Drugs vs Alcohol: What's Better for You?

[russ_watters]

Point one is pretty much spot on, although both alcohol and drugs behind the wheel is not tolerated at all.

Well, no, you could drink up to about 2 drinks immediatly before getting behind the wheel and it isn't illegal.

Point two is pretty accurate as well, however are you allowed to really drink in public areas? With public areas here I mean for example on the street. It officially isn't allowed here neither is it for drugs, yet both are condoned. Smoking marijuana in places like pubs is not allowed here either, however neither is smoking these days.

No, not on the street in most places. It varies widely from state to state, but it is pretty common for smoking to be banned but drinking to be allowed at things like sporting events. And, of course, drinking is ok in bars and smoking is not (in many - and a growing number of - states).

Product safety regulation doesn't seem to be an issue. People tend to drink a lot more than they do smoke marijuana.

I'd be interested to know the actual proportions, but there are an awful lot of responsible drinkers out there who drink one or two drinks at a time and never get to the legal limit. With smoking pot, there could be no reasonable equivalent to that (see, point #1 about alcohol's acceptable dosage).

 

[russ_watters]

The negative effects of alcohol are much more damaging than the effects of marijuana. No one dies due to Cannabis consumption -- so the argument that more people use alcohol which will result in more deaths is moot. The X deaths per year from alcohol will always be > 0 deaths per year from Cannabis.

It isn't true that pot never leads to death. You've seen examples of it in this thread! But here are some stats, to put a finer point on it:

People who drive after using marijuana are nearly twice as likely to be involved in a fatal car crash.

French researchers studied all drivers involved in fatal car crashes over a two-year period and found 7% tested positive for marijuana, including nearly 3% who tested positive for a combination of marijuana and alcohol.

Although marijuana's share of fatal crashes is much lower than those attributed to alcohol, researchers say the results show that marijuana use, even in low doses, significantly increases the risk of fatal car accidents.

http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/news/20051201/marijuana-raises-risk-of-fatal-car-crash

Moonbear made the point that alcoholic beverages have applications other than intoxication (food for example). This is true also of the Cannabis plant. Hemp was the most widely used material for rope and served as as the base for an assortment of other products.

You're missing the point - the point was that alcohol can be "normally" consumed without intoxication, pot cannot.

 

[russ_watters]

I thought different levels of consumption (whether it be cannabis or alcohol) lead to different levels of intoxication.

That is certainly true, but incomplete. What I am saying is that the first or second or third drink won't take you to "intoxication" (in other words, above the legal limit), whereas the first joint will, if done correctly.

Or are you saying that pot smoking is never practiced at the low levels of intoxication that limited alcohol consumption provides?

It is my understanding that if done properly, the first hit (much less entire joint) gets you to "intoxication". With alcohol, somewhere around two drinks gets you to "influence" and 5 "intoxication" (highly individual dependent, of course), according to DUI/DWI laws*. No one smokes pot because they like the taste, unlike with alcohol or cigarettes. Intoxication is the only purpose and only proper result of using it.

Applied to driving - and I don't know if there is a way to test this - the legal limit for pot would have to be below the level received by one hit. That's a pretty major practical difference from alcohol (if pot were legalized).

*This varies widely from state to state. Some states have "driving under the influence" and "driving while intoxicated". Others drop "driving while intoxicated", but afaik, even these still have multiple levels: they drop the different terminology and just have tiered levels of DUI, which for practical purposes means the same thing. For clarity, I'm differentiating between "influence" and "intoxication" the same way state laws do. The point is, there is a minimum dose that you have to take before you'll end up running afoul of DUI law. This minimum dose idea, as a practical matter, would not work for pot.

 

[Gokul43201]

Well, no, you could drink up to about 2 drinks immediatly before getting behind the wheel and it isn't illegal.

That's in the US. Many other countries have lower limits. In most of the Slavic countries, you are not allowed any amount alcohol before driving (not sure how they test that, but then I have no idea how someone determines if you are still intoxicated from smoking pot X hours ago either). In the Netherlands, where Cyosis is presumably from, you could be over the legal limit with one drink (depending on your driving history). Many northern European states also seem to have this low (0.02%) limit which, I believe, is essentially set by the sensitivity of breathalyzers.

 

[Pengwuino]

One of the things I keep noticing in this thread is people saying people who smoke marijuana have fewer problems associated with its use then cigarettes thus marijuana is safer. The problem with that to me is people don't smoke marijuana like people smoke cigarettes. Hell I'd hope people aren't smoking the equivalent of 1-2 "packs" of marijuana a day!

Also the idea that no one gets hurt when using marijuana is laughable. Boy I remember a hilarious story from high school. This guy and his friend were high and they were outside in their neighborhood and they yelled at this group of gang bangers (they yelled something stupid) who were similarly high. Fast forward, the guys hospitalized. Oh and it's hilarious because the guy was an idiot... kinda had it coming. Of course there's also the driving while high... it's amazing people don't think that's dangerous.

Now as for speculation... I bet if marijuana was as readily available and as cheap as cigarettes, it'd be more apparent what the dangers are.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Now as for speculation... I bet if marijuana was as readily available and as cheap as cigarettes, it'd be more apparent what the dangers are.

A bit ironic when you think about it. How many people die now because drugs are illegal? The crime and violence associated with drugs is mostly about, the money, and the black market that the laws create. What is even more ironic is that the laws clearly don't work. If anything, beyond even the crime and violence, I think the laws make the problem worse.

 

[chroot]

No one smokes pot because they like the taste, unlike with alcohol or cigarettes. Intoxication is the only purpose and only proper result of using it.

It could be argued that no one likes the taste of cigarettes, either. They enjoy (or need) the nicotine, and come to associate the taste of cigarettes with feeling good. "Liking the taste" of cigarettes is just a paradoxical rationalization of an addiction to nicotine.

- Warren

 

[turbo]

A bit ironic when you think about it. How many people die now because drugs are illegal? The crime and violence associated with drugs is mostly about the money, and the black market that the laws create.

Yep! Organized crime in the Prohibition Era got a huge boost from smuggling, and violence was rampant as the gangs sought to gather and hold territory. Anybody see any parallels in "gang" violence? If we are unwilling to accept the mistakes of our past, we will make the same mistakes again and again with predictable results.

 

[chroot]

If anything, beyond even the crime and violence, I think the laws make the problem worse.

Have you seen this documentary? Kevin Booth's American Drug War It's excellent.

- Warren

 

[Pengwuino]

A bit ironic when you think about it. How many people die now because drugs are illegal? The crime and violence associated with drugs is mostly about the money, and the black market that the laws create. What is even more ironic is that the laws clearly don't work. If anything, beyond even the crime and violence, I think the laws make the problem worse.

Ok for one, jesus christ, change your avatar! that scared the hell out of me, and I'm not even stoned!

As for the topic, I meant physiological. I think everyone agrees there's at least a bit of violence created by marijuana. Mind you, violence because of marijuana. I don't do any drugs and thus have very very weak anecdote evidence but the people I've known have all gotten their marijuana from home growers which aren't typically part of the whole drug-violence culture. The violence is probably with larger distributors who are probably distributing more then just marijuana.

Oh and one separate question I swear I've never received an answer to by anyone is this. Why exactly does making marijuana legal and highly taxed result in people using less of it? I always hear this but I immediately think "wait, it can be home grown... how well can you REALLY control the price of something you can grow at home?"

 

[Pengwuino]

One thing I'd like to know is how much of different drugs are sold in the US. That is, how many $millions of marijuana is sold in the US, how many $millions of heroine, cocaine, meth, etc etc. I'm not sure how to accurately google that question haha. Any suggestions?

 

[chroot]

how well can you REALLY control the price of something you can grow at home?"

People can brew their own beer at home, yet taxes on alcohol are enormously lucrative. The reason? Only a few people -- true enthusiasts -- choose to brew their own beer, when good beer is so easily available for such reasonable prices.

The same would be true of marijuana. The plant stinks, takes up space, and takes a lot of work. Most people would just pay $1 a joint to not have to deal with it.

- Warren

 

[Pupil]

Oh and one separate question I swear I've never received an answer to by anyone is this. Why exactly does making marijuana legal and highly taxed result in people using less of it? I always hear this but I immediately think "wait, it can be home grown... how well can you REALLY control the price of something you can grow at home?"

The government can't really control the price of marijuana or anything other than a natural monopoly. That isn't the job of government. If you really want, you can grow tobacco at home, or watermelon, or anything grow-able, for the most part. The point of the tax isn't to get people to stop smoking (that will just make the underground market bigger), it's to get some cash from the big corporations that will be selling marijuana. The GDP of the country will increase a bit when Weed-Mart sets up shop.

 

[Kronos5253]

Right, I'm putting this here first to get some general opinions and if it eventually gets moved to a biology/medical section, that would be good.

Basically there has been a lot of debate between my housemates about whether or not cannabis and marijuana are better for you to consume than alcohol. Now I know nothing about these drugs so my questions are:
1. Is there evidence showing they are no worse than alcohol or even less damaging than alcohol? As many claims by my housemates are that cannabis and marijuana are less damaging to the body and less adictive than alcohol.
2. Do you think they should be classified as illegal? What are your views on the drugs (perhaps even a few more than just those three)?

As I say initially, although I would like claims to have evidence behind them I will accept general opinions to get things going and get an overall view of the situation.

First of all, marijuana and Cannibus are the same. Second, don't disassociate alcohol from the "drug" category, because alcohol IS a drug, it just so happens to be legal.

Marijuana isn't PHYSICALLY addictive at all. The only addiction that comes from marijuana is psychologically. You come to BELIEVE that you have a dependence on it. Your body never becomes addicted to it, it has no properties for it.

Well, I'm at work at the moment, so I don't have time to finish this, but I'll continue with it when I get the time, but for the most part your roomates are right, to answer your question, they just don't have the evidence to back it, which I'll provide at a later point in time.

 

[russ_watters]

It could be argued that no one likes the taste of cigarettes, either. They enjoy (or need) the nicotine, and come to associate the taste of cigarettes with feeling good. "Liking the taste" of cigarettes is just a paradoxical rationalization of an addiction to nicotine.

Possibly, but not being a smoker, I'm not really sure about that. I only know what I've heard and the only logical basis I can think of is comparing them to cigars, though I understand that you don't inhale cigars.

Either way, you won't get an argument out of me on that one - I despise smoking cigarettes probably more than I despise smoking pot.

 

[JaredJames]

First of all, marijuana and Cannibus are the same. Second, don't disassociate alcohol from the "drug" category, because alcohol IS a drug, it just so happens to be legal.

Marijuana isn't PHYSICALLY addictive at all. The only addiction that comes from marijuana is psychologically. You come to BELIEVE that you have a dependence on it. Your body never becomes addicted to it, it has no properties for it.

Well, I'm at work at the moment, so I don't have time to finish this, but I'll continue with it when I get the time, but for the most part your roomates are right, to answer your question, they just don't have the evidence to back it, which I'll provide at a later point in time.

Right just a quick note, like I said I don't know anything about the illegal drugs, so didn't know they were the same (far too many names in my opinion). Secondly, my part 2) of the OP was meant to include alcohol under drugs:
"2. Do you think they should be classified as illegal? What are your views on the drugs (perhaps even a few more than just those three)?"
The question was meant to read as - should cannabis remain illegal and should alcohol be illegal, and what are your views on alcohol and cannabis. But I simply put them all under the heading drugs (did not disassociate it, at least not intentionally).

 

[moe darklight]

I haven't used any drug in years, but I believe they should be legal (though highly regulated), for many reasons:

A) The problems that revolve around drugs merely because they are illegal (i.e: crime. where do gangs get their money?).

B) Health reasons. Dealers don't care what they cut their drugs with and its effects on the consumer. There is no way to know what is in an E pill, what chemicals were added, or the potency (I've seen kids take 8 pills of a certain kind in a single night and be fine; I've also seen a girl overdose on half a pill [by the way, an E overdose is about the scariest thing to watch]-- E pills especially, sometimes contain a whole variety of other drugs (coke, heroin) that the person taking them is unaware of). A few kids were hospitalized in my city when I was in high school (I believe one of them died) because they smoked pot that had been sprayed with toxic chemicals.
If drugs were regulated, kids who choose to try drugs will at least not be in danger of accidentally overdosing because they got a bad batch.

C) THE WAR ON DRUGS ISN'T WORKING.

D) THE WAR ON DRUGS ISN'T WORKING.

C) Not all drugs are equally bad. Acting like all drugs are bad because some happen to be highly addictive and toxic is like telling people not to eat vegetables because some plants are poisonous. I'm yet to find any research that indicates that the casual (to me this means no more than, say, 4 times a year) use of pot or mushrooms or LSD is in any way detrimental to a person's health. Yes, there are reports of death involving all these drugs (despite what your stoner friends tell you), but:
-- in the case of mushrooms, ALL overdose reports that I've found involve kids mistaking poisonous mushrooms for pscilobes, or involve Amanitas, which are poisonous, or some other foreign factor that is not related to the mushrooms themselves.
-- Overdosing on LSD is essentially impossible unless the person takes an inordinate amount of it. There are a few reports of people with predisposed mental illnesses or people who have experienced a "bad trip" suffering from long-term mental issues, i.e "flashbacks." These problems seem to arise from the experience itself (a form of PTSD), but nobody knows for sure; it's still not clear what causes this. Still, these cases are statistically insignificant.

E) THE WAR ON DRUGS IS A WASTE OF MONEY AND RESOURCES THAT COULD BE SPENT ON SOMETHING WORTHWHILE.

F) I believe that people have the right to choose their fun; and that if they are educated on the subject, instead of scared off with misleading information, they will have the power to intelligently weigh the risks involved in whatever activity they choose to experiment with. Many extreme sports are very dangerous, should we outlaw those?

 

[OmCheeto]

So far, (hic), I haven't seen anything remotely resembling truth(oh man, give me another toke) in this thread.

Except of course for Moe's observation: C) THE WAR ON DRUGS ISN'T WORKING.

 

[Pengwuino]

So far, (hic), I haven't seen anything remotely resembling truth(oh man, give me another toke) in this thread.

Except of course for Moe's observation: C) THE WAR ON DRUGS ISN'T WORKING.

Well if you're in the know, provide some evidence and arguments about what the truth is.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Ok for one, jesus christ, change your avatar! that scared the hell out of me, and I'm not even stoned!

Why did it scare you?

As for the topic, I meant physiological. I think everyone agrees there's at least a bit of violence created by marijuana.

In regards to the violence, people don't die because of pot. They die because of the money. The Mexican drug cartels are responsible for more than just a little violence. Beyond that, drug money is what finances gangs like MS13, which has grown from an LA neighborhood gang to an international organization. It is for all practical purposes a domestic terrorist group funded by the drug laws.

Mind you, violence because of marijuana. I don't do any drugs and thus have very very weak anecdote evidence but the people I've known have all gotten their marijuana from home growers which aren't typically part of the whole drug-violence culture. The violence is probably with larger distributors who are probably distributing more then just marijuana.

No doubt. The cartels are involved in all sort of drugs. But, for example, it is known that they are also growing pot in national forests and leaving a mess of chemicals and trash behind that the forest service has to clean up. Back in the old days, local growers were more the hippie types. But now the hardened criminal element has taken over.

If you have a truckload of drugs worth millions of dollars, it doesn't really matter what drug it is. It is dangerous [in the sense discussed] because it is worth millions of dollars.

Oh and one separate question I swear I've never received an answer to by anyone is this. Why exactly does making marijuana legal and highly taxed result in people using less of it? I always hear this but I immediately think "wait, it can be home grown... how well can you REALLY control the price of something you can grow at home?"

How many people do you know that grow their own tobacco? Although I will say that if people are really paying $10 a pack for cigarettes in New York, due to taxes, then I would expect cigarettes to join the ranks of black-market products. Then we can expand our war on drugs to include illegal cigarettes and illegal tobacco growing operations.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Have you seen this documentary? Kevin Booth's American Drug War It's excellent.

- Warren

No, but I will be sure to take a look.

 

[Pengwuino]

Why did it scare you?

The dog's just creepy for some reason...

In regards to the violence, people don't die because of pot. They die because of the money. The Mexican drug cartels are responsible for more than just a little violence. Beyond that, drug money is what finances gangs like MS13, which has grown from an LA neighborhood gang to an international organization. It is for all practical purposes a domestic terrorist group funded by the drug laws.

No doubt. The cartels are involved in all sort of drugs. But, for example, it is known that they are also growing pot in national forests and leaving a mess of chemicals and trash behind that the forest service has to clean up. Back in the old days, local growers were more the hippie types. But now the hardened criminal element has taken over.

That's the point though! Legalize marijuana and they'll still be around, violence will still exist, they'll still kill people.

How many people do you know that grow their own tobacco?

The people I hear argue for taxation that actually raises the price beyond what you can get it for now. With tobacco, it's so cheap that who bothers...

 

[Ivan Seeking]

That's the point though! Legalize marijuana and they'll still be around, violence will still exist, they'll still kill people.

You are still missing the point. If you make it legal, you take the excessive profit out, and there is no incentive for the cartels and other criminal organizations to get involved. It is the same lesson that we learned about alcohol. It becomes a far greater danger to society BECAUSE it is illegal.

The people I hear argue for taxation that actually raises the price beyond what you can get it for now. With tobacco, it's so cheap that who bothers...

The only reason pot is expensive is because it is illegal. I would bet that it is even cheaper to grow than tobacco. In fact it is cited as the most profitable drug of all based on the cost of production and the sales price. Look at it this way: Would criminals be engaged in activities where they actually earn their money? They make big money because they take big risks, not because they put in an honest day's work.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The dog's just creepy for some reason...

He was just a big bouncing baby boy - our dearly departed Dr. Who.

 

[Pengwuino]

You are still missing the point. If you make it legal, you take the excessive profit out, and there is no incentive for the cartels and other criminal organizations to get involved. It is the same lesson that we learned about alcohol. It becomes a far greater danger to society BECAUSE it is illegal.

That only makes sense if marijuana sales account for a large majority of the profits drug dealers make. When you're talking about organized crime, they aren't just selling marijuana. They'd still be in business if marijuana were made legal unless marijuana doesn't account for all their profits. Organized crime didn't just disappear because alcohol became legal again.

The only reason pot is expensive is because it is illegal. I would bet that it is even cheaper to grow than tobacco. In fact it is cited as the most profitable drug of all based on the cost of production and the sales price. Look at it this way: Would criminals be engaged in activities where they actually earn their money? They make big money because they take big risks, not because they put in an honest day's work.

That's the point, that's why the arguments I hear makes no sense. Home growers could undercut the government. Mind you, this is a totally separate argument than what is presented in this thread. It's an argument I hear from other people outside this forum that I've always questioned. If you say that the price would drop, I COMPLETELY agree. My only goal with that aside was to figure out if I'm not the only one who doesn't understand the logic of legalization = higher prices

 

[Pengwuino]

He was just a big bouncing baby boy - our dearly departed Dr. Who.

It looks like he's dressed up in a jogging outfit. I looked closer and saw what it actually was... maybe i'll be use to it now aha.

 

[russ_watters]

The only reason pot is expensive is because it is illegal.

Right, so when Penguino asked about how legalizing it would make people use less of it...that would seem to provide a good argument for why people would use more of it if it were legal.

 

[JaredJames]

Surely legalising marijuana would initially cause a price increase, and this is just a hypothesis, but for this reason:

Drug made legal, only people mass producing (initially) would remain to be the big gangs/cartels. Taxing it (providing they paid the tax) would cause them to increase the price to cover the tax. Otherwise the price would remain the same until there was some form of competition from a commercial company.

Again, just a hypothesis on my part, anyone have any similar ideas?

 

[Monocles]

Look at Portugal - they legalized possession of all drugs in the early 2000s and all of their drug related problems have plummeted since then.

 

[Civilized]

Most of you have seen Dr Andrew Weil M.D. on TV or in Time magazine (he was named one of Time's 100 most influential people). Here is an article he wrote about cannabis:

http://deoxy.org/pdfa/marijuana.htm"

A few excerpts:

What pharmacologists cannot make sense of is that people who are high on marijuana cannot be shown, in objective terms, to be different from people who are not high. That is, if a marijuana user is allowed to smoke his usual doses and then to do things he has had a chance to practice while high, he does not appear to perform any differently from someone who is not high. Now, this pattern of users performing better than nonusers is a general phenomenon associated with all psychoactive drugs. For example, an alcoholic will vastly outperform a nondrinker on any test if the two are equally intoxicated; he has learned to compensate for the effects of the drug on his nervous system. But compensation can proceed only so far until it runs up against a ceiling imposed by the pharmacological action of the drug on lower brain centers. Again, since marijuana has no clinically significant action on lower brain centers, compensation can reach 100 percent with practice.

In other words, people who use cannabis regularly can function at 100% capacity when under the influence of their normal dose (which can be easily ten times smaller than Russ' "smoke a whole joint").

These considerations mean that there are no answers to questions like, What does marijuana do to driving ability? The only possible answer is, It depends. It depends on the person - whether he is a marijuana user, whether he has practiced driving while under the influence of marijuana. In speaking to legislative and medical groups, I have stated a personal reaction to this question in the form of the decision I would make if I were given the choice of riding with one of the following four drivers:

(1) a person who had never smoked marijuana before and just had;

(2) a marijuana smoker who had never driven while high and was just about to;

(3) a high marijuana smoker who had practiced driving while high; and

(4) a person with any amount of alcohol in him.

I would unhesitatingly take driver number three as the best possible risk

In other words, a person with any amount of alcohol (even the one or two drinks that Russ keeps mentioning) is more dangerous behind the wheel than a marijuana smoker who is puffed up to his heart's content at his normal dose, in the opinion of Dr Weil.

Like most drugs, cannabis users will over time develop the ability to better tolerate the negative effects of the drug. The bottomline is that unlike alcohol, and more similar to tobacco, a regular cannabis user can learn to tolerate any and all of the negative effects of the drug so that it is reduced to merely harmless enjoyment. Anyone who "despises" harmless enjoyment does not understand the US constitution in the sense that it was intended by its authors, and in my opinion the country would be better off without them.

 

[JaredJames]

...

Does marijuana not slow reactions then? People I know who smoked it said it makes them feel like everything is going really fast.

 

[Civilized]

Does marijuana not slow reactions then? People I know who smoked it said it makes them feel like everything is going really fast.

The exact opposite subjective effect is sometimes reported e.g. "whoa dude, it felt like we were hanging out for hours but I looked at the clock and only 5 minutes went by." There is no doubt that in a relaxed setting mj can effect the subjective perception of time, in terms of objective performance (e.g. reaction times) there is no impairment for a regular user.

 

[Civilized]

Surely legalising marijuana would initially cause a price increase, and this is just a hypothesis, but for this reason:

Drug made legal, only people mass producing (initially) would remain to be the big gangs/cartels. Taxing it (providing they paid the tax) would cause them to increase the price to cover the tax. Otherwise the price would remain the same until there was some form of competition from a commercial company.

Again, just a hypothesis on my part, anyone have any similar ideas?

The price would plummet because cannabis is so easy to grow, it has the nickname weed for a reason, because it grows like one. Unlike tobacco, for which someone would need to do a lot of work to grow their own (each big floppy tobacco leaf dries out to give a small amount of smokable material), a single properly cultivated cannabis plant can provide months worth of smokable/edible material.

Someone said that growing the plant stinks, but for people who like it is one of the best smells they could have around (I think it smells a lot like ground expresso beans, which are one of my favorite smells).

Growing can be as easy as putting down seeds in the backyard, and three months later with ~4 hours / week of enjoyable gardening labor there will be small bushes to harvest.

Perhaps the government outlaws cannabis because if they legalized it and taxed it heavily people would just grow their own.

Look at Portugal - they legalized possession of all drugs in the early 2000s and all of their drug related problems have plummeted since then.

I hadn't heard of that, but it's good info:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=portugal-drug-decriminalization

 

[JaredJames]

Do you not need specialist heating (infra red lamps) to grow it? (that is in the UK of course), making it more difficult to grow. Whenever you see drugs raids on the houses they are totally blacked out and have a massive thermal signature (actually how they catch them). Does no one factor in the cost of electric when it comes to growing it?

 

[Civilized]

Do you not need specialist heating (infra red lamps) to grow it? (that is in the UK of course), making it more difficult to grow. Whenever you see drugs raids on the houses they are totally blacked out and have a massive thermal signature (actually how they catch them). Does no one factor in the cost of electric when it comes to growing it?

Yes, the highest-grade canabis is grown using blueish lamps for vegetative growth of the plant and reddish lamps for the reproductive growth (budding) of the plant. This also works for growing most types of flowering plants, these colors of lamps. Here is an example of an indoor super plant:

But all of this is done mostly because having the plant outside would lead to an obvious bust by the cops. I don't know how the sunlight is for growing plants in general in the UK, but in california or western Canada the following can be grown outside:

http://www.vancouverseedbank.ca/catalog/images/MP%20BUD%20resized.JPG

(P.S. I'm super sorry to the mods if linking these photos is not allowed, please disable the links and forgive me)