Why is Cannabis still illegal?
Discussion
Zoon said:
Timmy45 said:
it would also give farmers a much needed diversification option 
Rather than solar panels which require no effort once installed.andy_s said:
William Hague says 'war against cannabis 'comprehensively lost' and calls for 'decisive change' to policy.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-44526156
www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics/politics-headlines/we-can-get-through-brexit-if-were-high-says-hague-20180619174406https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-44526156
Edited by Fermit The Krog and Sexy Sarah on Tuesday 19th June 11:40
Timmy45 said:
Quite.
I may be simplifying it, but currently it seems to me buying it must be like buying an opaque bottle labelled alcohol, it could be 3% strength beer, it could be 14% wine, it could be 45% whisky. Or it could be a mixture of all of those.
Under a legalised regime I would expect that people would be able to buy cannabis of a known strength from a licensed shop.
I realise there is the argument that it's a gateway drug leading to other drugs, but buying the dam stuff from a drug dealer is surely rather more likely to result in exposure to/offers of hard drugs than buying it from a shop?
the cat has been out the bag with recreational drug use for far too long. the "war" on drugs will never be won. like all laws people will generally only abide by them if they see them as fit for purpose and sensible, a bit like blanket speed limits.people will make the decision when they will stick to the law and when they won't, not the law makers.
Edited by wc98 on Tuesday 19th June 11:44
anonymous said:
[redacted]
If the strong ones are more popular that defeats the argument about unexpected high strength Harking back to the days when outdoor grown bush weed was really weak and saying hash was stronger, doesn’t hold today as most weed has thc content way higher than even the nice hash
wc98 said:
like all laws people will generally only abide by them if they see them as fit for purpose and sensible, a bit like blanket speed limits.people will make the decision when they will stick to the law and when they won't, not the law makers.
On another thread someone quoted this " Laws are for the guidance of wise men, and the obedience of fools". Quite apt really. With the baby boomers starting to make up the bulk of voters I think the Govt would face less opposition to legalisation than might be supposed. 
Timmy45 said:
On another thread someone quoted this " Laws are for the guidance of wise men, and the obedience of fools". Quite apt really. With the baby boomers starting to make up the bulk of voters I think the Govt would face less opposition to legalisation than might be supposed.
i would agree strongly on both points. the potential tax on its own makes it worthwhile having at least a public consultation, again imo. i would also do the same with cocaine. i haven't used cocaine, but from what i gather it is easier to get your hands on around here than cannabis and people i know from elsewhere say the same for their area. that really would be a blow to the major players here and abroad.given the size of smuggling shipments that get busted from time to time it is quite apparent it is used in vast quantities and i am sure if the money trail could be followed for it all it would be quite revealing where some of the billions involved end up. maybe even supporting political campaigns/individual politicians etc.
La Liga said:
Of course it should be legalised for recreational use.
Money taken away from organised criminals.
Lots of income for the treasury.
It's hardly unprecedented. We can look at what other countries have done and see the effects. If some states in the US can manage it, I'm sure we can.
Yes, I agree. I also think we need more people to come out and say it publicly.Money taken away from organised criminals.
Lots of income for the treasury.
It's hardly unprecedented. We can look at what other countries have done and see the effects. If some states in the US can manage it, I'm sure we can.
The main argument which stands against it is the "gateway to more dangerous drugs" point.
I wonder therefore whether a portion of the money raised in taxation could be directed towards creating a much better funded education and preventative action programmes to minimise this risk.
andy_s said:
William Hague says 'war against cannabis 'comprehensively lost' and calls for 'decisive change' to policy.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-44526156
The 'war' was lost long ago.https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-44526156
Fifteen years ago I could wander into Brighton and 'score' some drugs within an hour, shorter for cannabis. No one cared. If you're caught with some then it's a caution.
When I started at Brighton there was a big drugs 'problem', insofar that people were buying it and using it. The figures for arrest showed how lawless the town was. With funding cuts - this pre swingeing ones of Cameron - squads were disbanded and as the drugs quad officers disappeared so did the drugs problem. Prosecuting drugs dealers is difficult. It doesn't take a lot of intelligence to work out ways of separating the various processes and so making obs manpower intensive.
It may or may not be true that soft drugs lead to harder ones, but even if so, there is the likelihood that cannabis users who bought the stuff legally would be unlikely to go for the iffy stuff bought from street corners or cafes.
The comparison with alcohol is irrelevant. The important thing is how bad cannabis is for those who abuse it.
Talk about it being addictive is argued back and forth. Research is hard to come by for obvious reasons. However, some early American stats regarding soldiers returning from Vietnam showed that once they'd been back for a year or so, usage levels were indistinguishable from the norm. Such research was frowned upon by the state and there was little independent work after it.
wc98 said:
Timmy45 said:
Quite.
I may be simplifying it, but currently it seems to me buying it must be like buying an opaque bottle labelled alcohol, it could be 3% strength beer, it could be 14% wine, it could be 45% whisky. Or it could be a mixture of all of those.
Under a legalised regime I would expect that people would be able to buy cannabis of a known strength from a licensed shop.
I realise there is the argument that it's a gateway drug leading to other drugs, but buying the dam stuff from a drug dealer is surely rather more likely to result in exposure to/offers of hard drugs than buying it from a shop?
the cat has been out the bag with recreational drug use for far too long. the "war" on drugs will never be won. like all laws people will generally only abide by them if they see them as fit for purpose and sensible, a bit like blanket speed limits.people will make the decision when they will stick to the law and when they won't, not the law makers.
Edited by wc98 on Tuesday 19th June 11:44
La Liga said:
Of course it should be legalised for recreational use.
Money taken away from organised criminals.
Lots of income for the treasury.
It's hardly unprecedented. We can look at what other countries have done and see the effects. If some states in the US can manage it, I'm sure we can.
By the time you add up the various costs for legalised production, distribution and selling, you just help establish an ideal market for illegal production, distribution and selling. You just end up establishing two markets. Taking drug money away from organised criminals is a myth.Money taken away from organised criminals.
Lots of income for the treasury.
It's hardly unprecedented. We can look at what other countries have done and see the effects. If some states in the US can manage it, I'm sure we can.
I don't smoke drink or gamble. They are all evil and nasty and utterly poorly regulated, especially gambling.
But I do recall many moons ago a program about this very subject.
And the point that stayed with me was from a woman who worked in a rehab centre dealing with all sorts of drug issues.
And it was simply that every single person in there started out on pot, it introduces you to the dealers and then they will offer you more or other things.
Maybe legalising it might stop that, but do you think it would stop it being available from dealers? Of course not. They will start offering better versions or mixes etc, compared to what might be legal.
But I do recall many moons ago a program about this very subject.
And the point that stayed with me was from a woman who worked in a rehab centre dealing with all sorts of drug issues.
And it was simply that every single person in there started out on pot, it introduces you to the dealers and then they will offer you more or other things.
Maybe legalising it might stop that, but do you think it would stop it being available from dealers? Of course not. They will start offering better versions or mixes etc, compared to what might be legal.
Police State said:
By the time you add up the various costs for legalised production, distribution and selling, you just help establish an ideal market for illegal production, distribution and selling. You just end up establishing two markets. Taking drug money away from organised criminals is a myth.
NonsenseGo to Amsterdam and try and buy some weed from a street dealer, aint happening
People would either buy or grow, the black market would die overnight barring the under agers trying to get hold of it, which is not a situation any different from fags and booze
wc98 said:
Timmy45 said:
On another thread someone quoted this " Laws are for the guidance of wise men, and the obedience of fools". Quite apt really. With the baby boomers starting to make up the bulk of voters I think the Govt would face less opposition to legalisation than might be supposed.
i would agree strongly on both points. the potential tax on its own makes it worthwhile having at least a public consultation, again imo. i would also do the same with cocaine. i haven't used cocaine, but from what i gather it is easier to get your hands on around here than cannabis and people i know from elsewhere say the same for their area. that really would be a blow to the major players here and abroad.given the size of smuggling shipments that get busted from time to time it is quite apparent it is used in vast quantities and i am sure if the money trail could be followed for it all it would be quite revealing where some of the billions involved end up. maybe even supporting political campaigns/individual politicians etc.
The observation above regarding boomers having potential support shouldn't leave out Millenials. See this article where the DT talks of millennial having a pick and mix attitude to ethics.
In fact it was surprising to read a Monbiot quote with which I found myself in full agreement.
Monbiot said:
Informed adults should be allowed to inflict whatever suffering they wish - on themselves. But we are not entitled to harm other people. I know people who drink Fairtrade tea and coffee, shop locally and take cocaine at parties. They are revolting hypocrites.
Police State said:
By the time you add up the various costs for legalised production, distribution and selling, you just help establish an ideal market for illegal production, distribution and selling. You just end up establishing two markets. Taking drug money away from organised criminals is a myth.
You could use the same 'logic' with prohibition of alcohol. Alcohol went from legal, to illegal (where organised crime took over) and back to legal in the US. How big is the illegal market for alcohol?
The law-abiding users, or people who are otherwise law-abiding (other than using cannabis) gravitate towards a lawful and regulated environment. Why would they risk breaking the law when you don't have to?
There are two markets with alcohol, tobacco and clothing, for example. How big are the illegal markets vs the legal ones?
All evidence points towards the legal market being massively dominant vs a smaller, suppressed illegal market.
How big are the illegal cannabis markets in countries / states which have legalised it?
Police State said:
By the time you add up the various costs for legalised production, distribution and selling, you just help establish an ideal market for illegal production, distribution and selling. You just end up establishing two markets. Taking drug money away from organised criminals is a myth.
This is demonstrably untrue. You only have to look at Canada or US states to see that a legal market can destroy an illegal one and be much cheaper, too. A black market will only survive at any meaningful size if the government overregulatechunder27 said:
I don't smoke drink or gamble. They are all evil and nasty and utterly poorly regulated, especially gambling.
But I do recall many moons ago a program about this very subject.
And the point that stayed with me was from a woman who worked in a rehab centre dealing with all sorts of drug issues.
And it was simply that every single person in there started out on pot, it introduces you to the dealers and then they will offer you more or other things.
Maybe legalising it might stop that, but do you think it would stop it being available from dealers? Of course not. They will start offering better versions or mixes etc, compared to what might be legal.
If it is indeed true that cannabis leads on to more dangerous substances due to being introduced to dealers then it is indeed a strong reason for legalising cannabis. If cannabis is available from state regulated outlets, there seems little reason to go to dealers for the same thing but untested.But I do recall many moons ago a program about this very subject.
And the point that stayed with me was from a woman who worked in a rehab centre dealing with all sorts of drug issues.
And it was simply that every single person in there started out on pot, it introduces you to the dealers and then they will offer you more or other things.
Maybe legalising it might stop that, but do you think it would stop it being available from dealers? Of course not. They will start offering better versions or mixes etc, compared to what might be legal.
Davos123 said:
This is demonstrably untrue. You only have to look at Canada or US states to see that a legal market can destroy an illegal one and be much cheaper, too. A black market will only survive at any meaningful size if the government overregulate
Quite.Police State - there’s absolutely no evidence to prove your statement is accurate in any way. Complete and utter nonsensical drivel.
chunder27 said:
And it was simply that every single person in there started out on pot.
Somebody once told me that 90% of heroin users started on cannabis therefore cannabis should be banned.I pointed out that 100% of heroin users started out on milk.
The precedent is US prohibition and how most of the problems pretty much vanished when it was legalised.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff