Cannabis News UK

[GreenHopper]

Dear Michael,

The Government has responded to the petition you signed – “Legalise cannabis for medical and recreational use.”.

Government responded:

This Government has no plans to legalise cannabis. Raw cannabis is not recognised in the UK as having any medicinal benefit.

There is clear scientific and medical evidence that cannabis is a harmful drug which can damage people’s mental and physical health, and harms individuals and communities. The evidence from the Government’s independent experts, the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD), is that the use of cannabis is a ‘significant public health issue and can unquestionably cause harm to individuals and society’.

The decriminalisation of drugs in the UK would not eliminate the crime committed by the illicit trade nor would it address the harms associated with drug dependence and the misery this can cause to families and society. Decriminalisation or legalisation of cannabis would send the wrong message to the vast majority of people who do not take drugs, especially young and vulnerable people, with the potential grave risk of increased misuse of drugs.

When a police officer finds someone in possession of drugs, it is an operational matter as to the appropriate response. We have confidence in our police officers to assess as appropriate any enforcement action, where there is a public order or protection or local drug issue that needs addressing, rather than seek them out for drug possession offences. It is not always appropriate or conducive to the public good to arrest every person they find with a small amount of cannabis and although the police can charge individuals with a criminal offence, they can also issue a warning or an on-the-spot fine of £90 if an individual is found with cannabis.

It is important that medicines are thoroughly tested to ensure they meet rigorous standards before being placed on the market, so that doctors and patients are sure of their efficacy, quality and safety. There is a clear regime in place administered by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (‘MHRA’) to enable medicines (including controlled drugs such as cannabis) to be developed, licensed and made available for medicinal use to patients in the UK. For example, the cannabis-based medicine ‘Sativex’ has been granted Marketing Authorisation in the UK by the MHRA for the treatment of spasticity due to multiple sclerosis. Sativex was tested for its safety, efficacy and quality before receiving Marketing Authorisation approval for this application.

The MHRA is open to considering marketing authorisation approval applications for other medicinal cannabis products should a product be developed by a manufacturer. As happened in the case of Sativex, the Home Office will consider issuing a licence to enable trials of any new medicine, providing it complies with the appropriate ethical approvals.

We continue to monitor international developments on the evidence base around cannabis. The World Health Organisation’s Expert Committee on Drug Dependence has committed to reviewing the scheduling of cannabis under the UN’s 1961 Convention. This is due to consider the therapeutic use as well as dependence and the potential to abuse constituent parts of cannabis.

Home Office

We should start a parallel petition to ban the use and sale of alcohol on the basis that:

There is clear scientific and medical evidence that [alcohol] is a harmful drug which can damage people’s mental and physical health, and harms individuals and communities.

UK Chief Medical Officers’ Low Risk Drinking Guidelines

The newest evidence (available since the previous guidelines were published in 1995) suggests:

That drinking alcohol increases the risk of developing a range of cancers.

The Committee on Carcinogenicity recently concluded that ‘drinking alcohol increased the risk of getting cancers of the mouth and throat, voice box, gullet, large bowel, liver, of breast cancer in women and probably also cancer of the pancreas’. These risks start from any level of regular drinking and then rise with the amounts of alcohol being drunk.

See how they handle that conflict of interest.

In other news:

The decriminalisation of drugs in the UK would not eliminate the crime committed by the illicit trade nor would it address the harms associated with drug dependence and the misery this can cause to families and society. Decriminalisation or legalisation of cannabis would send the wrong message to the vast majority of people who do not take drugs, especially young and vulnerable people, with the potential grave risk of increased misuse of drugs.

However when observing situations where drugs have been decriminalised such as in Portugal's case:

Drug decriminalisation in Portugal: setting the record straight

Crime

Despite claims to the contrary,34 decriminalisation appears to have had a positive effect on crime. With its recategorisation of low-level drug possession as an administrative rather than criminal offence, decriminalisation inevitably produced a reduction in the number of people arrested and sent to criminal court for drug offences – from over 14,000 in the year 2000, to around 5,500-6,000 per year once the policy had come into effect.35 The proportion of drug-related offenders (defined as those who committed offences under the influence of drugs and/or to fund drug consumption) in the Portuguese prison population also declined, from 44% in 1999, to just under 21% in 2012.36

Additionally, decriminalisation does not appear to have caused an increase in crimes typically associated with drugs. While opportunistic thefts and robberies had gone up when measured in 2004, it has been suggested that this may have been because police were able to use the time saved by no longer arresting drug users to tackle (and record) other low-level crimes.37 Although difficult to test, this theory is perhaps supported by the fact that, during the same period, there was a reduction in recorded cases of other, more complex crimes typically committed by people who are dependent on drugs, such as thefts from homes and businesses.

 

[kellya86]

We should start a parallel petition to ban the use and sale of alcohol on the basis that:





See how they handle that conflict of interest.

In other news:

However when observing situations where drugs have been decriminalised such as in Portugal's case:

The hypocrisy of it all infuriates me...
On the other hand, I dont really mind the current situation... its like out motorway speed limit.. it's clearly set at 70mph, yet everyone is doing 80 to 90... and it's all fine...

Same with cannabis really now, it's bearly illegal now.... almost socially acceptable..
Times are changing....
Even if the official law is left lagging behind...

 

[GreenHopper]

The hypocrisy of it all infuriates me...

Yeh same here man.

On the other hand, I dont really mind the current situation...

Nah it's infuriating and I hate that technically I'm a criminal and could have my life ripped apart by some smug government sod with an attitude problem at any moment. I don't like being forced to hide what I do.

its like out motorway speed limit.. it's clearly set at 70mph, yet everyone is doing 80 to 90...

So what is going on with the M25, there are cameras all over it yet none of them seem to be active. Not that I'm complaining, I just don't understand the logic.

it's bearly illegal now.... almost socially acceptable..

No I disagree, it's still illegal, do not be led into a false sense of security. There may not be an active agenda right now but that could change tomorrow without any rhyme or reason. Also, it isn't socially acceptable until it is recognised by the Government as being so, currently they still claim it has no medical benefit.

Times are changing....
Even if the official law is left lagging behind...

Attitudes certainly feel like they have changed but until the law changes nothing has actually changed. You can still lose your kids, home or worse.... your stash!

 

[blackstone]

A big Hooray for this system and the folks in this part of UK!
(And thanks to my Norml FB feed for sharing this positive story.)

Cannabis ‘social’ club becomes first in UK to be backed by police

https://www.rt.com/uk/417090-cannabis-club-legal-durham/

I hope it may spread far and wide to all of its neighbours too.

 

[Alexis]

Hey fellow UK'ers. I don't know if any of you saw it but there was a rather shocking program on TV last week where in my mind it was practically an announcement that cannabis legalisation is coming to the UK for 100% definite as soon as it can be drafted in.

I made a post about it but I didn't think about this thread and made it in the "Cannabis news" thread.
I have just made another follow up post after piecing things together more clearly as to what their game is here. I would copy the posts here but I may get my wrist slapped so I will link them below if you care to have a look:
http://fuckcombustion.com/threads/cannabis-news.80/page-100#post-1254038
http://fuckcombustion.com/threads/cannabis-news.80/page-100#post-1255187

I would love to hear the thoughts of others here. Did any of you see this programme last week?
http://www.channel4.com/programmes/999-whats-your-emergency/on-demand/66291-015

If you have Flash player you should be able to watch it on the above link.

 

[mrb]

Thanks for posting @Alexis I wouldn't have seen this otherwise. I'm just watched it. I hate watching this kind of shit. You could make JUST the same program on people with booze issues, but nah, lets make all the hippies feel like c$nts.

I have to say that on the face of it I'd agree with the comments on 'Skunk' being the issue.

As a general rule in the UK, we are pretty ignorant about types, strains, of Marijuana. Even someone like me who's enjoyed it daily to weekly for about 15 years.
We rarely define it beyond 3 categories
(i'm not including the more recent but rare in the UK inclusion of concentrates, waxes, shatters that I know zero about)
- Hash (Squidgy Afghan or hard pressed Moroccan)
- Weed (basic old school flower, darker, drier, less crystally than skunk type bud)
- Skunk (What is seen today as the classic bright green high THC bud available everywhere and more predominant than the others)

In my fairly long experience, I know or know of several people who had variations of the typical bad reactions people fear about cannabis.
EVERY TIME it is a young ish person 15-20 smoking 'Skunk'. I 100% agree that the negatives of cannabis are mostly linked to the higher potency substances available. Paranoia, anxiety etc are all far more common with high potency cannabis. I know because I've been through it. I was always fine, but I realised in my 20s that while the high potency stuff could be fun, I was much better off with the lower potency stuff like hash and bush weed.

Do I agree that all types of weed that we in the UK currently label as 'Skunk' should be banned? NO!

It seems to me that most of the cannabis available here in the UK is very strong type of the cannabis we generically label as Skunk. I enjoy it myself, but only on occasion, and I wouldn't want it to be my normal use. I prefer more basic 'Weed' and Hash.
However I am fully aware that there are cannabis types, that we would label Skunk here in the UK, that are not so ridiculously strong. And if you head to Amsterdam, where you can choose off a menu, then there are definitely nice types of cannabis that we in the UK would generically label as Skunk.

It's a bit of a mine field, but ultimately I agree that the high potency THC stuff is the biggest problem creator, and I'm fine with a legalisation that factors that in. Even if the initial ruling is a bit naive, I'd rather be in a "room for improvement" situation than where we are right now.

 

[Alexis]

Thanks for posting @Alexis I wouldn't have seen this otherwise. I'm just watched it. I hate watching this kind of shit. You could make JUST the same program on people with booze issues, but nah, lets make all the hippies feel like c$nts.

I have to say that on the face of it I'd agree with the comments on 'Skunk' being the issue.

As a general rule in the UK, we are pretty ignorant about types, strains, of Marijuana. Even someone like me who's enjoyed it daily to weekly for about 15 years.
We rarely define it beyond 3 categories
(i'm not including the more recent but rare in the UK inclusion of concentrates, waxes, shatters that I know zero about)
- Hash (Squidgy Afghan or hard pressed Moroccan)
- Weed (basic old school flower, darker, drier, less crystally than skunk type bud)
- Skunk (What is seen today as the classic bright green high THC bud available everywhere and more predominant than the others)

In my fairly long experience, I know or know of several people who had variations of the typical bad reactions people fear about cannabis.
EVERY TIME it is a young ish person 15-20 smoking 'Skunk'. I 100% agree that the negatives of cannabis are mostly linked to the higher potency substances available. Paranoia, anxiety etc are all far more common with high potency cannabis. I know because I've been through it. I was always fine, but I realised in my 20s that while the high potency stuff could be fun, I was much better off with the lower potency stuff like hash and bush weed.

Do I agree that all types of weed that we in the UK currently label as 'Skunk' should be banned? NO!

It seems to me that most of the cannabis available here in the UK is very strong type of the cannabis we generically label as Skunk. I enjoy it myself, but only on occasion, and I wouldn't want it to be my normal use. I prefer more basic 'Weed' and Hash.
However I am fully aware that there are cannabis types, that we would label Skunk here in the UK, that are not so ridiculously strong. And if you head to Amsterdam, where you can choose off a menu, then there are definitely nice types of cannabis that we in the UK would generically label as Skunk.

It's a bit of a mine field, but ultimately I agree that the high potency THC stuff is the biggest problem creator, and I'm fine with a legalisation that factors that in. Even if the initial ruling is a bit naive, I'd rather be in a "room for improvement" situation than where we are right now.

I do agree fully with everything you say, and I like the way you keep it open and not at all black and white.
I am not actually disputing this line of thought. However, my strong feeling has always been that it may be the chemicals used in manufacturing the weed that cause a lot of problems.

Chemicals subtly yet powerfully alter the way weed affects consciousness.

My main point here though, was not disputing the logic, it was simply interpreting their stance and game. They are equivocating, as they are genuinely concerned about their credibility.

So this is their get out of jail card. Just emphasise how this innocent misunderstanding is the main reason why they have (perhaps incorrectly, unfairly, unjustifiably) demonised cannabis so heavily for so long.

That sort of ploy anyway just to cover their backs in an attempt to keep some credibility AND respect for the law.
Personally I just dont see how they could possibly regulate this anyway. How can they classify clearly what is Skunk and what is not. Where do you draw the line? Absolutley nowhere else in the world of cannabis legalisation has any such model been adopted or even proposed, as far as Im aware (?).

So I just dont see it having any traction going forward. The truth in the matter is irrelevant to their real interests and intentions, IMO.
This programme was pure propaganda. This is how I very strongly believe it to be anyway, but we will see.

There was also a short feature on cannabis legalisation on channel 4 news 2 weeks ago. You may be able to find it? There was some conference in London with MPs, regulators and all sorts to discuss the topic.

The government appears to have heels in mud still insisting they wont consider re-classifying cannabis until the WHO's review next year.

 

[Nooky72]

Not sure if this has been shared previously but it sums up the hypocrisy of the U.K. government when it comes to marijuana and their 'official stance'.

https://www.clear-uk.org/paul-kenwa...s-mp-uk-drugs-minister-grows-cannabis-living/

The buds look amazing in that picture btw.

Hopefully wider exposure of these kind of conflicts of interest / blatant hypocrisy will help to accelerate the legalisation of this amazing plant in the UK sooner rather than later.

 

[verdampersweats]

@Nooky72

Theresa May has a husband called Phillip his investments include Cannabis they are the biggest investor in GW Pharma who produce the private grown weed for export. And in this the UK is the biggest exporter?!

Now to keep it illegal and private and highly priced the drugs minister has a husband who grows it in the uk under the name British Sugar. So they have a conflicted interest and a bit if a racket going where the men work on cannabis production and the wife will be the one working against legalization.

Look it up and then google billy caldwell who nearly died because they deny THC has medicinal value. Yet if it had no value why grow and export sativex? I guess they know better than the Egyptians,Chinese,Greeks and Romans who openly used it for many things. Maybe if they did some trials they might see but they have no trials done how much of a joke is the UK on medicine.


I will say also this kind of thing where this oil Epidolex is going to be on the NHS is wrong because this apparantly sells at 2500 to 5000 dollars per month. Yet you can produce it at home for free. How much is oil from tea tree and harder to grow plants? Its going to break the NHS if they get away with this kind of privitised cannabis we wont have a health service left. But if they do this and pay 5k a month on oil i actually would hope for the swift death of the NHS and idiots who sanction 5k a month for oil.

 

[Alexis]

Its just a matter of time now guys, you watch and see. It is officially on the agenda, behind closed doors. Strategies are already mounting furiously as the safest, most damage limiting route to instigation is to be decided and acted upon swifly.

By the time there is an official announcement it will be happening we will be the last people to know and the process will already have been underway.
The first hurdle for the government is still to protect their credibility and make this sudden you turn without alienating themselves with the anti marijuana folk who they have brainwashed for so long.

So they need to do a little propaganda somewhere along the line. And with the incompetence of the British government even when it is full speed ahead I can see them taking the heck of a long time dealing with the red tape and ins and outs of everything.

But one thing is absolutely certain and it is going to happen and it's not going to be more than two years before it's in full swing I'm hoping sooner than that, but if you had asked me just 2 months ago then this would have been my wishful thinking rather than my firm actual belief

 

[Skunkport]

Thanks for posting @Alexis I wouldn't have seen this otherwise. I'm just watched it. I hate watching this kind of shit. You could make JUST the same program on people with booze issues, but nah, lets make all the hippies feel like c$nts.

I have to say that on the face of it I'd agree with the comments on 'Skunk' being the issue.

As a general rule in the UK, we are pretty ignorant about types, strains, of Marijuana. Even someone like me who's enjoyed it daily to weekly for about 15 years.
We rarely define it beyond 3 categories
(i'm not including the more recent but rare in the UK inclusion of concentrates, waxes, shatters that I know zero about)
- Hash (Squidgy Afghan or hard pressed Moroccan)
- Weed (basic old school flower, darker, drier, less crystally than skunk type bud)
- Skunk (What is seen today as the classic bright green high THC bud available everywhere and more predominant than the others)

In my fairly long experience, I know or know of several people who had variations of the typical bad reactions people fear about cannabis.
EVERY TIME it is a young ish person 15-20 smoking 'Skunk'. I 100% agree that the negatives of cannabis are mostly linked to the higher potency substances available. Paranoia, anxiety etc are all far more common with high potency cannabis. I know because I've been through it. I was always fine, but I realised in my 20s that while the high potency stuff could be fun, I was much better off with the lower potency stuff like hash and bush weed.

Do I agree that all types of weed that we in the UK currently label as 'Skunk' should be banned? NO!

It seems to me that most of the cannabis available here in the UK is very strong type of the cannabis we generically label as Skunk. I enjoy it myself, but only on occasion, and I wouldn't want it to be my normal use. I prefer more basic 'Weed' and Hash.
However I am fully aware that there are cannabis types, that we would label Skunk here in the UK, that are not so ridiculously strong. And if you head to Amsterdam, where you can choose off a menu, then there are definitely nice types of cannabis that we in the UK would generically label as Skunk.

It's a bit of a mine field, but ultimately I agree that the high potency THC stuff is the biggest problem creator, and I'm fine with a legalisation that factors that in. Even if the initial ruling is a bit naive, I'd rather be in a "room for improvement" situation than where we are right now.

Nope. The comments on Skunk are laughably misguided and I'm shocked that anyone claiming to be experienced is taking them seriously instead of lying on the floor laughing.

I've been smoking 25 years and I'm extremely conversant with all forms of cannabis, as are most people I know. We did have one of the UK's first Coffeeshops 2 miles from my house in 2001 to 2003 so maybe it's more common here in Manchester.

Bad reactions are nothing to do with skunk. Just about everybody I know has had a bad reaction when they started smoking, going on a 'White One' was a rite of passage back in the day. We never saw skunk then, we rarely saw bud, there was occasionally Thai stick or little containers of kief we called 'Pollen'.


The fact you term hash lower potency than skunk shows you don't really understand either. Hash is higher potency than buds in every single possible case unless your hash is adulterated with crap.

Hash is equivalent to alcoholic spirits in that it's the purified version of the basic wine or beer. The only reason it can ever be weaker is if it's mixed, which is usually a very very bad thing as the adulterants used range from diesel fuel to toluene, benzene, coffee grounds, plastic or whatever else the guys making that crap have lying around. Stop buying crappy Sputnik, it all went awful around 1996 when the Taliban took over Afghanistan.


If a certain type of weed is too strong for you, we have a method to fix that. It's called 'Put Less In'.

 

[Megaton]

I kind of wonder though, will the NHS make it difficult to legalise weed in the UK, as if its deemed medical, will the NHS be able to provide free weed to everyone with a "medical card" or equivilent?

 

[Skunkport]

If we had sensible, intelligent people in charge, yes, easily. Obvious answer is make the NHS suppliers of both medical and recreational, profits from recreational pay for the medical.

Unfortunately we don't have anyone sensible or intelligent in our government so who knows?

 

[Megaton]

Nationalised weed sounds great to me!

 

[mrb]

Nope. The comments on Skunk are laughably misguided and I'm shocked that anyone claiming to be experienced is taking them seriously instead of lying on the floor laughing.

I've been smoking 25 years and I'm extremely conversant with all forms of cannabis, as are most people I know. We did have one of the UK's first Coffeeshops 2 miles from my house in 2001 to 2003 so maybe it's more common here in Manchester.

Bad reactions are nothing to do with skunk. Just about everybody I know has had a bad reaction when they started smoking, going on a 'White One' was a rite of passage back in the day. We never saw skunk then, we rarely saw bud, there was occasionally Thai stick or little containers of kief we called 'Pollen'.


The fact you term hash lower potency than skunk shows you don't really understand either. Hash is higher potency than buds in every single possible case unless your hash is adulterated with crap.

Hash is equivalent to alcoholic spirits in that it's the purified version of the basic wine or beer. The only reason it can ever be weaker is if it's mixed, which is usually a very very bad thing as the adulterants used range from diesel fuel to toluene, benzene, coffee grounds, plastic or whatever else the guys making that crap have lying around. Stop buying crappy Sputnik, it all went awful around 1996 when the Taliban took over Afghanistan.


If a certain type of weed is too strong for you, we have a method to fix that. It's called 'Put Less In'.

WOW. Now that you've finished patting your self on the back for being the pot king, may I ask for a friendlier vibe the next time you address me? Please and thank you.

I don't think I've ever claimed to know a lot about this subject. I literally said in my post that I was pretty ignorant on it!

None of the serious concerns on this issue come from someone who pulls a white one, as you call it, because they've overdosed themselves a bit. The issue is people developing serious and sometimes permanent phycological issues.

I've had pollen hash beaten/made in front of my eyes in Chefchouen/Morocco several times. The comments from my previous post still stand, in my experience.

 

[Skunkport]

That wasn't unfriendly. Vape a bowl and relax before reading if it's seeming harsh.

You mentioned your 'fairly long experience' and I didn't say you knew a lot (in fact my post was pointing out you don't) I said you were claiming experience.

There have been exactly zero proven cases of cannabis ever causing psychosis as far as I'm currently aware, although there has been strong evidence that it can worsen existing conditions.
Again, this has absolutely nothing to do with the type of cannabis consumed.

Please don't base anything at all, ever, especially cannabis facts, upon UK media sources. It's extremely easy to find actual medical and scientific papers online and it's quite amusing how often the very papers that news articles are apparently based on completely contradict what the reporters have said.


I've made my own pollen and also my own hash and my own oil. I have shatter made by my neighbour who sells it online.

Your anecdotal experience does not disprove actual science.

A high-potency cannabis bud, properly grown, might be as much as 30% THC-A. That is far stronger than crappy bush or older sensi.

The best hash made so far is 99.9% THC-A.

You literally make hash by taking the active ingredients out of weed and throwing away the bits that don't get you high.
You concentrate it, that makes it stronger.
Even hash made (properly, not some morrocan whacking a brown bud over a crappy muslin screen in the harsh sunlight) from crap weed should be far stronger than the best bud you can find.

 

[mrb]

You mentioned your 'fairly long experience' and I didn't say you knew a lot (in fact my post was pointing out you don't) I said you were claiming experience.

Jesus! What's your point?

I my original post I said I was . . "pretty ignorant about types, strains, of Marijuana" despite "15 years of use"

Are you trying to invalidate either of these statements? No. You're repeating them at me like ammunition for some weird reason. I guess it makes you feel better.

You're the bigger stoner

 

[Skunkport]

I mentioned the experience offhand, how about focusing on the actual subject instead of trying to hide your complete ignorance of the subject by acting offended?

Skunk is not bad. That program is idiotic. You don't have a clue what you're talking about.

Those are my actual points, now settle down, take a big hit of your poisonous chemical-laded sputnik and try responding to those if you can. Except obviously you can't.

 

[mrb]

I never argued with your actual points! I've got a problem with your attitude! Specifically that you felt like you needed to come in and insult me multiple times! (<4 posts in to your sign up here)
Even in your last post you still say I'm trying to "hide my ignorance" - I SAID I WAS IGNORANT in the first post! Literally said that! - But you keep throwing it back at me as an insult - What is the point of all this? To make yourself feel better - or me feel worse??

