Why is Cannabis still illegal?

[anonymous-user]

technodup said:

Lord.Vader said:

Is cannabis for everyone, no, certainly not for me, but looking at this subject objectively, the pro’s far exceed the con’s, as I said the war on drugs has failed, let’s change our approach.

I'd be interested for any of the anti brigade to explain why illegality is better.

It doesn't stop people using it.
It doesn't stop growers and dealers making it available.
It doesn't prevent any addictions/gateways/illness/mental health issues.
It doesn't generate any money to pay for treatment of the above.
None of the people above pay any attention to the 'war on drugs'.

What is the point of it being prohibited?

Simple, it is bad, it is a gateway drug, anyone who uses it is a loser, etc.

As I said I am not a cannabis user, but I cannot see why it shouldn’t be legalised.

I agree Derek that it would be hard to use this money to directly fund the NHS, but more money in means more money to distribute out.

[Gary C]

technodup said:

Lord.Vader said:

Is cannabis for everyone, no, certainly not for me, but looking at this subject objectively, the pro’s far exceed the con’s, as I said the war on drugs has failed, let’s change our approach.

I'd be interested for any of the anti brigade to explain why illegality is better.

It doesn't stop people using it.
It doesn't stop growers and dealers making it available.
It doesn't prevent any addictions/gateways/illness/mental health issues.
It doesn't generate any money to pay for treatment of the above.
None of the people above pay any attention to the 'war on drugs'.

What is the point of it being prohibited?

I think they are very good points.

My problem is the a possible problem with mental health (no evidence, but only time will tell) and thin end of the wedge ? Cannabis becomes accepted in society, what affect will that have on the acceptability of other drugs ?, Will it increase their usage because people are less likely to have a negative view on use. Will it mean more people take smaller amounts for longer ? ie not just in their youth but on into older age, what affect will that have (i dont know, but its a concern), will it lead to problems in work environments ? (I cant have any trace of any substance at work, and running two power reactors, you probably dont want me too).

I think we need to watch Canada very carefully and I dont think its quite as simple as your (well thought out) list above.

[andy_s]

Gary C said:

I think they are very good points.

My problem is the a possible problem with mental health (no evidence, but only time will tell) and thin end of the wedge ? Cannabis becomes accepted in society, what affect will that have on the acceptability of other drugs ?, Will it increase their usage. Will it mean more people take smaller amounts for longer ? ie not just in their youth but on into older age, what affect will that have (i dont know, but its a concern), will it lead to problems in work environments ? (I cant have any trace of any substance at work, and running two power reactors, you probably dont want me too).

I think we need to watch Canada very carefully and I dont think its quite as simple as your (well thought out) list above.

All good questions; it's always a little tricky using other countries as examples as there are inevitable differences (actual policy, culture etc) which may make, er, a difference - but I think by and large you can at least get a general picture - and from what I gather, it doesn't appear to have put anyone in a worse position than they were in before at least, and if you burrow down to associated peripheral factors (policing cost, prison cost, uptake, revenue, secondary crime etc) they appear to be better off.

The thin end of the wedge - interesting one and one I struggle with as well, Portugal radically changed its approach - it simply considered drug users of all types to be a health problem rather than a criminal one. This rested on 3 principles: a. No such thing as 'hard' or 'soft' drugs, just healthy and unhealthy relationships with drugs. b. An unhealthy relationship with drugs stems from factors such as unhealthy upbringing, frayed personal relationships, discontent with the world or indeed, themselves. c. The complete eradication of all drugs is an impossibility.
Intellectually I completely understand and agree, intuitively I'm not so sure, but it's difficult to articulate quite why I feel like that. Dipping our toes in via cannabis at least may give us more resolution on this aspect I feel.

Derek - your comment on govt. is a little esoteric but I agree - even more nebulously I would say that the paucity of quality in the political class has certainly been thrown into the spotlight these past few years. Their credible authority for me has been eroded beyond salvage and much like all of us, I don't take kindly to being told what to do by those who are neither genuinely engaged nor competent in their own domain - Brown's dismissal of Nutt et al conclusions was the thin end of that wedge...

[anonymous-user]

I'm sure this has been mentioned previously but legalisation doesn't mean its going to be more available to people than it is now, it couldn't be more available than it already is

I was round a mates last night, he wanted some for the weekend, he text his guy, got a text back with the current "menu" (i.e. what strains he has available at the moment" my mate placed the order and it was delivered 20 mins later.

This is common around the UK, its actually MORE effort to go and get a pint of milk

[technodup]

Gary C said:

I think they are very good points.

My problem is the a possible problem with mental health (no evidence, but only time will tell) and thin end of the wedge ? Cannabis becomes accepted in society, what affect will that have on the acceptability of other drugs ?, Will it increase their usage because people are less likely to have a negative view on use. Will it mean more people take smaller amounts for longer ? ie not just in their youth but on into older age, what affect will that have (i dont know, but its a concern), will it lead to problems in work environments ? (I cant have any trace of any substance at work, and running two power reactors, you probably dont want me too).

Cannabis is already accepted in society, that's why the polls now say legalise it. Likewise cocaine is so common pubs and clubs build their toilets around it's use (or rather to prevent its use). Anyone who wants either can get it, I really don't see any huge increase is consumption coming.

I can see a rise in 'recorded' usage, as the people who will only admit to it when it's legal come out the woodwork, and the Daily Mail to use that as 'evidence' that we're all going to hell.

But ultimately I don't care. I believe we should be free to do what we like with our bodies so long as we're not affecting anyone else e.g. drug driving etc.

[biggbn]

andy_s said:

Gary C said:

I think they are very good points.

My problem is the a possible problem with mental health (no evidence, but only time will tell) and thin end of the wedge ? Cannabis becomes accepted in society, what affect will that have on the acceptability of other drugs ?, Will it increase their usage. Will it mean more people take smaller amounts for longer ? ie not just in their youth but on into older age, what affect will that have (i dont know, but its a concern), will it lead to problems in work environments ? (I cant have any trace of any substance at work, and running two power reactors, you probably dont want me too).

I think we need to watch Canada very carefully and I dont think its quite as simple as your (well thought out) list above.

All good questions; it's always a little tricky using other countries as examples as there are inevitable differences (actual policy, culture etc) which may make, er, a difference - but I think by and large you can at least get a general picture - and from what I gather, it doesn't appear to have put anyone in a worse position than they were in before at least, and if you burrow down to associated peripheral factors (policing cost, prison cost, uptake, revenue, secondary crime etc) they appear to be better off.

The thin end of the wedge - interesting one and one I struggle with as well, Portugal radically changed its approach - it simply considered drug users of all types to be a health problem rather than a criminal one. This rested on 3 principles: a. No such thing as 'hard' or 'soft' drugs, just healthy and unhealthy relationships with drugs. b. An unhealthy relationship with drugs stems from factors such as unhealthy upbringing, frayed personal relationships, discontent with the world or indeed, themselves. c. The complete eradication of all drugs is an impossibility.
Intellectually I completely understand and agree, intuitively I'm not so sure, but it's difficult to articulate quite why I feel like that. Dipping our toes in via cannabis at least may give us more resolution on this aspect I feel.

Derek - your comment on govt. is a little esoteric but I agree - even more nebulously I would say that the paucity of quality in the political class has certainly been thrown into the spotlight these past few years. Their credible authority for me has been eroded beyond salvage and much like all of us, I don't take kindly to being told what to do by those who are neither genuinely engaged nor competent in their own domain - Brown's dismissal of Nutt et al conclusions was the thin end of that wedge...

