Why is Cannabis still illegal?
Discussion
Slyjoe said:
Really? I thought he'd posted one of the best informed posts I've ever seen on PH a couple of pages back.
So, in your humble opinion, he's posted one of the best informed opinions on illegal drugs and use of illegal drugs - so be it.I've read all of the posts!
I remain of the opinion - 'Do What Ya Wanna Do' - and be responsible for all that becomes you as a consequence of your actions.
I'm out of here.
Ali G said:
So, in your humble opinion, he's posted one of the best informed opinions on illegal drugs and use of illegal drugs - so be it.
I've read all of the posts!
I remain of the opinion - 'Do What Ya Wanna Do' - and be responsible for all that becomes you as a consequence of your actions.
I'm out of here.
RESPEC. I've read all of the posts!
I remain of the opinion - 'Do What Ya Wanna Do' - and be responsible for all that becomes you as a consequence of your actions.
I'm out of here.
jakesmith said:
technodup said:
In 95 they were £12ish, dropping to as little as £1in the 00s and now they're a tenner. Apparently.
Fell out of favour due to reduced quality and the rise of coke, mephedrone and other legal highs. Now reported strength is higher than ever.
Nope, there was a drought in 2008-9 due to China clamping down on export of precursors to dodgy dutch and Belgian front companies. Fell out of favour due to reduced quality and the rise of coke, mephedrone and other legal highs. Now reported strength is higher than ever.
This is what fueled the rise of mephedrone.
Then a new synth route was developed using more freely available precursors and the quality shot up
Personally I wouldn't waste my time with the lottery it is.
Im firmly in the keep it illegal and I actually think there should be harsher sentences. Cannabis may seem harmless but besides the possible psychological effects you also have the issues that the addiction causes. 2 of my friends are addicted to cannabis both of them are horrible to be around when they cant get any they would beg borrow or steal to have some. And in my job one of the guys i see lives next door to a heavy user who has in the past broken into his house to fund his habit and has in the past attacked a 70 year old for her purse.
Zoon said:
The reason it is still illegal is that it is far too easy to grow your own, without giving the government a slice of tax. Yes I know you can make your own beer/wine, but it is far harder to make something decent that you will actually want to drink.
Sorry, it's the 2nd comment from the first page. Growing is not easier than brewing. Growing, like brewing is an art. You need quite a lot of equipment that doesn't come cheap. And the plants themselves are so temperamental and sensitive that you can very easily end up chucking the plant away. Its quite simple really, make all drugs legal on the understanding that any issues the user creates, such as failing mental health, criminal activities etc then the tab wont be picked up by the nhs or the taxpayer.
If idiots want drugs then let them have them, the sooner they scramble whats left of their rather dense heads the better, Darwinism in action so to speak, just dont go crying about the effects of what theyve done to themselves afterwards, theyve been warned enough times.
If idiots want drugs then let them have them, the sooner they scramble whats left of their rather dense heads the better, Darwinism in action so to speak, just dont go crying about the effects of what theyve done to themselves afterwards, theyve been warned enough times.
doogz said:
How do you attribute failing mental health or any other physical conditions to the drug though?
If someone smokes pot once, then 6 months later has a nervous breakdown, are they out on their own? No NHS for them, the long term, law abiding tax payer?
If that's the approach, then people that smoke should be banned from the NHS? Or are they ok because of the tax that smoking raises?
In which case, tax drugs, yes?
Or do you want them to be made legal, taxed, and users still barred from any sort of treatment they then require?
I don't mean to be insulting, but for someone calling others idiots, that's a pretty poorly thought out post, and it kinda shows you don't really have an understanding of what drugs do.
Just because it's illegal, and has some side effects, doesn't mean it's going to scramble anyone's 'dense head'.
Many drug users have good jobs, run successful businesses, and generally get on with life as the rest of us do, you're equating drugs, with junkies. That's silly.
Yes it's good to know that there are people out there that would like to consign me to the rubbish heap just for smoking a few herbs occasionally - despite the fact that it's paid for by the good job I hold down at the same time. If someone smokes pot once, then 6 months later has a nervous breakdown, are they out on their own? No NHS for them, the long term, law abiding tax payer?
If that's the approach, then people that smoke should be banned from the NHS? Or are they ok because of the tax that smoking raises?
In which case, tax drugs, yes?
Or do you want them to be made legal, taxed, and users still barred from any sort of treatment they then require?
I don't mean to be insulting, but for someone calling others idiots, that's a pretty poorly thought out post, and it kinda shows you don't really have an understanding of what drugs do.
Just because it's illegal, and has some side effects, doesn't mean it's going to scramble anyone's 'dense head'.
Many drug users have good jobs, run successful businesses, and generally get on with life as the rest of us do, you're equating drugs, with junkies. That's silly.
And that, my friends is why pot is still illegal - as there are far too many people out there who base their knowledge and opinions on drugs from Trainspotting and Reefer Madness.
Driller said:
I don't smoke cannabis (or drink much) but I believe that what you do with your own body, including what you put in it, is your business and nothing to do with anybody else including the government.
Unless it has a detrimental effect on those around you and society in general - because in most cases it's you and me (as taxpayers) who end up funding the wreckage left by the miscreant.doogz said:
Eric Mc said:
Unless it has a detrimental effect on those around you and society in general - because in most cases it's you and me (as taxpayers) who end up funding the wreckage left by the miscreant.
So legalise it.Not only will it be taxed, but it'll wreck countless criminal enterprises throughout the country almost instantly.
I'm not saying taxpayers SHOULDN'T fund all these bills by the way. I'm just pointing out that they will.
doogz said:
Eric Mc said:
Legal drugs have the same effect as illegal drugs. Drugs is drugs after all - only they would probably be even more widespread - so more damaged and wrecked lives for the taxpayers to pick up the tab.
I'm not saying taxpayers SHOULDN'T fund all these bills by the way. I'm just pointing out that they will.
Legal drugs can be controlled. The strength and distribution can be controlled.I'm not saying taxpayers SHOULDN'T fund all these bills by the way. I'm just pointing out that they will.
care ot explain where the counterfiet. / smuggled / illicitly produced alchol and tobacco products i fit in as well
doogz said:
Legal drugs can be controlled. The strength and distribution can be controlled.
Drugs is drugs? You sound like someone else that has no actual experience here. Is that correct? I'm not suggesting that's a bad thing, just that part of the problem is lack of knowledge, and irrational fear, much of which is unfounded, but it's because drugs are illegal and 'wreck lives'
Alcohol is legal and it wrecks plenty of lives. More, if I had to guess, than drugs?
I'm pointing out that they will, but will be backed by the money raised by the legalisation and taxation of said drugs, just like cigarettes.
No argument there. But the medical and social problems of ALL drugs (including those already legal) create a cost for the state i.e,. the taxpayer. Drugs is drugs? You sound like someone else that has no actual experience here. Is that correct? I'm not suggesting that's a bad thing, just that part of the problem is lack of knowledge, and irrational fear, much of which is unfounded, but it's because drugs are illegal and 'wreck lives'
Alcohol is legal and it wrecks plenty of lives. More, if I had to guess, than drugs?
I'm pointing out that they will, but will be backed by the money raised by the legalisation and taxation of said drugs, just like cigarettes.
The question that is difficult to answer is, would making cannabis legal encourage people who currently don't use the substance, take it up. In other words, would there be an increase in cannabis use?
The other question about legalisation is, what controls over the commercialisation of the product would there be?
Who would sell it?
What restrictions on the sale would there be?
What restrictions on advertising would there be?
Once you make something "legal", you have to create an awful lot of new law to define its legality, to monitor it and to control it.
That all costs too.
Whether tax revenue generated by the sale of a now legal product would be enough to cover all these costs is totally unknowable at the moment. Maybe the government would need to encourage more users just to generate the tax take.
doogz said:
mph1977 said:
The majority of drugs of misuse are legal in the correct circumstances and are both 'Controlled' and controlled
care ot explain where the counterfiet. / smuggled / illicitly produced alchol and tobacco products i fit in as well
Sorry?care ot explain where the counterfiet. / smuggled / illicitly produced alchol and tobacco products i fit in as well
I'll try to answer if you can fix the question.
Opiates = PoM CD in the main apart from a few products which are Pharmacy sales
Benzos = all PoM , most PoM CD
'phet = those with clinical uses are PoM CD
barbiturates, Ketamine etc PoM at least
Nitrous Oxide = PoM , nitrous oxide / oxygen 50/ 50 Pharmacy medication but generally supplied through contracts with Medical gasses suppliers
there are cannabinoids which are licences d for clinicla use again a PoM or PoMCD
The suggestion that legalisation removes serious and organised crime from the supply of products is a fallacy as can be seen by ther issues with counterfeit, smuggled and illicitly prtoduced alcohol and tobacco products
doogz said:
Eric Mc said:
No argument there. But the medical and social problems of ALL drugs (including those already legal) create a cost for the state i.e,. the taxpayer.
The question that is difficult to answer is, would making cannabis legal encourage people who currently don't use the substance, take it up. In other words, would there be an increase in cannabis use?
The other question about legalisation is, what controls over the commercialisation of the product would there be?
Who would sell it?
What restrictions on the sale would there be?
What restrictions on advertising would there be?
Once you make something "legal", you have to create an awful lot of new law to define its legality, to monitor it and to control it.
That all costs too.
Whether tax revenue generated by the sale of a now legal product would be enough to cover all these costs is totally unknowable at the moment. Maybe the government would need to encourage more users just to generate the tax take.
Would it encourage more people to take it?The question that is difficult to answer is, would making cannabis legal encourage people who currently don't use the substance, take it up. In other words, would there be an increase in cannabis use?
The other question about legalisation is, what controls over the commercialisation of the product would there be?
Who would sell it?
What restrictions on the sale would there be?
What restrictions on advertising would there be?
Once you make something "legal", you have to create an awful lot of new law to define its legality, to monitor it and to control it.
That all costs too.
Whether tax revenue generated by the sale of a now legal product would be enough to cover all these costs is totally unknowable at the moment. Maybe the government would need to encourage more users just to generate the tax take.
That's an interesting question. I think it might. A lot of people that have been put off by the illegality of it might well want to try it, see if they like it.
As for the rest of your post, all valid points, but how much money would be saved by the police, by customs, etc, it would basically kill the black market for it instantly. How much would it cost? I'd bet my life that it'd cost less than the government would take in tax. You're an accountant, you should know that! It wouldn't matter how much or how little it costs, the taxation will be a bigger number!
doogz said:
Eric Mc said:
I'm afraid we just don't know these things. If you make something that has been illegal for a long time suddenly legal - the follow on consequences are just unknowable. Will society be better or worse as a consequence - anyone who say they knows the answer is either clairvoyant, deluded or stupid.
Or making sensible assumptions based on the legalisation of said drug in other countries in recent times, and the manner in which it came about, is taxed, controlled, regulated, etc.How do you define better?
Has there been enough time for the consequences to be properly examined?
mph1977 said:
The suggestion that legalisation removes serious and organised crime from the supply of products is a fallacy as can be seen by ther issues with counterfeit, smuggled and illicitly prtoduced alcohol and tobacco products.
It won't remove it, but it'll greatly reduce it. The counterfeit issues with those two legal substances are relatively minor and they bring in over £30 billion per year to the treasury directly, and many billions more indirectly e.g. the income tax from all those employed / who benefit from the substances. Whereas with cannabis all the money is in the hands of criminals.
Eric Mc said:
How do you define better?
Money not going to the most serious harmful criminals in the country for an activity that'll never go away. The money, that will inevitably flow, going to the treasury is better. doogz said:
Well, In Colorado, since cannabis was legalised nearly 3 years ago, drug related crime is down, and cannabis has quickly turned into a $700m a year industry.
Crime figures vary depending on the source, and the exact piece of data in question, so I haven't quoted any, but they're very easy to find if you want to look.
I get the feeling though that no figures will pacify you?
Drugs are still a big problem in this country. The 'war on drugs' in unwinnable.
If you can't beat them, join them. We can continue to spend billions of pounds trying to stamp out drugs, or admit that's not going to happen, legalize, regulate, control the distribution, tax it, and deal with it.
I agree with this.Crime figures vary depending on the source, and the exact piece of data in question, so I haven't quoted any, but they're very easy to find if you want to look.
I get the feeling though that no figures will pacify you?
Drugs are still a big problem in this country. The 'war on drugs' in unwinnable.
If you can't beat them, join them. We can continue to spend billions of pounds trying to stamp out drugs, or admit that's not going to happen, legalize, regulate, control the distribution, tax it, and deal with it.
doogz said:
Well, In Colorado, since cannabis was legalised nearly 3 years ago, drug related crime is down, and cannabis has quickly turned into a $700m a year industry.
Crime figures vary depending on the source, and the exact piece of data in question, so I haven't quoted any, but they're very easy to find if you want to look.
I get the feeling though that no figures will pacify you?
Drugs are still a big problem in this country. The 'war on drugs' in unwinnable.
If you can't beat them, join them. We can continue to spend billions of pounds trying to stamp out drugs, or admit that's not going to happen, legalize, regulate, control the distribution, tax it, and deal with it.
If you remove a "crime" from the statute book - then of course crime will go down. That is pretty much to be expected.Crime figures vary depending on the source, and the exact piece of data in question, so I haven't quoted any, but they're very easy to find if you want to look.
I get the feeling though that no figures will pacify you?
Drugs are still a big problem in this country. The 'war on drugs' in unwinnable.
If you can't beat them, join them. We can continue to spend billions of pounds trying to stamp out drugs, or admit that's not going to happen, legalize, regulate, control the distribution, tax it, and deal with it.
For example, if "murder" or "theft" were removed as crimes from the statute books, crime would drop massively.
I'm not concerned about crime statistics as they can be manipulated any way you like.
I am more concerned about the impact on society. That is a much harder thing to predict and quantify.
What inpact is marihuana on society in comparison with alcohol and tobacco use?
The war on drugs is wasted the Dutcch realised that years ago.There is never a perfect solution but better legalise than the other way round.
Prostitution the same solution legalise create safe areas and argue about morality after.
The war on drugs is wasted the Dutcch realised that years ago.There is never a perfect solution but better legalise than the other way round.
Prostitution the same solution legalise create safe areas and argue about morality after.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff