General Election July 2024
Discussion
FiF said:
Precisely. Too many other demands for medical research funding.
Would it be too confrontational to suggest those campaigning for deregulation should pony up?
Clearly the dealers aren't as it ultimately harms their business model.
So it's down to the pot heads then.
The costs can be hypothecated from tax revenue on cannabis sales like they do everywhere else?Would it be too confrontational to suggest those campaigning for deregulation should pony up?
Clearly the dealers aren't as it ultimately harms their business model.
So it's down to the pot heads then.
hidetheelephants said:
The costs can be hypothecated from tax revenue on cannabis sales like they do everywhere else?
Can you not see the obvious conflict. If govt wants to tax sales it has to legalise which is implicitly saying there's no harm. As above the proper scientific evidence does not yet support that.Fast forward and court cases could arise where something bad happens where a significant causal factor is the consumption of cannabis. Maybe even class actions or similar with the government being sued amongst others. In that event the examination of the available evidence at the time of the decision will not stand up to scrutiny.
No amount of pot head screwed up wishful non thinking will induce any sensible and responsible government to make that decision based on current knowledge.
Clearly your opinion differs. Well it's an opinion, seemingly.
FiF said:
hidetheelephants said:
The costs can be hypothecated from tax revenue on cannabis sales like they do everywhere else?
Can you not see the obvious conflict. If govt wants to tax sales it has to legalise which is implicitly saying there's no harm. As above the proper scientific evidence does not yet support that.Fast forward and court cases could arise where something bad happens where a significant causal factor is the consumption of cannabis. Maybe even class actions or similar with the government being sued amongst others. In that event the examination of the available evidence at the time of the decision will not stand up to scrutiny.
No amount of pot head screwed up wishful non thinking will induce any sensible and responsible government to make that decision based on current knowledge.
Clearly your opinion differs. Well it's an opinion, seemingly.
https://www.cannabisbusinesstimes.com/news/califor...
link said:
After the state collected a peak of nearly $1.4 billion in total adult-use cannabis tax revenues in 2021, this revenue stream shrank to $1.11 billion in 2022 and $1.08 billion in 2023, according to the CDTFA.
Edited by pingu393 on Saturday 29th June 21:32
FiF said:
hidetheelephants said:
The costs can be hypothecated from tax revenue on cannabis sales like they do everywhere else?
Can you not see the obvious conflict. If govt wants to tax sales it has to legalise which is implicitly saying there's no harm. As above the proper scientific evidence does not yet support that.Fast forward and court cases could arise where something bad happens where a significant causal factor is the consumption of cannabis. Maybe even class actions or similar with the government being sued amongst others. In that event the examination of the available evidence at the time of the decision will not stand up to scrutiny.
No amount of pot head screwed up wishful non thinking will induce any sensible and responsible government to make that decision based on current knowledge.
Clearly your opinion differs. Well it's an opinion, seemingly.
I've never smoked or otherwise consumed cannabis, just because I disagree with you is no justification for making snide remarks.
hidetheelephants said:
FiF said:
hidetheelephants said:
The costs can be hypothecated from tax revenue on cannabis sales like they do everywhere else?
Can you not see the obvious conflict. If govt wants to tax sales it has to legalise which is implicitly saying there's no harm. As above the proper scientific evidence does not yet support that.Fast forward and court cases could arise where something bad happens where a significant causal factor is the consumption of cannabis. Maybe even class actions or similar with the government being sued amongst others. In that event the examination of the available evidence at the time of the decision will not stand up to scrutiny.
No amount of pot head screwed up wishful non thinking will induce any sensible and responsible government to make that decision based on current knowledge.
Clearly your opinion differs. Well it's an opinion, seemingly.
https://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/mental-health/parents-an...
Sorry but zcalifornia is such a good example, not. 2/3rds minimum of the market is still traded illicitly.
An LA Times investigation bought 42 legal products from stores, of these testing showed that 25 contained pesticides above state and federal limits for tobacco. Pesticides with links to cancer, liver failure, thyroid disease, neurological damage to users and unborn children. Some of these concentrations were relatively low but above mandated limits, but the risk exists from repeated exposure over time with long term use, thus the extent of the health threat may not be known for years.
However 5 well known vape brands had levels exceeding federal single exposure risk threshold.
There's also corruption in the certification, testing labs have found issues with products certified as safe by other labs.
Yeah California, such a good example, then again maybe not.
We're not going to agree, so going to stop this off topic sub thread.
An LA Times investigation bought 42 legal products from stores, of these testing showed that 25 contained pesticides above state and federal limits for tobacco. Pesticides with links to cancer, liver failure, thyroid disease, neurological damage to users and unborn children. Some of these concentrations were relatively low but above mandated limits, but the risk exists from repeated exposure over time with long term use, thus the extent of the health threat may not be known for years.
However 5 well known vape brands had levels exceeding federal single exposure risk threshold.
There's also corruption in the certification, testing labs have found issues with products certified as safe by other labs.
Yeah California, such a good example, then again maybe not.
We're not going to agree, so going to stop this off topic sub thread.
turbobloke said:
Yes it is. The stats show no significant increase in serious mental illness in the period from the Dangerous Drugs Act 1972 to date. With there being relatively few users then and perhaps 5m regular users today, if it really did what it is often accused of the incidence of schizophrenia would have gone up steeply. It hasn't. It's not harmless, children should be prevented from using it as they should be prevented from using tobacco and alcohol.FiF said:
Sorry but zcalifornia is such a good example, not. 2/3rds minimum of the market is still traded illicitly.
An LA Times investigation bought 42 legal products from stores, of these testing showed that 25 contained pesticides above state and federal limits for tobacco. Pesticides with links to cancer, liver failure, thyroid disease, neurological damage to users and unborn children. Some of these concentrations were relatively low but above mandated limits, but the risk exists from repeated exposure over time with long term use, thus the extent of the health threat may not be known for years.
However 5 well known vape brands had levels exceeding federal single exposure risk threshold.
There's also corruption in the certification, testing labs have found issues with products certified as safe by other labs.
Yeah California, such a good example, then again maybe not.
We're not going to agree, so going to stop this off topic sub thread.
This is like blaming the referee for correctly interpreting stupid laws in the Germany Denmark game, but in reverse.An LA Times investigation bought 42 legal products from stores, of these testing showed that 25 contained pesticides above state and federal limits for tobacco. Pesticides with links to cancer, liver failure, thyroid disease, neurological damage to users and unborn children. Some of these concentrations were relatively low but above mandated limits, but the risk exists from repeated exposure over time with long term use, thus the extent of the health threat may not be known for years.
However 5 well known vape brands had levels exceeding federal single exposure risk threshold.
There's also corruption in the certification, testing labs have found issues with products certified as safe by other labs.
Yeah California, such a good example, then again maybe not.
We're not going to agree, so going to stop this off topic sub thread.
The laws and limits are obviously there, but not being enforced.
hidetheelephants said:
turbobloke said:
Yes it is. The stats show no significant increase in serious mental illness in the period from the Dangerous Drugs Act 1972 to date. With there being relatively few users then and perhaps 5m regular users today, if it really did what it is often accused of the incidence of schizophrenia would have gone up steeply. It hasn't. It's not harmless, children should be prevented from using it as they should be prevented from using tobacco and alcohol.732NM said:
FiF said:
Can you not see the obvious conflict. If govt wants to tax sales it has to legalise which is implicitly saying there's no harm. As above the proper scientific evidence does not yet support that.
They tax cigarettes and alcohol, both known to damage health.Steve vRS said:
Playing devils advocate here. Please can you show the stats you refer to.
An explanation is in the book "drugs without the hot air" by David Nutt but this lecture has the relevant graphs in the ~5 minutes from where I've linked, I can't see them online. The data suggests cannabis use in the period has risen over 2000%, yet no similar increase occurs in serious mental illness. hidetheelephants said:
Steve vRS said:
Playing devils advocate here. Please can you show the stats you refer to.
An explanation is in the book "drugs without the hot air" by David Nutt but this lecture has the relevant graphs in the ~5 minutes from where I've linked, I can't see them online. The data suggests cannabis use in the period has risen over 2000%, yet no similar increase occurs in serious mental illness. Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff