On 2 apr, 17:47, Dr John Watson <drj...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> It would appear that the assurances the ACMD were given before starting
> their third review of cannabis in as many years were lies.
>
> Cannabis use has been normal in my circle of acquaintances for over 40
> years.
>
> PM backs re-classifying cannabis
>
> 1 day ago
>
> Gordon Brown has said he is determined to send a signal to young people
> that the use of cannabis is "unacceptable".
There you have it. That hypocrite nazi apparently thinks alcohol is
acceptable
and a relatively less harmful drug like cannabis is unacceptable.
>
> At his monthly Downing Street news conference, the Prime Minister
> indicated his strong sup****t for re-classifying cannabis again as a
Class
> B drug.
If more harmful drugs like alcohol and tobacco are not classified, it
shouldn't be
classified at all, It should be regulated like alcohol and tobacco
according to
the gravity of associated healthrisks.
Alcohol is not classified, but that doesn't mean we're sending out a
signal to teenagers it's ok
to abuse alcohol.
>
> His comments came ahead of the expected review this month of the
Advisory
> Council on Drugs of the decision to downgrade it to a Class C drug.
>
> While Mr Brown said that he would consider the council's re****t, he made
> clear that he believed that change was necessary.
Belief founded on what? Not science I presume, because he doesn't even
await the judgement of experts before expressing his personal
misguided bias.
>
> "I believe that if we are sending out a signal particularly to
teenagers,
> and particularly those at the most vulnerable age, young teenagers, that
> we in any way find cannabis acceptable, given all that we now know about
> the changes in the way cannabis is being sold in this country, that is
not
> the right thing to do," he said.
So the signal he wants to send to teenagers (who are not supid and
learn the truth about
cannabis online anyway,) is that cannabis is wrong (illegal) and
alcohol is right (legal) and
it's rather arbitrary that alcohol happens to be legal and cannabis
happens to be illegal.
Since there is no evidence whatsoever that demonstrates cannabis is
worse than alcohol
and deserves to be regulated more strictly than alcohol.
He must be desperate to appeal to people's emotions by coming up with
the same old
phoney "sending the signal to teenagers" bull****. There is no
evidence whatsoever that prohibition
protects the most vulnerable groups from the risk of substance abuse.
In the Netherlands, where cannabis is
regulated in a fa****on similar to alcohol, there is not substantially
more cannabis abuse by teenagers than in the UK, where cannabis is
completely prohibited and alcohol is regulated in a similar way like
in the Netherlands.
I bet the totalitarian government in China also thinks they send the
right signal to teenagers by harassing, torturing and locking up civil
rights activists.
Anyone who whines about the lack of civil rights in countries like
China, is a hypocrite if they deny people in their own country the
right to govern their own body and mind. Human rights are a farce if
people are not even allowed to grow (and sell) their favorite flowers
or get criminalized simply because they happen to prefer cannabis
instead of alcohol.
Regulation and education are effective approaches to prevent and
reduce drug abuse, but prohibition is only possible in a nanny state
where the government treats adults like children who can't handle
freedom and responsibility. The only thing prohibition is effective
at, is sponsoring organized crime and demonstrating politicians seem
unable to learn from the mistakes of their predecessors. If
prohibition didn't work for alcohol, how is it supposed to work for
cannabis?
We don't need a government that tells well-informed and healthy adults
what to think, what flowers they can grow or at what time they should
go to bed. We need a government that ensures people respect each
others rights
and governs on a minimal basis, striving to rely primarily on peoples
capacity to learn how to govern themselves.
>
> "My personal view has been pretty well known for some time. Given the
> changing nature of the stock of cannabis that is coming into the country
> and greater damage that that appears to be doing to people who use it,
> there is a stronger case for sending out a signal that cannabis is not
> only illegal but it is unacceptable."
What's the big deal about cannabis with high cannabinoid levels?
Alcohol is available in
very strong form and that seems to be perfectly acceptable.
There has never been a single fatality linked to cannabis. There are
multitudes of
fatalities linked to alcohol (excluding incidents like driving under
the influence).
>
> http://ukpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5gy4pVdbfsBf9_kLeAEqZWc0xjFNw
>
> --
> Dr John Watson
> Baker Street
|
