"I can't do this job without a little grass" - N Kennedy Esq.

[Nick Armstrong]

Any argument about marijuana must take note of the huge change in the drug itself. Those in influential positions who have taken a relaxed view of it don't really understand that the fairly gentle grass and hashish of their university years in the 70s has been replaced with a human-engineered substance called skunk, which has been associated with all manner of serious psychological problems. I would say the difference would be that of real ale to bathtub gin, or J Collis Brown's Mixture for colicky diahorrea to lysergic acid.

I'm sure you're right.

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

yep as noted above in #21 let's have good science and good evidence as well as good dope eh? .... doctors grasp of statistics and awkward things likebase rates is not always sound after all ..... and it is just to easy to agree with righteous platitudes ... the argument for legalisation, fda style regulation and taxation on all drugs is overwhelming on economic grounds never mind moral [there is a huge barrel of cash oiling the wheels of the law around illicit drugs]

skunk that is ruining the mental health of an alarmingly large number of, particularly young, people today.

any hard survey data or epidemiology to back up that view?

not all people are at risk from skunk ... i do not know what proportion but guess it is small .... for the rest the solution is simple do not smoke it [or are they self medicating/living in a mix of substance abuse/living amongst serious substance abusers]

very hand pot, blame the ills of the young on it, then we will not have to spend rich people's money on special education, family social workers, adolescent mental health clinics and even mental hospitals, nor concern ourselves with the massive educational and life failures of the poor and their young sons

debates on drugs mask debates about life and living in Britain

[Beef Oven!]

yep as noted above in #21 let's have good science and good evidence as well as good dope eh? .... doctors grasp of statistics and awkward things likebase rates is not always sound after all ..... and it is just to easy to agree with righteous platitudes ... the argument for legalisation, fda style regulation and taxation on all drugs is overwhelming on economic grounds never mind moral [there is a huge barrel of cash oiling the wheels of the law around illicit drugs


any hard survey data or epidemiology to back up that view?

not all people are at risk from skunk ... i do not know what proportion but guess it is small .... for the rest the solution is simple do not smoke it [or are they self medicating/living in a mix of substance abuse/living amongst serious substance abusers]

very hand pot, blame the ills of the young on it, then we will not have to spend rich people's money on special education, family social workers, adolescent mental health clinics and even mental hospitals, nor concern ourselves with the massive educational and life failures of the poor and their young sons

debates on drugs mask debates about life and living in Britain

You are happy to 'guess' and use quasi-numerical references for your own arguments, but you ask for "hard survey data or epidemiology to back up......" that [my] view.

Actually there's plenty. If your interested, get googling.

If you're very interested, use some of your spare time and do some voluntary work with these people and learn.

[Richard Barrett]

a human-engineered substance called skunk (...) I would say the difference would be that of real ale to bathtub gin, or J Collis Brown's Mixture for colicky diahorrea to lysergic acid.

The difference "would be". What are you basing that on? have you tried it yourself? If not, all you really have to base your comparisons on are scare stories with (as Calum rightly says) vested interests and selective statistics behind them. I have in fact taken both J Collis Browne's Mixture and LSD (though not concurrently, heaven forfend) and I can honestly say the difference between them is infinitely greater than that between old-fashioned grass and the dreaded skunk weed.

[gurnemanz]

According to Lunchtime O'Boulez in Private Eye today it is still possible that Kennedy might not be appearing at the Last Night.

[Flosshilde]

Surely Nigel Kennedy is the best argument for not smoking it?

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

Again, headteachers crop up to give compelling evidence with no numbers. "One head told us, 'in the vast majority of cases a lack of aspiration explains variation in outcomes'." It's handy that they're all anonymous, isn't it? Even if there were something worth checking in that statement, who would you go to? In fact, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation published comprehensive research on parental expectation last year, showing only a weak correlation between that and "outcomes", and pointing out mildly that parents often calibrate their expectation to the abilities of their child. But who needs a large-scale study when you've got an anonymous head?

from here substitute psychiatrist for head teacher and you have it

i am not very interested in pot smoking kids; i am interested in social sanity and good evidence and not rothermere and murdocch rag generalised scaremongering by any one, but especially those who might know better...

[Beef Oven!]

According to Lunchtime O'Boulez in Private Eye today it is still possible that Kennedy might not be appearing at the Last Night.

That would be a shame.

[french frank]

There are many substances in commercially produced foods, drinks and medication which are removed, or the whole item withdrawn, because there is a possible health risk. Commercial companies do this because they don't want to be sued. Illegally produced substances don't carry the risk of subsequent legal action. But there is a stage between hard evidence and red-top scare stories - which is medical opinion:

Scroll down to What about skunk and other stronger varieties?

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

..the point about the maturity of the brain in 15 year olds is well made and taken .... over 21 it is then and not if your uncle had a psychosis ,.... that still leaves a rather large number of people who might enjoy it or get medical benefit from taking it at very little risk to themselves ... good source thank you for the link ff

[french frank]

At least he appears to have escaped a possible 2-year jail sentence:

"Police are instead set to send him an advisory letter with an explanations of electoral rules and the potential punishments – including a two year prison term – for those who break them.

Officers are understood to feel that any case would only have been brought within a year of the election."

[LeMartinPecheur]

"Officers are understood to feel that any case would only have been brought within a year of the election."

What an extraordinary statement and IMO rotten journalism!

As one dealing with 'administrative law' offences (often described as 'not real crimes'), I assume(*) that what actually prevents prosecution is a statutory time limit necessitating commencement of legal proceedings within a year from date of offence. This is a matter of fact, one that any journalist should be capable of checking, and nothing at all to do with what officers feel! Why should readers be led to believe that this decision not to prosecute is down merely to the subjective whim of officials?

(*)A subsequent quick reach for my old copy of Stone's Justices' Manual reveals that s176 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 does indeed state that all prosecutions for offences under that Act "shall be commenced within one year after the offence was committed".

[barwickgreen]

Good point. Taking production out of the hands of the criminal dealers would ensure that the more dangerous drugs would be less likely to reach the public.

I'm afraid that is a specious conclusion that has been adopted by the liberal commentariat. A minute's thought shows it is a vain hope. Let us imagine that drugs are legalised. (It will happen eventually because the larval political class at university right now all believe it should). Suddenly weak commercial varieties appear in approved outlets along with a poster campaign saying 'hey kids, get your drugs from mister nice-and-safe's chemist and not the back seat of Mr Big Bad Daddy's car.' Firstly, this advice will look terrible safe and middle class and so will fail; secondly, street varieties will keep their potency, therefore ensuring their importance in the market. Legal varieties will be neutered by EU and domestic legislation and will be derided by serious drug enthusiasts. Moreover, once illegal drugs come into the glare of legality they will be studied with far greater precision and their toxicity proven to a greater degree which in turn will begin a long campaign to make them illegal once again ... To put it another way: the licensing of prostitutes generally fails to get rid of unlicensed prostitutes.
So the next time you hear the legalise drugs mood music on the BBC, remember this.

[barwickgreen]

yep as noted above in #21 let's have good science and good evidence as well as good dope eh? .... doctors grasp of statistics and awkward things likebase rates is not always sound after all ..... and it is just to easy to agree with righteous platitudes ... the argument for legalisation, fda style regulation and taxation on all drugs is overwhelming on economic grounds never mind moral [there is a huge barrel of cash oiling the wheels of the law around illicit drugs]



any hard survey data or epidemiology to back up that view?

not all people are at risk from skunk ... i do not know what proportion but guess it is small .... for the rest the solution is simple do not smoke it [or are they self medicating/living in a mix of substance abuse/living amongst serious substance abusers]

very hand pot, blame the ills of the young on it, then we will not have to spend rich people's money on special education, family social workers, adolescent mental health clinics and even mental hospitals, nor concern ourselves with the massive educational and life failures of the poor and their young sons

debates on drugs mask debates about life and living in Britain

The lives of the poor have been made even worse by the spread of drugs. Decriminalising them will make this worse, yet every liberal I know thinks it sound common sense. That is because they are middle class and know nothing of the hard end of life. They got away with it, enjoy it and don't want their own children crimininalised, so they think the less fortunate can get away with it. The result is the hoodie-infested urban landscapes that people like Clegg, Cameron and Miliband have never seen without a bodyguard.

Surveys: I have read more than several news reports saying that the percentage of people presenting with schizophrenic symptoms have risen in recent years and of those patients a very high proportion have been using the potent form of marijuana known as skunk.

[eighthobstruction]

Yes Barwick your surveys are right....I'm sure someone here can say why - in that the component chemical parts in skunk are different to those of the cannabis around in 60-70's....