutiny from the public, and perhaps hopefully this will at least pave the way for medical marijuana to finally be legalised .Currently only highly expensive cannabis derived medicines like Sativex are available on NHS prescription, and only in very limited situations (only available for MS sufferers living in Wales).

    Simultaneously, the Conservative government are currently pushing a "Psychoactive Substances Bill" through, which if passed will criminalise and ban many currently available "psychoactive" substances including poppers, "legal highs", laughing gas and Salvia. An exception exists for "legitimate substances" including alcohol, tobacco, nicotine and caffeine which, despite also being "psychoactive" and often highly dangerous, will remain unbanned.

    http://emptyclosets.com/forum/curre...es-100-000-signatures-government-respond.html

    https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/104349
     
    #1 741852963, Sep 9, 2015
    Last edited: Sep 9, 2015
  2. BryanM

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2013
    Messages:
    2,894
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Columbia, Missouri
    Gender:
    Genderqueer
    Gender Pronoun:
    They
    Sexual Orientation:
    Gay
    Out Status:
    Out to everyone
    I'm hoping for at least some sort of decriminalisation of marijuana, if not full legalization. Throwing people who abuse drugs (although many, many pot users don't abuse, I'm just saying this for drugs in general) in jail isn't the way to solve the problem of drug abuse, and it only serves to fill the police department's coffers. Legalisation and decriminalisation actually cause a decline in drug use, as seen in multiple countries in Europe.
     
  3. 741852963

    Regular Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2014
    Messages:
    1,522
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    I think the debate will probably start the ball rolling, with the Conservatives probably making some empty talk about medicinal marijuana being legalised "at some point".

    Then if Labour is lucky enough to get elected with Jeremy Corbyn as leader (as polls suggest) - probably unlikely - then perhaps Labour will follow through on the medical side at some point between 2020-2025.

    Then potentially the government and citizens will see patients using the drug haven't died horrific deaths or gone on drug-fuelled killing sprees and they'll concede to legalise. Still I'm doubtful legalisation will be seen before 2025, certainly not before 2020 though (although I'm willing to be proven wrong). By which point half of America will likely have it legalised! Look at how fast same sex marriage swept through pre-Supreme Court decision!

    Not really. The police spend billions on investigations, raids and arrests. And then billions are spent housing minor "criminals" in prison. Prison then has the affect of worsening any existing mental health problems these people have, puts them in direct contact with actual hardened criminals, and when coupled with the criminal record and gap in employment it means on release they are going to be rejected by most employers. Most thus either end up on benefits (which costs the taxpayer) or turning to crime to survive (which costs society). Vicious circle that could all be easily avoided with legalisation.
     
    #3 741852963, Sep 9, 2015
    Last edited: Sep 9, 2015
  4. WeirdnessMagnet

    Regular Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2011
    Messages:
    479
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Klein sexuality bottle
    Gender:
    Genderqueer
    Gender Pronoun:
    Other
    Sexual Orientation:
    Bisexual
    Out Status:
    Some people
    Regarding the debate... So, they'll debate it. And conclude that keeping the status quo is the safest thing politically, and so keep the status quo.


    Psychoactive Substances Bill would probably pass for the same reason. Which is a shame, not because random chemicals made up by god knows whom manufactured devil knows where and having exact effects no being natural or supernatural is entirely sure of aren't a problem*, but because it gives Home Office the power to ban and effectively criminalise pretty much anything it wants to without consulting any outsiders.

    *I know, not all "legal highs" are like that.
     
    #4 WeirdnessMagnet, Sep 9, 2015
    Last edited: Sep 9, 2015
  5. ebda30

    Regular Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2015
    Messages:
    198
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    CA
    Gender:
    Genderqueer
    Out Status:
    A few people
    Oh, wow. I read that as "cannibals" and didn't realize till half way thru the article that it actually said CANNABIS. that was a bit jaw dropping LOL
     
  6. 741852963

    Regular Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2014
    Messages:
    1,522
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    The problem with it is it throws the baby out with the bathwater. In an attempt to ban some of the really harmful stuff out there (ironically introduced as substitutes for the safer but currently banned drugs) they are also banning milder drugs, and one with potential therapeutic use.

    It is important to remember that banning the drug does not just means everyday people can't get their hands on them, but also medical researchers cannot freely use them in trials. It means substances that may hold the key to unlocking a breakthrough in the treatment of certain cancers (as with cannabis) or depression/PTSD (ecstasy and LSD) for instance are not widely available to be used in clinical trials.

    ---------- Post added 9th Sep 2015 at 01:33 PM ----------

    True, but over time they will slowly lose more and more faith from the electorate.

    It is a "little" bit like same sex marriage in Australia. The majority of citizens are supportive, the government is exercising their ability to put their foot down. But the longer they do so the more unrest and less support they have from citizens.
     
