itâs pretty well known Hameron got in trouble at Eton for getting caught with weed.
Itâs widely alleged, but not confirmed, he also dabbled with coke later too.
In of itself I donât really have an issue with either. But his current stance is hard to reconcile with that and what he used to say.
Iâd be surprised if he didnât (dabble with coke). Being that he worked in PR in London in the early 90âs. More annoying is his love of The Smiths and worse is George Osborne banging on about
It does nothing bad for my (deliberately outlandish) theory that Smiths fans are generally twats.
Always made me laugh that he claimed Eton Rifles was his favourite song. And Willerby reply of âhas he actually listened to it?â Pretty great too.
Dozy prat.
See cannabis is bad for you - its side effects force you to engage in an unhealthy diet leading to greater chances of obesity and diabetes. I wouldnât be surprised if all the lobbying to legalise it was being funded by Dominos
Nick Clegg has accused the home secretary, Theresa May, of attempting to delete sentences from a Whitehall report after it concluded that there was no link between tough laws and the levels of illegal drug use.
The former deputy prime minister also said senior Conservatives, such as David Cameron and George Osborne, have failed to act on drug reform because they saw the issue as a ânaughty recreational secretâ at Notting Hill dinner parties instead of a public health crisis.
In an interview with the Guardian before a major UN conference on the global drug problem, Clegg said the Conservative government was failing to listen to warnings that the war on drugs had failed.
I like it when threads I missed before suddenly pop back up again. If some of your points totals have risen unexplained, itâs cos I was reading back through in here.
Originally posted by @prickly
I think that your personality more than âgatewayâ products is what will lead to drug and alcohol use and abuse.
I very much agree with this. At least as far as that someone with an addictive personality is going to be much more likely, to succumb to cannabis addiction as a result (assuming they try it of course).
Iâve seen both sides, as someone who enjoys the odd puff or two when Iâm not working the next morning, I appreciate the magical herb for its immediate relaxing and mellowing qualities. Yet having seen a close family member succumb to a heavy cannabis addiction that did indeed have serious mental health implications as a result â I also understand the view that the plant can be dangerous to some who are already disposed to mental health issues, which can be aggravated by excessive use of strong cannabis.
The key here for me, as in so many areas of life â is in moderation, and taking personal responsibility for your actions, and consumption rates. I love the stuff myself, and swear by its medicinal qualities â but I donât abuse the substance. And therein lies the secret. Likely pretty much any substance, if overused and abused, is going to lead you into difficulties. So if you know youâre inclined to over indulgence and addiction â then probably best to leave it well alone.
But if youâre perfectly capable of being a responsible human being, and taking care of yourself, knowing your limits etc. I see no reason you canât enjoy a nice chillaxing smoke a couple of nights a week.
As to whether or not it should be legalised â I voted âyesâ mainly as I donât like government legislation being so invasive as to poke its dirty little snout into our private lives. What is done in the privacy of oneâs own home, as long as youâre not murdering and raping people etc. should be no-ones business but our own.
But more than anything, with the massive tax windfall that could be raised with its legalisation â I think the government is missing out on a potentially huge source of income for the country, which seems somewhat insane to me. Certainly it seems to indicate some confused thinking on their part, at least. Almost like theyâve been smoking too much weed, and canât follow a train of thought for more than a few seconds 
.
Thatâs what it is. They want to keep their stash all to themselves, for those sneaky behind closed doors âSessionsâ of Parliament. 
For me, Iâd be happy with decriminalisation. I donât think an otherwise good and law-abiding citizen should be tarnished with a criminal record, for enjoying the odd toke on a phat spliff, whilst chillinâ out listening to mellow electronica in their car at night by the beach (as happened to one of my neighbours). But even with that, Iâd still think the government are missing out on a massive opportunity, by not taxing its sale.
Uhm⌠not read all comments, but here is MHO; The question to me is all about health. The issues of drug barrons and criminality, I know fuck all about so cant comment, but there needs to be some clarity on causational v correlations.
It is correct that there is very limited evidence to suggest a direct causational link between the smoking of stronger variants and mental health problems. However, within the clinical environment, there is correctly an emphasis on prevention, and not just âcureâ. As a result, medical advice would be to avoid doing things to your head that could potentially act as a trigger where the individual is predisposed to potential mental health problems⌠a lack of causational evidence, does not mean no causational link.
Tragically, many mental health problems manifest thelselves in late adoloescence or early adulthood. Particularly in young men. This is a group that is also most commonly attracted to smoking, drinking, drugs etc⌠there are good medical hypotheses that suggest these activities can trigger mental health issues, even if they are not the direct _cause. _As with smoking, do we need to wait until there IS evidence before something is outlawed?
The long term effects are also not that well understood, but the sterotypical slowed speech and dazed perspective of the 20year + weed smoker are not considered without foundation. Imapct of habitual long term use?
No one likes a nanny state. But if said state has the repsonsibility for your care both financilaly and resource wise should you become mentally ill, then itâs not unreasonable for state to suggest certain things to try and help prevent this.
I would find it pretty shocking if any government was prepared to put tax revenue ahead of health⌠oh⌠wait a minute⌠we can still buy fags. booze etc all of which cause health problems⌠liberty to fuck your own body up versus the public funding to deal with the consequences - delicate issue, but common sense suggests that a Government does have a responsibilty to manage healthcare resources and as such is within its rights to preach caution or ban harmful substances. We have no problem with bans on Lead in in fuel or in water pipes, or carcinogens in foodstuffs or working environments⌠so how is this different from a ban on drugs? Itâs not, but as soon as you make fags and alcohol legal, there is no credibilty in banning drugs or anything else that we chose to harm ourselves with⌠and that is the dilemma.
Report from 420 in Hyde Park yesterday.
The scientific case is strong, the economic case is stronger.
Not that either of those will ever matter to our evidence-phobic government.
A former Conservative justice minister has revealed that he was discouraged from asking difficult questions about drugs policy â for fear that looking at evidence could âunpickâ the status quo.
Crispin Blunt, who was in charge of prisons and probations at the Ministry of Justice from 2010 until 2012, said he was told during ministerial discussions that it would politically unwise to ask how much the prohibition of drugs was costing the UK prison system.
âIt always had occurred to me that drugs misuse was obviously a major driver of demand in the criminal justice system,â he told a fringe event at the Conservative annual conference in Birmingham.
Listened to this episode of Distraction Pieces recently, I found it really interesting. The guest is Neil Woods, who was formerly an undercover Police Officer, working mostly on drug cases. He discusses how, in his opinion, the âWar on Drugsâ is not only futile, but serves to solidify gangster monopolies, and increase violence.
Itâs about 18 months old, but I donât think that really matters too much.
A big claim. Thatâs a lot of blame to place on a single band.
About, bloody, time.
It really is daft
We havenât been able to get hold of medical cannabis when opiated drugs are widely available
At least govt have done something right for once
With medicinal cannabis do you have to smoke it? If so surely thatâs going to lead to other health problems.
A kind of distant relative of mine has a rather severely epileptic son. Someone recommended cannabis oil to them to help with his (frequent) violent seizures. They gave them some to try and the results were pretty remarkable.
They only found out it was illegal and not able to be prescribed once they went to their doctor to get more.
They ended up moving to the US, partly, because of the availability of similar products (his dad did also get a decent job offer out there). How mad is it that we are behind the USA on an issue like this?
Itâs believed that there are lots of medical benefits that could be gained from various psychoactive drugs. However, due to our pretty draconian drug laws, scientists and researchers are blocked from carrying out tests on them. Madness.
Nah, thereâs loads of ways that the THC/CBD can be synthesised and administered.
Creams, oils, tablets etc.
