General Election July 2024

[hidetheelephants]

A situation where the state legalises but it remains illegal federally and the proceeds are regarded as those of crime is hardly a model to follow.

[FiF]

hidetheelephants said:

FiF said:

It's a st show frankly. So someone holding up California as a wonderful trailblazer is just risible.

Is anyone doing that or are you using it as a strawman? At most I've commented that other states who have already decriminalised or legalised cannabis, whether for recreational or medicinal use, are a source of data that can inform decisions made about what to do here in the UK.

Circles round to point made right at the beginning, needs more studies, proper research including double blind. The existing data from elsewhere can be used after review but is not sufficient. Sorry there it is.

By the way I wasn't the one who originally held up California as a shining light. So it's no strawman. Jog on with that accusation

Yet we've just had a reprise of the "It's all the fault of the Daily Mail" twaddle.

[Mr Penguin]

A must read column
https://www.thetimes.com/comment/columnists/articl...

[hidetheelephants]

FiF said:

By the way I wasn't the one who originally held up California as a shining light. So it's no strawman. Jog on with that accusation

I don't know about any other threads running this subject but other than Pingu linking to an article about tax collection issues in California you are the only one mentioning it.

FiF said:

Yet we've just had a reprise of the "It's all the fault of the Daily Mail" twaddle.

Blunkett reduced the classification of cannabis due to it not being sufficiently harmful to remain class B because he followed the advice of the ACMD etc, later Smith raised it again because of hysterical fear of tabloid headlines, the science had remained the same. Most of the ACMD resigned as a result of this decision. I don't know how to interpret this data any other way.

Edited by hidetheelephants on Sunday 30th June 09:46

[Boringvolvodriver]

Mr Penguin said:

A must read column
https://www.thetimes.com/comment/columnists/articl...

You beat me to it! It is a must read and sums up my views pretty well. I was only saying similar to a friend last night.

The issue is that change is unlikely to happen in the short term

[President Merkin]

Mr Penguin said:

A must read column
https://www.thetimes.com/comment/columnists/articl...

Here's a better one with the inbuilt advantage of not being written by a retired ping pong player.

https://www.thetimes.com/comment/the-times-view/ar...

[MC Bodge]

Mr Penguin said:

A must read column
https://www.thetimes.com/comment/columnists/articl...

A very good article.

Anybody who is interested should (and probably does, even if they pretend otherwise) already know what this article is talking about.

Governments need to tax more, even those well-off PHers who are still Tory supporters or thinking that Reform sounds like sensible chaps.

[FiF]

hidetheelephants said:

FiF said:

By the way I wasn't the one who originally held up California as a shining light. So it's no strawman. Jog on with that accusation

I don't know about any other threads running this subject but other than Pingu linking to an article about tax collection issues in California you are the only one mentioning it.

FiF said:

Yet we've just had a reprise of the "It's all the fault of the Daily Mail" twaddle.

Blunkett reduced the classification of cannabis due to it not being sufficiently harmful to remain class B because he followed the advice of the ACMD etc, later Smith raised it again because of hysterical fear of tabloid headlines, the science had remained the same. Most of the ACMD resigned as a result of this decision. I don't know how to interpret this data any other way.

Edited by hidetheelephants on Sunday 30th June 09:46

The article posted by Pingu was from "The Cannabis Business Times" Such an objective source.

Blunkett was Home Sec from 2001 to 2004. So 20 years ago.
Smith Home Sec from. 2007-2009, so 15 years ago.

Strains, strength and availability have moved on.

The ACMD resigned over the sacking of David Nutt who observed that cannabis, MDMA and LSD were less harmful than tobacco and alcohol. Their protest was over their independence being questioned, yet in the same breath some members admitted that "ministers were ignoring ACMD advice, yet they have the democratic and legal right to do so,..."

Additionally there were complaints that although the Govt had accepted their recommendation about research into opioid substitution therapy, in practice funding was cut and deaths continued to climb. There have also been issues over appointing suitably qualified candidates based on questionable Twitter output. As always it's the politics and the money that gets in the way and muddies the waters.

However in the interest of balance there is also little evidence in isolation that supports law enforcement as the tool of choice. Though commit one offence, what else are you up to? So often the case.

[bitchstewie]

What the fk

https://x.com/Gabriel_Pogrund/status/1807335824230...

Tory student group apologises after members ‘danced to Nazi song’

[isaldiri]

FiF said:

They're even starting to say that legalisation has failed.

It's a st show frankly. So someone holding up California as a wonderful trailblazer is just risible.

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-09-2...

I suppose the issue is whether prohibition would be better or worse. No one I think can reasonably argue the latter has been a success either so flawed as legalisation might be, I’m not sure it isn’t the least bad compromise and that goes for drugs in general in many respects imo.

[Kermit power]

President Merkin said:

Mr Penguin said:

A must read column
https://www.thetimes.com/comment/columnists/articl...

Here's a better one with the inbuilt advantage of not being written by a retired ping pong player.

https://www.thetimes.com/comment/the-times-view/ar...

I think I largely agree with both of those, but they both fail to stress the need to address our falling birth rate if we want to do anything at all to fix the problem.

They talk of taxing and investing to build our future, and I agree with that, but to build and maintain anything, you need human resources as well as materials. At the moment, we are not creating enough new human resources and we are allowing too many of the ones we've got to retire too early, so immigration - which clearly isn't a permanent fix - is currently the only option we have.

Too many people take the view that they can get to 55 and retire because they've saved up enough to be able to buy the services they need, but if they're going to live maybe 40 years in retirement, who is going to provide those services? They may think now that they'll be able to afford to pay a plumber or mechanic in 30 years, but if we have another 30 years of failing to produce enough children will they? Or will there be so few working people left that if you can even find one, a plumber is going to cost you 5x what it does today in real terms? The saddest part, of course, is that it'll be those who did raise children who end up having to work longer, retire later and have less to live on, but what is the chance of anyone childless acknowledging that? We can only pay others to create resources - be they human or otherwise - for so long before the supply runs out.

The other thing I think we need to start doing as a matter of urgency is recognising people's value to society - whether they're born here or are immigrants - by something other than their pay packet. Requiring an immigrant to have a minimum salary of £38,700 is just a bad joke! So what if someone is earning £38,700? They're paying less than £7.5k in income tax and NI, so their taxes are hardly going to pull us out of the mire, are they? Bring in someone as a carer or nursery nurse, a teacher or a medical nurse, however, and even if they're only earning minimum wage, they're going to be contributing far, far more to the economy of the country in £25k a year than they ever could if they were on £75k because they'll be helping to shape our future generations and/or freeing up multiple other people to return to the workplace and generate way more value.

Unless we find a way for everyone to contribute their fair share to making our society successfully, we are truly beyond salvation.

[Vanden Saab]

bhstewie said:

What the fk

https://x.com/Gabriel_Pogrund/status/1807335824230...

Tory student group apologises after members ‘danced to Nazi song’

Unbelievable, what are they teaching in schools and universities these days to end up with people like this.

[pingu393]

FiF said:

pingu393 said:

This is like blaming the referee for correctly interpreting stupid laws in the Germany Denmark game, but in reverse.

The laws and limits are obviously there, but not being enforced.

California recognises that a big driver for the illicit trade is down to the taxes imposed. They're trying enforce the illegal trade but overwhelmed and citizens threatened by illegal operations operating openly with impunity.

Someone called it magic money tree, but it really isn't such.

They're even starting to say that legalisation has failed.

It's a st show frankly. So someone holding up California as a wonderful trailblazer is just risible.

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-09-2...

'Twas me that mentioned the magic money tree.

Cannabis could be the money tree in the same way that tobacco is.

Like it, or not, people will smoke tobacco and it will cost the NHS £3Bn to deal with the consequences. Tobacco taxes bring in £9Bn.

Again, like it, or not, people will use cannabis. If it costs California less than $1Bn to deal with the problems of cannabis, Puff's a magic dragon money tree . Even if it doesn't, it will be $1Bn cheaper to deal with.

[turbobloke]

Does that analysis include increased NHS costs from treating more physical and psychological conditions arising?

[The Hypno-Toad]

MC Bodge said:

Mr Penguin said:

A must read column
https://www.thetimes.com/comment/columnists/articl...

A very good article.
.

Agreed

Pretty much sums up what I have been saying for the past few years. Unless something changes at far deeper level than just politics, we are all truly fked.

[pingu393]

turbobloke said:

Does that analysis include increased NHS costs from treating more physical and psychological conditions arising?

The tax rate would be subject to the Laffer curve, as all tax rates should be, so the income can be estimated. The increased expense can be estimated. Both numbers will be wrong, but as long as the income exceeds the increased costs, it's a money tree.

The proof will be in the pudding cookies.

[swisstoni]

The Hypno-Toad said:

MC Bodge said:

Mr Penguin said:

A must read column
https://www.thetimes.com/comment/columnists/articl...

A very good article.
.

Agreed

Pretty much sums up what I have been saying for the past few years. Unless something changes at far deeper level than just politics, we are all truly fked.

To radically sumarise the article; sometimes you have to take the unpopular decisions. Sometimes the path of least resistance must be ignored to take a harder road.

We are about to get the strongest Government there’s been in generations.
It falls to them to take some tough decisions, because they can.

Whether they will, of course, remains to be seen.

[turbobloke]

Mr Penguin said:

A must read column
https://www.thetimes.com/comment/columnists/articl...

It's good, it's not wrong, though as the author 'can see it' and presumably is excluded froim the blame game, plenty of others are definitely not “now, now, now” and “me, me, me” people and don't need to "escape delusion" and "embrace realism" as they are very much attached to reality already.

These people won't see any mainstream political Party as a saviour of society given that those are the politicians promoting the aforementioned delusion and are neck deep in it.

[glazbagun]

The Hypno-Toad said:

MC Bodge said:

Mr Penguin said:

A must read column
https://www.thetimes.com/comment/columnists/articl...

A very good article.
.

Agreed

Pretty much sums up what I have been saying for the past few years. Unless something changes at far deeper level than just politics, we are all truly fked.

We had this after the GFC and Cameron's "all in this together". Polling suggested that everyone agreed that cuts had to be made. They also all felt the cuts should be ones which didn't affect them personally. Now the priorities government chose have left us with gutted public services and nothing to show for it.

The time to sort this out was then. We've kicked the can down the road for almost two decades and are heading towards some kind of neo feudalism.

[Murph7355]

MC Bodge said:

A very good article.

Anybody who is interested should (and probably does, even if they pretend otherwise) already know what this article is talking about.

Governments need to tax more, even those well-off PHers who are still Tory supporters or thinking that Reform sounds like sensible chaps.

Or electorates need to accept lesser service provision. Or a combination of both.

Apparently, however, "hard working people" shouldn't be expected to pay more tax.

Which sounds like those not working should be. Which is a strange position for Labour to take, but does highlight a significant problem - that not enough people are paying in.