Good posts those

[Gary C]

technodup said:

Cannabis is already accepted in society,

Cannabis (and other drugs) is accepted in part of society. In a part it still isn't, certainly the part of society I generally inhabit. I know one person who occasionally has a smoke, but in general its not accepted by the majority of people I know.

They maybe telling porkies though

It maybe a shrinking part

Edited by Gary C on Friday 9th August 17:21

[AJL308]

andy_s said:

All good questions; it's always a little tricky using other countries as examples as there are inevitable differences (actual policy, culture etc) which may make, er, a difference - but I think by and large you can at least get a general picture - and from what I gather, it doesn't appear to have put anyone in a worse position than they were in before at least, and if you burrow down to associated peripheral factors (policing cost, prison cost, uptake, revenue, secondary crime etc) they appear to be better off.

The thin end of the wedge - interesting one and one I struggle with as well, Portugal radically changed its approach - it simply considered drug users of all types to be a health problem rather than a criminal one. This rested on 3 principles: a. No such thing as 'hard' or 'soft' drugs, just healthy and unhealthy relationships with drugs. b. An unhealthy relationship with drugs stems from factors such as unhealthy upbringing, frayed personal relationships, discontent with the world or indeed, themselves. c. The complete eradication of all drugs is an impossibility.
Intellectually I completely understand and agree, intuitively I'm not so sure, but it's difficult to articulate quite why I feel like that. Dipping our toes in via cannabis at least may give us more resolution on this aspect I feel.

Derek - your comment on govt. is a little esoteric but I agree - even more nebulously I would say that the paucity of quality in the political class has certainly been thrown into the spotlight these past few years. Their credible authority for me has been eroded beyond salvage and much like all of us, I don't take kindly to being told what to do by those who are neither genuinely engaged nor competent in their own domain - Brown's dismissal of Nutt et al conclusions was the thin end of that wedge...

If you've seen the documentary "Murder Mountain" on Netflix it's clear that it has put lots of people in a worse position than they were in before but that's down to stupid implementation rather than the concept being bad. It was so expensive to acquire the necessary permits and product testing that existing small illegal growers were being forced out - sometimes with violence and murder - by the bigger illegal growers who needed to become even bigger in order to make their farms financially viable. Requiring people with space to grow a few hundred plants to find $200K was never a clever plan in an illegal trade which is already no stranger to pretty spectacular levels of violence.

[andy_s]

AJL308 said:

andy_s said:

All good questions; it's always a little tricky using other countries as examples as there are inevitable differences (actual policy, culture etc) which may make, er, a difference - but I think by and large you can at least get a general picture - and from what I gather, it doesn't appear to have put anyone in a worse position than they were in before at least, and if you burrow down to associated peripheral factors (policing cost, prison cost, uptake, revenue, secondary crime etc) they appear to be better off.

The thin end of the wedge - interesting one and one I struggle with as well, Portugal radically changed its approach - it simply considered drug users of all types to be a health problem rather than a criminal one. This rested on 3 principles: a. No such thing as 'hard' or 'soft' drugs, just healthy and unhealthy relationships with drugs. b. An unhealthy relationship with drugs stems from factors such as unhealthy upbringing, frayed personal relationships, discontent with the world or indeed, themselves. c. The complete eradication of all drugs is an impossibility.
Intellectually I completely understand and agree, intuitively I'm not so sure, but it's difficult to articulate quite why I feel like that. Dipping our toes in via cannabis at least may give us more resolution on this aspect I feel.

Derek - your comment on govt. is a little esoteric but I agree - even more nebulously I would say that the paucity of quality in the political class has certainly been thrown into the spotlight these past few years. Their credible authority for me has been eroded beyond salvage and much like all of us, I don't take kindly to being told what to do by those who are neither genuinely engaged nor competent in their own domain - Brown's dismissal of Nutt et al conclusions was the thin end of that wedge...

If you've seen the documentary "Murder Mountain" on Netflix it's clear that it has put lots of people in a worse position than they were in before but that's down to stupid implementation rather than the concept being bad. It was so expensive to acquire the necessary permits and product testing that existing small illegal growers were being forced out - sometimes with violence and murder - by the bigger illegal growers who needed to become even bigger in order to make their farms financially viable. Requiring people with space to grow a few hundred plants to find $200K was never a clever plan in an illegal trade which is already no stranger to pretty spectacular levels of violence.

I admit I was just considering the user/public - I'll give it a watch, I'd heard there were implementation problems but I didn't know it was something that was important enough for a documentary - cheers.

[AJL308]

andy_s said:

I admit I was just considering the user/public - I'll give it a watch, I'd heard there were implementation problems but I didn't know it was something that was important enough for a documentary - cheers.

The documentary was more to do with people who have gone missing in the area over the decades after getting jobs working for the growers rather than legalisation. Its filming was during the period when it became legal so that was all covered too.

A really good documentary which painted a rather quite scary picture of a huge swathe of California that has basically been a "no-go" area for the authorities for decades. Real back-woods, Deliverance style, hick territory but filled with drug producers and stoners rather than in-bred, banjo plucking sister shaggers.

[anonymous-user]

I blame the Daily Mail

[andy_s]

AJL308 said:

andy_s said:

I admit I was just considering the user/public - I'll give it a watch, I'd heard there were implementation problems but I didn't know it was something that was important enough for a documentary - cheers.

The documentary was more to do with people who have gone missing in the area over the decades after getting jobs working for the growers rather than legalisation. Its filming was during the period when it became legal so that was all covered too.

A really good documentary which painted a rather quite scary picture of a huge swathe of California that has basically been a "no-go" area for the authorities for decades. Real back-woods, Deliverance style, hick territory but filled with drug producers and stoners rather than in-bred, banjo plucking sister shaggers.

'Copperhead Road' stylee...

[Steve Earl song about a back-woods family, granpa blows himself up smuggling his moonshine, grandson comes back from 'Nam with a new plan:

I volunteered for the Army on my birthday
They draft the white trash first, 'round here anyway
I done two tours of duty in Vietnam
And I came home with a brand new plan
I take the seed from Colombia and Mexico
I just plant it up the holler down Copperhead Road

And now the D.E.A.'s got a chopper in the air
I wake up screaming like I'm back over there
I learned a thing or two from Charlie don't you know
You better stay away from Copperhead Road ]

[Engelberger]

Any drug is bad, okay? However alcohol is particularly bad and yet it is legal.

Legality means it can be controlled and even better taxed. It would also remove or at least reduce the ability of criminal gangs to capatalise (they could always go legit).

A reliable and tested product that has some tax applied and sold by genuine sellers seems a win win.

The fact is that people find life tough and although "we" may be all gym bunnies with no vices the number of people you seel as you walk down the high street who are clearly smoking something is rising. If they aren't, based on NHS costs then hundreds of thousands are on anti depressents c/o the taxpayer. It has become almost the new normal for many in society so why bother pretending?

Is it a gateway drug? Possibly? Does it fry the minds of the young? Almost certainly. But it doesn't make much sense it being a class A drug.

We live in a world where Boris Johnson and Donald Trump lead countries and people like Nigel Farage have Farage. Who are we to say what is "normal"?

[the tribester]

Oakey said:

Apparently Luxembourg have become the first EU country to legalise it.

Not sure I agree with their direction though as they're going to allow those between 12 and 17 to possess under 5 grams.

So legal, but with rules to control possession. Who is going to enforce those rules?

Also legal, but not allowed to grow your own. Also harsh penalties for those that breaak the rules.

Bit of a mixed message really.

[1602Mark]

technodup said:

Lord.Vader said:

Is cannabis for everyone, no, certainly not for me, but looking at this subject objectively, the pro’s far exceed the con’s, as I said the war on drugs has failed, let’s change our approach.

