Where would it be sold if it were to be legalised, serious question.
As a policy, how can a government be on the backs of fag comopanies and spend millions?? putting out anti smoking publicity and yet legalise smoking?
Here in states where it's legal we have highly regulated dispensaries where it's sold. You need ID just to be allowed in to the shop. In Seattle there's something like 10 total, which is very few for a growing metropolis. It feels like there's a fucking million now in west LA where I grew up (there's probably actually very few there as well), but may that's because I notice them more and swear at yuppies under my breath whenever I see one.
There is definitely a question of logistics though. It's something that would need to be thought out and planned for.
When I was a student I used to ring someone up, who came to my house within an hour or so, sold me his wares for £20, and left.
All of this I could do without getting out of my dressing gown and, if the front door was unlocked, without even having to get off the sofa.
Think of the barriers I'd have had to of overcome if it was legalised. Things like 1) paying for something which doubled in priced 2) probably attaining some kind of permit 3) leaving the house.
Can't see a down side. Those that use do and will. Those that don't won't .
The only people I can see really impacted by this will be the dealers and low life, low level crooks. They will have their income chopped off at the knees.
I've never bought into cannabis as being a gateway drug apart from the fact that at present it leads users into meeting with some unsavoury characters who might want to persuade you to try something a bit different.
The war on drugs has already been lost and I'm not sure there was ever a will to win it.
It's a yes for me. Never have been or will be a user myself.
I believe all drugs should be legalised, regulated and sold in chemists. If you don't have a prescription you have to pay for it. Chemists should sit the customer down and explain the risks and advise on usage. Studies should be done to investigate effects and improve regulation.
If people don't want to become Amsterdam with drug tourism, there could be a requirement that a customer proves residence in the UK.
I believe all drugs should be legalised, regulated and sold in chemists. If you don't have a prescription you have to pay for it. Chemists should sit the customer down and explain the risks and advise on usage. Studies should be done to investigate effects and improve regulation.
If people don't want to become Amsterdam with drug tourism, there could be a requirement that a customer proves residence in the UK.
Not sure a lecture by a pharmacist will make much difference. If you don't already know about the dangers of class A drugs then you obviously don't care. Cannabis is so widely used its a different argument.
Nobody is prosecuted for possession anyway so it is basically legal.
I think we should go the other way and properly enforce our drug laws. Prevention (by deterrent) is better than the cure.
I also don't think the effects of cannabis are really known. I know this is tangible but whenever gun crimes happen in America, or terrorists attack people, we're always told that they were habitual users of cannabis.
It's a no from me, as the disadvantages heavily outweigh the advantages.
I'd support the legalisation of other drugs as well such as MDMA and magic mushrooms, my experiences of both have been overwhelmingly positive. As a side note I'm a parent who hopes my primary school age kids don't take any drugs for a long time but if and when they do I hope it's from a government authorised laboratory producing pure products with clearly labelled dosages rather the current set up that is little better than a lottery.
Nobody is prosecuted for possession anyway so it is basically legal.
I think we should go the other way and properly enforce our drug laws. Prevention (by deterrent) is better than the cure.
I also don't think the effects of cannabis are really known. I know this is tangible but whenever gun crimes happen in America, or terrorists attack people, we're always told that they were habitual users of cannabis.
It's a no from me, as the disadvantages heavily outweigh the advantages.
But what about when prevention clearly isn't and hasn't been working since the war on drugs began?
If we properly enforce these laws, a large percentage of the population will end up with some kind of a conviction but drug use will not fall. People will continue to intoxicate themselves as they feel fit. The best thing a government can do about this is take this market out of the hands of gangs and earn some money via taxation. Not to mention free up police time to allow more time for bigger cases rather than a couple of kids getting caught smoking a joint in Eltham park.
We get a new industry set up which creates new jobs and also restricts younger people from purchasing it. Any person with a 20 note can go to a dealer and ask for an 8th whereas if it was sold from a shop, it could be regulated (in the same way tobacco and alcohol are) and sold to people who are of age.
I don't understand how anyone can argue that the disadvantages outweigh the advantages when the advantages are numerous.
As a policy, how can a government be on the backs of fag comopanies and spend millions?? putting out anti smoking publicity and yet legalise smoking?
Because what's in tobacco is lethal. Currently, there are few known cases of marijuana causing death. Admittedly that might be because there have been very few studies into it. But comparing the two is a bit like saying I shouldn't drink orange squash because absinthe is also a bad drink. The delivery mechanism is the same but the outcome is very different (unless you smoke pot with tobacco, which is unnecessary and obviously unhealthy).
Pot is illegal for stupid, and even racist reasons. It goes back to laws created a hundred years ago. There was no logic in the banning of pot that stands up to scrutiny today (unless of course you do think it might 'cause men of color to become violent and solicit sex from white women').
"Cannabis was added to the agenda of the 1925 Convention on Narcotics Control because Egypt and Turkey proposed it. Both countries had histories of prohibition based on interpretations of Islamic law; newly secular, they were trying to be 'modern'. The Egyptian delegate denounced 'Hashism' which he said caused from 30-60 per cent of the insanity in his country." http://www.idmu.co.uk/historical.htm
I'm interested to know why those flat or day 'no' do so?
Other issues = kids always look to the next thing to be a bit rebellious so we'll then have every 14 year old in the country sniffing coke instead of smoking weed and will lead to many addictions.
Other issues = kids always look to the next thing to be a bit rebellious so we'll then have every 14 year old in the country sniffing coke instead of smoking weed and will lead to many addictions.
Again - alcohol is taxed to the hilt currently, how many unlicensed alcohol dealers are there ?
Mental health - presumably legalising it will make it easier for proper studies (like those which have been conducted with regards the effects of alcohol and tobacco) to be conducted to understand the effects and possible mitigations. Tax revenue generated could even be spent to fund those studies.
Nobody is prosecuted for possession anyway so it is basically legal.
I think we should go the other way and properly enforce our drug laws. Prevention (by deterrent) is better than the cure.
I also don't think the effects of cannabis are really known. I know this is tangible but whenever gun crimes happen in America, or terrorists attack people, we're always told that they were habitual users of cannabis.
It's a no from me, as the disadvantages heavily outweigh the advantages.
But what about when prevention clearly isn't and hasn't been working since the war on drugs began?
If we properly enforce these laws, a large percentage of the population will end up with some kind of a conviction but drug use will not fall. People will continue to intoxicate themselves as they feel fit. The best thing a government can do about this is take this market out of the hands of gangs and earn some money via taxation. Not to mention free up police time to allow more time for bigger cases rather than a couple of kids getting caught smoking a joint in Eltham park.
We get a new industry set up which creates new jobs and also restricts younger people from purchasing it. Any person with a 20 note can go to a dealer and ask for an 8th whereas if it was sold from a shop, it could be regulated (in the same way tobacco and alcohol are) and sold to people who are of age.
I don't understand how anyone can argue that the disadvantages outweigh the advantages when the advantages are numerous.
The two things that jump put at me here are, firstly, if you follow your logic and you legalise everything that large sections of the public do where do you draw the line? Secondly, and the biggest flaw in the logic, in my view, is that those that can, currently, buy drugs as long as they have a £20 note will still be able to buy it from the 'dealers'. As there is a network set up already chances are that there will always be someone you can buy these drugs from even if you don't qualify for the heavily taxed legal version.
I don't know much about drug dealing - I don't use them personally, but it would make sense for dealers to sell several types of drugs to their customers. Thus they would sell less cannabis (as a proportion) and more cocaine or whatever the users want. They will, likely, still be able to supply cannabis if necessary. Also I don't know what the profit margins are in cannabis. If the tax is too high it could end up like cigarettes - most people that smoke, that I know of, buy most of their cancer sticks from someone that beings them in from Europe, so they avoid the duty. What's to stop dealers from just undercutting Tesco?
Smoking is not as popular among children now as it used to be but when I was twelve (and older) I knew people that smoked - they must have got their cigarettes from somewhere so they will still be able to get cannabis, probably.
Just in the interests of full disclosure, I don't think I care if they legalise it or not.
Other issues = kids always look to the next thing to be a bit rebellious so we'll then have every 14 year old in the country sniffing coke instead of smoking weed and will lead to many addictions.
Some of that is exposure though. If the kids never meet the dealers then how do they push the harder stuff.
The Netherlands has bucked the trend in western countries in heroin use. It has mainly been attributed to the 'soft drugs' and 'hard drugs' policy.
