Why is Cannabis still illegal?

[Digga]

There are inescapable problems involved with any drug being illegal.

1. It is near impossible for anyone (dealer, user, police, medical profession etc.) to know the exact constitution of what people are taking.
2. Since use is illegal, it makes any statistically meaningful investigation (medical, in terms of physical and mental effects, or legislative in terms of crime and other effects) of use near impossible, as the vast majority of people do not want to be recorded as users.
3. Medical treatment for effects is very difficult and often not possible because use is covert.
4. The procurement of drugs from dealers brings risks to users and puts them in danger.
5. The prohibition creates an ideal environment for organised crime to make money and spread influence.

Additionally, there is the issue of prison space. Whilst I'm happy to jail dealers, I feel the use of prison space to lock up individuals purely for use (rather than additional aggravations, such as theft to support a habit) is of dubious merit.

[Brave Fart]

The original question was "why is cannabis still illegal?" I think.
Answer: because law makers refuse to permit another potentially dangerous substance to join the likes of tobacco.
Quite right too.
Current public health policy is to reduce, or remove, "bad chemicals" / toxins from society - including sugar, diesel particulates, and asbestos for instance.
All of the above are reducing in prevalence, which is a good thing.
Legalising cannabis would be a direct reversal of that policy.
The last thing we need as a society is more toxins, in my opinion.

Also, if you legalise cannabis, what next? Spice? Cocaine? Crystal Meth? Let's promote healthy living, not encourage toxicity.

[gregs656]

Again though if a reduction in harm is the desired result then it is far from clear that prohibition is effective. Legalisation could improve the situation for any number of easily researched reasons.

[Catatafish]

Brave Fart said:

The original question was "why is cannabis still illegal?" I think.
Answer: because law makers refuse to permit another potentially dangerous substance to join the likes of tobacco.
Quite right too.
Current public health policy is to reduce, or remove, "bad chemicals" / toxins from society - including sugar, diesel particulates, and asbestos for instance.
All of the above are reducing in prevalence, which is a good thing.
Legalising cannabis would be a direct reversal of that policy.
The last thing we need as a society is more toxins, in my opinion.

Also, if you legalise cannabis, what next? Spice? Cocaine? Crystal Meth? Let's promote healthy living, not encourage toxicity.

Is it compulsory to systematically go through the substances and legalise them? LOL

Call me cynical, but I think the real answer is the present disconnect between those making money off it in the UK and the government. There is no legit outfit able to lobby the government to bring about law change.

In the US the cannabis industry is booming. As soon as these corporations get rich enough to influence whitehall and expand into the UK, or simply when UK people cotton on to the cash/tax value of the industry, it will be legalised. I don't know how anyone could think that this has anything to do with public health interests whilst tobacco is sold everywhere.

[Macski]

Fabric said:

The data emerging from places which have successfully implemented decriminalisation, or legislation, highlights a corollary of lesser use representative amongst certain groups, i.e: teenagers/youths. The accepted theory being it's much harder for an individual user to purchase in an environment that's subject to stringent controls, such as age minimum age checks, etc.

Couple that information with the fact that most places with some form of legislation allow a defined number of plants to be grown for personal use, and you'll find that another large group will be removed from market census information, as they opt to for self sustenance.

Conclusively, legislation in any region has little to no impact on the usage of current users (aside from criminality, and providing a product of standardised quality), but does show empirical effectiveness in reducing the uptake of new long term users, which ultimately, should be the paramount focus; to regulate for protection.

Maybe it is down to which statistics your looking at and who published them.

there are still criminal gangs, these that claim because something is legalized there is no crime associated with it have probably been smoking to much cannabis.

Catatafish said:

Is it compulsory to systematically go through the substances and legalise them? LOL

Call me cynical, but I think the real answer is the present disconnect between those making money off it in the UK and the government. There is no legit outfit able to lobby the government to bring about law change.

In the US the cannabis industry is booming. As soon as these corporations get rich enough to influence whitehall and expand into the UK, or simply when UK people cotton on to the cash/tax value of the industry, it will be legalised. I don't know how anyone could think that this has anything to do with public health interests whilst tobacco is sold everywhere.

There has been on the news a story of three MPs in Canada who trip was paid for by the Cannabis lobby, so your right

However have you not noticed for 40 years there has been an effort to stop people smoking and many laws have been brought in to restrict it, yet we seem to be going the other way with things like cannabis and i would argue cannabis is far more unhealthy then tobacco.

[Davos123]

Macski said:

i would argue cannabis is far more unhealthy then tobacco.

Please show your working

[1602Mark]

Davos123 said:

Macski said:

i would argue cannabis is far more unhealthy then tobacco.

Please show your working

https://www.lung.org/stop-smoking/smoking-facts/marijuana-and-lung-health.html

[Fabric]

Macski said:

there are still criminal gangs, these that claim because something is legalized there is no crime associated with it have probably been smoking to much cannabis.

Generally speaking, yes. If something is legalised, the aspect of criminality is removed...

That's not to say a black market won't still exist, but that's the same with any regulated substance, look at alcohol and tobacco for example.

1602Mark said:

https://www.lung.org/stop-smoking/smoking-facts/ma...

There's literally nothing in that link to say it's any worse than tobacco. Nobody is questioning whether inhaling particulate of any kind is detrimental to ones health, but in direct comparison to tobacco there's evidence to suggest there's less carcinogenic uptake.

Here's an actual peer reviewed study;

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12778...

[Derek Smith]

Brave Fart said:

The original question was "why is cannabis still illegal?" I think.
Answer: because law makers refuse to permit another potentially dangerous substance to join the likes of tobacco.
Quite right too.
Current public health policy is to reduce, or remove, "bad chemicals" / toxins from society - including sugar, diesel particulates, and asbestos for instance.
All of the above are reducing in prevalence, which is a good thing.
Legalising cannabis would be a direct reversal of that policy.
The last thing we need as a society is more toxins, in my opinion.

Also, if you legalise cannabis, what next? Spice? Cocaine? Crystal Meth? Let's promote healthy living, not encourage toxicity.

A couple of things. Cannabis is a controlled substance. It was made 'illegal' over a long period of time. Most notably, research into its medicinal properties was banned under the 71 Drugs Act under direction from the USA. The logic behind banning research bewilders me. Some suggest it was done so because no one could copyright THC so the big USA pharma companies would not be able to make money from it. But that would be nonsensical as no government would do that to its people.

As for current public policy, my feeling is that if it hurts no one else, the government should keep it's nose out of people's private life. I'm all for banning smoking in public places, but if you want to smoke it at home and you do it in a way that does not harm you kids/partner/other, then go ahead.

There is a significant, and obvious, difference between asbestos, diesel emissions and cannabis smoking/other way of using.

The 'what happens next' argument has been explained many times on here.

There is significant usage of cannabis in this country at the moment. We know the possible harm it can do.

[Centurion07]

Derek Smith said:

A couple of things. Cannabis is a controlled substance. It was made 'illegal' over a long period of time. Most notably, research into its medicinal properties was banned under the 71 Drugs Act under direction from the USA. The logic behind banning research bewilders me. Some suggest it was done so because no one could copyright THC so the big USA pharma companies would not be able to make money from it. But that would be nonsensical as no government would do that to its people.

Come on now, I know you're not THAT naive...

http://www.drugpolicy.org/blog/how-did-marijuana-b...

[biggbn]

Brave Fart said:

The original question was "why is cannabis still illegal?" I think.
Answer: because law makers refuse to permit another potentially dangerous substance to join the likes of tobacco.
Quite right too.
Current public health policy is to reduce, or remove, "bad chemicals" / toxins from society - including sugar, diesel particulates, and asbestos for instance.
All of the above are reducing in prevalence, which is a good thing.
Legalising cannabis would be a direct reversal of that policy.
The last thing we need as a society is more toxins, in my opinion.

Also, if you legalise cannabis, what next? Spice? Cocaine? Crystal Meth? Let's promote healthy living, not encourage toxicity.

I suppose the flip side to that argument is if tobacco and alcohol (THE most widely available and harmful drug in my opinion...) are legal, why not cannabis...? I don't think binary arguments work for this topic as there clearly are some drugs which are much more hazardous than others

[GOATever]

Because they haven’t worked out a way to tax it yet, the booze industry are probably ‘lobbying’ like crazy to keep it illegal as well. As far as ‘harmful drugs’ go, it’s at the lame end of the scale, I reckon a fair bit less risky than booze or nicotine.

[amusingduck]

GOATever said:

Because they haven’t worked out a way to tax it yet, the booze industry are probably ‘lobbying’ like crazy to keep it illegal as well. As far as ‘harmful drugs’ go, it’s at the lame end of the scale, I reckon a fair bit less risky than booze or nicotine.

Didn't Colorado raise an additional $1bn in taxes in their first year from legalised cannabis?

[gregs656]

GOATever said:

Because they haven’t worked out a way to tax it yet, the booze industry are probably ‘lobbying’ like crazy to keep it illegal as well. As far as ‘harmful drugs’ go, it’s at the lame end of the scale, I reckon a fair bit less risky than booze or nicotine.

‘They’ have. In lots of places.

Shockingly it is taxed like everything else.

[Davos123]

1602Mark said:

Davos123 said:

Macski said:

i would argue cannabis is far more unhealthy then tobacco.

Please show your working

https://www.lung.org/stop-smoking/smoking-facts/marijuana-and-lung-health.html

That says nothing about it being worse for you than tobacco.

[Lannister902]

The thought of a 'recreational' drug being taken, and half the population being stoned out their heads roaming the streets like zombies fills me with dread.

[GOATever]

Lannister902 said:

The thought of a 'recreational' drug being taken, and half the population being stoned out their heads roaming the streets like zombies fills me with dread.

Walk down Camden High street on a Saturday at midday. It doesn’t need drugs.

[Oakey]

Yep, that's exactly what's happened in Canada and the US, you can't go there anymore now it's a Mad Max style apocalyptic wasteland.

[GOATever]

amusingduck said:

Didn't Colorado raise an additional $1bn in taxes in their first year from legalised cannabis?

Yes, which makes it even more bizarre that our lot haven’t worked it out yet.

[Davos123]

GOATever said:

Yes, which makes it even more bizarre that our lot haven’t worked it out yet.

We are already profiting from taxing legal weed. British sugar and GW pharmaceuticals are making a st tonne of money from the legal market abroad.