  7. WeirdnessMagnet

    Regular Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2011
    Messages:
    479
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Klein sexuality bottle
    Gender:
    Genderqueer
    Gender Pronoun:
    Other
    Sexual Orientation:
    Bisexual
    Out Status:
    Some people


    Last time I checked they added a proviso that anything banned under it could be used in a properly approved clinical trial (and it's not HO who approves them) but it's much fuzzier on other kinds of research, with only vague idea that although legal, it now has to be approved by... someone. Using some criteria.
     
    #7 WeirdnessMagnet, Sep 9, 2015
    Last edited: Sep 9, 2015
  8. 741852963

    Regular Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2014
    Messages:
    1,522
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    My understanding is it makes the whole process a lot more difficult, and deters companies from even bothering because:
    a. they have to check legality and ensure they have permission to test
    b. they then may have to source the drug to use for testing, which is obviously going to be harder and more expensive to do legally if it is not widely manufactured/grown in the country
    c. even if the trial is successful, they then have to consider feasibility of mass-producing it with point b. still being an issue. This may mean they need further permission to set up say, a cannabis grow or importation route.
     
  9. imnotreallysure

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2013
    Messages:
    2,937
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Leeds, UK
    Gender:
    Male
    Sexual Orientation:
    Gay
    Out Status:
    Out to everyone
    The UK's drug laws are starting to look increasingly outdated and out of kilter.
     
  10. 741852963

    Regular Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2014
    Messages:
    1,522
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Oh definitely. It is crazy that we have a situation where merely growing or consuming a plant may result in swat team like searches, arrests, court cases and inprisonment. I mean, I appreciate it can be quite smelly, so some form of "nuisance neighbour" might be appropriate, but then again, people are free to spread chicken manure on their gardens, or smoke in their backyard without fearing jail.

    There are just so many more serious antisocial behaviours that are more serious yet treated with absolute leniancy in the criminal courts, or not at all! - being drunk in public, bad or aggressive driving, cowboy building etc etc. All of which can ruin lives.

    Unfortunately the result of the Assisted Dying Bill vote yesterday I think kind of dooms the cannabis debate. Polls indicated 80% of the public were in favor of such a bill and yet parliament chose to vote against is in a way almost entirely contrary to the will of the public (74% against). My MP voted against which is disappointing.

    To be fair it isn't fair off government's argument "we cannot legalise cannabis as it will mean people will all turn into psychopathic cannibals and all life as we know it will be destroyed!".
     
  11. Open Arms

    Open Arms Guest

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2015
    Messages:
    493
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Canada
    Gender:
    Female
    I am fine with the decriminalization of pot and its use for therapeutic purposes. However, to legalize it is a mistake in my opinion. Being a child of the 60's, I have the advantage of hindsight, knowing people who used it long term. Believe me, you don't want their brains when you're 50 or 60 years old, nor their lack of energy. If you want to age early, just keep smoking pot.
     
  12. Kaiser

    Kaiser Guest

    Joined:
    May 10, 2014
    Messages:
    2,867
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    кєηтυ¢ку
    I could say the same thing about those who use alcohol daily. Only instead of being lethargic they're pretty prone to irritability. I could say the same thing about those who take prescription pills daily. Only instead of being lethargic they're practically a zombie.

    Moderation is the key, as well as the problem.

    I enjoy smoking marijuana, but I'm not going to tell people it's totally harmless. Those types of pro-pot smokers are only asking to be shot in the foot, later on. Of course I'm also speaking from a medication perspective as, in all my years of attempted pills and therapy sessions, none have been as effective as curtailing my anger and apathy as marijuana, so there is a hint of bias here. I'll admit that.

    But it's hard, at least in my case, to say smoking once or twice a week, has not done me a world of good (excluding the fact it's smoke, and that isn't healthy for the lungs). Then again, I don't rely on the high to provide me purpose, I use the high to enhance my meditation, my working out, and my creative endeavors -- this is the divide that separates the responsible from the escaping.

    I take pride in my breaking the pot-smoking stereotypes, and how it pisses off some folks.
     
    #12 Kaiser, Sep 13, 2015
    Last edited: Sep 13, 2015
  13. 741852963

    Regular Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2014
    Messages:
    1,522
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    To be fair in the 60s smoking was still widely believed to be neutral or even beneficial to health. It wasn't until the late 60s and early 70s when the 1962 report on smoking's link to lung cancer was really taken seriously. As such people smoking (be it plain tobacco or with pot) probably had less of an incentive or desire to moderate their usage. Add to that the fact there were no high tech vaping devices back then.

    Fast forward to 2015 and most youth of today are extremely aware and health concious, way more clued up than the youth in the 1960s. People know more about diet, exercise, stress. As such far fewer young people today are smoking, and most appear to be using vaporizers and e-cigs.

    Now I'm not saying vaping will eliminate all the harms of cannabis, but I'm just pointing out that you cannot clearly compare the effects in the 1960s to what might happen today. For all we know with cannabis brought to the forefront instead of pushed underground, more research can be done on different strains and public recommendations re strength and harm of each be made. With our tech today maybe we can even create a safer strain with enough time and money.
     
    #13 741852963, Sep 13, 2015
    Last edited: Sep 13, 2015
  14. 741852963

    Regular Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2014
    Messages:
    1,522
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    I think the problem with the "anti" side though is that these people are often naive or downright ignorant as to their own vices.

