D
Deleted member 49
Guest
Definately need drugs to get over that.I need to erase the memory.
Cannabis as a Class A drug?
- Thread starter AndyRM
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Rusty Nails
Country Member
Craig the cyclist
Über Member
That is an impossible question to answer.
But if we flip the question then the answer is 100%. 100% of people who end up with a cannabis induced psychosis would say they took it recreationally.
Craig the cyclist
Über Member
Because for some people, the illegality of the process is part of the excitement.
Craig the cyclist
Über Member
OP
OP
AndyRM
Elder Goth
Not as much as I used to, but yes.
Ian H
Guru
Any evidence for that statement?
Craig the cyclist
Über Member
Yep
stowie
Active Member
Water killed Leah Betts after heeding poor government advice. Not MDMA.
If I were being facetious, I might make the point that the dangerous drug in that case was H2O rather than MDMA.
Ecstasy was reviewed way back around 2006 and concluded with a recommendation it would be better classified as a "class B" narcotic alongside amphetamine than "class A" with things like Heroin.
Ian H
Guru
Formal research or anecdote?
And anyway, wouldn't the thrill of illegality tend to evaporate if it wasn't illegal?
US prohibition offers an instructive history.
OP
OP
AndyRM
Elder Goth
stowie
Active Member
The legalisation of cannabis in certain regions can give data on what happens to consumption and illegal trade, although it is still quite early to say.
Looking at this, it seems like results are mixed. Certainly illegal local growers did go legitimate in places like California after state law changes. And Mexican drug gangs really gave up on importing cannabis after the change in law. On the other hand, the fact it is legal in state law but illegal in federal law plus the high cost / low margin of the legalised route still allowed illegal sales to flourish - mainly this was local growers who were making no money legally going illegal.
It isn't that difficult to think of a situation where illegal cannabis was simply too unprofitable for an illegal market to be viable. In the same way that in the UK there isn't much of a market for illegal moonshine because the legal alcohol market makes the venture unprofitable. But poorly constructed laws in a local jurisdiction can have a muted effect on removing illegal sales
Craig the cyclist
Über Member
What a lot of bollocks.
MDMA disrupts the bodies complex balance of hormones (in a nutshell). Several of those hormones regulate the bodies relationship with water, temperature control and to some extent diet. As a result people drink too much and in some cases this causes a fatal chain of events. To blame Leah Betts for not following guidance when she had consumed a drug that disregulated her bodies building blocks is the ultimate victim blaming.
To say that water is the ultimate culprit here as well! Water is essential for life, so consuming it keeps the body alive. There is no physiological reason to consume MDMA.
Oh, and if MDMA doesn't kill people, it's what people do with it that does that, I think you have pretty much nailed the argument for reducing gun control. Guns don't kill anyone, it's what people do with them that does that.
OP
OP
AndyRM
Elder Goth
AuroraSaab
Legendary Member
So to make the illegal trade in cannabis disappear, like the trade in illicit alcohol has, you'd need a similar model to alcohol sales. Which is that it's freely available on every street corner, often very, very cheaply, and that there are thousands of outlets who will serve under 18's. For a product that increasing research seems to suggest can cause mental health issues amongst frequent users.
