Thanks gawa, elystokie and iglugluk for the replies.
Now I get it, the politicians up here talk about decriminalisation as the opposite to their present drug policy. Legalising hasn't even been mentioned. That's why they haven't discussed tax money to the state, since selling and controlling the stuff isn't on the agenda at all.
They have changed the sex law so it's no longer a crime to sell sex, only if you buy it you commit a crime. With a drug decriminalisation it would still be a crime to sell but not to buy, if I understood correctly.
At the same time, our ChristDemocrats say we don't need any change towards a decriminalisation, since you won't get punished if you're a user and needs help as it already is, according to them.
Thanks gawa, elystokie and iglugluk for the replies.
Now I get it, the politicians up here talk about decriminalisation as the opposite to their present drug policy. Legalising hasn't even been mentioned. That's why they haven't discussed tax money to the state, since selling and controlling the stuff isn't on the agenda at all.
They have changed the sex law so it's no longer a crime to sell sex, only if you buy it you commit a crime. With a drug decriminalisation it would still be a crime to sell but not to buy, if I understood correctly.
Pretty sure the UK drug market is worth around £9 billion annually and we spend £20 billion policing it, that's apart from what we spend imprisoning people for the actual offences.
Seems daft to me.
In Switzerland, from what I read in 'Chasing the Scream', heroin decriminilisation has meant there are still dealers on the street but there's no associated violence, they stick to their own patches, some of which are in well to do areas.
They also have successfull 'Heroin Assisted Treatment' programmes running which boast an 85% success rate when measured over 3 years.
I think that's a better solution than locking people up.
Home Affairs Committee met recently to discuss the drug laws, a step in the right direction at last (a step far too small it has to be said) and a belated admission that the 1971 Misuse of Drugs act isn't fit for purpose.
I'm quite 'surprised' (I really aren't 😃) and concerned that the Home Office won't release the details of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs Council's report from 2016 - if the truth won't do, there's something wrong.
"The Home Affairs Committee is deeply concerned by the Home Office’s refusal to disclose findings of the ACMD’s 2016 report, and apparent reluctance to reduce the classification of controlled drugs on their advice. It calls on the Government to explain why this particular review, and no others, are withheld from public scrutiny."
Also from the report -
"Existing classifications of controlled substances should be reviewed by the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) to ensure they accurately reflect the risk of harm"
There was a study done back in 2008 by Professor Nutt and his team that classified the relative dangers of substances clearly, he was then sacked basically because the evidence didn't fit the policies, I see little value in going through the exercise again, it clearly showed that current legal drugs, for the most part, are far more harmful than the majority of illegal drugs, I can't see why that would change just because we're 15 years down the line.
Far too little and far too late but better than nothing I suppose.
Home Affairs Committee met recently to discuss the drug laws, a step in the right direction at last (a step far too small it has to be said) and a belated admission that the 1971 Misuse of Drugs act isn't fit for purpose.
I'm quite 'surprised' (I really aren't 😃) and concerned that the Home Office won't release the details of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs Council's report from 2016 - if the truth won't do, there's something wrong.
"The Home Affairs Committee is deeply concerned by the Home Office’s refusal to disclose findings of the ACMD’s 2016 report, and apparent reluctance to reduce the classification of controlled drugs on their advice. It calls on the Government to explain why this particular review, and no others, are withheld from public scrutiny."
Also from the report -
"Existing classifications of controlled substances should be reviewed by the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) to ensure they accurately reflect the risk of harm"
There was a study done back in 2008 by Professor Nutt and his team that classified the relative dangers of substances clearly, he was then sacked basically because the evidence didn't fit the policies, I see little value in going through the exercise again, it clearly showed that current legal drugs, for the most part, are far more harmful than the majority of illegal drugs, I can't see why that would change just because we're 15 years down the line.
Far too little and far too late but better than nothing I suppose.
Home Affairs Committee met recently to discuss the drug laws, a step in the right direction at last (a step far too small it has to be said) and a belated admission that the 1971 Misuse of Drugs act isn't fit for purpose.
I'm quite 'surprised' (I really aren't 😃) and concerned that the Home Office won't release the details of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs Council's report from 2016 - if the truth won't do, there's something wrong.
"The Home Affairs Committee is deeply concerned by the Home Office’s refusal to disclose findings of the ACMD’s 2016 report, and apparent reluctance to reduce the classification of controlled drugs on their advice. It calls on the Government to explain why this particular review, and no others, are withheld from public scrutiny."
Also from the report -
"Existing classifications of controlled substances should be reviewed by the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) to ensure they accurately reflect the risk of harm"
There was a study done back in 2008 by Professor Nutt and his team that classified the relative dangers of substances clearly, he was then sacked basically because the evidence didn't fit the policies, I see little value in going through the exercise again, it clearly showed that current legal drugs, for the most part, are far more harmful than the majority of illegal drugs, I can't see why that would change just because we're 15 years down the line.
Far too little and far too late but better than nothing I suppose.
Not at all, I believe that should be done by qualified professionals, don't you think that would lead to better outcomes than back street dealers?
Do you drink alcohol? Are you planning on being a landlord?
You appear to be somewhat bemused by my motivation on this matter.
On cannabis it doesn't matter to me, personally speaking, whether it's legal recreationally or it isn't, I'll get it delivered by DPD from the pharmacy either way.
What irks me about the current status is that I've met the parents of kids (and the kids themselves) that have fits and only cannabis can help them but it's current legal status makes it prohibitively expensive so they either go broke keeping their kid healthy, have a severely ill kid or break the law and it's not only unacceptable it's fucking ridiculous.
There are many other illnesses cannabis can help with but people are denied the benefits for no good reason and I don't mind admitting to being pissed off by it somewhat.
Regarding other drugs, I've met many parents of overdose victims, an ex undercover cop, an ex Chief Police Commissioner, scientists and a KC Barrister who's worked on many high profile drug cases that all have the same view - drug prohibition doesn't work and never has.
It's nothing to do with personal financial gain, I feel, having educated myself with the facts I feel duty bound to share them, if those facts don't suit the current narrative I'll get over it.
Don't you think our current laws, where the most dangerous drug is legal and celebrated, are absolutely ludicrous?
Not at all, I believe that should be done by qualified professionals, don't you think that would lead to better outcomes than back street dealers?
Do you drink alcohol? Are you planning on being a landlord?
You appear to be somewhat bemused by my motivation on this matter.
On cannabis it doesn't matter to me, personally speaking, whether it's legal recreationally or it isn't, I'll get it delivered by DPD from the pharmacy either way.
What irks me about the current status is that I've met the parents of kids (and the kids themselves) that have fits and only cannabis can help them but it's current legal status makes it prohibitively expensive so they either go broke keeping their kid healthy, have a severely ill kid or break the law and it's not only unacceptable it's fucking ridiculous.
There are many other illnesses cannabis can help with but people are denied the benefits for no good reason and I don't mind admitting to being pissed off by it somewhat.
Regarding other drugs, I've met many parents of overdose victims, an ex undercover cop, an ex Chief Police Commissioner, scientists and a KC Barrister who's worked on many high profile drug cases that all have the same view - drug prohibition doesn't work and never has.
It's nothing to do with personal financial gain, I feel, having educated myself with the facts I feel duty bound to share them, if those facts don't suit the current narrative I'll get over it.
Don't you think our current laws, where the most dangerous drug is legal and celebrated, are absolutely ludicrous?
Your last quote sums the western world up, if the government sell it then it must be ok….right
"Shockingly, some of this aid, totaling at least $70 million, was directed to countries with the death penalty for drug-related charges. The funding allocated to 16 governments that carry out executions for drug-related convictions is especially troubling."
And
"The War on Drugs receives more foreign aid than school food, early childhood education, labor rights, and mental health care. In the period described by the report, 92 countries received assistance for “narcotics control.” The top recipients were Colombia ($109 million), Afghanistan ($37 million), Peru ($27 million), Mexico ($21 million), Guatemala, and Panama ($10 million each)."
Future generations will look at this and be completely bemused.
"For half a century, the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 has dominated ill-judged approaches to UK drug control. Prohibition, criminalisation, blanket bans and blindness to scientific facts have distorted justice, prevented lifesaving research and thwarted calls for reform. £6.9 billion is spent annually to enforce the 50-year-old drug laws, meanwhile, the number of drug users in the UK is growing dramatically, and the drug-related death rate is 4.5 times the EU average."
The drug war (even if they use the expression "gang war" here instead) will only stop when people totally stop using drugs - both according to our former and our present Prime Minister. So that's their goal.
They will succeed, they say, even it will be done with force.
The drug war (even if they use the expression "gang war" here instead) will only stop when people totally stop using drugs - both according to our former and our present Prime Minister. So that's their goal.
They will succeed, they say, even it will be done with force.
Good luck with that one then. Humans always have and always will take drugs, legal and illegal.
"Shockingly, some of this aid, totaling at least $70 million, was directed to countries with the death penalty for drug-related charges. The funding allocated to 16 governments that carry out executions for drug-related convictions is especially troubling."
And
"The War on Drugs receives more foreign aid than school food, early childhood education, labor rights, and mental health care. In the period described by the report, 92 countries received assistance for “narcotics control.” The top recipients were Colombia ($109 million), Afghanistan ($37 million), Peru ($27 million), Mexico ($21 million), Guatemala, and Panama ($10 million each)."
Future generations will look at this and be completely bemused.
Are you sure this money actually went to fighting drugs or not just got into their pockets?
Funny you mentioned this just now, since we've had a week with just too much about gang wars and drugs, shootings and shit on tv. It has Only been about that. I'm sick and tired about it now! Anyway, the leaders of the new plan, the chief of the police, the former Prime Minister, the new Prime Minister are all very agreeable about one thing, it seems: the saved societal costs is always in proportion with how much it costs to fight gangs and drugs, they say - there's always a net profit. I have no idea how they come up with the calculations, it wasn't presented.
The former Prime Minister concluded future generations will be forever grateful we finally stopped the madness in time.
"Shockingly, some of this aid, totaling at least $70 million, was directed to countries with the death penalty for drug-related charges. The funding allocated to 16 governments that carry out executions for drug-related convictions is especially troubling."
And
"The War on Drugs receives more foreign aid than school food, early childhood education, labor rights, and mental health care. In the period described by the report, 92 countries received assistance for “narcotics control.” The top recipients were Colombia ($109 million), Afghanistan ($37 million), Peru ($27 million), Mexico ($21 million), Guatemala, and Panama ($10 million each)."
Future generations will look at this and be completely bemused.
The amounts seem very low to me. And are you sure this money went to fighting drugs or just into their pockets?
Funny you mentioned this just now, since we've had a week with just too much about gang wars and drugs, shootings and shit on tv. It has Only been about that. I'm sick and tired about it now! Anyway, the leaders of the new plan, the chief of the police, the former Prime Minister, the new Prime Minister are all very agreeable about one thing, it seems: the saved societal costs is always in proportion with how much it costs to fight gangs and drugs - there's always a net profit. I have no idea how they come up with the calculations, it wasn't presented.
The former Prime Minister concluded future generations will be forever grateful we finally stopped the madness in time.
Let's see how it works ...
I've no idea where the money went, I suspect very few people do.
I don't know how much Sweden spends but the UK apparently spends £20 billion enforcing the 'War on Drugs'*, the actual value of the market is £9 billion, I don't believe those costs include the ongoing costs of incarcerating offenders, be interesting to see how they spin it in Sweden.
The more they clamp down the more you can expect 'gang wars and drugs, shooting and shit' unless they become the first Western nation in history to prove the iron law of prohibition wrong, can't see it myself.
Future generations will look upon this period the way most sensible people view how we treated witches in years gone by, with incredulity.
*It isn't and never was a 'War on Drugs' - that's a 'transferred epithet' - similar to a 'disabled toilet' not really being disabled, it's impossible to wage war on inanimate objects, the war is actually on 'people's access to drugs'.
Home Affairs Committee met recently to discuss the drug laws, a step in the right direction at last (a step far too small it has to be said) and a belated admission that the 1971 Misuse of Drugs act isn't fit for purpose.
I'm quite 'surprised' (I really aren't 😃) and concerned that the Home Office won't release the details of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs Council's report from 2016 - if the truth won't do, there's something wrong.
"The Home Affairs Committee is deeply concerned by the Home Office’s refusal to disclose findings of the ACMD’s 2016 report, and apparent reluctance to reduce the classification of controlled drugs on their advice. It calls on the Government to explain why this particular review, and no others, are withheld from public scrutiny."
Also from the report -
"Existing classifications of controlled substances should be reviewed by the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) to ensure they accurately reflect the risk of harm"
There was a study done back in 2008 by Professor Nutt and his team that classified the relative dangers of substances clearly, he was then sacked basically because the evidence didn't fit the policies, I see little value in going through the exercise again, it clearly showed that current legal drugs, for the most part, are far more harmful than the majority of illegal drugs, I can't see why that would change just because we're 15 years down the line.
Far too little and far too late but better than nothing I suppose.
In Sweden a man in a hood and in blurred disguise said it would be a paradise if it became de-criminalised instead. He reasoned: then they could go on to do exactly what they do now, but without being chased by the police.
It's here where the difference between de-criminalisation and legalisation comes in. I get the difference now. We won't see de-criminalisation for 50 years in Sweden and legalisation for a million years in Sweden.
The drug war (even if they use the expression "gang war" here instead) will only stop when people totally stop using drugs - both according to our former and our present Prime Minister. So that's their goal.
They will succeed, they say, even it will be done with force.
Good luck with that one then. Humans always have and always will take drugs, legal and illegal.
I know ... 🤠 You could say they're trying to fight the need.
"This article analyzes the historical and normative background for the apparently exaggerated assessments of drug harms on which the regime of drug control is founded."
"It appears that the world has been more skeptical of illicit drug use than what would be warranted by its negative impact on health and behavior. Compared to alcohol use, the use of many illicit drugs does not seem to confer an especially strong tendency toward dependence formation, and tobacco appears to be the most addictive drug of all"
With regards to the legalisation of cannabis rather than all drugs, as I’ve seen many cannabis users call for it, my worry is that cannabis is the starter drug for those who go on to the much harder stuff (heroin etc). Is this the case?
I’m not sure in the case of if being legal how many it would attract to become users who are currently put off by the legal side. I’m fortunate that I’ve never struggled with any sort of addiction, I've never even smoked a cigarette, so please don’t go mad at me as it’s something I don’t really understand.
With regards to the legalisation of cannabis rather than all drugs, as I’ve seen many cannabis users call for it, my worry is that cannabis is the starter drug for those who go on to the much harder stuff (heroin etc). Is this the case?
I’m not sure in the case of if being legal how many it would attract to become users who are currently put off by the legal side. I’m fortunate that I’ve never struggled with any sort of addiction, I've never even smoked a cigarette, so please don’t go mad at me as it’s something I don’t really understand.
Someone far more qualified and knowledgeable than me addresses this notion and explains it quite succinctly -
'Myth #14. “Cannabis is a gateway drug that leads to addiction and ‘hard’ drugs.” Untrue, most young adults have used cannabis and most have not progressed onto using other drugs, nor have they become ‘addicts’. The last three Presidents of the USA all successfully used cannabis without any gateway effect.'
I think cannabis has acquired that reputation due to the fact that many dealers sell a range of 'products' and the more expensive the product the more money they make, obviously.
It's in their interests to encourage people to use more expensive drugs, that's the reason it's been considered a 'gateway drug'.
From my personal experience I've yet to encounter a drug that lowers inhibitions, leads to more risk taking behaviour and could be considered more of a gateway drug than alcohol.
I hope that answers your question, more are always welcome and indeed encouraged 🙂
With regards to the legalisation of cannabis rather than all drugs, as I’ve seen many cannabis users call for it, my worry is that cannabis is the starter drug for those who go on to the much harder stuff (heroin etc). Is this the case?
I’m not sure in the case of if being legal how many it would attract to become users who are currently put off by the legal side. I’m fortunate that I’ve never struggled with any sort of addiction, I've never even smoked a cigarette, so please don’t go mad at me as it’s something I don’t really understand.
I use cannabis with my partner. I've not touched any other drug in near 10 years. We've both suffered from depression/anxiety in the past too and are on no pharmaceutical drugs for that either.
In terms of alcohol we don't drink in the house either bar once in a blue moon. Will drink when I'm out but rarely go out drinking.
I don’t doubt that most cannabis users stick with just cannabis, but of those who do use the really bad drugs, how many maybe wouldn’t if a mild drug like cannabis wasn’t available in the first place, and in that case would legalising cannabis lead to an increase, albeit a small one, in say heroin users?
I don’t doubt that most cannabis users stick with just cannabis, but of those who do use the really bad drugs, how many maybe wouldn’t if a mild drug like cannabis wasn’t available in the first place, and in that case would legalising cannabis lead to an increase, albeit a small one, in say heroin users?
I think we should start by establishing the fact that the most dangerous drug, however hard it is to accept thanks to years of, for want of a better expression, mis-direction, is alcohol.
Given that alcohol is the most dangerous drug does it make any sense whatsoever that it's the most widely available one?
In places in the USA where cannabis has been legalised alcohol sales are down, given that cannabis helps people live longer and healthier and alcohol basically kills you in the long term I genuinely can't see how anyone can defend the current UK legal status 🤷🏻
As for heroin users increasing, I just don't see it, I know and have known many cannabis users, not a single one progressed to using heroin, in fact I can see the reverse being true, cannabis helping people off heroin.
The last three Presidents of the USA all successfully used cannabis without any gateway effect.
Thank Christ for that. Anyone who considers themselves capable enough of leading the 'free' world is arguably already mentally ill, and certainly deluded.
The last three Presidents of the USA all successfully used cannabis without any gateway effect.
Thank Christ for that. Anyone who considers themselves capable enough of leading the 'free' world is arguably already mentally ill, and certainly deluded.
🤣 Too much power to one single person is never a good thing, no matter who it is.
I don’t doubt that most cannabis users stick with just cannabis, but of those who do use the really bad drugs, how many maybe wouldn’t if a mild drug like cannabis wasn’t available in the first place, and in that case would legalising cannabis lead to an increase, albeit a small one, in say heroin users?
It's a difficult one to answer. I used cannabis and then did try acid, mdma and laughing gas at university.
I'd also gladly try magic mushrooms and maybe some other drugs in the right environment.
I think with cannabis it's sort of two things:
1. Some people judge you for using it which can lead to people keeping quiet about their habit or only using around other users a bit like a dirty secret. And if you're in the company mostly of other drug users then this can lead to doing other drugs.
2. I think when you use cannabis and enjoy the benefits from it. It results in you starting to query why it was banned in the first place and this opens your mind up to other drugs.
So I think personally its more the legality rather than the substance which leads people to using more drugs.
Because if it was never criminalised and illegal to begin with then users wouldn't need to go to dealers. And if it was legal it wouldn't be seen as a dirty habit which people have to hide not to be judged. Which can result in people spending more time with other users. And also because it wouldn't open up the users mind either about why it's banned. As in the whole "well this is actually quite safe so why was it banned for so long. Are the other drugs also banned not as bad as made out?"
You take out the whole legality issues and alot of the above never happens in my opinion.
Post by iancransonsknees on Oct 3, 2023 14:17:00 GMT
I can see both arguments.
I grew up with people who used cannabis as teenagers and are now fully functioning adults. It's a phase you try and grow out of in most instances, or understand your tolerance levels if they continue.
Others from that same group started with cannabis, then dealt it, then ended up on harder drugs, dealt them, ended up in prison; then ultimately became dependent on whatever filth they'd been peddling and died as a result of years of abusing their bodies with whatever it was. They offered no real benefit to society, rarely worked and were anti-social in the extreme with their attitudes and behaviours over the years. They're no great loss.
If legalisation puts an end to the anti-social nature of hard drug taking and allows the majority of people to feel they can use their towns and cities again without being intimidated by the behaviour of a minority of selfish users then that would be an accomplishment.
However undertaking this and delivering the necessary support services should be government controlled, staffed and managed. It should not be contracted out for organisations to bid to manage and for their chief executives and managers to enrich themselves from e.g Brighter Futures, Honeycomb Group etc.
I don’t doubt that most cannabis users stick with just cannabis, but of those who do use the really bad drugs, how many maybe wouldn’t if a mild drug like cannabis wasn’t available in the first place, and in that case would legalising cannabis lead to an increase, albeit a small one, in say heroin users?
This is one of the aspects leading to the swedish A Drug Free Generation standpoint we are thought at school and live by here. The main issue with drugs is most of them (if not all) are addictive, so you can never irresponsibly say the users take them voluntarily.
The Swedish politicians are convinced people don't need drugs. That's why they now deal with it, step by step, they say. First out the big cleaning act where they put everyone in prison, mostly back home abroad, then start preventing everyone from start using drugs in the first place. And they have explained it's a very easy task if everybody offering drugs aren't around anymore. The goal is of course to build a future society where drugs won't be needed.
The present and the former Prime Ministers even said priority number one isn't even the persons deep into the shit, but to prevent anyone from testing any drug in the first place.
Its part of a persons make up/personality to experiment. Nothing to do with cannabis. Cannabis is called a gateway as its the most common and easily available drug in the UK after beer and cigarettes. You at the same time can call cigarettes and alcohol gateway drugs, they are not its down to the individuals personality.
Thank you for your replies. The point about cannabis being available legally could reduce the amount of hard drug users is an interesting one that I hadn’t thought of.
I’m still skeptical about it all, having heard of the issues with paranoia that it can cause (heard about but admittedly know little about, is there such a thing as good and bad cannabis?), and I can’t stand the smell of it either! But given the choice of being in the company of a drunk or someone who’s clearly enjoying the effects of cannabis and it’s the smell every time.
It's part of a persons make up/personality to experiment.
At the moment yes, but not in 20 years from now, not up here anyway, it would surprise me hugely if you could still be a drug user here then.
A local politician at a square meeting talked about the new research going on how to erase the need for drugs in the brain by surgery. This kind of small meetings have been held before and I passed one once, and it has also been on tv. They have found the part of the brain where the need is located, they say. So the future treatment will be a letter from the ordinary Health Clinic to the surgeon at the Hospital if it's revealed you have used something. As usual there will be queues of course. In the future it will probably be replaced by some sort of vaccine so the need won't occur. Indirectly you will probably have to take the vaccine to keep your job et cetera. A bit like the Covid-19 injection program.
It scares me sometimes, it really does, when these kind of thoughts and this kind of research is going on, or rather ... not just "going on", it WILL happen, just like AI happens no matter if we want it or not. Sweden will definitely jump on the train some time though, together with North Korea, China, Saudi Arabia and more I would imagine.
This has absolutely nothing to do with what Dr Nutt has developed, a kind of alcohol without side effects. No side effects they know of anyway. On the contrary I would say.
In Sweden they're not interested in any side effects, but to erase the effects.
Thank you for your replies. The point about cannabis being available legally could reduce the amount of hard drug users is an interesting one that I hadn’t thought of.
I’m still skeptical about it all, having heard of the issues with paranoia that it can cause (heard about but admittedly know little about, is there such a thing as good and bad cannabis?), and I can’t stand the smell of it either! But given the choice of being in the company of a drunk or someone who’s clearly enjoying the effects of cannabis and it’s the smell every time.
Re - good and bad cannabis - some people do get paranoia now and then, the reason for this is unsurprisingly, prohibition, in a round about way.
Original cannabis strains were mostly Sativa or Indica, the former thought to be more 'energising' and the latter inducing more of the 'couchlock' effect most people associate with cannabis.
Over the years many strains have been created that are a hybrid of the two and the main aim of the seed companies was to increase the presence of THC and reduce the of CBD, CBD ameliorates the 'paranoia' effect but also reduces the effects of THC somewhat.
In an illegal industry where you get the same penalties whether you produce cannabis that has CBD in it or not it's perfectly understandable that a lot of effort was spent to create high THC strains and eliminate CBD, similar to alcohol prohibition in the USA where nobody drank beer, there was more money in moonshine for the same risk.
The smell is a peculiar thing, cannabis folk absolutely love it but there are definitely people out there who aren't 'fans' 😃
There is a company in Canada in the process of developing an 'odour' free strain - one of the advantages of legalisation 🙂
One answer is to open places like the 'Chillin Rooms' in Liverpool (now sadly closed, owner in jail) - they had an efficient air extraction system so the smell didn't bother the neighbours no matter how many people were smoking, they had bands, comedians, talks etc on and it was well attended.
I spoke to the owner before he got jailed, he had been a publican before, he said there was a fight in his pub at least once a week the whole time he did that job, when I met him he'd had the Chillin Rooms open every night for nearly 20 years without a single incident.
This is just one reason of many that I think our laws on cannabis are ridiculous.
Humans always have and always will take drugs, legal and illegal.
