Cannabis and MPs

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6905886.stm

So, there is a big deal that a minister smoked pot over 20 years ago...

This is apparently a big deal being on the news etc etc. But this just makes me think that MPs (who all seem to have this revalation 20 years or so later that it was wrong) and the news services for making such a big deal are so completely out of touch with real life.

My first thought was 1) it was pot- big deal, we are hardly talking heroin here and 2) it was 20 years ago for frack sake!!!- MPs and the news services should have a lot more important things to worry about!

Opinions?

A whole lot of noise over nothing, but it is illegal in Brittain. If that is all the dirt they can find they only make a fool out of theirselves, bit of pot 20 years ago, big deal.

We are in the middle of Refer Madness Pt 2 in the UK. Scare stories about 'killer skunk' etc. For some reason the press have decided that despite our streets and hospitals being filled every friday and saturday night with fighting and puking drinkers - the real cause of all our woes are people smoking a few joints.

Big deal. Didn't Cameron light a few joints in the past too?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idaho

We are in the middle of Refer Madness Pt 2 in the UK. Scare stories about 'killer skunk' etc. For some reason the press have decided that despite our streets and hospitals being filled every friday and saturday night with fighting and puking drinkers - the real cause of all our woes are people smoking a few joints.

---

Didn't the UK recently downgrade pot so the cops won't arrest people with a personal stash?

BBC needed something to distract from the phone-in competition "scandal" :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Didn't the UK recently downgrade pot so the cops won't arrest people with a personal stash?

---

Yes, from Class B (others include amphetamines) to Class C (others include steroids, tranks etc), but they're making U-turn sort of noises, again.

No doubt there is a qualitative difference between today's skunk strains and the old fashioned stuff that was around when government ministers (and myself ~D) were students. It's not just the potency, but the balance between different cannabinoids is different. Skunk has been bred for high THC content, but the cannabinol counter-balance has reduced enormously, making the effects very unlike the hippy-era 'brands'.

I've long held the view that drug use should be a medical and not a moral issue, and used to be rather pro-legalisation. Seeing (and feeling) the effects of skunk has changed that position. It's all gone terribly downmarket, compared to the good old days, when there was connoisseurship to be had savouring the subtleties of Red Leb, Maroc 000, Afghan Black, Temple Balls ( a bit naughty....), Thai sticks, aaaahhhhh ..... Today it's like having a fine wine cellar replaced by a crate of Carlsberg Special Brew :no:

At least our politicians had the sense to inhale :clown:

Ah, the evils of GM crops... ~D

Politics

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by macsen rufus

No doubt there is a qualitative difference between today's skunk strains and the old fashioned stuff that was around when government ministers (and myself ~D) were students. It's not just the potency, but the balance between different cannabinoids is different. Skunk has been bred for high THC content, but the cannabinol counter-balance has reduced enormously, making the effects very unlike the hippy-era 'brands'.

---

Once again the moralising prohibition brigade have made another convert. They can't convince people that cannabis should be banned so they go around telling people that what we have now is 'new cannabis' which is different. Didn't Reagan's administration have a crackdown on weed in the 80's saying that cannabis had increased in potency 1400 times?

Take a look at this for the facts.

Would you go into a bar, ask for "a drink please" and quaff down whatever you were given without asking? Well maybe you would, and with cannabis you have no choice but to. Wit legalisation people can choose what they smoke.

The real question is - if cannabis 2.0 is bad, is this an admission that cannabis 1.0 is ok?

Quote:

---

is this an admission that cannabis 1.0 is ok?

---

:yes: I thought that was :daisy: ing obvious from what I said! Been there, done that, smoked the T-shirt, I know whereof I speak, believe me. And I speak and decide from experience, not views acquired second hand from anyone - so I can't provide any links to my sources. I basically quit the habit once all that was available was skunk and I realised my mental health was totally FUBARed - paranoia, panic attacks, delusional thinking etc (if only tobacco was as easy to finish with :no: ) As I said, it should be treated as a medical issue, and skunk seriously did for my health in a way "Mark 1" never did.

A better "drink" analogy is I went to the bar looking for a 12-year old single Islay malt, and walked out when all they had was meths in a brown paper bag.

Quote:

---

Didn't Reagan's administration have a crackdown on weed in the 80's saying that cannabis had increased in potency 1400 times?

---

Sounds preposterous, but I've never tried American weed -- but by analogy from American beer, maybe it's not impossible :laugh4:

Disclaimer: all testing of substances was performed in jurisdictions where it's legal :wink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by macsen rufus

:yes: I thought that was :daisy: ing obvious from what I said!

---

I wasn't speaking about you admitting it was ok - I was talking about the politicians.

As for strength of weed. I think what has happened over the last few years is an increasing 'afghanisation' of strains. Strains being mixed with afghan based strains to increase yield, potency and shorten growing time. All of these are done because of prohibition.

Well, first off, I'm 100% for legalization of marijuana. I personally don't smoke, as it makes me irredeemably lazy for the next day or two, but between drunk crowds and stoned crowds, I'll take stoned any day of the week. You never hear of people catching "weed muscles".

However, I suppose the issue with respect to the MPs is a healthy respect for the law, regardless of whether they agree with it or not. If they're just getting outed for having somked in the past, that's ludicrous. But if they're getting outed for having smoked WHILE an MP, that's a horse of a different color. As an agent of the law, they have to agree to live according to the rule of law themselves.