The front was about a headline they had 10 years ago saying: LEGALISE CANNBIS todays page said: CANNABIS APOLOGY - IF ONLY WE KNEW WHAT WE DID 10 YEARS AGO.
They really lay into pot ! :(
they also claim a ounce is £45 lmao!
Printable View
The front was about a headline they had 10 years ago saying: LEGALISE CANNBIS todays page said: CANNABIS APOLOGY - IF ONLY WE KNEW WHAT WE DID 10 YEARS AGO.
They really lay into pot ! :(
they also claim a ounce is £45 lmao!
its not? :wtf:Quote:
Originally Posted by robert42
lol a ounce of skunk is £45 yea?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Pipes
no, an ounce of hash is £45-£50 up here... actual bud is a bit more expensive tho :)
Bastards.
Independent Online Edition > Leading Articles
Leading article: Cannabis: a retraction
Published: 18 March 2007
Yes, our front page today is calculated to grab your attention. We do not really believe that The Independent on Sunday was wrong at the time, 10 years ago, when we called for cannabis to be decriminalised. As Rosie Boycott, who was the editor who ran the campaign, argues, the drug that she sought to decriminalise then was rather different from that which is available on the streets now.
Indeed, this newspaper's campaign was less avant-garde than it seemed. Only four years later, The Daily Telegraph went farther, calling for cannabis to be legalised for a trial period. We were leading a consensus, which even this Government - often guilty of gesture-authoritarianism - could not resist, downgrading cannabis from class B to class C.
At the same time, however, two things were happening. One was the shift towards more powerful forms of the drug, known as skunk. The other was the emerging evidence of the psychological harm caused to a minority of users, especially teenage boys and particularly associated with skunk.
We report today that the number of cannabis users on drug treatment programmes has risen 13-fold since our campaign was launched, and that nearly half of the 22,000 currently on such programmes are under the age of 18. Of course, part of the explanation for this increase is that the provision of treatment is better than it was 10 years ago. But there is no question, as Robin Murray, one of the leading experts in this field, argues on these pages, that cannabis use is associated with growing mental health problems.
Another campaign run - more recently - by this newspaper is to raise awareness of mental health issues and to press the Government to improve provision for those suffering from mental illnesses. The threat to mental health posed by cannabis has to take precedence over the liberal instinct that inspired Ms Boycott 10 years ago.
Many elements of her campaign remain valid today, however. The diversion of police resources into picking up easy convictions for cannabis possession was a waste. The rhetoric of the "war on drugs" tended to distort priorities: the current shift towards a strategy of harm reduction is a long overdue correction. Where we part company with her is on her view that the legalisation of all drugs is desirable because it would end the involvement of organised crime. So it might, but the fact that the possession of cannabis - and other drugs - is illegal acts as an important social restraint.
In fact, there is a strong case for believing that the present state of the law and of government policy is about right. The way the police enforce the law seems to be a reasonable compromise, while the emphasis of public policy is on information, education and treatment. The more the facts can be driven home about the differences between old-style hash and modern skunk, and about the risks to mental health, the better. And the more that policy towards drugs generally focuses on the causes of addictive or self-destructive behaviour, rather than locking people up, the better still.
The growing evidence of the risk of psychological harm posed by cannabis means that the time has come for us to reverse one of the positions with which - before the Iraq war - this newspaper was most identified.
We quote John Maynard Keynes in our defence: "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"
they mean soapbar... its actually 35...Quote:
they also claim a ounce is £45 lmao!
they don't specify actually, they just say 'cannabis' is '£43' per ounce...
43, lol
I was absolutely outraged about this when i saw it on sunday. I read it and it was all bullshit. They were saying how it was SO addictive and SKUNK is so strong they now compared to those days that they were comparing it to heoine and cocaine :( That was ridiculous. The more potent it is the less you need to smoke.Quote:
Originally Posted by robert42
I just think it's dumb that they're like "we said that in the past, but now this new type of weed - skunk - is available".. As if people weren't smoking that shit in the 70s.. lol
yeah, the whole 'new stain called skunk' shit pisses me off so much.
"The inexperienced asre always the most ignorant"
I always find it funny that people making htese claims don't even smoke pot, or have even tried this new wave of Skunk. That above saying is a saying for a reason.
If you ask me, cannabis had the potential of being just as potent as todays. Back then, proper lighting hadn't even been introduced yet, and if it had, it was very expensive, so without proper lighting, you don't get quality cannabis. My dad told me he used to use a 2 40W floro bulbs to grow. 80W of light back then, so you grow a 5ft plant with 80W of floro. light, and tell us how it is. :p Of course it was shit, but since new lighting and growing techniques have been discovered, more strains are out there, and you can use equipt. to grow it properly.
That's how I see it anyways. Take some Panama Red from the 1970's, grow that stuff using proper lighting and techniques, and I think it will be just as good as the WW or Blueberry out there. New technology has given growers a chance to advance.
what about outdoor?
Good question actually.Quote:
Originally Posted by BUZz UK
I think back then, they weren't really aware of seperating the males from the females. Seeded cannabis was very common back then and I don't think they knew that once seed production started, THC production stopped.
I think it all comes down to really knowing the cannabis plant. Advanced techniques never started until the mid 70's or. Then it was plant the seed, let it grow, cut and smoke it. Now there are varities of food to use. Back then, there wasn't, and food is essential to getting quality cannabis.
From what I hear, there was still amazing cannabis back then, some say even better than some of todays, but I think very few people even new of proper growing. They just wanted to grow vast amounts and smoke it. People these days are all about quality over quanitity.
Then again, I was born in 1982, so I guess I'm not 100% sure, but I have seen some of veteran tokers on here saying some of the cannabis back then was even better than todays. :)
papers are always full of bullshit
everybody knows it does nothing harmful
we just wanna have fun :p
dont believe the hype yo'
(im a gangsta you see homie)
lkol yea its bullshit it annoys me allot tho!
i got worked up, i wanted to plant a seed in the writers ass!
ifit was 42 then id be freaked :pQuote:
Originally Posted by BUZz UK
PS
good to see u around man ;) us brits gotta stick togeter FIGHT 4 FREDOM!
damn right,
god damn im caned.
Shit guys...my dealer tried to sell me some stuff called "skunk" the other day...
i said "no way man, i dont use that hard shit" and i walked away...
SKUNK - JUST SAY NO KIDS!
Ya these dudes have been coming into playgrounds here and blowing skunk smoke at all the little kids to get 'em hooked.. man, it's like an epidemic..
More like a pandemic :P
that is bad.
by chance I BOUGHT AN INDEPENDENT TODAY as a trial, I always buy the guardian, never again,
BOYCOTT INDEPENDENT! (and the daily mail whilst we're at it eh)
true the independant is a bit shit, and don't even get me started on the Daily Hate-Mail, but "la guardia" isn't much better...load of lefty tossers with plenty of criticisms and no solutions...
Meh. My advice: don't read any of the tabloids, they all suck. Watch ABC and CNN round the clock instead. :D
Question is, what are we going to do about this? If the leading British paper has caved in to some unseen pressure, then perhaps we should be writing to inform them that the only reason more young lads are going nuts is the increased usage amongst the young.
If the THC market had been legalized 20 years ago, our kids wouldn't know a great deal about it as it would be an adult thing without advertising.
There has been studies to show that the chance of any adverse psychosis is greatly reduced from the age of 21 onwards.
Perhaps if we had a network of coffeeshops to accept young people into a normal society network instead of random rumour of whats good and bad on the streets of our cities, we wouldn't have this problem.
Legalisation would bring Hash and weed without criminal corruption of people and goods(goodies), no more soapbar or glassweed(still reeling from hearing about that stuff!).
Perhaps we should make a list of all the reasons to legalise THC in any form, and lets be fair, any reasons against legalisation so we can put it forward to the papers for a fair argument. Perhaps a new thread is in order?
Aren't these papers run by the gov. anyway? I can't beleive this propaganda in the year 2007, they must never have heard of the Netherlands.
Makes ya blood boil.:mad: Open your eyes people, the truth is out there!
Peace
Buddy