Never had an issue with, or EVEN MENTIONED your information on the subject - Just tried to establish why you were acting like a fucking cock towards me.

 

[Skunkport]

My attitude started off perfectly fine, I'm starting to get a little irritated at your conviction I'm insulting you somehow though and this is the last time I'll bother responding to that.

I said "The comments on Skunk are laughably misguided and I'm shocked that anyone claiming to be experienced is taking them seriously instead of lying on the floor laughing."

You've now been whining about that for 14 hours and 3 posts.
How on earth do you get through a normal day in real life if this is how badly mild criticism on the internet affects you?
Get over it already.

Now do you have anything interesting to say on the actual subject?

 

[mrb]

Fine - In over a year here, and 267 posts, you're the first person I've been annoyed with. Maybe I've finally snapped or maybe your manner towards me was unnecessarily rude and condescending. . . we can let it rest as now, especially as it seems we're moving into insults about how I spend my time on the internet.

 

[Skunkport]

Not really UK wide news but....a new Cannabis Club has opened in Manchester. So far it's private members only, I got an invite from the guy who's opened it earlier today but I only bumped into him on my way out for a bike ride so not many details.

I'm a bit dubious about the location. Apparently it's next to Strangeways prison, that seems bad luck to me!

 

[kellya86]

Hey fellow UK'ers. I don't know if any of you saw it but there was a rather shocking program on TV last week where in my mind it was practically an announcement that cannabis legalisation is coming to the UK for 100% definite as soon as it can be drafted in.

I made a post about it but I didn't think about this thread and made it in the "Cannabis news" thread.
I have just made another follow up post after piecing things together more clearly as to what their game is here. I would copy the posts here but I may get my wrist slapped so I will link them below if you care to have a look:
http://fuckcombustion.com/threads/cannabis-news.80/page-100#post-1254038
http://fuckcombustion.com/threads/cannabis-news.80/page-100#post-1255187

I would love to hear the thoughts of others here. Did any of you see this programme last week?
http://www.channel4.com/programmes/999-whats-your-emergency/on-demand/66291-015

If you have Flash player you should be able to watch it on the above link.

How did i miss this... watching now...

Hash is higher potency than buds in every single possible case unless your hash is adulterated with crap.

Uk soap bar is a prime example of poor quality hash specifically produced for our market...
Smoked a ton of that crap as a kid..

Im glad the uk news thread has picked up..
Alot is happening lately...

The first hurdle for the government is still to protect their credibility and make this sudden you turn without alienating themselves with the anti marijuana folk who they have brainwashed for so long.

This is a major issue to get past... not sure how they are gonna do this....

 

[Alexis]

This is a major issue to get past... not sure how they are gonna do this....

I dont think they are tbh, and I don't think they think they will be able to either. So it is a case of damage limitation but they will not be satisfied with any possible strategy that you could string together now this will be on them too soon and they are already scurrying like pathological crackheads inventing stories and plots which gets more ridiculous and unbelievable by the minute.

Enjoy the programme let's see how you intrepret it in relation to what ae have been proposing.
Im pretty confident that we have a fairly accurate picture of the scenario and what their hidden hand is doing inside that pocket.

 

[Skunkport]

Our government hasn't had any credibility for decades and the idiots stupid or fanatical enough to still believe in any of them are just going to ignore contradictory facts like they've been doing for years


Also, I'm not sure where you watched it, but that was shown Monday the 4th of September last year, it's not a new program.
I haven't watched it and I'm never ever going to unless it shows up somewhere else, channel 4 wants me to register! Nope, I don't register to break the law thanks, which it would be since I don't pay for a TV licence. I refuse to fund the BBC because they're shit.

It says it's about Wiltshire police and joyriders, plus it's by channel 4 who aren't ran by the government so I'm really not sure how it's connected to legalization anyway, is there a summary anywhere?