yeh? like... you forget to breathe or something?

Just listen to the people who you employ to tell you about it you pruitan twat.

Lethal means that it kills you. Err, FAIL. I really hope you aren't involved in specifying weapons for the army. "Urr, yes <mouth thing> we'll kit them out with some err, <mouth thing> militry grade doobies, that'll warn off the enemy. <mouth thing>"

How is it right to classify canabis (and I'm not suggesting that it's harmless) in the same category as Amphetamines? Even the strongest skunk is not going to fuck you up like amphetamines.

I also take issue with "it's stronger so it gets people more dangerously wasted" because if I drink beer and then move on to wisky, I can work out that I don't need to drink as much to get me the same level of drunk. So from a lung cancer point of view smoking skunk may be less bad for you than smoking bog standard grass.

It's a while since I've seen any lethal skunk around my way.

A drug being Class A doesn't stop people buying and using it so the change from C to B will have no effect except to futher crimilise a large percentage of the population.

Anyhow, if I've got enough cash I'll be running at the next election, vote for me and I'll put drugs into safe hands and get them out of the hands of the criminals by making them legal and generating a tidy profit for the country that could even help lower the tax rate.

ACID, for the obvious reason

lethal |ˈlēθəl|

adjective

sufficient to cause death : a lethal cocktail of alcohol and pills.

• harmful or destructive : the Krakatoa eruption was the most lethal on record.

There is no such thing as a "lethal" strain of cannabis.

So how many skunk-related deaths have there been ever? Compare that to the amount of alcohol-related deaths YESTERDAY and anyone can see that this is a personal vendetta and has nothing to do with facts OR social arguments.

The poor woman who appeared before the PM on GMTV who lost her goth-styled daughter in a horrendous attack seems to be supporting the PM in this but I fail to understand why. I've just read the report of the incident again and I'm sure that it was alcohol-related and not marijuana related. So Gordon, when are you going to ban alcohol which kills a huge number of people every year including the goth girl who's mother now seems to be backing you? (I bet she didn't realise she was backing a campaign against cannabis until she met the PM this morning).

Also Gordon, why bother wasting MY MONEY on a review of cannabis when you're not even going to read the bloody thing before you make your decision (oh, sorry, your decision has already been made).

Just give me the date for the election so I can help the rest of the country to get rid of you, you complete waste of mind, body and time.

</sarcasm>

Interesting to hear about the *fall* in schizophrenia though.

Lethal, my arse!

is in the smoking. Fumes from burning substances are never healthy to inhale. Stronger forms of cannabis reduce this danger as less total material is required. Never mind that "skunk" isn't as strong as some of the hash that's been around since Westerners first started taking this drug.

Brown has said this is about sending a message to users that cannabis is unacceptable. That is not what this is really about, that was always the message even now while it is class C. This move will make no difference to users. This is about sending a message to middle England and the Daily Mail.

"Sprawling on the GMTV sofa, Brown described cannabis as lethal"

Must have been good gear then ...

It's raining out, I'll need it anyway.

There seems to be another pair of quotes missing from the headline.

Giving people criminal records, with all that entails, for the simple pleasure

of smoking cannabis can hardly be described as moral.

Maybe "Brown opts for stupidity over science on 'lethal skunk'"

Mike.

i sense a debate appearing (albeit one sided), i'm off!

mines the one with bomber holes in it

He has, It's called the dictionary of spin.

fekking idiots in charge of this country. SO, wtf is SKUNK actually? to the ininformed it is simply ALL kinds of weed. skunk ACTUALLY is one of the thousands of strains of weed that can be grown, and the vast majority of people probably have never even smoked it.

we all smoke bud now as its so hard to get nice resin (im going back about 15 years for decent resin i guess) - so, mr brown, who's fault is this then? if you calmed the laws we would all be smoking nice mellow gold, red and black seal still wouldnt we?

the fact that he is VERY HAPPY to charge massive amounts of tax on a far more dangerous substance (alcohol) and makes a fair amount of cash off the killer tobacco. the guy is just full of shit.

the lancet AND his drugs panel both classify weed as a low risk/damage drug yet he thinks he knows best.

this really annoys me (cant you guess). im sick of people with no knowledge making rulings over my life and making me out to be a criminal. when we all know any offie is doing far more damage to society selling stella and white lightning!

this government is going to pot (no pun intended) - this is becoming a fascist society and unless we all do something about it in 10 years we will have no civil liberties left at all.

we all know prohibition NEVER WORKS, all you do is force it underground. stop turning decent law abiding citizens into criminals.

and just because 1 or 2 complete psychos do bad things and blame weed we are all made to suffer. the fact is that some people are just mentally imbalanced - they are the same people who kill over video games etc. some people just need to take account of their own actions rather than blaming weed/video games/porn or whatever other bollocks their solicitor gives in court! if its so lethal mow come so many MPs have smoked it?

also, surely a crime must have a victim??? who is the victim??? myself??? well, i dont press charges against me!

so, mr scottish darth vader - fuck off and take your uninformed views with you.

vive la revolucion! is it me or should we ask al queda to do us a favour and finish off what guy fawkes once started?

posting as AC to stop the back choppers coming for my 'lethal' stash!

How moral is it to punish people based on false information?

"Mr Brown has made clear that, notwithstanding the scientific evidence, there are other considerations."

No doubt he Home Office will hire 3 'researchers' to 'analyse' evidence and produce a nice paper to back up Nanny Brown's opinion. Better to lock up 1000 innocent people than to let them make their own choices to do something pleasurable that has an unproven link to a mental illness if used in large quantities in genetically susceptible people during their teenage years.

Because locking people up has no negative consequence to their mental health at all.

Next up, outlaw sunbeds, because people can't be trusted to make sensible choices, unless their ministers with scienti^H^H^H^H^H^H^H reports in which case they make excellent choices and know everything.

Nanny knows better than you!

Source: wiki... Despotism is a form of government by a single authority, either an individual or tightly knit group, which rules with absolute political power. In its classical form, a despotism is a state where one single person, called a Despot, wields all the power and authority, and everyone else is considered thier slave. This form of despotism was the first known form of statehood and civilization; the Pharaoh of Egypt is exemplary of the classical Despot.

Henseforth you shall be Brown, Pharaoh of Kircaldy.

Virtually every single teenager and 20-something I know smokes it regularly. (I'm 22, so know plenty)

"The committee found that reported cases of schizophrenia actually fell between 1998 and 2005 suggesting little link to cannabis use which has increased in the last two decades."

Falling cases of schizophrenia and many other conditions can be attributed to the funding model of the health service. A doctor who controls his own budget is less likely to diagnose schizophrenia or refer a suspected case to a specialist because the drugs needed to treat the patient will come out of his budget. This will be a lifetime outgoing not a one off course of antibiotics. I suspect this is more the real reason for a decline in reported cases.

Two types affected.

- Those who smoke cannabis, predominately labour voters, aren't going to switch over this (who to?), many don't vote anyway.

- Those who don't like the idea of other people smoking cannabis, tory voters, may be more likely to vote new puritan labour over this (think of the poor skunks etc).

The electorate really is that thick, he's made the right move from a voting standpoint.

"Mr Brown has made clear that, notwithstanding the scientific evidence, there are other considerations."

Such as?

In other news:

- Bear makes decision to shit in woods.

- Pontiff admits to "Catholic tendencies."

I'm not much of a smoker, but... the weed is no worse than alcohol, surely? Like a poster above said, legalise it and cream the tax revenue off the top. Then you can stop taxing my bloody petrol.

I think, in situations like this, Brown should ask himself... what would Paris do?

Spend a fortune investigating the "truth" of the issue, then do what you want anyway.

The guy is a moron, roll on the next election.

...because they invariably have to buy the drug from nefarious drug dealer types, and inadvertantly fund organised crime.

"But," they bleat, "if it were legal then we wouldn't have to stoop to such levels to obtain our guilty little pleasures!"

Ah, but if they truly had any morals then they would abstain from purchasing the substance until such time as it could be purchased from an ethical source.

Of course, the fact that hundred of thousands, if not millions of people, find it impossible to abstain from smoking cannabis, even given it's underworld connections, demonstrates quite nicely that it's an addictive substance. ;)

Call me Dr Pedantic if you must but I seem to recall hearing someplace that it was "technically" possible to have a medically confirmed overdose of cannabis - at something like 40,000 times the "effective" dose ... what's that... ten thousand pipeloads or, depending on how strong you like your spliffs, about 2,000 joints... although equally you can now call me Herr Prude because I can't help thinking that if these figures are correct, the first "hit" would have worn off long before you could possibly inhale the overdosing one.

I seem to remember that shortly after the move form B to C there was a reduction in the recorded use of canabis, it was deemed no to be 'cool' enough'.

Whether this meant a move to other 'harder' drugs is another matter. Also the amount of time freed up for police to tackle other more offensive crimes was a real benefit.

So all in all with our boys & girls in blue having to book anyone with a spliff there's ample opportunity for other criminals to get away with...

I'm off out to mug an old lady or two as soon as the change goes through...

Alien, because Brown is obviously from planet "Daily Mail".

It isn't as though there is any evidence that cannabis in any form causes mental health issues. All we know is that some borderline people have been sent over the edge by smoking. What the mental health professionals fail to point out is that it might also be that some people with borderline personalities could be drawn to smoking and that their disorder would have emerged in later life anyway.

Beats giving them a criminal record for throwing away one too many rubbish sacks so you bin is open a fraction.

Still the gov has made it clear it's opposed to trail by jury, if they can give everyone in the country a record then there won't be anyone left to sit on juries and that particular problem will be solved.

At my old job in Canada the managment talked about bringing in mandatory drug testing and firing anyone testing positive. I stated in a meeting that this would mean a reduction of about 85% of staff in less than 6 months. All IT people and no drugs, yeah right.

The issue is they are trying to tie weed smoking to crime, problem is they have allowed the law to change so that people using it can use that as an excuse so they get lighter sentences.

i mean ffs, its not 1920's america and the news paper owners are in a piss cus hemp makes cheaper, higher quality paper, with less investment, after they spent billions buying the northern forests in the US...

y cant the government accept facts alcohol is an order of magnitude worse for u than bud will ever be.

as for lethal, well thats bollox, sure it has health implications, such as my friend who was wheel chair bound, till she started smoking dope for pain relife, who since then has had a marked imporvement in lifestyle, to my mind you run the same risks and health implications walking down a busy road in a city. sure it can effect your ability to operaqte machineary, but so does booze, and we know the vast majority of people dont drink and drive.

still hope they dont legalize it, just decriminalize it cus then the bastards would tax you as well, probs like this: (tax&duty_on_fags + tax&duty_on_booze = tax_on_bud)

Sounds amazing I gotta get some of this shit. It sounds like many people died in putting together this report on lethal skunk, I'll read up to see who their supplier was.

The government have go a habit of making stuff leathal like war, depleted uranium munitions, pesticides, nerve gas, landmines. I think I'll just settle for lethal skunk.

Time for a trip to see Dr. Frank at the Brain Warehouse me thinks Mr. Brown...

http://www.brainwarehouse.tv/

They do replacement brains to combat the effects of cannabis...

Who knows, perhaps they supply replacements for people suffering the effects of pure stupidity!?!?

Lethal Skunk, WTF !?!

Documented deaths as a direct result of excessive alcohol consumption: 13.4 per 100,000 population (One year, 2006, http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=1091 )

Documented deaths as a direct result of excessive smoking: 114,000 (Per year, Average over 50 years, http://old.ash.org.uk/html/factsheets/html/fact02.html )

TOTAL documented deaths as a direct result of excessive cannabis consumption: ONE (All time, World population, http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health/article999100.ece )

Hypocritical facists.

"Lethal" ....... Oh dear, what a sorry State for Mr Bean to have descended into, deliberate MisSpeaking . It does make one wonder what dirty little secrets are being used to steer a hapless, clueless Jessie of a Primed Minister, whenever scientific evidence is dismissed, in favour of gossip and tittle tattle, and with everything in Collapse and in Hiding around him...... http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=440824&in_page_id=2&ct=5

What an excellent idea, to create ever more newly minted criminals of relative inconsequence for a Police State, with no more room for criminals, and with a whole host of them Hiding around him, with him feeding them Public Funds.

He must be QuITe Potty, himself, for it certainly not a Sane thing to do whenever they Hordes are at the Gate, baying for Bread while he gorges on, and with false friends, Cake.

Is it Space Cake, I wonder? Certainly a Confection which would not suit a repressed and depressed Son of the Manse, that's for sure.

Is he not able to do Anything Right and Well? Are we to see Random Drugs Testing of MPs next, to find out what is driving them crazy spending Public money so disgracefully on themselves and their friends?

What a Jolly Good, Spiffing Idea..... for quite obviously more that a few, are in need of desperate help and specialised attention.

And really that is just another non-story, so I wonder what else they are trying to hide. Come on, spill the beans, the game is up, failure is an option whenever all you are doing is digging a deeper black hole which will consume you.

"Many of the 23-strong council of experts could feel they have to resign if the Prime Minister ignores their recommendation. " .... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/04/29/ncannabis129.xml

Surely the logical answer, considering everything, is for the Prime Minister to resign. After All, it is he who is leading nothing of value and should be held to account for disgraceful, Sub Prime Ministerial Behaviour/Rotten Performance.

the problem with super skunk is not so much the weed itself, but the fucking legal chemicals that are applied whilst growing them. the other issue with super skunk is that it's illegality means no quality control i.e. sand can be added to bulk it up.

Cannabis is NOT lethal and Gordon 'mouth thing' Brown should observe facts (commissioned by his government and funded by us)

lastly, stop calling cannabis a "gateway drug" and blaming it for the consequences of OTHER substances. Your legal and socially acceptable drugs are most definitely the drugs that people start off with before making it up the classification ladder.

With Boris for London and an exciting choice between Brown and Cameron i think i'll have to leave this sweet democracy behind... any suggestions for other countries?

Don't you people understand, our leadership makes balanced and informed decisions based on firm scientific evidence, and just because a few rouge elements have a differing opinion, doesn't make them right.

Today's Realpolitik leaves no room for dissent or ambiguity, any opinion other than the PM's position is to be ignored, as it is patently rubbish, and not worth considering, and we can safely ignore it, because the public believe us if we say it enough.

...for another poilitician to get advice and ignore it, showing they do not actually care, just pushing their own agenda (see despot comment above).

.. many people think its legal now and changes will confuse even further. Most under 20s do, they also think its worse for you than cocaine, which will help them no end in future (sarcasm).

... to waste more parlimentary time by re-doing laws they should have done properly in the first place. New laws do not get the thought they used as they are rushed in to avoid attention and scrutiny.

Is there any legal charge that can be levelled at a governement for time wasting... this one has taken the fox hunting law through the house repeatedly and now this, are they trying to show they are incompetant or just trying to distract us.

As the mother of a 16 year old who was cautioned for posession last week, I was told by the police (confirmed by my son) that 80% of his school smoked cannabis. Do we really want to criminalize something that the vast majority of young kids use safely? This isn't about harming youngsters, it's about Brown adopting a cloak of morality because he thinks it will play well with the floating voters.

He is just completely out of touch. He hasn't made a single good decison since the one he made the day he became chancellor (giving away responsibility to the Bank of England). How anyone thought he could step into Blair's shoes is beyond me.

Eventually this man is going to be known as Gordon Ban. Can we just cut to that?

I want some of what he's smoking!

...and of course think of all the people they will be able to fingerprint and take DNA from if this becomes arrestable again. There should be enough familial matches if they DNA swab all the pot smokers to be able to catch most people. Let's get all the pussy-footing out the way, DNA swab and issue everyone with an offender number at birth. They'll get caught for something one day.

Gordon Brown is a nasty piece of work. We thought Blair couldn't be any worse than the Tories but he was. We were sure Brown couldn't be any worse than Tony. Looks like we were wrong there too. Guess now we know who had his hand up Tony Blair working the controls.

What a sorry crock they're turning this country into. Trust me, I'd emigrate if I could.

Morals are a curious thing, they are by and large inflicted by the observers rather than the observed. But in my experience the vast majority of people have morals, including dope smokers, it's just that all of us tend to overlook some things when it suits our purpose.

Accusing someone who lacks one moral value you have, of having no morals is hypocritical, tell me are you a politician by chance.

Also, do you buy cheap goods at chain stores without considering where they were made, and who made them, bet you do, so where is your moral line?

@Slaine:

I think this probably refers to the LD50 dosage which, I believe is about how much of something it takes to kill 50% of a population of RATS(not humans).

Point 2: I do hope we aren't going back to the days of my youth when I'd be taken back to the bleedin' pigsty for having a Rizla packet with a tear in it in my pocket, but its going to be worse than that. I should have emigrated to the Netherlands in the 80's - this country is turning to shit....

... but for the life of me I can't remember what it is.

an alien. because they're, like, out there, man.

You're making sense. Have you been smoking cannabis?

It's been a few years admittedly, but I used to smoke skunk. If it's lethal then I must be dead so I'd like a refund on my taxes please. Gormless, unelected plebian stain that he is, Brown is making the most of his little power trip before he gets his arse handed to him in the next election either by the Tories or a (admittedly unlikely) coalition of Tories and Lib Dems or by his own party.

Methinks Iraq. Methinks Lebanon. Or perhaps two, counting the well turned out but retiring Jacqui Whacky Smith, whose notion of extreme pr0n means to turn the country into the Nu Tasmania - 21st century prison island.

Did amanfromMars slip a typo? Surely he meant to say "What a Jolly Good, Spliffing Idea..." As for dirty little secrets, parameterize "A rose by any other name", substitute terms, and you will likely get close, tho too close would be most unwise in view of the Nu World Odor.

I was going to have my own little tirade about Emperor Browns utter idiocy, about the fact that there is no such thing as 'lethal skunk', that legalising the stuff would cut out the crime and provide revenue to the tax man, that cannabis is far less dangerous than alcohol and its effects on society far less dileterious... but it seems my fellow El Reg readers have already expressed my sentiments perfectly.

Thanks guys!

Also, lethal skunk? what has HE been smoking?

Paris, cos she can wrap her lips around my pipe any day.

[The committee found that reported cases of schizophrenia actually fell between 1998 and 2005 suggesting little link to cannabis use which has increased in the last two decades.]

And? Superimpose the graphs for number of male smokers in the UK from 1940 to date and the graph for number of males diagnosed with lung cancer. Guess what you see? Yes, the number of smokers drops off after about 1970 and the number of cancers goes UP. Because it takes TIME to develop. Jesus...

The argument about cannabis being safer than alcohol because more people die of alcohol related diseases is almost as retarded as my cousin with three chromosome 21s. You may as well say shooting people in the face is safer than drinking because less people die from being shot in the face than do from alcohol.

Frankly the clasification of cannabis arguments make me laugh. Who gives a fuck? It;s illegal either way. Either don't smoke it, or smoke it and take the consequences in the unlikely event you get busted. It;s called being a grown up.

I would laugh even more if the Government listened to the "alcohol is more dangerous" arguments and banned alcohol too, but only for about half an hour, then I'd be pissed I couldn't get a drink.

Skunk bashing

Pr0n censoring

(Northern) Rock breaking

No Drugs, No Sex, No Rock...

This is government by cheezy lyrics isn't it?

Oi Graudon, grow up! You're not a bullied little teenager any more.

*inhales*

What are we talking about

*exhales with fit of giggles*

"...because they invariably have to buy the drug from nefarious drug dealer types, and inadvertantly fund organised crime."

So the drug itself isn't the problem the way it's sold is? That's a strong argument for changing the way it's sold if ever I heard one! If the drug itself was a big enough problem you wouldn't need to enhance it by suggesting it funds organized crime (other than cannabis production itself of course, cos that would be circular reasoning).

"Ah, but if they truly had any morals then they would abstain from purchasing the substance until such time as it could be purchased from an ethical source."

So if it's not legal, it's not moral you say? Those immoral Tibet monks protesting the occupation of their country must be ashamed! Don't they know if the leader says it's illegal then by definition it must also be morally wrong too! It could never be that the leader is wrong & immoral, no! Nanny is always moral & always right!

Monks should wait until there is a moral (i.e. legal) way to protest!

"Of course, the fact that hundred of thousands, if not millions of people, find it impossible to abstain from smoking cannabis, even given it's underworld connections, demonstrates quite nicely that it's an addictive substance."

Or moral people disobey bad laws, and unsubstantiated claims don't have much sway with them! Perhaps if you tell them cannabis is 'lethal' that might work. :)

@People who smoke cannabis are, by and large, immoral people...

fuck you! how dare you make moral judgements on me! you dont know me! and for your information most weed these days is grown by smokers themselves. money ISNT going to paedo gangs and the mafia! you just believe whatever you are told dont you! now go and read the daily mail with the rest of your inbred toff friends

we dont stop smoking cos we like it. i challenge you to stop eating chocolate and driking beer just because someone wants you to

and as said by someone else above - classing weed the same as amphetamines is ridiculous! thats just saying to kids 'well you have smoked so this must be the same'

if they just made it legal to grow your own - no pesticides, you know the strain (and therefore a rough THC level) - thsi would instantly stop all the bad things associated with dealers (although every weed dealer ive ever met was a top bloke :)

If your wheelie bin is over-full, it is most probably because there is stuff in it that does not belong there in the first place. Perhaps stuff that could have been sold to a recycling merchant to raise revenue for your local council, thereby reducing the burden on council tax payers; as opposed to burying it in landfill, which costs money which will be added to everyone's council tax bill. But certainly stuff that you bought and paid for.

Build more goals. Increase sentences. Put the people in. Stack 'em high.

The government knows that the best place for people is inside and off their streets. They will work for free in goal and seldom complain about the conditions and lack of rights.

Face it. Its a conspiracy to lock us all up. :D

// I went for the 'I'll get my coat' because otherwise I might get lynched.

And where in the history of mankind has it ever been proven that it is lethal?

any one case?

/* This one I stole from Mr Brown.. the pockets are full of shit!

Yup. Mediocrity knows nothing higher than itself, a dour git of a politician who only got to be PM because Blair needed someone to make him look good after he'd gone knows better than numerous scientists and psychologists who've spent years studying the situation.

Think I'll stay an expat.

The problem with drugs is down to the stuff being illegal.

If it were legal, there would be all the safety checks. People would buy their blow via fare trade agreements. Some would go for the organic grass.

As it is, rainforest gets cut down to grow it. All sorts of chemicals get used on it. People are paid a pittance for growing it and in the end, you could be buying anything, possibly more harmful than any drug.

And as for it being a gateway drug, the same could be said about tobacco.

And before anyone asks, I've never used it myself.

...and frustrated with this country and the older generations, not to mention some of the younger generations who will have already been indoctrinated into this wierd puritan cult thinking.

It is ok for me to be addicted to any of the following drugs - tobacco, alcohol, caffine, adrenaline, seratonine, endorphines.

It is not allowed for me to binge to excess on any one of these drugs, but taken in moderation it is ok.

Apart from tobacco, it has become unfashionable lately due to it causing lung cancer and heart disease and gum disease - but it is still legal and I can buy it in a supermarket or bring lots in from France on the ferry.

I have a choice of being drunk or sober, but I am not allowed to choose to get stoned.

I can get drunk and be stupid and violent and sick on the street or piss in the street - but I am not allowed to get sleepy and get the munchies at home.

Frustrating - I do not wish to have that wierd twilight zone inflicted upon me but there it is.

Nanny state - and if we are not careful it will be even more puritan and strict in future.

Brown's comments show how laughable government policy has become. Daily mail reading bigots run this country and people just keep voting them in.

...is that he:

A) Refuses to listen to expert advice.

B) Refuses to treat us like adults.

("Lethal" skunk! For fuck sake! What are we? Americans? How can we hope to trust in a government that repeatedly LIES to us. If they are happy to lie to us about this, what else isn't true?)

C) Fails to understand that this will NOT stop the use. It'll merely bring the police force to it's knees and stop them dealing with REAL crime. Pot smokers will continue to smoke their pot and dealers will continue to deal, we'll just see more dangerously contaminated buds on sale.

Cannabis, sadly, has become a political football. This current debate has NOTHING to do with health or happiness, it's an attempt to win votes.

In this country, we have a much higher percentage of cannabis users than Holland. There are more than a million criminals out there, criminalized because they like to smoke a herb. A herb that is acknowledged to be an order of magnitude safer than, lets say, alcohol, or fatty foods.

If that's not a good argument for legalisation, I don't know what is.

Not that smoking anything is safe, wouldn't marijuana with higher concentrations be better for you, as you'd be inhaling less smoke to get the "effect".

I hate the smell of it, but that doesn't shouldn't guide policy.

I mean, is it really necessary to get wasted every Friday evening, and continue being FUBAR through the whole weekend? (and not just from skunk). Helluva lot of fun to have, certainly. Meh.

...mine's the DEA labelled one.

...of this dealer that supplies lethal weed? I've never seen/heard of anyone killed by smokin' da reeeefa and I'm feeling ripped off now, where can I get me some of that?

"Are we to see Random Drugs Testing of MPs next..."

Yes, as long as we all get to vote on which random drug they have to test on any given week!!

(No THAT'S pay tv right there! :-D).

>how dare you make moral judgements on me!

>you dont know me!

>and for your information most weed these days is grown by smokers themselves.

Nonetheless that's two illegal activities you've admitted to whilst exploding about people making moral judgements against you...

is fuxxing waaay stronger than the hash I smoked when I started back in the early 90's. The weed that is sold now is even more powerful than the orange bud I used to smoke in Amsterdam (and that was mind blowing).

I don't smoke any more - and tbpfh I don't miss it - but classing it back to B is just stupid. The only real issue here is that people smoke high grade hydro as if it's just normal grass and that means they 'are' impaired and susceptible to mental problems (yup, they do affect even normal people not given to mental problems).

It's like drinking 4% beer and then moving on to a 13% wine and not changing your drinking habits.

I can't help but feel dismayed by all the comments in this thread and so many others saying "ACH HE'S A DUMB SCOTS COONT!" every time he screws something up. This sort of casual racism isn't big, clever, or funny you know.

How can someone smart enough to attain the level of Prime Minister make such stupid statements. As a one time Labour voter I begrudge having ever voted for them, never again. We have lost more personal freedoms and civil liberties under this government than any other in living memory, there is a wave of dissatisfaction sweeping through the country, most thinking people are sick of being lied to, cheated, spied on,,,, are you listening Mr. Brown, there are hundreds of thousands of people out there like me. There I've had my rant.

On a lighter note, I have just recovered from an operation for cancer followed by three months of chemotherapy, out of the sackfulls of drugs I was given to combat the awful side affects of chemo. nothing worked better than a nice bit of skunk!

We badly need a revolution.

A dead Penguin or is it a Dodo to represent this Gov.uk

"...other considerations..." include

(a) getting something "good" in the news just before Local elections

(b) getting as many people as possible to believe he is being Tough On Crime

(c) improving the "criminals prosecuted" statistics

(d) stopping people enjoying themselves without the government getting their cut

(e) diverting attention from every other SNAFU he's committed since he was "elected" as Prime Minister

(f) diverting attention from whatever else the sneaky [EXPLETIVE DELETED] are trying to bury/hide in the news today

(g) making Fiona "Browntongue" Phillips look good for when she applies for the job as Britain's First Lady

I'm sure there's more, but I'm getting to annoyed to type properly...

(This one's Gordon's - so we can hand it to him at the end of the week! Now please excuse me while I go disinfect my hand)

Say that as someone who smoked for over 20 years. Used to think stoner was okay. In some ways it is but long term use does have sustained effects that you just don't notice until you stop and look back. If you can't appreciate the world and life outside of a stoner there really is something wrong.

Nevertheless, the PM does have priorities wrong. The much more pressing problem is alcohol. Much more criminal activity rotates around alcohol than *any* use of *any* other substance around.

Could start with a sensible move whereby anyone that has the gall to stand in a court of law and say, "Your honour, I was drunk," should be thrown a rope and instructed to start splicing right away. (Trail over, no further defence required.)

"As it is, rainforest gets cut down to grow it. All sorts of chemicals get used on it. People are paid a pittance for growing it and in the end, you could be buying anything, possibly more harmful than any drug."

Um, no mate. Most cannabis in the UK is grown here, nobody cuts down rain forests for it. I believe that you're getting cannabis and cocaine confused.

"Frankly the clasification of cannabis arguments make me laugh. Who gives a fuck?"

The 2 million regular smokers that the last survey of cannabis use in this country decided there were.

"It;s illegal either way. Either don't smoke it, or smoke it and take the consequences in the unlikely event you get busted. It;s called being a grown up."

Or campaign for it to be legalised, engage in debate and don't vote for people who make your hobbies criminal. It's called democracy. Obviously not a concept you're familiar with as you seem to be advocating a totalitarian system of arbitrary laws. Much like Gordon Brown.

"Nonetheless that's two illegal activities you've admitted to whilst exploding about people making moral judgements against you..."

Illegality isn't immorality. Don't you get it?

What of immoral laws? Is following immoral laws morally ok? Try telling that to the Nuremberg jury.

Just keep reading the Daily Mail and doing what you're told JonB you unthinking sheep of a man and don't forget your jack boots.

You might well be right on all counts. I'd still like to know what he actually 'made clear' though. ;)

Brown has actively participated in the continuing handover of a multi-billion pound industry to terrorists and criminals on a silver platter. He should be looking at a jail sentence. Instead he's looking at positive coverage in the Daily Heil.

Anyone who seriously thinks that the Government is qualified to tell us which recreational drugs we can and cannot use is suffering from a far worse mental disease than anything skunk could cause. Muddled, irrational thinking is infinitely more dangerous than schizophrenia. At worst, schizophrenics become unable to participate in society. The irrational rise to the top via the party political system and start passing laws.

"...If your wheelie bin is over-full, it is most probably because there is stuff in it that does not belong there in the first place..."

Or because you didn't put it out last time and had more stuff to get rid of this time.

Fortunately, where I live aren't pissy about such things because they run the general household waste through a ball mill that takes about 70% of the mass and diverts it to recycling uses and away from landfill.

And you are clearly as ingnorant/stupid/brainwashed/all of above as Mr F*ckwit Brown.

"...because they invariably have to buy the drug from nefarious drug dealer types, and inadvertantly fund organised crime."

'invariably' my arse! They may grow their own or be lucky enough to have a friend who does.

Even if they don't, why the f*ck do you think that cannabis supply is in the hands of criminal gangs? becuase of the stupid prohibition laws you dick!

"Of course, the fact that hundred of thousands, if not millions of people, find it impossible to abstain from smoking cannabis, even given it's underworld connections, demonstrates quite nicely that it's an addictive substance. ;)"

Or maybe the choose to use cannabis instead of the much more dangerous substances like alcohol to relax after a stressful day. Or to take their mind of the increasingly stupid/worrying/deppressing/draconian way our government is running (read: ruining) the country just for a few minutes.

Or maybe they are using it as medication (even if they do not realise it, Cannabis can ease psychological pain as well as physical) I know quite a few smokers that I would consider depressed even if they have never thought about it that way (but that in no way means that all or even most green smokers are depressed.)

Gordon (I don't care where you're from you're still a F*ckwit) Brown, please use the tax money I have given you to BUY A FUCKING CLUE!

AC you'll have to buy your own!

...but this is only a reason to allow pharmaceutical companies to process it into a refined, trialled, and tested drug.

It is NOT a good reason for legalising the drug for general recreational use.

Morphine is a very effective painkiller yet you don't see people using that as an excuse to legalise morphine.

@Suzi

"As the mother of a 16 year old who was cautioned for posession last week, I was told by the police (confirmed by my son) that 80% of his school smoked cannabis. Do we really want to criminalize something that the vast majority of young kids use safely? This isn't about harming youngsters, it's about Brown adopting a cloak of morality because he thinks it will play well with the floating voters."

Yes, we should legalise cannabis so that all kids can smoke it (/sarcasm)

Is it any wonder that the rise in cannabis consumption amongst teenagers correlates strongly with a fall in literacy and numeracy amongst that age group which has necessitated the government to lower exam standards?

It is any wonder that antisocial behaviour, vandalism, and violent crime by teenagers is rising along with consumption rates of cannabis?

As for cannabis not bein a gateway drug, since it was downgraded, usage amongst teenagers has skyrocketed, and in my experience, there are almost as many users of cocaine in that age group as there are users of cannabis.

As I was told by a 17 year old a few weeks ago, "i bin smokin da weed n snortin da coke since i woz 14 innit n it ent dun me no harm cuz dey is harmless drugs wiv no long term helf affects. innit"

For those arguing that cannabis should be legalised because it is less dangerous than alcohol, according tro mortality rates at least - rape kills many less people than alcohol - but you wouldn't be calling for that to be legalised.

Not to mention that the government is working towards an eventual ban of alcohol and tobacco anyway. They're not so stupid that they don't realise that a sudden ban would cause uproar, so they're implementing it gradually.

Give it 10 years and britain will be alcohol and tobacco free.

That 'todays pot is so much stronger' is a myth, used to argue silly criminalization.

http://ar2004.emcdda.europa.eu/en/page115-en.html

"There has been no long-term marked upward trend in the potency of herbal cannabis or cannabis resin imported into Europe."

"The overall increases in cannabis potency that have been reported in some countries can be almost entirely attributed to an increase in the proportion of home-grown cannabis consumed."

Basically home grown is stronger than bought in pot. If you legalized it's sale, less would be grown in the attic at home and so the potency would drop.

Don't go letting science spoil a good lie though, so tell us Brown this new potent strain of killer pot? How many dead have been claimed so far?

Brown should be tried and convicted of treason.

You make the mistake of assuming that hte only way to obtain cannabis is to buy it from criminal drug dealers. Some of us get around this little moral issue by growing our own. My cash doesn't go to organised crime, it goes on lighting and potting (hehe) mix.

Once again it demonstrates that those who are opposed to it know fuck all about it.

"For those arguing that cannabis should be legalised because it is less dangerous than alcohol, according tro mortality rates at least - rape kills many less people than alcohol - but you wouldn't be calling for that to be legalised."

I wasn't sure which bit of your clueless post to pick on but this bit is as good as any other. I'm not surprised you posted as AC, if your friends heard you spouting this shite you'd never hear the last of it.

I can't even be bothered to tell you why this statement is such a non-argument. Now fuck off and don't speak again, you'll just make yourself look more stupid.

"Give it 10 years and britain will be alcohol and tobacco free."

Oops. Too late.

Remember pastor Niemuller (sp) ?

If the Great British Public let this instance of "morality over science" triumph, then they really have opened the door to some pretty scary laws.

Homosexuals ? Banned. Not because of any "evidence". Just because GB doesn't like homosexualists.

Single parents ? Banned. Not because if any evidence. Just because GB says there are "other considerations".

Rap music ? Banned. Not because of any evidence. Just because GB is "minded to ban it".

"Even if they don't, why the f*ck do you think that cannabis supply is in the hands of criminal gangs? becuase of the stupid prohibition laws you dick!"

Aha! But if these people weren't so immoral, they would refuse to buy from such criminal sources.

Perhaps your argument would hold water if cannabis was an addictive drug, and if people had been smoking it and gotten used to smokig it LEGALLY before it was suddenly banned, but, I would wager than for the vast majority of pot smokers in this country, it was illegal long before they were born, and therefore they have no real excuse for even *trying* it in the first place, let alone becoming so dependent on it that they must resort to buying it from organised criminals, funding paedophilia, terrorism, and gang warfare in the process.

"You make the mistake of assuming that hte only way to obtain cannabis is to buy it from criminal drug dealers. Some of us get around this little moral issue by growing our own. My cash doesn't go to organised crime, it goes on lighting and potting (hehe) mix."

Which is extremely environmentally unfriendly, and the exception rather than the rule.

"I can't even be bothered to tell you why this statement is such a non-argument. Now fuck off and don't speak again, you'll just make yourself look more stupid."

I'll take that to mean you can't think of a valid argument and are giving up.

Gordon Brown causes more collective brain damage than any illicit drugs.

Which is why it is a crime to make someone drink alcohol without their consent (spiking)

But yes, let's give 80% of children a criminal record and a spell inside. Do them the world of good and bring back national service while you're at it.

"I'll take that to mean you can't think of a valid argument and are giving up."

Take it how you like, you're not worth arguing with.

"...but this is only a reason to allow pharmaceutical companies to process it into a refined, trialled, and tested drug.

It is NOT a good reason for legalising the drug for general recreational use.

Morphine is a very effective painkiller yet you don't see people using that as an excuse to legalise morphine."

How marvelously and utterly irrelevant.

""As the mother of a 16 year old who was cautioned for posession last week, I was told by the police (confirmed by my son) that 80% of his school smoked cannabis. Do we really want to criminalize something that the vast majority of young kids use safely? This isn't about harming youngsters, it's about Brown adopting a cloak of morality because he thinks it will play well with the floating voters."

Yes, we should legalise cannabis so that all kids can smoke it (/sarcasm)"

So we're jumping straight in with a strawman and a false dichotomy are we?

"Is it any wonder that the rise in cannabis consumption amongst teenagers correlates strongly with a fall in literacy and numeracy amongst that age group which has necessitated the government to lower exam standards?"

Correlation != Causation. Try again

"As for cannabis not bein a gateway drug, since it was downgraded, usage amongst teenagers has skyrocketed, and in my experience, there are almost as many users of cocaine in that age group as there are users of cannabis."

But only the cannabis use has skyrocketed so you're saying that previously there were far more cocaine users than there were cannabis users at the school. Doesn't sound all that likely does it.

"As I was told by a 17 year old a few weeks ago, "i bin smokin da weed n snortin da coke since i woz 14 innit n it ent dun me no harm cuz dey is harmless drugs wiv no long term helf affects. innit""

So the fact that he's an idiot means that everyone who smokes cannabis for three years will also be an idiot? You are failing to make any kind of point here. I don't really hang around with 17 year olds that much so the pot-smokers I know are research chemists, doctors, teachers and other productive members of society you can think of.

"For those arguing that cannabis should be legalised because it is less dangerous than alcohol, according tro mortality rates at least - rape kills many less people than alcohol - but you wouldn't be calling for that to be legalised."

I don't know whether to be amused that you think that is anywhere near a valid argument or just plain offended that you believe *I* would think it valid.

"Not to mention that the government is working towards an eventual ban of alcohol and tobacco anyway. They're not so stupid that they don't realise that a sudden ban would cause uproar, so they're implementing it gradually.

Give it 10 years and britain will be alcohol and tobacco free."

What wonderful foresight you must be blessed with. Just how, pray tell, do you think they are going to plug the huge hole left in the budget from the loss of all that alcohol and tobacco tax?

This is just lies, specultaion and gibberish - if that was the best I could do, I'd be posting anonymously too. You keep trying to argue against reasons to legalise cannabis but you have completely missed the point. It being this;

This is my body and I will put whatever substance I want inside it and fuck anyone who thinks they have the right to tell me otherwise!

"Aha! But if these people weren't so immoral, they would refuse to buy from such criminal sources."

My own government wants to criminalise me because of something I choose to do that harms nobody but me, and even that it does less than two legal substances.

The word criminal becomes meaningless. Frankly, it seems to me, that a society that imprisons people for the use of recreational drugs is the real immoral and criminal enterprise. I'm proud to ignore its arbitrary rules.

"therefore they have no real excuse for even *trying* it in the first place"

No, you have no real excuse for it being illegal in the first place.

"let alone becoming so dependent on it that they must resort to buying it from organised criminals"

Wait, your first sentence claims weed is non-addictive, and now you're using its addictiveness to form your argument. Maybe you should smoke a J, calm down and consider the consistency of your argument.

"funding paedophilia"

Lolwat? Since when did paedophiles need funding?

"terrorism"

See "criminal". The word has been overused so much it has now lost any useful meaning when issued forth in relation to law and order.

"and gang warfare"

yeah, and oberying the law and paying tax perpetuates the injustices done by the government to its own people. What ya gonna do?

Personally I'm going to enjoy my life (and it is mine, not yourws) and keep away from the authority structures of the western world as much as I can, we have some fundamental disagreements on what their job actually is, vis-a-vis regulating my behaviour.

>Illegality isn't immorality. Don't you get it?

I don't think you get it, in a democratic society we all vote on the laws, (by appointing a proxy in Britains case). We then follow the laws as set by the majority.

I can't just decide that a law doesn't apply to me, that would be immoral.

>What of immoral laws?

What stopping people from smoking something that may do them harm is immoral?

There's a solid precedent for it, many harmful things are restricted. From speed to speeding.

>Is following immoral laws morally ok? Try telling that to the Nuremberg jury.

You're comparing a law prohibiting cannabis to genocide?

You need to lay off the skunk a bit.

>Just keep reading the Daily Mail and doing what you're told JonB you

>unthinking sheep of a man and don't forget your jack boots.

Do I really sound like the jack boot type? Or do you?

@JonB

BUUUUT if its a bogus law created out of unsubstanciated evidence why should i feel the need to adhere to it?

its still legal to shoot a welshman in the back with a bow and arrow after 12midnight. does that mean we all should do it? did you know its against the law to east mince pies in england on xmas day! you see, some laws are just shite and we should ignore them.

@bothwell

we dont mind scots - we just dont want them telling english people what to do, especially if its utter bollocks. i know we USED to be able to tell you what to do but no longer it seems.

anyone think its time for a march in london again? if only i could be arsed... maybe there will be some places that sell chocolate on the way :)

@Cannabis may be an effective pain relief...

to be honest i wouldnt want my kids smoking it - just like i wouldnt want them smoking tobacco or drinking booze. - the fact is gordon wants them all to have crim records. and you will find it actually is wayyy better for you than a lot of the prescription pain killers!

numeracy is down as teachers these days are shite! they cannot control their classes of 50 and arent allowed to repremand kids in any way.

"It is any wonder that antisocial behaviour, vandalism, and violent crime by teenagers is rising along with consumption rates of cannabis?" they arent stoners - stoners are too lazy for that shit - or might do a decent mural on the wall. the reason for many problems is the total breakdown of society - nicely done by the last 2 governments!

cocaine doesnt have many long term affect apart from making you a dick for 30 mins at a time and costing a fortune :) in moderation all drugs arent THAT bad for you (heroine isnt that bad for you - its the fact you spend all your dosh on it other than food/rent etc and generally let yourself go)

the problem with THC content is that a lot of the weaker strains dont actually grow too well (believe me they yield far less than the likes of caly orange & northern lights etc) - so you would have to grow maybe 2 extra plants to get the same yield - therefore looking worse to the authorities!

"Cannabis may be an effective pain relief...

...but this is only a reason to allow pharmaceutical companies to process it into a refined, trialled, and tested drug. It is NOT a good reason for legalising the drug for general recreational use."

Why not? You accept it's beneficial after all. Since when do we make beneficial things illegal?

"Is it any wonder that the rise in cannabis consumption amongst teenagers correlates strongly with a fall in literacy and numeracy amongst that age group which has necessitated the government to lower exam standards?"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/28_11_07_pirls_report.pdf

The reading achievement table shows no correlation between education level and pot legalization, Netherland, Belgium etc score higher than UK which if anything suggests the reverse.

"As for cannabis not bein a gateway drug, since it was downgraded, usage amongst teenagers has skyrocketed, and in my experience, there are almost as many users of cocaine in that age group as there are users of cannabis."

http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/output/page16.asp

"There were a total of 178,502 drug offences recorded by the police in

2005/06. This represents a 23 per cent increase from the previous year. The increase, for the most part, was due to an increase in the recording of possession of cannabis offences which coincided with an increase in the number of formal warnings for cannabis possession which were issued."

So Nah, take out the formal warnings for cannabis and you have FLAT number in cocaine use not 'skyrocketing' numbers.

"As I was told by a 17 year old a few weeks ago, "i bin smokin da weed n snortin da coke since i woz 14 innit n it ent dun me no harm cuz dey is harmless drugs wiv no long term helf affects. innit""

I don't believe you, because you are using 70's teen slang, which suggests you're making it up.

"For those arguing that cannabis should be legalised because it is less dangerous than alcohol, according tro mortality rates at least - rape kills many less people than alcohol - but you wouldn't be calling for that to be legalised."

What if rape was done by pharmaceutical companies who refined, trialled, and tested it? :)

"Not to mention that the government is working towards an eventual ban of alcohol and tobacco anyway. They're not so stupid that they don't realise that a sudden ban would cause uproar, so they're implementing it gradually."

Nah, you're just trolling.

"But yes, let's give 80% of children a criminal record and a spell inside. Do them the world of good and bring back national service while you're at it."

Whether you agree with the law or not, it is the law and it must be obeyed.

IF you choose to disregard the law and do as you wish even though you know it to be illegal, then you deserve a criminal record for it.

IF you don't agree with the law, then you don't just go and disobey it, you lobby for it to be changed democratically.

As it is I doubt the majority would even vote for legalisation.

And National Service would be no bad thing. If nothing else, it would teach today's unruly youth a lesson in discipline - would get them out of the house and off the games consoles, or get them away from drinking on street corners in the early hours.

Might even get some of them fit and reverse the trend towards morbid obesity.

Don't some countries have the death penalty for possession of cannibis?

You are what is wrong with this country and it's government.

Do you beleive everything the government tells you?

Do you believe everything you read in the Daily Mail?

your posts indicate that this is so, in which case you are one/some of the saddest human beings on the planet. I pity you.

"For those arguing that cannabis should be legalised because it is less dangerous than alcohol, according tro mortality rates at least - rape kills many less people than alcohol - but you wouldn't be calling for that to be legalised."

Oh my god, are you actually comparing smoking weed with rape? You really are a Daily Mail reading, truth distorting f**kwit aren't you! Rape is a crime that HAS A VICTIM!! The only victim from smoking weed is the person toking it, and any negative side effects that may result from that are THEIR choice. No one choses to be raped, that's the definition of it! Try engaging your common sense and seeing that Alchohol causes more HARM than weed, and don't just boil this down to lethality. I don't care that's not a word, honest to god people like you with your false arguements get me so angry, if you can't create a rational argument, stay out of it

> "ACH HE'S A DUMB SCOTS COONT!" ... This sort of casual racism isn't big, clever,

> or funny you know.

Nevertheless, it is pretty much accurate.

I smoked a sunk, and now I'm dead!

OMG - is hitler back? some of the the AC comments above are scary. we are supposed to obey all laws and not question? you are thinking of fascism mate - how the hell can we even try to overturn this? demonstration is now illegal and i sure they would find a way of nicking us all if they ahd the chance - its because of this type of idiotic uneducated response that this sountry is in such dire needs.

the fact is that the vast majorit of violent crime, sexual crimes and murders are all carried out by drunks. so surely if the laws were for the common good alcohol would be more highly up on the list - but since that brings in lots of tax they dont care - in fact lets have 24 hour licensing (i dont even remember us asking for it!)

Mr Buxtons comment at 13:20 made me giggle more than any amount of skunk ever could. Seriously, that was hysterical :o)

However, on a more serious note, I honestly can't believe people would even begin to think that cannabis will be legalised. You are asking for an *increase* in the amount of smoking in the UK. And to say that the law prohibiting cannabis is somehow immoral is quite ridiculous. Less people smoking *anything* means less smoking, means less PASSIVE SMOKING, means less people with lung cancer that never even smoked. And your moral argument is?...

People also appear to be overlooking the rather important point that the scientists are *expected* to make which is that cannabis should still be illegal (and remain a Class C substance) The report isn;t actually out yet either way.

Browns stance is based on the message being sent by the classification of the drug. Currently many kids believe that cannabis isn't "illegal" as you don't get arrested for possession, and it is therefore ok. You then end up with a few million kids stoned out of their heads, doing poorly at school, not getting further qualifications and not being able to do the jobs that the Government wants the UKs workforce to be able to carry out.

Surprisingly enough it's not just about Brown wanting to take your rattle off you, although given some of the reactions on here you'd think otherwise...

"Why not? You accept it's beneficial after all. Since when do we make beneficial things illegal?"

There are plenty of beneficial medicinal drugs which are illegal to possess without prescription, so arguing that cannabis has medical benefits does nothing to support the argument that it should be legalised for recreeational use.

Also, don't you feel just a tad hypocritical for relying so heavily on government-issued statistics in your post, considering that you do not trust nor believe the Government, as they have only their own interests at heart, and not those of the people?

"...is to be governed by men worse than themselves." - Plato

If Gordon Brown is prepared to utterly disregard the findings of independent committees of experts and rely instead on his own breathtaking ignorance when formulating English Law (!), then he is unfit for office.

Cannabis is actually so NON-toxic, it has no known lethal dose. This has been shown in numerous studies and court cases, for those who care to look:

http://www.fcda.org/judge.young.htm

And as for the new, terrifying 'skunk'... it's nothing but the modern street name for good-quality herbal cannabis of many varieties (ie. not chunks of indeterminable brown gak or grey twigs).

Of course, the independent advisory committee knows all of this already - which is why its well-considered recommendation is to leave it as Class C. Gordon asked the experts, the experts gave an answer.

But Gordon thinks the experts are all wrong (they're not), that he knows best (he doesn't), so he will ignore them. Just the attitude you want in a Prime Minister.

Job done, Mr Brownshirt. For the first time in my adult life, I will not be voting Labour in a General Election.

"I can't just decide that a law doesn't apply to me, that would be immoral."

Like I said, just keep doing what you're told. When they tell you to kill all those innocent people I'm sure you won't ask why because it's "legal", they've been marked for death after all.

"What stopping people from smoking something that may do them harm is immoral?"

Stopping me from doing anything that I want to do that doesn't harm or cause detriment to anyone else is highly questionable. Why do you think you or anyone else has the right to tell me what to eat drink or smoke.

"There's a solid precedent for it, many harmful things are restricted. From speed to speeding."

So I can't relate cannabis laws to genocide but you're allowed to include speeding which is a danger to everyone around you, not just you.

"You're comparing a law prohibiting cannabis to genocide?"

No, I'm simply stating that the Nazi war criminals were just following orders as you are doing (but you knew that anyway, now fuck off and stop trolling).

"You need to lay off the skunk a bit."

You make too many assumptions.

"IF you don't agree with the law, then you don't just go and disobey it, you lobby for it to be changed democratically."

Then along comes the next PM who changes it straight back and calls it Morality.

I suggest you look up 'Godwin's law'.

In my opinion, home growers/users would be the sensible way to go. Make the unlicensed sale of cannabis illegal. Then the government can regulate, tax and profit from it. Obviously this would likely lead to dedicated branches of government, customes & excise and the police, to make sure that the home growers are not in fact small time sellers. More jobs for the old gang. Everybody wins!

It DOES have long term mental health effects though, I know this personally. I'm not going to go into depth, but believe me, I'm still working hard to get things back on track to some extent.

Borderline personality, susceptibility, whatever. We don't know enough to say exactly why and how it effects people in the longer-term, but it does happen, although obviously only in certain cases.

There have been some good and bad arguments on here, for and against. At least they have mainly been fairly reasoned, informed and heartfelt. Quite unlike Mr Brown's ignorant, arrogant rant.

The man really needs to go and take his bloody advisors with him.

The thing about Democracy is that it's a majority thing ;)

"It is NOT a good reason for legalising the drug for general recreational use." ...

No one is asking for it to be legalised, just telling Public Servants that it is not to be criminalised. Mr Brown seems to be under the impression that he is a Leader whenever he is just Prime Administrator and he wasn't even voted into that job, he just bullied the boys and girls around him because they will lose all their perks and some even their jobs doing precious little more than waffling, when they go to the country.

And what they leave behind when they go, they can just walk away from, leaving others to clean up, which is a little perverse too. Of course, it is a nice little clique/dirty little trick played by all politicians which they think leaves them immune from charges of criminality and being classed as terrorists, inciting and providing equipment and financing for terrorist operations and arbitrary innocent civilian and militarily deaths ...... which are covered with empty weasel words of regret.

Oh dear, I hope that is not offensive or false but just true.

Yes, other considerations. Like huge (tax deductible) donations and even outright payoffs from the pharmaceutical, oil, and other industries whose profits would be affected if hemp became legal again. It's called "bribes" in most places, "lobbying" in the US, and it yet again seems to have worked.

I guess the US "war on drugs" is firmly exported to the UK. Along with many other American policies. So, how do you suckers back home like being slowly absorbed into the American Empire?

Oh, and to the Christians and others out there arguing against it: If your God creates a miracle plant (oil, strong fibers for cloth, food and medicines rolled into one plant), and you then refuse to use it and even threaten people who do, who is the sinner? Who is the one that goes against God's creation just so that the temple traders can profit even more?

But what do you expect from politicians and religious nutters alike? They've put rational thought behind them in exchange for corruption and power. Hemp, unfortunately, requires a rational mind to see that the benefits FAR outweigh any downsides. Ain't much of that rational stuff going around these days unfortunately.

Gee whiz, it was one of the few things the government's got right over the last few decades, and he wants to change it; against scientific advice too. I despair of politicians. Who's encouraging them?

Bad news, JonB. The government just made it illegal for you to leave your chair and/or communicate with others (I've no idea why either, it seems pointless and irrational).

Of course, you will be obeying it because the law is the law.

Sucks, doesn't it?

Maybe you should rethink your outlook on the link between law and morality.

God your brain really is addled.

You're trying to draw some parallel with a psychotic dictator ordering millions to their deaths and a law saying you're not allowed to smoke a plant.

You're f'ing bonkers.

>So I can't relate cannabis laws to genocide but you're allowed to include

> speeding which is a danger to everyone around you, not just you.

Yes, because speeding is still illegal when there's no-one around you, and I was comparing a minor offence with other minor laws intended to protect the individual from themselves. Not smoking a plant with the torture and slaughter of millions.

BTW Why don't you read that again, let your own sentence sink into that thick empty skull of yours. Maybe it can penetrate the mulch, and let you see just what you were doing.

>No, I'm simply stating that the Nazi war criminals were just following orders as you are doing

But that's where you're wrong, I'm advocating following laws that are set down by a democratically and fairly elected government.

You're just being very offensive to the people who are affected by the holocaust, you can't trivialise it like this. It's not something in the distant past that you can laugh about.

