NEWS Shopper youth editors Alison Moulds and Josh Tate discuss cannabis use and what should be done abouot it.
Alison's views
Four years ago, Britain officially reclassified cannabis from Class B to C, thereby reducing the penalties for those in possession.
However, amidst fears of stronger strains, the growth in cannabis farms and dubious public confusion over its legality, the Home Secretary recently recommended that it should revert to its original status.
In today's bingeing culture there have been concerns that skunk cannabis is being abused in the same way as alcohol, reviving fears of the drug's association with psychosis and schizophrenia.
Throughout childhood and early teen years, drug education has often seemed to resist discriminating between substances, placing cannabis alongside drugs such as heroin.
A recent Hollyoaks storyline appeared to present two teens spiralling from experimentation with cannabis to heroin addiction within a matter of weeks.
advertisement
In reality many teenagers appear to classify cannabis use as more dangerous than alcohol and on par with smoking regular cigarettes, perhaps because it is those who use tobacco who are more likely to consider cannabis or find themselves in a situation in which cannabis is offered to them.
Whether the police should direct more time towards targeting cannabis is controversial. Pursuing its usage in public places is understandable but efforts to track it in situations unlikely to lead to aggressive encounters seem yet another misdirection of resources.
Rooting out dealers in more dangerous illicit substances is worthwhile but preventing violent crime is surely more pressing than searching for cannabis.
Cannabis usage may be offered as yet another explanation of why misdemeanours are committed, alongside an endless list of external factors from alcohol to video games, but the number of prominent politicians and professionals whose own experimentations have been exposed undermines this argument.
What Josh says
Cannabis. It's a drug targeted at the young people, and with more dangerous varieties, like skunk, of the so-called 'harmless' drug around it's really no wonder that people have got worried about it all of a sudden.
Skunk is an extremely strong form of cannabis that has blown the other, less powerful (but still bad), forms off of the streets.
It is now accountable for about 81 per cent of available cannabis.
According to the Home Office, most skunk users start at 13, and some of those young people binge' on the drug, trying to achieve the 'maximum effect' of it.
It is thought that this sort of usage of the drug may contribute to extreme mental health problems, such as hallucinations, paranoia, schizophrenia and depression.
These risks haven't yet been proven, but there is evidence in their favour.
Cannabis use is rife amongst young people. It is seen as harmless and just a bit of fun, or worse, something to make you look cool.
The bottom line is that cannabis is bad for you, no matter what else you've heard, or even if you think the opposite.
If the medical risks aren't enough to put someone off, the law clamps heavily down on not only dealing but possession as well.
If you are caught selling cannabis, or any other class B or C drug, you can receive up to 14 years in prison or face an unlimited fine.
For possession, it can be two years or an unlimited fine.
It may seem cool now, but think about it. If it doesn't mess your mind up, it can mess up your life forever.
Posted by: Alun Buffry, Norwich on 2:19pm Sat 7 Jun 08
Harmless fun or health risk?
Obviously for most users, cannabis is pretty harmless especially when compared to other forms of medication / relaxation.
Yet for some it appears to cause problems - just like everything else in life.
The real question ought to be this: why should the law punish cannabis users who do no harm to others?
Surely if people are not harming anyone else, then they deserve the same level of protection (consumer control etc) as those who drink alcohol get.
And the revenue saved from stopping legal action against victimless users, added to the potential revenue from taxes on legitimate profits that would come with legalisation - would provide a huge boost to the economy.
We would do well to ask whether the law against cannabis is itself more harmful than the plant.
Harmless fun or health risk?
Obviously for most users, cannabis is pretty harmless especially when compared to other forms of medication / relaxation.
Yet for some it appears to cause problems - just like everything else in life.
The real question ought to be this: why should the law punish cannabis users who do no harm to others?
Surely if people are not harming anyone else, then they deserve the same level of protection (consumer control etc) as those who drink alcohol get.
And the revenue saved from stopping legal action against victimless users, added to the potential revenue from taxes on legitimate profits that would come with legalisation - would provide a huge boost to the economy.
We would do well to ask whether the law against cannabis is itself more harmful than the plant.
Posted by: Winston Matthews, Horley, Surrey on 6:57pm Sat 7 Jun 08
Thank you Alun that attitude makes more sense.
Prohibition is an old failed tool, we need a new approach, towards cannabis.
Legalisation would make so much sense, giving us the revenue and control, also providing a much well needed recreational choice!
Thank you Alun that attitude makes more sense.
Prohibition is an old failed tool, we need a new approach, towards cannabis.
Legalisation would make so much sense, giving us the revenue and control, also providing a much well needed recreational choice!