I'd be interested for any of the anti brigade to explain why illegality is better.

It doesn't stop people using it.
It doesn't stop growers and dealers making it available.
It doesn't prevent any addictions/gateways/illness/mental health issues.
It doesn't generate any money to pay for treatment of the above.
None of the people above pay any attention to the 'war on drugs'.

What is the point of it being prohibited?

I used to be anti but with the advent of ever stronger strains and their being cut with substances like Spice (in some areas) I think there is a need for legislation, so that people at least know what they're using. I certainly see no reason not to allow medicinal use but I also think any such scheme will be abused.

As an aside, Cocaine use (usually combined with Alcohol use) is certainly on the rise. We see way more referrals now than we did 5 years ago.

[Derek Smith]

A small point, and an historical one; I worked in the City of London and the posh evening pubs would have white powder on the counters in the toilet. There was a very post Chinese restaurant that was frequented by lawyers and I took my wife there for a treat once. Again, a visit to the toilet showed that either someone with a very bad case of dandruff had been in there before me or . . .

I had little to do with it but it was always worth sorting through any found property, especially bags, for wraps. I nicked one Fleet Street photographer for cannabis possession, enough, I felt, for intent to supply, but not in the opinion of my sergeant. The chap was quite well known - won awards in places where I could see that cannabis might help.

Drug use/abuse was common in the City at that time.

Others, somewhat sharper than me, got the occasional City trader or lawyer, but for the latter, alcohol was the main drug of abuse. I nicked quite a few of them, one in the Inner Temple who reckoned that, as it was a Papal Peculiar, I had no authority over him. He was proved wrong, although the necessary research was rather fascinating. At court I was not asked for his reply after caution.

It always struck me as a bit odd that someone could be high, on the opiate of their choice, yet still trade at a profit.

[amusingduck]

Derek Smith said:

I nicked one Fleet Street photographer for cannabis possession, enough, I felt, for intent to supply, but not in the opinion of my sergeant.

How much? I know someone who buys ounces at a time, just for himself!

[Derek Smith]

amusingduck said:

Derek Smith said:

I nicked one Fleet Street photographer for cannabis possession, enough, I felt, for intent to supply, but not in the opinion of my sergeant.

How much? I know someone who buys ounces at a time, just for himself!

The stuff's been destroyed now so you wont' be able to sell it to your mate; sorry.

It was the chap's camera gear that had been left in a cab - he was a photographer for a big Fleet Street national!

This was in the days of FP4 35mm film and there were three rows of the black cassette containers, probably a dozen or so, attached by elastic. I only opened one and found the evil stuff. The rest were printed.

It had all looked perfectly normal. When the bloke turned up to reclaim his property (I'd phoned the paper) I gave him one of my looks, of which I had many, and his shoulders drooped. I took him to the cells and asked him to pull out all the containers with cannabis in them, which he duly did, after I told him he could have his cameras back. About eight were tightly packed with herbal.

I wanted to weigh them; there was more than one ounce in each container, but my sergeant knew who the chap was and asked my indulgence. I was easy. It was put down as 'A quantity for personal use'. The bloke gave a full and frank statement, we retained the cannabis, went to court the following day, got a conviction, remanded for reports, and the case went away. I got a look from the bench when I produced all the containers, I was a bit of a pain and used to nick a lot of minor offenders, and occasionally had a whole court day, apart from the over-nighters, put by for mine, so when I shrugged and smiled, they nodded it through.

It was put into the evidence store to be destroyed, in an unspecified way, later.

The chap had won awards for his work, sometimes in areas where you'd need a spliff or two before taking risks. I didn't know of him at the time, but I followed his work afterwards. He won some more awards and then just stopped.

[anonymous-user]

"The evil stuff"

It's a plant.

[1602Mark]

Elatino1 said:

"The evil stuff"

It's a plant.

So are Poppies and Coca.

Edited by 1602Mark on Friday 9th August 21:14