"Whether you agree with the law or not, it is the law and it must be obeyed. IF you choose to disregard the law and do as you wish even though you know it to be illegal, then you deserve a criminal record for it."

Why? The argument to obeying the law is that it's for the greater good of society, but what happens when the law departs from the greater good and does more harm than good? What then? At that point the good of society suggests you disobey the law.

VOTE THE FOOKERS OUT!

We can't have a situation where one minister is quoting 'snuff video' fantasists as justification for censorship and the PM thinks cannabis is lethal, and that it's fine for the police to arrest people without charge and hold them for 46 days, and teenage goth poets are in prison for writing violent poetry....

VOTE THE FOOKERS OUT!

Seriously, we have to watch what we say , now watch what we see (Emmanuel in Bangkok is a 3 year prison sentence? Are you f**ing kidding me?), and watch what we think (goth poets especially), and watch what other people think about what we say (conspiracy to inspire...), ...

VOTE THE FOOKERS OUT!

You know, I don't think it's enough to vote them out, we have to get them prosecuted somehow, I reckon on the next change of government we try to reopen the cash for honors stuff, that was dropped by a minister and get Blair locked up, or seek to have ministers children prosecuted under their own vague crimes.

Hey, their kids should obey the laws their parents make more than anyone!

I know they think they're immune because they're in power, but when they're not in power.... and if you are an ISP admin and happen to have the surfing records for ministers and should see they've seen a doggy porn movie, you would be doing a moral right thing to shop them to the coppers, or shopping their children to the coppers.

If we are to put cannabis on an equal footing with alcohol, or even compare the two, then we have to:

- accept that it does have negative effects through sustained abuse

- define what constitutes unhealthy, excessive levels of use

- expand the legal framework that current deals with drink-driving, etc.

Simply decriminalising cannabis isn't enough if you are to tolerate it in society; it has to be put on par with booze - if it is to be put on par - which means embracing the evidence of paranoia, short term memory loss, impairment of cognitive function, associated with the serious tokers. We already know the long-term affects of drink abuse, and those who do become social pariahs: alcoholism isn't cool. Is not the stoner in the same league?

Make no mistake, I'm not advocating that smoking copious amounts of hash is any worse than becoming a drunk hoodlum. It isn't -- but then, that's hardly the point.

is that there hasn't been one since the fall of Athens

"There are plenty of beneficial medicinal drugs which are illegal to possess without prescription, so arguing that cannabis has medical benefits does nothing to support the argument that it should be legalised for recreeational use."

I'm happy enough that you accept it is beneficial (as opposed to lethal). Perhaps you could explain this to Brown before he goes locking up our kids in pound-em-in-the-ass prison? (generally not considered beneficial with or without a prescription), or before he makes an ass of the law (also bad even with a prescription).

"Also, don't you feel just a tad hypocritical for relying so heavily on government-issued statistics in your post, considering that you do not trust nor believe the Government, as they have only their own interests at heart, and not those of the people?"

Actually I think the police concentrated on drug enforcement after pot was downgraded to get it upgraded again. They did lobby via ACPO for it to be upgraded, so it makes sense that the chief constables also tried to skew the following years numbers by concentrating on drug crime. No matter, they failed, and the governments numbers show it did not result in skyrocketing cocaine use and even though I think the numbers are inflated by ACPOs agenda, I can still quote them as the high water mark.

A good long debate in this one. Slashdot must be getting worried!

We seem to have a somewhat liberterian tendancy amongst the people who think Brown is an arse. And something strange amongst those who seem to conflate getting out of your nut with violent crime or theft/rape/whatever.

Anyway, two points:

If the prohibition of cannabis or whatever flavour (or any other "recreational" drug for that matter) is justified on the grounds of "harm", then one might venture to say that basing policy on something pulled out of Gordon Brown's arse rather than scientific evidence-based studies is somewhat irrational at least, at worst deeply scary. I mean, follow that road and you might end up thinking that women are bad because they transmit original sin, or some other bollocks like that.

Secondly, obeying the law. This is an IT forum (sometimes) so I would like to remind our more moral contributors about what the law, and the zealous guardians thereof, did to Alan Turing for his disgusting, perverse behaviour in being homosexual. So what if he did directly contribute to shortening WW2 by about two years, thus saving untold millions of lives YOU MORONIC FUCKWITS?

Ok, bad ending, I really cannot be doing with holier-than-thou idiots with an axe to grind over matters which are none of their damn business. There are perfectly good laws extant to deal with their other concerns. In the meantime, if they can predict the future based on coincidental phenomena, I should like them to post Friday night's lottery numbers here. Otherwise, fuck off.

Hey Gordon boring,

why not take a leaf out of David Cameron's book, he smoked it and right now he's giving you a good shafting in polls so it can't be that harmful can it ? In fact you might want to try it yourself as you really do need a change of image you useless windbag.

Quick poll. Who is more likely to bother you ?

a) A piss can

b) A pot head

Government - using YOUR money to tell YOU what to do !

"impairment of cognitive function, associated with the serious tokers. " ... By Gerhardt

Posted Tuesday 29th April 2008 16:44 GMT

Gerhardt,

Their main worry may be the enhanced cognitive function, associated with the serious responsible toker, for it reveals the scam of reality and the totally disjointed Systems [oops, pun alert] which have Individuals exercising imagined State/National Controls with their puppets reading scripts/statements/policy documents for media to run as another program.

Occasionally they may have international meetings to carve up the booty but it is still something made up to conceal Controllers rather than displaying Control for Chaos and terror allows for War and there is never any problem with Budgets when waging and preparing for Wars you've spun and started and reacted to.

Time to grow up, children, and smell the coffee. You're all being played for suckers and mugs by those who would tell you they are leading you, but are vulnerable to More IntelAIgent Games Play with Programmers and Systems Analysts in the Virtualised Cloud where they can XXXXChange Strategy and Open Up Secrets of Old Boys Ploys, which are impossible to refute? And when Secrets are Shared and subsequently hidden or spirited away or not shared and responded to, have you identified a nobbled player and an integral part of the problem to be simply further questioned and/or exposed to a wider audience for feedback.

All that is needed is the Truth [and yes, we can handle it Mr Nicholson] for if you are fed and swallow anything else, your Life is a Lie ....... which it is. And how bizarre is that. Some would say that it is a Madness to be so Deceived and to think it Normal and Natural.

FFS You need cannabis to sit down and/or communicate with people?

There are some good points about bad laws from other people, but frankly it's easier to wind up the drug addled lunatics.

aMan,

With your propensity for capitalising regular nouns, perhaps you should be the one with the German forename?

However you suppose that my reasoning is founded out of subscription to such a system: it is not, it has never been, and it shall never be. If I am (mis)guided in any way, I'm flying by wire away from establishmentarianism.

To the weed liberators, to those puffers of the thick, cloying smoke -- would that government jump through hoops to give you what you want; it is fearful of the bureaucracy.

Think of it: who will grade the weed? How many milligrams of marujiana in Ganja Light? Who'll run the Skunk Standards Agency? How would the health services advocate healthy pot smoking? (What is smoking in moderation?)

Gordon hasn't a single toker on his team, neither has Cameron (he didn't inhale).

Before the ganja warriors will have a chance, they will have to address those issues first. Fear of the unknown knows no bounds; it is a wall on an infinite plane. Start to address the matter in practical terms, and you may find an audience.

"How is it right to classify cannabis (and I'm not suggesting that it's harmless) in the same category as Amphetamines? Even the strongest skunk is not going to fuck you up like amphetamines."

Although I don't support reclassification, this statement is wrong. You've confused amphetamine (speed, class B) with amphetamines (ecstasy etc, class A).

Long term cannabis use will fuck you up more than speed, definitely, probably not as much as MDMA and friends though. That said, I also know a few people who have hit both of them hard for years, with no discernible/negative effects.

Gordon Brown has never allowed a few inconvenient facts cloud his judgment and gut instincts (and he has a lot of gut to do it with) !! Just like he conveniently "over-looked" the 5 million poorly paid people when *HE* scrapped the 10% tax band to try and buy the Middle England votes !! And now his vultures are coming home to roost !! So too will his latest brainwave to reclassify cannabis !!

He is not losing votes !! He is throwing them away by the bucketloads !! Meanwhile Red/Green/(Puce ??) Ken is desperately trying to distance himself from those debacles in his race to be the next London Mayor !!

@amanfromMars - You are actually making sense !! How bizarre !! :-)

What can you expect from people who put a bible thumping super religious idiot politician like G."w."B. in charge?

I know, I know, but they all speak English and are bred from the same stock. Hell, the Forrest Gump character had a London / Louisiana accent!

Look everyone, don't bother responding to the silly minority of AC's and the like of JB they are just a waste of time, (apart from being full of shit) and have no idea what they are talking about. AC's should be ignored as the cowards they are. Whilst JB may be a useless dick at least he posts under a username.

The Reg certainly needs a threaded and user moderated comment section ala slashdot-so the likes of these guys can be moded down to the point where their irrelevant rantings are not even seen by the rest of us. Dont try and use reason or logic with them, that only works with reasonable and logical people!

The so called skunk is just ordinary pot and is in fact better for you than weaker stuff, as one needs to smoke less. I live in Australia and possesion is at worst an on the spot fine in my state, so I will be going home to some very nice gear tonight, as i have been doing for 30 yrs now!

Like I said please dont feed the trolls, it only encourages them. Ignoring them starves them of the oxygen that fuels their sad little lives, after all they need someone to tell them what to do, be sorry for them! Some people just cannot accept free will on the part of others, they want to force their views everyone. By responding you are only encouraging them to post more drivel.

Because they have no real point they try circular arguments.

Its like silly little children if you just ignore them evetually they will go away.

That said I am sure glad my folks emigrated to Aus 38 years ago, the UK seems to be a facist state now.

The fire to represent my lighter firing up tonights cones!

Seconded. No-one can read this:

"The government just made it illegal for you to leave your chair and/or communicate with others (I've no idea why either, it seems pointless and irrational). Of course, you will be obeying it because the law is the law."

And genuinely miss the point so badly with this:

"FFS You need cannabis to sit down and/or communicate with people?"

You mean you don't want to see any other viewpoint than that of a bunch of drug addled nutters rambling on about how many votes Gordo will be losing by this?

He isn't losing any, half of your druggy friends don't vote, the rest vote labour or some fringe party anyway. Gordon's purpose in all this is to appeal to the centre right who might vote for him but generally don't. Perhaps at the loss of a couple of dope heads to the greens but it aint gonna swing an election.

>Because they have no real point they try circular arguments.

You don't actually have a point there at all other than that you want my comments suppressed in a kind of "intellectual" purity drive. It seems you're not keen on free speech when it doesn't agree with you.

>That said I am sure glad my folks emigrated to Aus 38 years ago

Aus has similar laws.

"Although I don't support reclassification, this statement is wrong. You've confused amphetamine (speed, class B) with amphetamines (ecstasy etc, class A)."

bollocks! amphetamines is the plural or amphetamine! i.e. "i took some amphetamines at the weekend" and "that tastes like amphetamine" (e.g tastes like powdered cat piss :)

esctacy is actually MDMA (Methylenedioxymethamphetamine) a derivative on the amphetamine family but a very different experience. (speed gives you energy, E makes you 'loved up')

do you work for mr brown? your facts are as accurate.

"Before the ganja warriors will have a chance, they will have to address those issues first. Fear of the unknown knows no bounds; it is a wall on an infinite plane. Start to address the matter in practical terms, and you may find an audience." .. . By Gerhardt Posted Tuesday 29th April 2008 20:38 GMT

This quite Teutonic snippet from Gerhardt's longer post/lament [and no one can fault the Germans for being precise and pedantic to the point of excellence] is most easily addressed in an instant. ....... for all that one needs to do is Import the Wealth of Knowledge possessed by the Dutch. You will find them a most agreeable People.

"Long term cannabis use will fuck you up more than speed, definitely, probably not as much as MDMA and friends though. That said, I also know a few people who have hit both of them hard for years, with no discernible/negative effects." ....By Rob Haswell Posted Tuesday 29th April 2008 22:19 GMT ..... Oh dear, not another bold statement of lies and half truths masquerading as facts. I refer, of course, to the catch all contradictory nonsense in ...."Long term cannabis use will fuck you up more than speed, definitely, probably .... That said, I also know a few people who have hit both of them hard for years, with no discernible/negative effects."

Had a few bad trips, Rob, when what is in your head has taken you places you shouldn't have gone? I suppose it is a convenience to blame a chemical reaction rather than accept a neurological dysfunction/psychological flaw/runaway imagination.

What you have to get your heads around and resolve, and might I suggest with better advice aka social education, is that drugs are taken because they make you feel real good/better and the madness is in the thinking to criminalise them and telling you that they make you bad, whenever all the evidence and all of the experience in its controlled use is to the contrary. To suggest otherwise and to put it on the Statute books is to be part of a Criminal Conspiracy to make an Ass of the Law....... but there is nothing new in that from Governments and the Justice System. Some would say it is Par for the Course.

"@amanfromMars - You are actually making sense !! How bizarre !! :-)" ... By Ishkandar Posted Tuesday 29th April 2008 22:29 GMT

Hmm? ... You may like to consider that I always make Sense and it is just that you do not understand its reference points, Ishkandar. And you have certainly not been imaginative enough to ask for clarification, which is bizarre in a smart thinking person.

* Apparently the Chair is held by a Grateful DeadHead already, .... http://www.whitegum.com/intro.htm ... although whether Effective and Fit for Purpose .... well, if you haven't anything positive to say, say nothing moves things on a lot quicker and better in AI Betas. ..... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=494407&in_page_id=1770 .... although, being Eternally Optimistic, it may just be that he needs some RockIT Chip help, hence the "Your Country Needs You" type Title Call for Volunteers. And Volunteers because if you have Intelligence, you can and will easily make a Killing in the Markets and that will Gratefully Pay you, Obscenely. It will certainly be expected of you otherwise what possible use will you be to Intelligence or anyone or anything.

Oh dear, does that mean that Intelligence Needs a new Source IntelAIgents Division to Feed Needs into its Big Brother/Sister Services. .....AIMutual Intelligence Service?

I Think you will discover that Mr Allen has already be made aware of that Facility , unless of course, his e-mails are vetted for suitable content which would make him no more than a controlled puppet.

I like the caps but your passion is pissing in the wind. The only people that stand for election in a party political system are politicians (with a few exceptions such as the Save Kidderminster Hospital guy so rare they aren't worth talking about. I'm struggling to remember whether he was real or whether I'm confusing reality with a sideplot of Casualty anyway.). There is really no such thing as a libertarian politician; those who are antipathetic to government do not go into government.

Farmers grow crops, salesmen make sales, politicians pass laws. That is what they do. Farmers do not burn down their fields, salesmen do not go around telling everyone their products are shit, and politicians do not reduce government power. If you're thinking that it sounds like a twisted parody of human productivity, you'd be right. Big government is an obscenity, a twisted freakbaby of geopolitics, an obsolete hangover from the Middle Ages that has for years been desperately bouncing from one war, one genocide, one moral panic to the next to convince us that it still has a purpose.

We can't vote the f---ers out, because no ballot paper in history has contained a "none of the above" option. There is only one way to get rid of these people, and it does not involve handing them a silly bit of paper telling them whose John Lewis flat makeover you'd like to subsidise this term.

Government by 'First Past the Post'

Example - 2005 General Election

Population 2005 approx. 60,500,000

Registered Voters 44,245,939

Total Valid Votes cast 27,148,510

% Turnout of 'Registered' voters - 61.4%

% of Total Population who voted - 44.87%

No. of Votes for each main Party -

Labour - 9,552,436 (35.2% of cast vote / 21.59% of registered electorate / 15.79% of total population)

Conservatives - 8,784,915(32.4% of cast vote / 19.85% of registered electorate / 14.52% of total population)

Liberal Democrats - 5,985,454 (22% of cast vote / 13.52% of registered electorate / 9.89% of total population)

UK Independance Party - 605,973(2.2 % of cast vote / 1.37% of registered electorate / 1% of total population)

Scottish National Party - 412,267(1.5% of cast vote / 0.93% of registered electorate / >0.01% of total population)

Green Party - 283,414 (1% of cast vote / 0.64% of registered electorate / >0.01% of total population)

Democratic Unionist - 241,856 (0.9% of cast vote / 0.55% of registered electorate / >0.01% of total population)

British National Party - 192,745 (0.7% of cast vote / 0.44% of registered electorate / >0.01% of total population)

Plaid Cymru - 174,838 (0.6% of cast vote / 0.4% of registered electorate / >0.01% of total population)

Sinn Féin - 174,530 (0.6% of cast vote / 0.39% of registered electorate / >0.01% of total population)

Ulster Unionist Party - 127,414 (0.5% of cast vote / 0.29% of registered electorate / >0.01% of total population)

Social Democratic Labour Party - 125,626 (0.5% of cast vote / 0.28% of registered electorate / >0.01% of total population)

Others/Speaker - 487,042 (1.8% of cast vote / 1.1% of registered electorate / >0.01% of total population)

Remember, that these are the total votes for all candidates of these parties over the entire UK.

The number of representatives in the Houses of Parliment go like this.

Number of Seats (constituencies) == 646

Labour - 355 (54.94%)

Conservatives - 198 (30.64%)

Liberal Democrats - 62 (9.6%)

Scottish Nationalist Party - 6 (0.93%)

Democratic Unionist Party - 9 (1.39%)

Plaid Cymru - 3(0.46%)

Ulster Unionist Party - 1(0.15%)

SDLP - 3(0.46%)

Others - 3(0.46%)

Speaker - 1(0.15%)

Now tell me where the majority rule comes into this? Go on, let me know - and I want to see your working out, and your assumptions.

Damn right that the MAJORITY of us did not vote for these utter fuck wits - read the figures, do the maths, then tell me that it's all fair and representative and we got what we asked for. If anything it should be illegal to run a country as a democracy under these conditions - I put it to the house that the government is illegal, and should be dissolved forthwith - with extreme prejudice if need be.

Sources http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/files/dms/Election2005turnoutFINAL_18826-13874__E__N__S__W__.pdf

God, you lot really do struggle with communication!

This:-

>>The government just made it illegal for you to leave your chair and/or

>>communicate with others (I've no idea why either, it seems pointless and

>>irrational).

Relates to this:-

>"FFS You need cannabis to sit down and/or communicate with people?"

In that you are likening the illegality of cannabis to a (fictional) illegality of sitting down and/or communicating. That is that you are implying that both are equal parts of life, and the illegality of each is equivalent.

I was observing that your attempt at reducto ad absurdum is so conflated that all it achieves is making you look stupid.

For 'middle England', please substitute the words... self righteous, hypercritical and pretentious England.

No, Jon, that is clearly not what I'm saying. You are a troll. However, it gives me a perverse pleasure to read your comments. Out of interest, how would you go about twisting my words when I present them as these simple facts?:

A goverment can make laws which are unjust.

A citizen cannot in good conscience obey an unjust law.

Can we rephrase that last bit as "A citizen can in good conscience disobey an unjust law". The way you phrase it makes it sound as if we're all morally obliged to do illegal drugs :-)

I have no need to twist anything, ditching the hyperbole has substantially improved your argument.

>A government can make laws which are unjust.

The problem there lies with what is considered just and unjust though, who are you to decide which laws don't apply to you?

>A citizen cannot in good conscience obey an unjust law.

Well, when it comes to whether or not they smoke a plant they can do so with a perfectly clear conscience. Even more so when there are legal avenues for getting the law changed.

You don't have a duty to break laws that you don't like.

Ah, but that misses the crux of the argument entirely, my extraterrestrial friend: we are talking of the British Government, who do everything in a very British (English?) way: look to 'Yes Minister' for guidance in Anglo-Saxon bureaucracy.

Lastly, I've never understood why Middle England doesn't speak Middle English:

"And it is don, aftirward Gordon Brown made iourne bi cites & castelis prechende & euangelisende þe criminalisation of cannabis"

Good point, I'm going to be accused of twisting his words again.. ;)

>A citizen can in good conscience disobey an unjust law

But the preference should be to following it, and lobbying for change.

This stems from an earlier comment regarding the morality of those breaking the law, unless you have some higher moral purpose, then breaking a law set by society is basically immoral, many people disagree with many laws, but we should follow them unless there is something more important to be achieved by breaking the laws.

I'm not convinced that getting high is achieves anything important.

Just? Unjust? What right do a minority have to say what is Just?

Killing, maiming, harming is obviously wrong. Any Law that is passed that states that if you kill, maim or harm another member of this society will be punished is a just law. Can't really argue with that.

What a person does to themselves is up to that person - no it really is, it's called freedom. IF, however, what you do to yourself directly violates said above law, then said above law comes into effect, and the defence of 'I was drunk, out of it" is no defence, because you were free to make the decision to take whatever, or do whatever to yourself in the first place.

If, you were forced, or tricked into taking or doing something, then you have to prove that you were set up. - Then, if it is proved, the perpetrator gets it, and you (as a victim in this case), get a clean slate.

FFS ! Your Life, You Decide. Jesus - take responsibility for your own actions and your own defence. Nobody said being free was easy - it's not. It's fucking hard work, and now it's even harder.

Being a slave is real easy however. And that's what any government wants - an enslaved population. And that's what we are. Enslaved.

Squirm all you like, they've got you - and if you try to be free they will take away your life.

I'm very flattered that my rephrasing has made it easier for you to understand my argument (phrasing of the second fact notwithstanding, Spleen's is right).

Supposing a majority of people consider a law unjust and pursuing 'legal avenues' will not change that law, what then?

@ QuiteEvilGraham

[[ Secondly, obeying the law. This is an IT forum (sometimes) so I would like to remind our more moral contributors about what the law, and the zealous guardians thereof, did to Alan Turing for his disgusting, perverse behaviour in being homosexual. So what if he did directly contribute to shortening WW2 by about two years, thus saving untold millions of lives ... ]]

Obso-&&&&ing-lutely !!

This goes to the heart of something that is making me very very worried indeed about the state of our legal system and the future of this formerly-sceptered Ilse. The office of the UK President and his ill advised advisers seem to operating on a fundamentally flawed piece of logic. They need to think hard about this and understand that:-

*** Making something illegal does not make it stop ***

Think about the example of a decent bit of 60 limit road. Some eejit goes howling down it at 100 + X MPH and stuffs it through a tree. The CSIs say that the vehicle was traveling WAY over the limit and that the road is sound for the posted speed. The locals howl that "Something must be done", so the PtB make it into a 40 limit. They seem to think that if the road had been a 40 limit that the kids would not have broken THAT speed limit, despite the fact that they broke the other one. It now means that people who travel down that stretch at a safe 50-60 MPH will now face being nicked for breaking the law. This can only serve to weaken, if not finally crack, those people's regard for the law and make them less disinclined to break other laws.

So if we accept the quoted statement as fact, which we must inevitably do, then what does this say about the creation of laws like the subject of this thread that are inevitably going to criminalise a large number of people and a naturally occurring herb? What is the intended effect?

If we accept that toking is something that the establishment are worried about and that they want to make sure that people are educated about and not harmed by this herb, making the substance illegal is just not the way to go anyway.

What happens when you make something illegal that was formerly legal (not in my time, but once). In the old days, you could by smoking hemp in the shops. The shop keeper paid tax so there's money provided to the state by the sale of the substance to try and mitigate any harm caused. Make it illegal and as previously stated the use will continue, but now the shop keeper can no longer sell it. It will be sold by people outside the law who do not pay tax. The law enforcement authorities will then have to expend public money enforcing this law; lots and lots of it. The health authorities will still have to spend money trying to mitigate any harm caused. The government will have only a very cloudy idea of usage patterns and trends so cannot prioritise any messages they want to try and send out.

Leaving all morals aside it is a question of simple logic.

If you want to control it's use, then don't abdicate control of it; which is what you are doing by making it illegal.

I do find it very amusing (in a black comedy sort of way) that when a substance is made illegal it becomes a "Controlled Substance" when that's exactly what you've stopped doing! Prescription drugs are very highly regulated, measured, tested and all to ensure that the user gets exactly what it says on the tin. Street drugs are entirely unregulated, unmeasured, untested and a complete mystery to the user until after it's too late.

Society needs to sit back, think hard and decide exactly what they want for these drugs; and to start with there is one very basic decision to make.

"Do we allow that people can do what they want to themselves

as long as no others are harmed in so doing .. with the

exception of deliberate, immediate suicide?"

If yes, then why are the people who don't use these drugs getting so bent out of shape.

If no, then we need to think hard about rock climbing, parachuting, baccy smoking, drinking, skiing, weed smoking, injecting heroin .. you get the idea.

While you read the above, did you find yourself saying yes to some and no to others? Examine why that is the case. Is it because of the effect they have on others? Examine then if that is the act itself, or the fact that it is already illegal. Is it for the effect the act has on the doer? Examine whether it's any of your business to interfere in their lives.

This whole area is currently a completely illogical mess.

I suspect they make this stuff illegal just so that they don't actually have to exercise themselves and try and make any actual good whole brained decisions. Examine whether this is because they won't or just that they are simply not equipped.

[[ Mines the one with the very very long sleeves. it must be if I think for one minute that any politician is going to actually think about a subject like this and come to a genuinely intelligent pragmatic conclusion.]]

Nobody reads this far down the discussion list so I reckon I'm safe ;)

Firstly, I'm no Brown supporter for any number of reasons, however, unfortunate turns-of-phrase aside, I suspect he has a point.

1. Morality and law are only loosely connected at the best of times

2. Laws are rarely consistent

3. Ideally, laws are there to protect the public (I know it goes wrong but that is the plan!) Therefore:

a) we ban murder (because its intrinsically wrong - a moral judgment)

b) we prohibit driving over the speed limit - not because its morally wrong, but because it improves safety.

The speed limit is an arbitrary value really without a great deal of scientific structure behind it. A value is picked which seems sensible and then fine-tuned later if required. Many laws are like this - an arbitrary standard is implemented because some standard is intuitively known to be beneficial, but its simply too hard to get precise scientific data as to where the line should be drawn.

As with driving above the speed-limit, you can probably do it quite safely over 99% of the time, but that doesn't mean we don't need speed limits or that the police shouldn't enforce them. Doing 75mph on an empty motorway at 2am may be illegal but not immoral. Doing 60mph past a school at 3:45pm is probably both. The police need to enforce the law with morality in mind.

Laws are certainly not consistent. Fox-hunting was banned despite the environmental need to have fox numbers reduced. What is the likelihood of a ban on the *recreational* maiming and slaughter-by-asphyxiation of fish? Slim, because lots of people do it. The legislation is irrelevant to the fox, who dies by either gun or dog, it is merely a statement by society that "this sort of behaviour we deem unacceptable." How many fish are killed for fun verses how many foxes? How bad is pot compared with alcohol? That's the wrong question - the question is, "What sort of behaviour do we wish to encourage?"

The "pot users are usually immoral" is rather disingenuous. Everyone fails on morality so it may be true, but unhelpful. Having said that, taking anything which impairs judgment surely has to have moral implications. Deliberately impairing yourself for entertainment, strikes me as reckless to the point of immorality, whether the drug kills you or just makes you giggle at the sight of a drunk person teetering towards his car as he makes his way home.

Flames, obviously...

Reclassify the drug and throw a higher workload onto the already overworked coppers, who are already at crisis point, only just about able to make it out to the most serious crime scenes the same day......

Or actually do some fecking research. Around these parts, it's the junkies who burgle your homes, the class A dealers wiping each other (+bystanders) out, and the drunks that I would argue cause more problems than the weed consumers sprawled over their soft furnishings......

I suggest our coppers have more importnat things to do.

"Ah, but that misses the crux of the argument entirely, my extraterrestrial friend: we are talking of the British Government, who do everything in a very British (English?) way: look to 'Yes Minister' for guidance in Anglo-Saxon bureaucracy."

The crux of the matter being that British Government is a Sham and a Shameless and Shameful Scam run by gang leaders who cannot make it in business and who have to raise their finances by taxation on the poorest and most ill equipped educationally and socially, whilst the City, which is another World, in the Nation does its thing totally independent of the Wasters in Westminster doing their Sheriff of Nottingham thing.

As a practical exercise, if you reversed the present taxation regime/burden, so that people were Rewarded for their presence rather than Penalised, and money paid in, [which doesn't need to be physical/tangible at all, as it can very simply be/is always a figure creditted/deposited into an account] rather than expected to be paid out of private accounts and paid into a Master Administrative Public Account/the Treasury, the extra money invested, which is really only figures reworked to give added potential and spending power to a Nation, allowing them to produce an infrastructure model which their spending power will dictate, will always be returned to the Treasury/Banking System, allowing them to dream up schemes which money can be spent on. This shifts the onus of Invention and Economy and Provision onto the Shoulders of those who a) have a constant supply of rolling currency for plant and materials purchasing power and b) probably a better educated and Intelligent Networking Capability to find and distribute Funds to Needs Feeders for Present Requirements and for Novel/Innovative Future Needs and Feeds. Virtual Money to the Right People will create Real Money for the System.

And whenever you consider that, that appears to be exactly what the System has done with the Bank of England bailing out/giving the Banks their recent £50 billion windfall after them having lost the plot and gone into dodgy deals without the necessary Intelligence for the Investments to make money. It just goes to show that making money via the business and profit model is not necessary for it can easily be replaced with a reverse taxation model which rewards rather than penalises, for then currency will flow through the Banking System rather than be stuck in and lost by the Banking System. That is where the Crook is in the System preventing it working for Everyone.

It would be Prudence 42 Change it.

Reclassification will do sod-all to stop people smoking cannabis.

Having said that, I'm on Brown's side on this: I know of at least two people who were sent mad by smoking cannabis, and another who committed suicide because of it. Smoking skunk is for total losers.

Very very well said Andrew.

"I'm not convinced that getting high is achieves anything important."

I beg to differ. Getting high is a natural urge, just like having sex or going to the toilet (which, incidentally, people also like to pretend they don't do).

Every human culture throughout history has found a way of getting high; even the ones that never got as far as settling down and farming, but were content to remain nomadic hunter-gatherers. The two things that unite us all with our prehistoric ancestors are percussion instruments and hallucinogenic drugs.

(Cue movie plot about a bunch of stoners thawing out a caveman preserved in ice for tens of thousands of years and taking him to a rave .....)

@amanfrommars: by far the most lucid and easily digested prose I have seen from you in a while, are you doing anything illegal... or am I?

@kissingthecarpet: ah - yes, LD50 could have been it, and YES - I am going THAT far back.

Generally though, as a self confessed lazy sod; a fully paid up member of the male association for equality (males with an intimate knowledge of females' and a desire to associate with parts of them); and a bone fida Fifer, I feel I must now concur that Gordon Brown is indeed, nothing more than intellectually insecure Useless Scots COONT, and a fekkin 'ers of an embarassment to boot.

Spot on

Well said that man!

I've been smoking for over thirty years, and in all that time none of my friends have died from "lethal" skunk or any other form of cannabis. A few from cancer, heart disease, stroke, and liver failure. All caused or aggravated by legal drugs.

Our Dutch friends have a well regulated, well policed way of "dealing" with the problem of cannabis...

Most Dutch towns of any size have at least one coffee shop, usually more than one. No fights on a weekend, no being sick in the street. A very civilised, sensible, and well informed country.

Compare to good old U.K. Underground supply chain, links to organised crime, adulterated weed and other drugs, massive police effort to control supply and use, record numbers of users etc. etc.

Legalisation of ALL drugs, with proper controls is the only sensible route. Coupled with proper education obviously.

Gordon Frown, like most politicians, is a reactionary media puppy. With a major downer on people enjoying themselves. Just because he's a miserable git, it doesn't mean we all have to be.....

Despotism is the correct name for this latest outrage against freewill, as pointed out previously.

The one with the passport, and a one way ticket outta this shit-hole that was once a pleasant place to live.

Last man out, please turn off the lights and put the cat out.

Just been announced on BBC Radio 4 that Gordon Frown has indeed chosen to ignore the recommendations of his scientific advisors, the ACMD, and reclassify cannabis, (all sorts, not just the super strong hybrid grasses). as class "B". So how does this get in to law, without the approval of the Houses of Parliament?

Let's hope that plod has the sense to see through this tabloid politiking, and continue to ignore reasonable users and home growers.

2,000,000+ users can't all be wrong! Shirley?

What is HE on?

The one with the passport, a few bars of soap, a packet of seeds, and a one way ticket outta this shit-hole that is fast becoming a JOKE!