On 04/10/2011 17:32, kay wrote:
jamie smith;938632 Wrote:
I wasnt talking about ilegal activity

You were talking about growing and using it; both are illegal in the UK

Growing hemp and even c. savita var indica in the UK is legal if you
have a license to do so. The poisons garden in Alnwick Castle has such a
license and several far more potent drug and toxic plants in secure
cultivation. Their cocaine plant had died when I last visited and I
found the smell of henbane most unpleasant.

I expect you can find some hemp fields in the south of England grown for
the fibre if you look hard enough. It isn't really warm enough in UK
summers for C4 plant metabolism to thrive so it is a poor crop.


and I was just doing a little research on peoples opinion on cannabis
for my extended research A Level in collage im doing this as part of my
course work and cannabis does not mess up with your brain its ILEGAL
because its addictive it cant actually cause any physical harm apart
from inhaling smoke and one reason why this wont be legal is because the
industrys will lose out on to much money so its all about money because
the goverment are greedy. I understand how they didnt teach this in
schools 40 - 50 years ago kay so im sorry you didnt get to now the
truth. maybe pay for a collage if you arnt scared of looking 60 years
older than everyone

You are factually incorrect on several counts.

Cannabis most definitely does mess with your brain and perception but it
is considerably less addictive than either alcohol or tobacco
(nicotine). You would never get a license to sell either of the latter
two compounds to the public if they were newly discovered today.

Cannabis smoke is more noxious because of high tar content, but then you
do not necessarily have to smoke it. Nicotine addicts smoking tobacco
shorten their lifespans considerably - it is highly likely that smoking
cannabis will be even worse in this respect.

A few people are unduly susceptible to its influence and go off the
rails. There doesn't seem to be enough research to quantify this risk.
The problem is compounded by new designer GM skunk varieties which seem
to be causing more psychotic problems according to researchers.

The head of the expert committee on abuse of drugs got into serious
trouble with the UK government for explaining the relative risks of
drugs and alcohol somewhat too clearly. See for example:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...rugsandalcohol

Now they have appointed a bunch of yes men to do their bidding. The
reason it won't be made legal is mostly due to puritanical Americans and
their perpetual "War on Drugs".

The original reason for banning intoxicating drugs was that there was no
way to detect them in vivo with the trace amounts involved. Modern
ultratrace analytical chemistry can now do this with relative ease.
Harder than a quick breath test but definitely possible.

Oh and learn to spell college. Unless that is you are assembling a cut
fabric picture to illustrate public views on cannabis. And if you are be
sure to use hemp for the base material.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collage#Early_precedents

You know nothing about my opinions, my age, my use or non-usage of, or
my knowledge about, drugs.

You say you are doing research; if you are genuinely researching into
people's opinions on cannabis use and cultivation, then insulting people
whose opinions do not match your own will not encourage expression of
those opinions and thus will bias your results. Perhaps you should pay
for, or otherwise acquire, a grounding in scientific research methods?

I can't see much point in banning it to be honest. Far better to have it
sold legitimately and get a tax revenue stream from it than hand all of
the proceeds to organised crime as happens at present.

I would be in favour of banning tobacco, but that isn't going to happen
because the tobacco lobby is far too powerful and the tax is lucrative.
And the nicotine addicts would all get very upset.

Regards,
Martin Brown