Firstly, I dont think you can confine cananbis to harmless fun or health risk.
the illegality of cannabis has brought serious contamination, gangs, crime and endless lists of negativity...health risk? currently, yes.
if we were to study how society would react with legal cannabis the effects would be a lot more positive... check out the netherlands.
we are only getting 'facts' about the contaminated skunk dominating the market.....however we are not told the whole picture. consumers do not have an influence in this market and do not know the quality or source of their cannabis.
criminalising smokers has never and will never work
the hypocritical moves of the governments to criminalise smokers because of cannabis' "dangerous" potential proves their ignorance as cannabis has never killed anyone yet tobacco and alcohol remain widely available...
Firstly, I dont think you can confine cananbis to harmless fun or health risk.
the illegality of cannabis has brought serious contamination, gangs, crime and endless lists of negativity...health risk? currently, yes.
if we were to study how society would react with legal cannabis the effects would be a lot more positive... check out the netherlands.
we are only getting 'facts' about the contaminated skunk dominating the market.....however we are not told the whole picture. consumers do not have an influence in this market and do not know the quality or source of their cannabis.
criminalising smokers has never and will never work
the hypocritical moves of the governments to criminalise smokers because of cannabis' "dangerous" potential proves their ignorance as cannabis has never killed anyone yet tobacco and alcohol remain widely available...
Posted by: A Coburn, Thamesmead on 1:41am Mon 9 Jun 08
Cannabis should be legalised!
There are many health benefit and the connection between cannabis use and psychosis and schizophrenia is completly unproven. Fully legalising the drug would mean that production could be regulated, so there goes the risk of contamination from criminal gangs.
As for the stronger strains of "skunk", they can be compared to regular cannabis in the same way that beer is compared to whiskey. As for people "bingeing" on cannabis, maybe they shouldn't be so daft!
If you binge on chocolate you will get sick and if you binge on bacon you will get fat, so if you binge on cannabis it will obviously have some effects! Sometimes the government should give people some self-responsiblity!!
Cannabis should be legalised!
There are many health benefit and the connection between cannabis use and psychosis and schizophrenia is completly unproven. Fully legalising the drug would mean that production could be regulated, so there goes the risk of contamination from criminal gangs.
As for the stronger strains of "skunk", they can be compared to regular cannabis in the same way that beer is compared to whiskey. As for people "bingeing" on cannabis, maybe they shouldn't be so daft!
If you binge on chocolate you will get sick and if you binge on bacon you will get fat, so if you binge on cannabis it will obviously have some effects! Sometimes the government should give people some self-responsiblity!!
Its time the government started treating UK citizens like adults.
With alcohol education, the government essentially says "we know you are going to drink, so let us guide you as to the right amounts you can drink responsibly; safely. Or rather thats what they should be saying.
If we apply the same theories to cannabis, this would result in a similar reduction of harm as displayed by the current anti-tobacco initiative which has seen so much success in getting young people to turn their backs on cigarettes.
'Rocket science' its not.
Its time the government started treating UK citizens like adults.
With alcohol education, the government essentially says "we know you are going to drink, so let us guide you as to the right amounts you can drink responsibly; safely. Or rather thats what they should be saying.
If we apply the same theories to cannabis, this would result in a similar reduction of harm as displayed by the current anti-tobacco initiative which has seen so much success in getting young people to turn their backs on cigarettes.
Posted by: smiffy, The Bronx on 5:50pm Mon 9 Jun 08
[quote][bold]Trixie[/bold] wrote:
I may be ignorant to the facts of cannabis,but I wouldn't want to come across anybody under its effects while they are driving![/quote] You wouldn't want to come across someone while they were drink driving either, so whats the difference? Providing nobody gets hurt people should be aloud to do what they like, does anyone really care if someone wants to have a joint at home?
Trixie wrote:
I may be ignorant to the facts of cannabis,but I wouldn't want to come across anybody under its effects while they are driving!
You wouldn't want to come across someone while they were drink driving either, so whats the difference? Providing nobody gets hurt people should be aloud to do what they like, does anyone really care if someone wants to have a joint at home?
[quote][bold]smiffy[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]Trixie[/bold] wrote: I may be ignorant to the facts of cannabis,but I wouldn't want to come across anybody under its effects while they are driving![/quote] You wouldn't want to come across someone while they were drink driving either, so whats the difference? Providing nobody gets hurt people should be aloud to do what they like, does anyone really care if someone wants to have a joint at home? [/quote] A few weeks ago I put across my views on people who drink drive. Personally, anyone who wants to use substances for recreational use that temporarily impair their judgement or ability to think straight or slows their reflexes then get in their car, if it was only themselves they hurt or killed then I would let them got on with it!
If they can only think of number 1 then in my book they're a total number 2.
smiffy wrote:
Trixie wrote: I may be ignorant to the facts of cannabis,but I wouldn't want to come across anybody under its effects while they are driving!
You wouldn't want to come across someone while they were drink driving either, so whats the difference? Providing nobody gets hurt people should be aloud to do what they like, does anyone really care if someone wants to have a joint at home?
A few weeks ago I put across my views on people who drink drive. Personally, anyone who wants to use substances for recreational use that temporarily impair their judgement or ability to think straight or slows their reflexes then get in their car, if it was only themselves they hurt or killed then I would let them got on with it!
If they can only think of number 1 then in my book they're a total number 2.
thank you alison for another enlightening article, i too was peturbed by the recent hollyoaks storyline
somewhat unbelievable to see Sash and Fletch develop such an obsessive habit so quickly
given the other storylines which have taken a long time to climax (John Paul and Craig for example), this storyline would have benefited from more time and greater.
Josh, i was disappointed by the lack of personal opinion, we all know the facts, i was interested in what you, as a youth felt.
thank you alison for another enlightening article, i too was peturbed by the recent hollyoaks storyline
somewhat unbelievable to see Sash and Fletch develop such an obsessive habit so quickly
given the other storylines which have taken a long time to climax (John Paul and Craig for example), this storyline would have benefited from more time and greater.
Josh, i was disappointed by the lack of personal opinion, we all know the facts, i was interested in what you, as a youth felt.
Posted by: Josh Tate, St. Mary Cray on 1:41pm Fri 20 Jun 08
[quote][bold]Mark[/bold] wrote:
thank you alison for another enlightening article, i too was peturbed by the recent hollyoaks storyline somewhat unbelievable to see Sash and Fletch develop such an obsessive habit so quickly given the other storylines which have taken a long time to climax (John Paul and Craig for example), this storyline would have benefited from more time and greater. Josh, i was disappointed by the lack of personal opinion, we all know the facts, i was interested in what you, as a youth felt.[/quote] Thanks Mark, I'll keep that in mind, but the facts are part of what I do feel on the subject.
Mark wrote:
thank you alison for another enlightening article, i too was peturbed by the recent hollyoaks storyline somewhat unbelievable to see Sash and Fletch develop such an obsessive habit so quickly given the other storylines which have taken a long time to climax (John Paul and Craig for example), this storyline would have benefited from more time and greater. Josh, i was disappointed by the lack of personal opinion, we all know the facts, i was interested in what you, as a youth felt.
Thanks Mark, I'll keep that in mind, but the facts are part of what I do feel on the subject.
Posted by: ste, manchester on 10:03pm Wed 6 Aug 08
i think that the whole branding of this
'new thing skunk'
is rather comparable to the 'reefer madness'
type of politically motivated anti-cannabis campaign.
skunk is simply cannabis in its natural form
cannabis resin or hash, is the refined form . not the natural
any argument that these new strains are damaging is preposterous,
even if they are stronger strains available
(which i believe is exaggerated)
so what? it simply means you need less in your joint?
overdose? impossibly you merely fall to sleep
im sick of this anti-cannabis propaganda we are being Fed, schizophrenia? correlative links.
cause and affect is yet to be establish, this is not hard evidence, simply evidence that people who are mentally ill are self medicating
the recent hollyoaks storyline was immensely unrealistic , every teen knows the dangers of heroin
is weed a gateway drug? yes
why because people realize its safer than legal drugs, and see the errors in the drug classification system and consequently experiment further with other drugs which are harmless in comparison with alcohol and tobacco
like mdma and magic mushrooms.
i completly 100% disagree with most of josh's comments
i think that the whole branding of this
'new thing skunk'
is rather comparable to the 'reefer madness'
type of politically motivated anti-cannabis campaign.
skunk is simply cannabis in its natural form
cannabis resin or hash, is the refined form . not the natural
any argument that these new strains are damaging is preposterous,
even if they are stronger strains available
(which i believe is exaggerated)
so what? it simply means you need less in your joint?
overdose? impossibly you merely fall to sleep
im sick of this anti-cannabis propaganda we are being Fed, schizophrenia? correlative links.
cause and affect is yet to be establish, this is not hard evidence, simply evidence that people who are mentally ill are self medicating
the recent hollyoaks storyline was immensely unrealistic , every teen knows the dangers of heroin
is weed a gateway drug? yes
why because people realize its safer than legal drugs, and see the errors in the drug classification system and consequently experiment further with other drugs which are harmless in comparison with alcohol and tobacco
like mdma and magic mushrooms.
i completly 100% disagree with most of josh's comments
If you liked this article and would like to share it with others on the web who might be searching for good content we've made it easy for you to do it.
At the bottom of all articles, you'll see links to six sites. These sites - commonly called 'social bookmark' or 'social news' sites - have large communities of web users who share and rate interesting, useful and fun things on the web.
Clicking the links will automatically add the address of the story you are reading to one of these sites, letting you share it with others. Each site will ask you to register to share stories. Registration is free and once a member, you can store, recommend and search for stories that interest you.
Print
Email this
Comment