    We currently have a highly addictive and in some cases potentially very harmful drug available to buy in bulk across the country and added to the vast majority of our food: sugar. Excessive sugar consumption (which is pretty much "standard sugar consumption" in this day and age) can mess with our bodies in a number of ways, causing severe health problems, and even mental health problems.

    If we think about the possible side effects of sugar:
    -Diabetes (and subsequent risk of stroke)
    -Obesity
    -Weakened immune system
    -Depression
    -Fatigue
    -Heart disease
    -Arthritis and osteoporosis
    -Gum disease and cavities
    -IBS and intestinal problems
    -Cancer
    -Liver and kidney disease
    -Dementia and Alzheimers

    If you told somebody about a drug that could put you at risk of all that they would want it banned as a Class A drug! The same with alcohol which has similar potential effects.

    What's worse is that unlike with alcohol, nicotine, cannabis and caffeine (at least talking about responsible parents), we actually give children large doses of sugar. We do this indirectly during pregnancy and when they are born and young - both times when their bodies and brains are growing.

    For those that say sugar is definitely not a drug, or cannot ever be compared to cannabis, I would challenge them to try giving it up cold turkey. It is killer. As such it is pretty stupid when people take a moral high-ground re cannabis, or argue about it posing a drastic new "never before seen" threat , when they themselves likely have cupboards at home filled with sugar, coffee, and alcohol.
     
  15. imnotreallysure

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2013
    Messages:
    2,937
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Leeds, UK
    Gender:
    Male
    Sexual Orientation:
    Gay
    Out Status:
    Out to everyone
    Indeed. When I saw some MPs arguing against assisted dying, and proclaiming only a vociferous minority want it legalised, even though polls consistently show the public favour it's legalisation by a considerable margin, pissed me off. I had no choice but to turn the TV off.

    Out of touch shits, putting their own ideologies before what's right - and this applies to all political parties.
     
    #15 imnotreallysure, Sep 13, 2015
    Last edited: Sep 13, 2015
  16. Open Arms

    Open Arms Guest

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2015
    Messages:
    493
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Canada
    Gender:
    Female
    Well, the marijuana of the 60's wasn't nearly as powerful as it is today though, was it?
    I'm no expert on this; maybe it is healthier nowadays, as some say.

    When I say long-term, I mean years and years of very regular use, like Willie Nelson.

    It's true when people found out just how dangerous tobacco was, the number of smokers plummeted. I rarely see young people smoking now. There aren't many public places in Canada where people can smoke anymore. It's not considered "cool", but drinking too much is still all too prevalent.
     
  17. 741852963

    Regular Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2014
    Messages:
    1,522
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    No, you are absolutely correct. Skunk which is the most common type on the streets is a hell of a lot stronger than cannabis of old.

    What is important to note is:
    a. The "development" and popularity of skunk is largely down to criminalisation and lack of consumer choice. Skunk is easy and cheap to grow hence why it is the go-to drug for illegal cannabis grows. It makes the max amount of money with the least amount of work
    Despite this:
    b. A lot of our research on cannabis is based reports from users rather than controlled test subjects. These users are likely to be using skunk and not purer or safer strains of cannabis. So when we look at these studies on risk and harms of the drug, we actually should perhaps be taking the results with a pinch of salt.

    I think Willie Nelson is a really cool guy. He is 82 (above the average life expectancy for men of his generation), very LGBT supportive, is an immensely talented musician and a black belt! If he is the poster-child for excessive marijuana use, he sure hasn't done badly off it.

    I think theres a reason alcohol is still widely used and abused yet smoking is not.

    My theory is its to do with alcohol being seen as a softer drug, or even not a drug at all. Think about it, tobacco and cigarettes are kept locked behind the counter in shops (I believe there are calls to even removing it from sight). Packaging has to be plain (no attractive branding) and cigarettes must feature graphic warnings of their harm and grotesque pictures evidencing this.

    By contrast alcohol is available on the shop floor, is often in very attractive bottles (even as a non-drinker I've been lured towards Bombay Sapphire! It looks so beautiful! :lol:slight_smile: and aside from a small print of "please drink responsibly" there is no requirement for health warnings or graphic imagery of pickled livers or people having strokes.

    Add to that the fact smoking is banned in a lot of places, and there are even calls to ban it in outdoor public spaces. Generally speaking you can drink in a lot more places (including on most public transport) and it is socially acceptable to do so.

    The message this gives is "DO NOT SMOKE OR YOU WILL REGRET IT" vs "Yeh, try to drink moderately, I guess".
     
  18. Ryu

    Ryu
    Full Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2014
    Messages:
    79
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Under a rock according to 'cool' people
    Same here... lol


    I doubt legallisation is gonna happen in the next... 10 years, maybe 5 at a push? No point in getting all excited for marijuana to come to the uk.
     
  19. 741852963

    Regular Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2014
    Messages:
    1,522
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    You've said it yourself though, it will happen at some point.

    So this is likely going to be that important first step towards it.