Yes, providing it can only be smoked on licensed premises and tax goes straight to social care whilst research is still inconclusive of the long term mental health impact that cannabis has.
There is nothing worse than having to go indoors on a hot day and shut all the windows to stop your house smelling like a cannabis factory whilst next door smoke a forests worth of the stuff with their 1 and 3 year old kids in the garden.
Other issues = kids always look to the next thing to be a bit rebellious so we'll then have every 14 year old in the country sniffing coke instead of smoking weed and will lead to many addictions.
Some of that is exposure though. If the kids never meet the dealers then how do they push the harder stuff.
The Netherlands has bucked the trend in western countries in heroin use. It has mainly been attributed to the 'soft drugs' and 'hard drugs' policy.
Well how do kids meet the dealers nowadays for cannabis. It'll be the same as now but for harder drugs.
Yes, providing it can only be smoked on licensed premises and tax goes straight to social care whilst research is still inconclusive of the long term mental health impact that cannabis has.
There is nothing worse than having to go indoors on a hot day and shut all the windows to stop your house smelling like a cannabis factory whilst next door smoke a forests worth of the stuff with their 1 and 3 year old kids in the garden.
I'm not sure one can demand that any tax raised be given to a specific area! Certainly can't agree to legalise something just as long as the money goes to a sector that will, no doubt, very quickly have much higher earning Executives.
If there is an argument that increased drug use leads to more demands on social care then it should not be legalised at all!
On Saturday I had to pick up some de-boned chicken thighs for a recipe, and had to go round 4 shops before I found them. If I had gone out to pick up some smoke, it would have been about 500% easier. In fact, I could have it delivered.
It's already at the point where as a drug it's so easily accessible and openly used that it makes a mockery of any law making it illegal. It is also far less harmful than some make out when used in moderation (like all drugs), and as long as it was properly regulated it could generate huge amounts a money for the goverment. They could then use this to achieve positive social impact, renationalise public services, or spunk it on whatever shit deal we get out of Brexit.
Yes. I don't use the stuff but I don't understand how something that grows naturally can be illegal.
Drugs will be legalised in my lifetime I am confident of that.
Cocaine on the other hand should remain off limits, turns all users into chatterbox arseholes
Cocaine grows naturally, as does opium and a whole heap of other drugs.
A very good friend of mine works in a mental heath unit. She said by far the biggest cause of onset was cannabis, particularly stronger strains such as skunk. For that reason I'd say no.
Other issues = kids always look to the next thing to be a bit rebellious so we'll then have every 14 year old in the country sniffing coke instead of smoking weed and will lead to many addictions.
Some of that is exposure though. If the kids never meet the dealers then how do they push the harder stuff.
The Netherlands has bucked the trend in western countries in heroin use. It has mainly been attributed to the 'soft drugs' and 'hard drugs' policy.
Well how do kids meet the dealers nowadays for cannabis. It'll be the same as now but for harder drugs.
I'm glad you accept that there will always be a level of drug use. The evidence is that kids don't just start trying crack or heroin, they start with gate way drugs like cannabis. So why not try to separate them from the very people that also sell the harder stuff. Why not offer them a safe product and use the revenues for treatment, education and to go after the harder stuff? Instead we currently use funds from the public purse to ineffectively fight increasingly wealthy criminals.
This argument has already happened in prohibition America.
Comments
Were you thinking of getting back into the newsagent game just in case there's a massive spike in business ?!
There is definitely a question of logistics though. It's something that would need to be thought out and planned for.
All of this I could do without getting out of my dressing gown and, if the front door was unlocked, without even having to get off the sofa.
Think of the barriers I'd have had to of overcome if it was legalised. Things like 1) paying for something which doubled in priced 2) probably attaining some kind of permit 3) leaving the house.
Sounds like a terrible idea.
The only people I can see really impacted by this will be the dealers and low life, low level crooks. They will have their income chopped off at the knees.
I've never bought into cannabis as being a gateway drug apart from the fact that at present it leads users into meeting with some unsavoury characters who might want to persuade you to try something a bit different.
The war on drugs has already been lost and I'm not sure there was ever a will to win it.
It's a yes for me. Never have been or will be a user myself.
If people don't want to become Amsterdam with drug tourism, there could be a requirement that a customer proves residence in the UK.
I think we should go the other way and properly enforce our drug laws. Prevention (by deterrent) is better than the cure.
I also don't think the effects of cannabis are really known. I know this is tangible but whenever gun crimes happen in America, or terrorists attack people, we're always told that they were habitual users of cannabis.
It's a no from me, as the disadvantages heavily outweigh the advantages.
Legalising would bring prices down as everyone and their dog would be growing or setting up shop which would negate any price change from taxation.
If we properly enforce these laws, a large percentage of the population will end up with some kind of a conviction but drug use will not fall. People will continue to intoxicate themselves as they feel fit. The best thing a government can do about this is take this market out of the hands of gangs and earn some money via taxation. Not to mention free up police time to allow more time for bigger cases rather than a couple of kids getting caught smoking a joint in Eltham park.
We get a new industry set up which creates new jobs and also restricts younger people from purchasing it. Any person with a 20 note can go to a dealer and ask for an 8th whereas if it was sold from a shop, it could be regulated (in the same way tobacco and alcohol are) and sold to people who are of age.
I don't understand how anyone can argue that the disadvantages outweigh the advantages when the advantages are numerous.
I'd hardly call loft spaces, spare bedrooms and empty houses growing naturally!
Pot is illegal for stupid, and even racist reasons. It goes back to laws created a hundred years ago. There was no logic in the banning of pot that stands up to scrutiny today (unless of course you do think it might 'cause men of color to become violent and solicit sex from white women').
"Cannabis was added to the agenda of the 1925 Convention on Narcotics Control because Egypt and Turkey proposed it. Both countries had histories of prohibition based on interpretations of Islamic law; newly secular, they were trying to be 'modern'. The Egyptian delegate denounced 'Hashism' which he said caused from 30-60 per cent of the insanity in his country." http://www.idmu.co.uk/historical.htm
I'm interested to know why those flat or day 'no' do so?
Mental health = does no favours
Dealers = will look to push harder drugs to sell
Other issues = kids always look to the next thing to be a bit rebellious so we'll then have every 14 year old in the country sniffing coke instead of smoking weed and will lead to many addictions.
Mental health - presumably legalising it will make it easier for proper studies (like those which have been conducted with regards the effects of alcohol and tobacco) to be conducted to understand the effects and possible mitigations. Tax revenue generated could even be spent to fund those studies.
I don't know much about drug dealing - I don't use them personally, but it would make sense for dealers to sell several types of drugs to their customers. Thus they would sell less cannabis (as a proportion) and more cocaine or whatever the users want. They will, likely, still be able to supply cannabis if necessary. Also I don't know what the profit margins are in cannabis. If the tax is too high it could end up like cigarettes - most people that smoke, that I know of, buy most of their cancer sticks from someone that beings them in from Europe, so they avoid the duty. What's to stop dealers from just undercutting Tesco?
Smoking is not as popular among children now as it used to be but when I was twelve (and older) I knew people that smoked - they must have got their cigarettes from somewhere so they will still be able to get cannabis, probably.
Just in the interests of full disclosure, I don't think I care if they legalise it or not.
The Netherlands has bucked the trend in western countries in heroin use. It has mainly been attributed to the 'soft drugs' and 'hard drugs' policy.
There is nothing worse than having to go indoors on a hot day and shut all the windows to stop your house smelling like a cannabis factory whilst next door smoke a forests worth of the stuff with their 1 and 3 year old kids in the garden.
Brand any fecker on the forehead who is caught selling or smoking it for other than medicinal purposes!
If there is an argument that increased drug use leads to more demands on social care then it should not be legalised at all!
It's already at the point where as a drug it's so easily accessible and openly used that it makes a mockery of any law making it illegal. It is also far less harmful than some make out when used in moderation (like all drugs), and as long as it was properly regulated it could generate huge amounts a money for the goverment. They could then use this to achieve positive social impact, renationalise public services, or spunk it on whatever shit deal we get out of Brexit.
So yes, absolutely.
But even if it ain't then don't arrest. Just confiscate and issue on the spot fine instead.
A very good friend of mine works in a mental heath unit. She said by far the biggest cause of onset was cannabis, particularly stronger strains such as skunk. For that reason I'd say no.
This argument has already happened in prohibition America.