Cannabis smoking in marinas

[robtheplod]

17 hours ago, Spinderella said:

In my time boating I've noticed that in certain midlands marinas smoking of cannabis is widespread.more so recently than back pre 2010. 

 

Has anybody else noticed this ? The marinas in question part of a large chain seem to turn a blind eye I'm wondering why. 

 

This isn't about being judgemental I'm just interested in other boaters experiences to see if it's a generally acceptable thing in marinas...discuss 

state of the UK I'm surprised more aren't on the weed..... 

[Wanderer Vagabond]

3 hours ago, IanD said:

It's almost as if decriminalisation and treating addiction as a health problem works, in contrast to the UK "lock 'em up" approach which clearly doesn't.

 

So much for evidence-based policies... 😞

Exactly this ^^^^. The law criminalising drug use dates back to 1971 when there wasn't that much of a drug problem, people were content to smoke cigarettes and get drunk on alcohol. So here we are 50 years later, with a law that hasn't worked because drug use is now widespread (you will smell cannabis on the street pretty much everywhere), and the approach is still 'more of the same'. What is that quote about repeatedly doing the same thing and expecting a different result referencing? oh, I remember, it's insanity.

 

When this is compared the the diminishing number who smoke cigarettes, because it has been treated as a health problem rather than a criminal problem and it shows the way ahead, if only those at the top would actually look.

[IanD]

20 minutes ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

Exactly this ^^^^. The law criminalising drug use dates back to 1971 when there wasn't that much of a drug problem, people were content to smoke cigarettes and get drunk on alcohol. So here we are 50 years later, with a law that hasn't worked because drug use is now widespread (you will smell cannabis on the street pretty much everywhere), and the approach is still 'more of the same'. What is that quote about repeatedly doing the same thing and expecting a different result referencing? oh, I remember, it's insanity.

 

When this is compared the the diminishing number who smoke cigarettes, because it has been treated as a health problem rather than a criminal problem and it shows the way ahead, if only those at the top would actually look.

 

Well they asked David Nutt to look, but then didn't like what he found out and sacked him... 😞

 

https://theconversation.com/david-nutt-i-was-sacked-i-was-angry-i-was-right-19848

[Mike Hurley]

I was in Bristol last week, whole place was rancid with it, i dont touch it myself, beer is good for me, ale day at spoons with old peculiar at 1.49 a pint, rude not too.

[nicknorman]

I think the prevalence of public cannabis smell is part of the general feeling that laws are for other people, and let’s face it, you never see a policeman on the beat so the chances of being arrested for it is minimal, same as for so many other “allegedly” low level criminal activities. I don’t particularly have a problem with cannabis, I have been known to partake in my 20s and 30s, but it is not a harmless drug as I’ve known 2 young people’s lives ruined by psychosis which was almost certainly a result of cannabis use at a young age.

I generally dislike smelling other people’s activities be it smoking tobacco, cannabis, vaping fake clouds of strawberry juice or whatever. But in the great scheme if things it’s not catastrophic, just a sad reminder of how local policing has ceased to exist and it’s every man for himself, might is right.

[sueb]

The local criminals need supporting, we can't have them going out of business. It seems no one is bothered about supporting criminals

[Wanderer Vagabond]

43 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

I think the prevalence of public cannabis smell is part of the general feeling that laws are for other people, and let’s face it, you never see a policeman on the beat so the chances of being arrested for it is minimal, same as for so many other “allegedly” low level criminal activities. I don’t particularly have a problem with cannabis, I have been known to partake in my 20s and 30s, but it is not a harmless drug as I’ve known 2 young people’s lives ruined by psychosis which was almost certainly a result of cannabis use at a young age.

I generally dislike smelling other people’s activities be it smoking tobacco, cannabis, vaping fake clouds of strawberry juice or whatever. But in the great scheme if things it’s not catastrophic, just a sad reminder of how local policing has ceased to exist and it’s every man for himself, might is right.

By comparison however, how much harm does alcohol cause? When working we were dealing with alcohol fuelled fights pretty much every weekend. The occasions where people would get drunk and then go back home to beat up their partner were prevalent. That ignores the health effects of alcohol consumption whether cirrhosis of the liver and liver cancer along with a variety of other cancers. No drugs are harmless but the Americans in the 1930's found that prohibition of alcohol simply put the supply into the hands of the gangsters, and who supplies the heroin,cocaine,MDMA and cannabis these days? As alcohol in the prohibition era proved in spades, banning drugs simply does not work. If you can remove the demand, as has happened with cigarettes (although the cunning tobacco companies have now replaced them with vapes) is the only way in which to solve the issue. Locking people up (or even executing them, as Singapore does) is simply a waste of time.

[nicknorman]

28 minutes ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

By comparison however, how much harm does alcohol cause? When working we were dealing with alcohol fuelled fights pretty much every weekend. The occasions where people would get drunk and then go back home to beat up their partner were prevalent. That ignores the health effects of alcohol consumption whether cirrhosis of the liver and liver cancer along with a variety of other cancers. No drugs are harmless but the Americans in the 1930's found that prohibition of alcohol simply put the supply into the hands of the gangsters, and who supplies the heroin,cocaine,MDMA and cannabis these days? As alcohol in the prohibition era proved in spades, banning drugs simply does not work. If you can remove the demand, as has happened with cigarettes (although the cunning tobacco companies have now replaced them with vapes) is the only way in which to solve the issue. Locking people up (or even executing them, as Singapore does) is simply a waste of time.

It’s certainly true that alcohol causes a lot of harm. My uncle was an alcoholic and it killed him, after making his life a misery for several years. However just because one harmful drug is illegal, doesn’t mean that we should allow more!

 

However alcohol is a slightly different animal from cannabis. People can drink alcohol in moderation all their lives and have no adverse effects. But there does seem to be something about long term cannabis use, even in moderation, that results in changes to their brain that turn them into “dope heads”. But in particular there seems to be strong evidence that cannabis use in youngsters can cause irreversible brain damage that case or at least trigger psychosis / schizophrenia etc.

I don’t really buy the “gateway to hard drugs” argument but I do think that the seemingly harmless cannabis actually has a nasty dark side.

[IanD]

9 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

It’s certainly true that alcohol causes a lot of harm. My uncle was an alcoholic and it killed him, after making his life a misery for several years. However just because one harmful drug is illegal, doesn’t mean that we should allow more!

 

However alcohol is a slightly different animal from cannabis. People can drink alcohol in moderation all their lives and have no adverse effects. But there does seem to be something about long term cannabis use, even in moderation, that results in changes to their brain that turn them into “dope heads”. But in particular there seems to be strong evidence that cannabis use in youngsters can cause irreversible brain damage that case or at least trigger psychosis / schizophrenia etc.

I don’t really buy the “gateway to hard drugs” argument but I do think that the seemingly harmless cannabis actually has a nasty dark side.

All drugs have a "dark side". For a proper scientific analysis of the relative risks -- showing that cannabis is certainly one of the less harmful ones (less so than alcohol, and *much* less so than tobacco), though others like magic mushrooms and LSD are even less so -- read one of David Nutt's books.

[Stroudwater1]

11 minutes ago, IanD said:

All drugs have a "dark side". For a proper scientific analysis of the relative risks -- showing that cannabis is certainly one of the less harmful ones (less so than alcohol, and *much* less so than tobacco), though others like magic mushrooms and LSD are even less so -- read one of David Nutt's books.

However most cannabis is smoked with tobacco so indirectly pretty harmful.
 

It’s not clear what effects the stuff cut into the pure cannabis has either. It’s got some “additives” in it I suspect, though probably less harmful than the stuff cut into opioids. 
 

it’s surprising no UK government has legalised drugs, there must be quite a tax benefit if they were legalised as comes to the exchequer from alcohol and nicotine. 

[Wanderer Vagabond]

34 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

It’s certainly true that alcohol causes a lot of harm. My uncle was an alcoholic and it killed him, after making his life a misery for several years. However just because one harmful drug is illegal, doesn’t mean that we should allow more!

 

However alcohol is a slightly different animal from cannabis. People can drink alcohol in moderation all their lives and have no adverse effects. But there does seem to be something about long term cannabis use, even in moderation, that results in changes to their brain that turn them into “dope heads”. But in particular there seems to be strong evidence that cannabis use in youngsters can cause irreversible brain damage that case or at least trigger psychosis / schizophrenia etc.

I don’t really buy the “gateway to hard drugs” argument but I do think that the seemingly harmless cannabis actually has a nasty dark side.

I'm not really making the case for any drugs, but what is needed is consistency. I'm assuming that the highlighted bit was a typo but I simply don't see that making any of them illegal actually addresses the problem, it simply creates more 'criminals'. I drink alcohol, but I don't think of myself as any better than someone who smokes cannabis, and yet what I do is legal, what they do is illegal, no real logic to it. People also smoke cannabis all their lives without much in the way of adverse effects but for some, as with alcohol, it has bad effects.

 

It would obviously be better, in health terms, if people took no recreational drugs at all, but accepting that simply isn't going to happen what we then need to look at is harm reduction and if all drugs were legalised there would be more control in what people are actually taking. Most of the deaths from the likes of heroin are as a result of people having no idea whatosever of the strength of the heroin they are taking, which can range from 5% cut with a whole load of rubbish to circa 80% which can be lethal. There is never going to be any successful outcome to making cannabis illegal simply because, much as you can make your own alcohol, you can grow your own cannabis. Heroin and cocaine are obviously going to be more tricky since getting the source materials will always be difficult, but whilst it is the hands of criminals, it will always be achievable.

 

We've had 50 years of failed legislation, I'd go with Professor David Nutt's idea of trying a different approach. It isn't going to make things any worse than they already are, and may make them better.

[IanD]

11 hours ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

I'm not really making the case for any drugs, but what is needed is consistency. I'm assuming that the highlighted bit was a typo but I simply don't see that making any of them illegal actually addresses the problem, it simply creates more 'criminals'. I drink alcohol, but I don't think of myself as any better than someone who smokes cannabis, and yet what I do is legal, what they do is illegal, no real logic to it. People also smoke cannabis all their lives without much in the way of adverse effects but for some, as with alcohol, it has bad effects.

 

It would obviously be better, in health terms, if people took no recreational drugs at all, but accepting that simply isn't going to happen what we then need to look at is harm reduction and if all drugs were legalised there would be more control in what people are actually taking. Most of the deaths from the likes of heroin are as a result of people having no idea whatosever of the strength of the heroin they are taking, which can range from 5% cut with a whole load of rubbish to circa 80% which can be lethal. There is never going to be any successful outcome to making cannabis illegal simply because, much as you can make your own alcohol, you can grow your own cannabis. Heroin and cocaine are obviously going to be more tricky since getting the source materials will always be difficult, but whilst it is the hands of criminals, it will always be achievable.

 

We've had 50 years of failed legislation, I'd go with Professor David Nutt's idea of trying a different approach. It isn't going to make things any worse than they already are, and may make them better.

 

I don't think there's the slightest doubt about that, given the evidence from Portugal...

[nicknorman]

11 hours ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

I'm not really making the case for any drugs, but what is needed is consistency. I'm assuming that the highlighted bit was a typo but I simply don't see that making any of them illegal actually addresses the problem, it simply creates more 'criminals'. I drink alcohol, but I don't think of myself as any better than someone who smokes cannabis, and yet what I do is legal, what they do is illegal, no real logic to it. People also smoke cannabis all their lives without much in the way of adverse effects but for some, as with alcohol, it has bad effects.

 

It would obviously be better, in health terms, if people took no recreational drugs at all, but accepting that simply isn't going to happen what we then need to look at is harm reduction and if all drugs were legalised there would be more control in what people are actually taking. Most of the deaths from the likes of heroin are as a result of people having no idea whatosever of the strength of the heroin they are taking, which can range from 5% cut with a whole load of rubbish to circa 80% which can be lethal. There is never going to be any successful outcome to making cannabis illegal simply because, much as you can make your own alcohol, you can grow your own cannabis. Heroin and cocaine are obviously going to be more tricky since getting the source materials will always be difficult, but whilst it is the hands of criminals, it will always be achievable.

 

We've had 50 years of failed legislation, I'd go with Professor David Nutt's idea of trying a different approach. It isn't going to make things any worse than they already are, and may make them better.

Yes typo, sorry! For me it is about the potentially insidious effects of cannabis even when taken in moderation, especially for younger people. Alcohol taken in moderation does not have the potential for a permanent mind-altering effect.

[magnetman]

The only recreational drug I use is alcohol but I was told by someone who does all of the others that Ketamine is very good. 

 

I also know someone who is very keen on mushrooms and grows his own in a special box in his house. 

 

I presume the reason so many are illegal is because some of the huge profits generated find their way into the pockets of influential people. While this is the case change is unlikely. 

 

 

The only recreational drug I use is alcohol but I was told by someone who does all of the others that Ketamine is very good. 

 

I also know someone who is very keen on mushrooms and grows his own in a special box in his house. 

 

I presume the reason so many are illegal is because some of the huge profits generated find their way into the pockets of influential people. While this is the case change is unlikely. 

 

 

[Wanderer Vagabond]

2 hours ago, nicknorman said:

Yes typo, sorry! For me it is about the potentially insidious effects of cannabis even when taken in moderation, especially for younger people. Alcohol taken in moderation does not have the potential for a permanent mind-altering effect.

Have to say that as one who doesn't smoke (cannabis or any other recreational drug) I don't know about the insidious effects. Alcohol has insidious effects though, it is called habituation. The more that you drink, the more that you need to drink to get the same effect (which is also present in most other recreational drugs, other than LSD). I remember testing someone once who was was clearly an alcoholic and whilst the legal breath driving limit for alcohol is 35 (equivalent to about 4 units of alcohol) he managed to blow 165, so more or less the equivalent of 20 units of alcohol, and whilst his appearance would be described as a bit unsteady, he certainly wasn't paralytic. I'd be unconscious with that level of alcohol in me. Simply by becoming an alcoholic he'd had a mind altering effect since he was addicted to alcohol and needed it just to feel normal, I don't suppose that he now ever experienced drunkenness, (I say 'now' but he's probably dead by now)

 

 

[BWM]

One major positive of legalisation would be some control/listing of potency. Throughout the 60s, 70s, and 80s, the strength of cannabis sold was fairly similar across the board. Even skunk type weed was not generally as potent as it is today, in a market driven by young consumers who demand the strongest, smelliest product, the breeders of the seeds have aimed to please this dynamic. I would imagine that a legal, controlled market would be taxed on strength in the manner of alcohol - with a majority of users opting for 'beer' strength, rather than 'whisky', but unfortunately any smokers are stuck with what the market is offering. 

  

[blackrose]

I smoked hash and grass (as it used to be called) from the ages of about 16 to 26. I stopped doing it because I went travelling and ended up on the other side of the world away from my circle of friends for whom dope smoking was a daily ritual.

 

After that when I did occasionally smoke I used to get paranoid and I realised it was no good for me. Although cannabis isn't physically addictive it can become psychologically addictive for some people. Fortunately I don't have an addictive personality. I've tried most recreational substances in my youth including mushrooms, LSD, speed and heroin and I have to say, if I had an addictive personality I'd be addicted to cocaine because for me it's very nice indeed.

 

I have a friend who's been suffering from serious paranoia for the last year or so due to about 35 years of smoking cannabis. He thinks he's some sort of progressive genius and complains that nobody understands him - a kind of delusion of grandeur which is a classic symptom of cannabis induced schizophrenic paranoia. A few of us have tried to get him to understand that it's the cannabis that's doing this to him, but he won't listen and thinks we're all trying to put him down and the cannabis is good for him and the only thing keeping him sane. The irony is that he was an active member of the Legalise Cannabis Campaign for many years and look where it's got him - As well as losing his mental health I think he's about to lose his flat because he's not working and stopped paying the mortgage.

 

Of course, I have other friends who've been s smoking dope daily for just as long or even longer and they're fine so it affects people differently.

 

 

5 hours ago, magnetman said:

I presume the reason so many are illegal is because some of the huge profits generated find their way into the pockets of influential people. While this is the case change is unlikely. 

 

 

 

Well, if they were legalised they could be taxed and generate huge income for the Exchequer, so I'm not sure that argument stacks up?

 

I think the reason most recreational drugs other than alcohol are illegal from a govt standpoint is the public health implications - cannabis was traditionally seen as a gateway drug to harder class A substances, although the argument for legalisation says that taking cannabis away from drug dealers is less likely to result in it becoming a gateway drug.

 

I think there are cultural reasons too. Most recreational drugs (other than alcohol) have been associated with a counter-culture. But society wants people to be productive, not sitting around stoned questioning why they're going to work at a boring job everyday. In moderation alcohol helps to release stress, it doesn't make you question your existence.

Edited October 2, 2023 by blackrose

[BWM]

21 minutes ago, blackrose said:

I smoked hash and grass (as it used to be called) from the ages of about 16 to 26. I stopped doing it because I went travelling and ended up on the other side of the world away from my circle of friends for whom dope smoking was a daily ritual.

 

After that when I did occasionally smoke I used to get paranoid and I realised it was no good for me. Although cannabis isn't physically addictive it can become psychologically addictive for some people. Fortunately I don't have an addictive personality. I've tried most recreational substances in my youth including mushrooms, LSD, speed and heroin and I have to say, if I had an addictive personality I'd be addicted to cocaine because for me it's very nice indeed.

 

I have a friend who's been suffering from serious paranoia for the last year or so due to about 35 years of smoking cannabis. He thinks he's some sort of progressive genius and complains that nobody understands him - a kind of delusion of grandeur which is a classic symptom of cannabis induced schizophrenic paranoia. A few of us have tried to get him to understand that it's the cannabis that's doing this to him, but he won't listen and thinks we're all trying to put him down and the cannabis is good for him and the only thing keeping him sane. The irony is that he was an active member of the Legalise Cannabis Campaign for many years and look where it's got him - As well as losing his mental health I think he's about to lose his flat because he's not working and stopped paying the mortgage.

 

Of course, I have other friends who've been s smoking dope daily for just as long or even longer and they're fine so it affects people differently.

 

 

It may affect people differently or they may already be predisposed to the particular mental health issues. I certainly believe that strong cannabis can have an adverse effect on young minds if smoked constantly, but with adults it's less clear and definitely comparable with the abuse of any psychoactive substance, legal or otherwise. 

[magnetman]

31 minutes ago, blackrose said:

 

 

Well, if they were legalised they could be taxed and generate huge income for the Exchequer, so I'm not sure that argument stacks up?

 

Money in tax to the exchequer is not the same as cash in the pocket of people in charge though is it. 

 

Tax money is generally spent on public projects although of course this involves some embezzlement. 

 

Drug related corruption goes right to the top. Keeping it illegal increases the amount of money into individual pockets. 

 

 

Edited October 2, 2023 by magnetman

[blackrose]

2 minutes ago, BWM said:

It may affect people differently or they may already be predisposed to the particular mental health issues. I certainly believe that strong cannabis can have an adverse effect on young minds if smoked constantly, but with adults it's less clear and definitely comparable with the abuse of any psychoactive substance, legal or otherwise. 

 

Yes a predisposition is one of the reasons it affects people differently.

[magnetman]

As for mental elf my older sister who did  LSD and probably other stuff has severe issues and gets sectioned regularly. Younger sister who did a lot of E seems alright. I never used recreational drugs other than cannabis (old type) and alcohol. Never been under the doctor for anything. 

 

 

[blackrose]

2 hours ago, magnetman said:

Money in tax to the exchequer is not the same as cash in the pocket of people in charge though is it. 

 

Tax money is generally spent on public projects although of course this involves some embezzlement. 

 

Drug related corruption goes right to the top. Keeping it illegal increases the amount of money into individual pockets. 

 

 

 

"Drug related corruption goes right to the top."

So Rishi Sunak, Jeremy Hunt and James cleverly are the big drug kingpins?

 

That sounds like the beginning of a conspiracy theory to me. You'll be on about the New World Order next!

Edited October 2, 2023 by blackrose

[magnetman]

Of course with a lot of suicides in the family including our mother maybe there is also a predisposition to severe mental health problems via genetics. 

4 suicides in one set of 7 siblings is a bit awkward plus one from the next generation. 

 

Generic factors are hard to overlook or ignore. 

[Creaking Gate]

On 01/10/2023 at 08:44, Stroudwater1 said:

Stretching a point somewhat as it’s not allowed to be prescribed for smoking 🤣 . It’s very rarely prescribed for anything as far as I can see. The stuff smoked is unlikely to be pure drug. 
 

 

No, they are correct - it can be privately prescribed in flower form (Bedrocan) from loads of private clinics, subject to criteria.  The NHS have issued I think 7 prescriptions in 4 years, and they openly state they will not prescribe it (its probably MP's who got those prescriptions). Thankfully, private medical practice will (for a cost).   It really is a medicine  for the rich

 

 

Who cares if they smoke cannabis.  Mind you're own.  Failing that, go and tell them yourself.  If they are as dopey as claimed in this thread, they won't even get up will they. 

Edited October 2, 2023 by Creaking Gate

[Wanderer Vagabond]

5 hours ago, blackrose said:

I smoked hash and grass (as it used to be called) from the ages of about 16 to 26. I stopped doing it because I went travelling and ended up on the other side of the world away from my circle of friends for whom dope smoking was a daily ritual.

 

After that when I did occasionally smoke I used to get paranoid and I realised it was no good for me. Although cannabis isn't physically addictive it can become psychologically addictive for some people. Fortunately I don't have an addictive personality. I've tried most recreational substances in my youth including mushrooms, LSD, speed and heroin and I have to say, if I had an addictive personality I'd be addicted to cocaine because for me it's very nice indeed.

 

I have a friend who's been suffering from serious paranoia for the last year or so due to about 35 years of smoking cannabis. He thinks he's some sort of progressive genius and complains that nobody understands him - a kind of delusion of grandeur which is a classic symptom of cannabis induced schizophrenic paranoia. A few of us have tried to get him to understand that it's the cannabis that's doing this to him, but he won't listen and thinks we're all trying to put him down and the cannabis is good for him and the only thing keeping him sane. The irony is that he was an active member of the Legalise Cannabis Campaign for many years and look where it's got him - As well as losing his mental health I think he's about to lose his flat because he's not working and stopped paying the mortgage.

 

Of course, I have other friends who've been s smoking dope daily for just as long or even longer and they're fine so it affects people differently.

 

 

 

Well, if they were legalised they could be taxed and generate huge income for the Exchequer, so I'm not sure that argument stacks up?

 

I think the reason most recreational drugs other than alcohol are illegal from a govt standpoint is the public health implications - cannabis was traditionally seen as a gateway drug to harder class A substances, although the argument for legalisation says that taking cannabis away from drug dealers is less likely to result in it becoming a gateway drug.

 

I think there are cultural reasons too. Most recreational drugs (other than alcohol) have been associated with a counter-culture. But society wants people to be productive, not sitting around stoned questioning why they're going to work at a boring job everyday. In moderation alcohol helps to release stress, it doesn't make you question your existence.

Some very interesting points coming from someone who has used the said drugs. Just a few observations, when you said that if you were of an addictive personality it would be to cocaine, that can also create paranoia. One of the scariest guys we had to deal with was an ex-professional boxer who, according to the hospitals when we were trying to get him sectioned, was suffering from drug induced paranoia as a result of his cocaine use. Because of this they refused to take him as they said there was nothing they could do for him. Fortunately whilst he would often get right 'in your face' during his episodes, I never actually knew him to have physically assaulted one of us although I have seen the results when he assaulted civilians and he made a real mess of them. We never really got to the bottom of why he never attacked any of us but one suggestion was that he considered us in the same light as boxing referees making us 'untouchable' (thankfully). The only other person who could control him was his father (another ex-boxer) but everyone else was 'fair game'.

 

As far as gateway drugs goes, tobacco could be considered the gateway to everything, from smoking cannabis to 'chasing the dragon' for other recreational drugs, I didn't know many (any?) drug users who didn't smoke. I'd agree though that if we could get the supply of drugs out of the hands of criminals it would at least be a starting point. The difficulty we have is that we are fighting market forces from the wrong direction, we need to remove the demand rather than control supply.

 

It sounds all very well and good when there has been some big drugs 'bust' but what it means in reality is that for those drug dealers who haven't been 'busted' the price of their stock has just gone up, so that approach is only going to succeed if you can simultaneously bust all drug dealers at the same time (and even then it isn't a long term solution). Unlike most products in market situations, there isn't a top price for addictive drugs. A lot of those on chaotic lifestyles who are addicted get the money to pay for their hit from stealing so it doesn't really matter how high the price of the drug is, they will simply steal even more to pay for it, so as well as encouraging unhealthy lifestyles, we are driving crime as well.

Edited October 2, 2023 by Wanderer Vagabond