Wraymond - My previous post and your 'thousand cuts' post couldn't be any further from being in agreement If they tried. :getmecoat:

The original post was about cannabis use and driving. I have a simple position, I don't want cannabis using drivers to be under the influence of cannabis when they are driving, or doing anything near me and mine. I would not employ or work with a cannabis user. As to "pretty lights" ,research in America found that cannabis users had difficulty keeping within marked lanes and increased delays when presented with light signals. My comment on the BBC's misleading programme is that it has little value as it compares, ie one against the other and this is done when a "one is as bad as the other" result is wanted. Misleading. Now if it had examined only cannabis drivers the findings would be useful and maybe helped people to avoid cannabis addiction. Chris.S.

Cannabis is fat soluble, not water soluble like alcohol, so it takes time for it to be removed from the system - all fatty tissues absorb it and then it releases slowly. Can take several days for it to clear the system. Also, these days the varieties of cannabis with different THC content are enormous - so 'smoking a joint' can have very different effects, depending on what type it is. This from an industrial chemist - which is why I know about such things.

Exactly, and the argument for its legalisation would presumably be that manufacture and supply could be managed according to strength and variety. To believe that way would remove criminality is extraordinarily naïve.

An extension of permitted use and supply, even restricted to prescription, would in any event do nothing to prevent car and lorry drivers from using it. Anyway, why go down that road? There are already adequate alternatives.

This growing clamour for relaxation of such drugs begins with interested parties lobbying the health sector and ends with further mood altering 'advances' which are in effect causing an actual increase in ill-health.

I suspect that you don't think that cannabis is soluble? But that you mean THC is? 2 points worth mentioning - THC locked in fat cannot affect the brain (that's what THC does: it's a psychoactive chemical). The second point is even if it's released from the fat (by heavy exercise 'burning' fat) Studies have shown that this is less than 1% of the THC Qty in the bloodstream as when actually taking the cannabis. In other words THC in a Cannabis user's fat is there - but has no significance when discussing level of intoxication.

Mmmm, wondering how you know that?

Let's see :



Is drinking alcohol the same as taking cannabis: No.
Is smoking tobacco the same as taking cannabis: No (not usually - but a capstan full strength could make me need to sit down: even when I was a heavy smoker - long since quit smoking).


What adequate alternatives are you suggesting that are less harmful? 'Cos let's face it alcohol and tobacco are much worse.

I really don't think I have mentioned tobacco or alcohol in this connection as comparatives with cannabis and its effects. I don't necessarily equate them with the effect that cannabis produces but then again I'm not a chemist - maybe you are.

Also, my main concern, see my earlier posts, is the apparent gateway effect that has been examined extensively by reputable agencies many times. Not necessarily from a mild sedative point of view but more from the acceptance that social pressures are undoubtedly at work that are far more effective in the inducement to be 'one of us'. The longer this apparent acceptance that it is not harmful is allowed to propagate, the more difficult it becomes to mount reasonable argument.

Just trying to work out what your 'adequate alternatives' are. Maybe you'd actually say what you think these are rather than leave us all to guess?




Ahh, back to previous point already hotly debated, for why?
I do like this though



<- that doesn't actually make a point for either side of the argument. At risk of repeating myself: the gateway drug argument doesn't hold, the numbers are against it. That a large percentage of hard drug users use cannabis first shouldn't be a surprise. To extrapolate that out in the reverse that a large number of cannabis users will become hard drug users is shown to be nonsense by the numbers alone.


And finally ->

If instead of 'reasonable argument' I read 'obstinately repeating the same lost points' then on that we might (just might) agree!


Everything is 'harmful' to some degree - especially the 'legal' drugs, Cannabis use is no different and carries much of the same harm potential as alcohol and tobacco. I haven't read/heard you arguing for prohibition.


Many people enjoy a[n] (alcoholic) drink, are you going to tell them that alcohol should be illegal because of the harm it causes?

I wouldn't dream of telling anybody to do anything, I am not qualified, but do have the luxury of a sober and un-muddled mind with which to form a balanced view from the many available opinions of a range of respected sources. I'm not on a crusade, just responding to others and I certainly don't think about winning or losing anything.

If I may say, it seems there is some sort of dystopian mission thing going on which leaves me cold. That's my reality, enjoying life without the need for illegal substances or fanciful allegiances to enhance anything.

?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????



:roflmao:


I think you split hairs - You wouldn't tell people to do anything - but you'd tell them not to?


That's totally at odds with your previous posts in this thread: Are you really telling me that you would change your position in the debate if Cannabis were legal? I for one think you would continue to assert that people shouldn't use cannabis, and also that you would argue that it should be made illegal. If that's not telling people what to do, then I don't know what is.



I'll ignore the remainder of the (probably IMO) snide remarks as pointless Bull NAUGHTY WORD-NAUGHTY WORD-NAUGHTY WORD-NAUGHTY WORD-.


Your position seems intransigent to the point where you will regurgitate shallow arguments with no supporting reference ad infinitum. go ahead and have the last word if you like - it won't change anything. :getmecoat: