P and all that jazz

MN5

Interesting reading about everyone's views on puffing the old magic dragon. It's something I haven't done since the late 90s, I just didn't particularly like it and how it made me feel, I was always much more of a drinker and I've never tried anything else save for an extremely brief period of smoking to look cool to chicks which amazingly enough worked for a bit......
 
It is absolutely ridiculous that it is illegal though, booze causes sooooooooo much more fucken damage to lives, property etc that it isn't funny. Weed isn't me and that's fine and I certainly don't judge those who choose to partake, I guess I'm just lucky that my vice of choice is legal.
 
P? I had an extremely interesting yarn to one of our finest Senior Constables and he says the effects of that horrible drug are equal parts terrifying and heart breaking. The shit he told me over a few beers would make Breaking Bad look like Full House.....

Donsteppa

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Godder" data-cid="555814" data-time="1454376754">True, but herd immunity is an extra positive of vaccination that doesn't apply to weed use. 
The strongest drug I take is caffeine, but I think weed should be legalised - the negatives to society of the illegality outweigh the negatives of the drug itself.</blockquote>
 
Point being just because something is "normalised" at 14% tells you absolutely nothing about whether it's good or bad. Just that people do something. There are a number of good arguments for changes to the current legislation on drugs, but something "being normalised" is rarely one of them. 
And the advantage of herd immunity with vaccines is to protect people at high risk/low immunity/unable to be vaccinated for genuine health reasons. Not to give contemptible fucksticks a false sense of security.

Donsteppa

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="No Quarter" data-cid="555743" data-time="1454362219">
Fair enough. Agree individual results do vary. I don't think the argument is "but I did it and I'm fine", it's more "the majority of people that have done it are fine".</blockquote>
The majority of people can have a Mars bar and not turn diabetic instantly either, though curiously the actively pro marijuana people on my Facebook news feed want to ban me from having a Coca Cola at the same time... 
Good reasons for decriminalisation to me seem to be:

Responsible informed adults can make their own life choices
Some power will be taken away from criminal gangs
Some form of tax revenue is generated for the health consequences for those whom it does affect negatively
It will be available as a form of pain relief for those it suits 
And a fringe benefit being that the 'it's a hidden cure for cancer/every disease under the sun' brigade will have to face reality for a brief moment when it does nothing of the sort. 
'Alcohol/cigarettes/sugar/fat are just as bad' falls into the "we're crap but you're worse" category of sporting chant... Satisfying at the time, but otherwise shithouse... 
(And no, I wouldn't ban any of those four - before someone starts)

Crazy Horse

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Rembrandt" data-cid="555687" data-time="1454323144">
CH were you the one in law enforcement? If so do you think current strategies are working? Like some others here H,Meth and Crack scare me far more than anything else out there, could there be an arguement to reduce enforcement of comparitively more minor drugs such as weed and instead focus this on the real nasties? </blockquote>
 
I am not privy to any statistics so I am only going by what I see on the streets and in people's homes, but I think we are losing the battle with p. Things just seem worse in the last few years. 
As for marijuana we don't get much trouble from people when they are under the influence but things can be different when regular users are not on it - they can get very angry over the smallest things.

Mokey

When a house has been a P lab it is basically a write off. Even if the owners do a really, really super thorough clean, market value plummets. That shit gets in everywhere, walls, ceiling. And people on P/trying to get a fix can do horrific things.
 
I've never touched drugs, tried the odd cigarette in high school, hated the taste.
 
Wouldn't care either way if weed was decriminalised, I think doctors have more to worry about with those fucking 'legal high' packets of Russian roulette.

gollum

The weed = depression thing is hard because people will tend towards weed if they find life a bit much. Its a GREAT drug if you are a bit overwhelmed & stressed & need to take the edge off. IE if you are already depressed & have mental health issues then weed is the drug you may well turn to. Then you become dependendent on weed & then you end up in mental health care. 
 
The hard bit is sorting the people who became psychotic because of heavy weed use from the people who were psychotic & for years self medicated with weed.

No Quarter

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Donsteppa" data-cid="555850" data-time="1454386438">
<div>
The majority of people can have a Mars bar and not turn diabetic instantly either, though curiously the actively pro marijuana people on my Facebook news feed want to ban me from having a Coca Cola at the same time... 
Good reasons for decriminalisation to me seem to be:

Responsible informed adults can make their own life choices
Some power will be taken away from criminal gangs
Some form of tax revenue is generated for the health consequences for those whom it does affect negatively
It will be available as a form of pain relief for those it suits 
And a fringe benefit being that the 'it's a hidden cure for cancer/every disease under the sun' brigade will have to face reality for a brief moment when it does nothing of the sort. 
'Alcohol/cigarettes/sugar/fat are just as bad' falls into the "we're crap but you're worse" category of sporting chant... Satisfying at the time, but otherwise shithouse... 
(And no, I wouldn't ban any of those four - before someone starts)
</div>
</blockquote>
 
You are right if you have one mars bar you are not going to turn diabetic. But if you have 10 mars bars per day you will. If you have a couple of cones in the weekend you are not going to do any harm to yourself or your life in general. If you are stoned 24/7 you are going to impact all parts of your life and will likely fall into depression as there is nothing in your life that you will feel 'proud' of. Everything in moderation... :)
 
People bring up alcohol because there is a big double standard there. We have a drug that does massive amounts of damage to the community that is completely legal and available at every 2nd shop you go to, including supermarkets. Then we have a drug that by comparison does far less damage but is completely illegal and can land you a criminal conviction if you are caught with it, even if you are using it for medicinal reasons. Then to make matters worse you have a host of synthetic cannabis and other "legal highs" that are akin to P and are also completely legal and freely available.
 
There is no doubt NZ's drug laws are badly outdated and need a big overhaul.

taniwharugby

but if Weed were made legal, would more people do it, and as such, see more issues in communities as a result?

Crucial

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="taniwharugby" data-cid="555932" data-time="1454444766">
<div>
but if Weed were made legal, would more people do it, and as such, see more issues in communities as a result?
</div>
</blockquote>
 
I'll let you know next week. I'm about to go on holiday where weed is legal. Haven't had any since early 20s but could be tempted in the right environment/situation.

Hooroo

Depends ion what you call 'issues' I personally feel that if it were made to be legal in a controlled way then there would be less issues overall within the community.

taniwharugby

I just mean similar to those associated with Alcohol which is widely available, yet people still break in to places to steal it, people still abuse it, alcoholism etc...

Hooroo

Easier to grow a plant than distilled a product :)

taniwharugby

are stoners notoriously industrious and patient ;)
 
Because I've never tried it, it isn't something that I think about in terms of legalizing or not.

Crucial

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="taniwharugby" data-cid="555947" data-time="1454446435">
<div>
I just mean similar to those associated with Alcohol which is widely available, yet people still break in to places to steal it, people still abuse it, alcoholism etc...
</div>
</blockquote>
 
Problem is that in all of these cases you are dealing with addictive substances. Just like gambling people are wired differently. Some can't even see the attraction. Some can let it go very easily and others get hooked.
 
Different drugs also have stronger triggers for addiction.
 
The thing I never get is that we know things like this and focus on finding balance between the harm caused to those that become addicted easily and the enjoyment and freedom of others. We never seem to look at providing tests for the root cause (addiction levels). If I was able to have a test that said 'steer clear of drugs with these qualities' or ' you are likely to be susceptible to gambling addiction' or 'alcohol will not be your friend' then at least I would be making an informed decision on whether to do something.
 
It's a bit like cancers (melanoma is a good example). Some people get them easily others not at all with even more exposure. Rather than targeting the lowest denominator and telling everyone to be super cautious, I'd like to know what my personal risk level is.
 
We put a lot more effort into cure than cause.

taniwharugby

Was watching an episode of The Knick last night Clive Owens character was looking at discovering the part of the brain that caused addiction, thinking he had discovered it, removed a piece of his subjects brain...another of the Dr's had a suggestion of a vasectomy as a way to reduce the chances of further addiction.
 
I agree with you on the cancer thing, surely it'd be more cost effective to allow everyone a free exam/mole map/tesing every year to catch things early rather than waiting to find out people have it, and then try and treat it.
 
I worked with a guy in the UK who had no symptoms whatsoever, went to the Dr for a sore back, within 2 months was dead as he was riddled.
 
#TSFthreadDiversion

MN5

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="taniwharugby" data-cid="555953" data-time="1454447293">
<div>
are stoners notoriously industrious and patient ;)
 
Because I've never tried it, it isn't something that I think about in terms of legalizing or not.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
Really ? shit, that's unusual coming across someone who hasn't at least tried it.

NTA

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="taniwharugby" data-cid="555958" data-time="1454449108">
<div>
#TSFthreadDiversion
</div>
</blockquote>
 
 
 Could have put that at the top!
 
 
Anyway - us blokes, particularly as we head toward 40, should consider regular checkups and blood tests as part of the fitness thing. Women do pap smears which helps identify one of their most hard-to-treat cancers.

antipodean

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Crucial" data-cid="555954" data-time="1454447669">
<div>
We put a lot more effort into cure than cause.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
Which is idiotic when the only cure is immortality. Better screening, early intervention and less destructive treatments.
 
I've often said that of men were truly concerned about colon cancer, we'd have invented an additive to beer that came up a fluorescent blue colour when urinating telling you something's not quite right.
 
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="taniwharugby" data-cid="555958" data-time="1454449108">
<div>
I worked with a guy in the UK who had no symptoms whatsoever, went to the Dr for a sore back, within 2 months was dead as he was riddled.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
Which is why you should never go to a doctor.

Crucial

I'm not sure if I explained my idea clearly. Although testing for existence and early detection is a key what I am talking about is tests for the gene (or whatever) that determines whether you are susceptible. eg if you could tell that you were rated high risk you would take extra caution.
Everyone knows the stories of someone cancer free all their life while doing things that should have been high risk yet others that get cancers from the merest trigger. My grandmother lived her life in the sun without sunscreen and smoked until her death. Not a trace of cancer. From what I understand it is genetics that cause susceptibility not any form of immunity. 
More effort into creating testing for these genetic triggers would highlight susceptible people rather than relying on people finding out for themselves the hard way.
Of course there is an argument that 'low risk' people would not take as much care as they should, that is down to education eg as far as we can tell you are not high risk but that doesn't mean you shouldn't take precautions.
 
Tying this back to the drug conversation, the same could apply to addiction. I think it is already known that people's brain react differently to stimulus and endorphin production. For some logic gets switched off and the bad dude on your shoulder takes over. Once you start you can't stop. You can stop without starting though. Again if you could identify and test for this on an individual you could save a lot of problems down te track.

Kirwan

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="MN5" data-cid="555982" data-time="1454453530">
<div>
Really ? shit, that's unusual coming across someone who hasn't at least tried it.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
+1 Never been interested in smoking anything, cigarettes or pot. Abused the hell out of alcohol though, so not sure I made all that healthy a choice :)
 
Pretty impressive for two guys that went to school in Whangarei to have avoided dope.

The Silver Fern

P and all that jazz