General Election July 2024
Discussion
Mr E said:
pingu393 said:
I assume it was a grammatical error, but nobody NEEDS to take recreational drugs.
Nobody NEEDS any art/culture of any form either, but I quite like a nice book. I very much suggest that this is a seperate conversation (that we’ve done many times before)
Kermit power said:
FiF said:
Is the detailed research with proper double blind studies in place to determine the true short and long term effects of all the increasing multitude of new variations and strains that are on sale? No.
This leads to the commonly held belief, it's only a bit of puff, harmless, and is just a route into people moving onto other more harmful habits as you imply. Which also leads to sharing our roads and workplaces, for example, with others still off their tits from the night before. If we don't want individuals abusing alcohol in that state, that goes for drugs too imho.
Trouble is, whilst the routes to market may operate in different lanes to avoid direct competition, they're also just different sides of the same violent organised criminal coin and the finances go to fund other undesirable activities.
You've just managed to perfectly sum up almost all of the reasons for legalising cannabis! This leads to the commonly held belief, it's only a bit of puff, harmless, and is just a route into people moving onto other more harmful habits as you imply. Which also leads to sharing our roads and workplaces, for example, with others still off their tits from the night before. If we don't want individuals abusing alcohol in that state, that goes for drugs too imho.
Trouble is, whilst the routes to market may operate in different lanes to avoid direct competition, they're also just different sides of the same violent organised criminal coin and the finances go to fund other undesirable activities.
1. Strains do get tested, and can be given official strength ratings similar to ABV on booze.
2. Because it's no longer illegal, health/police authorities can provide guidance on legal limits for driving, again similar to alcohol.
3. The only reason cannabis is ever a gateway to harder drugs is because the same dealers sell both. Make cannabis legal and you break that link.
4. If you remove the stigma for using cannabis overall, it becomes much easier to ramp up the stigma against doping and driving, much as happened against drinking and driving.
The other two you've not included that spring to mind are:
a) If it's legal you can regulate and tax it.
b) Given the number of people who think nothing of smoking it walking down the street already, despite being one of the strongest and most identifiable odours out there, at least legalising it would remove the undermining effect of a law that is clearly not policed.
hidetheelephants said:
FiF said:
Well yes, that's correct. Just one point, there is a hell of a lot of testing and studies to be done to achieve point 1) alone. Long long long way from that.
Except there are a number of countries who have done the hard work already, so not really.The real question is to what extent should there be a move towards easing up.
How about just letting the scientists deal with it rather than the Daily Mail editorial writers? Classification of drugs, whether legalised, decriminalised or remaining illegal, should be evidence-based and decided purely on safety grounds and harm reduction, not what makes a sexy headline. The consequences of drug policy set by reactionary nonsense is clear to see in the prison system.
FiF said:
hidetheelephants said:
FiF said:
Well yes, that's correct. Just one point, there is a hell of a lot of testing and studies to be done to achieve point 1) alone. Long long long way from that.
Except there are a number of countries who have done the hard work already, so not really.The real question is to what extent should there be a move towards easing up.
https://www.uchicagomedicine.org/forefront/researc...
It is indeed still poorly understood.
Adults should be free to decide what they put in their body within reason.
Cigarettes and Alcohol are not safe, but society has decided they are acceptable risks and it's up to adults to decide if they use them.
Prohibition never works with such substances, if society is widely using them, tax and manage supply quality is always the most sensible approach.
The vast majority of people couldn't care less if someone uses cannabis, so long as they do so in a way that doesn't put the public at risk. Drive stoned and you are in the realms of drink driving.
It's odd this wasn't put to bed decades ago.
Cigarettes and Alcohol are not safe, but society has decided they are acceptable risks and it's up to adults to decide if they use them.
Prohibition never works with such substances, if society is widely using them, tax and manage supply quality is always the most sensible approach.
The vast majority of people couldn't care less if someone uses cannabis, so long as they do so in a way that doesn't put the public at risk. Drive stoned and you are in the realms of drink driving.
It's odd this wasn't put to bed decades ago.
hidetheelephants said:
How about just letting the scientists deal with it rather than the Daily Mail editorial writers? Classification of drugs, whether legalised, decriminalised or remaining illegal, should be evidence-based and decided purely on safety grounds and harm reduction, not what makes a sexy headline. The consequences of drug policy set by reactionary nonsense is clear to see in the prison system.
And you have just made exactly my point, let the scientific investigations lead the way to evidence based decisions. Part of the problem is recognised that, for example in the US, very tight federal restrictions limit study to a very narrow band of cannabis compounds, which is no way representative of the increasingly wide range of available products. Add in that funding for such research is very limited.
This results in customers in dispensaries relying on advice from budtenders which has been largely obtained anecdotally from other customers with little proper scientific assessment.
Nothing to do with Daily Mail, or sexy headline writers, but cold hard facts that some wish to ignore.
FiF said:
hidetheelephants said:
How about just letting the scientists deal with it rather than the Daily Mail editorial writers? Classification of drugs, whether legalised, decriminalised or remaining illegal, should be evidence-based and decided purely on safety grounds and harm reduction, not what makes a sexy headline. The consequences of drug policy set by reactionary nonsense is clear to see in the prison system.
And you have just made exactly my point, let the scientific investigations lead the way to evidence based decisions. Part of the problem is recognised that, for example in the US, very tight federal restrictions limit study to a very narrow band of cannabis compounds, which is no way representative of the increasingly wide range of available products. Add in that funding for such research is very limited.
This results in customers in dispensaries relying on advice from budtenders which has been largely obtained anecdotally from other customers with little proper scientific assessment.
Nothing to do with Daily Mail, or sexy headline writers, but cold hard facts that some wish to ignore.
119 said:
FiF said:
119 said:
Who pays the for the scientific 'studies' though?
Your point is? Who do you think should contribute towards it?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.
FiF said:
119 said:
FiF said:
119 said:
Who pays the for the scientific 'studies' though?
Your point is? Who do you think should contribute towards it?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.
FiF said:
119 said:
FiF said:
119 said:
Who pays the for the scientific 'studies' though?
Your point is? Who do you think should contribute towards it?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.
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.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff