General Election July 2024
Discussion
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. There might be causation, but how do you control for the global behavioural study into mass exposure to portable electronic devices, economic insecurity, etc? It would to stupid to claim there are no bad effects but cannabis use has risen steeply without obviously causing a public health emergency, what issues that do arise seem associated with the lack of standards and quality, particularly strains bred for high THC content and lacking in CBD and CBN which some argue control the effects of the THC.
hidetheelephants said:
There might be causation, but how do you control for the global behavioural study into mass exposure to portable electronic devices, economic insecurity, etc? It would to stupid to claim there are no bad effects but cannabis use has risen steeply without obviously causing a public health emergency, what issues that do arise seem associated with the lack of standards and quality, particularly strains bred for high THC content and lacking in CBD and CBN which some argue control the effects of the THC.
Indeed you can’t isolate it from anything else. 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.The laws and limits are obviously there, but not being enforced.
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 s
t show frankly. So someone holding up California as a wonderful trailblazer is just risible.https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-09-2...
NuckyThompson said:
blueg33 said:
What about less serious mental illness. We are seeing big rises in anxiety and depression.
Social media and the press will be a large cause of that. Every day the daily mail tell me Meghan markle is out to ruin my life and it depresses me
The point was that you can’t prove there is no connection.
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.t show frankly. So someone holding up California as a wonderful trailblazer is just risible.hidetheelephants said:
There might be causation, but how do you control for the global behavioural study into mass exposure to portable electronic devices, economic insecurity, etc? It would to stupid to claim there are no bad effects but cannabis use has risen steeply without obviously causing a public health emergency, what issues that do arise seem associated with the lack of standards and quality, particularly strains bred for high THC content and lacking in CBD and CBN which some argue control the effects of the THC.
We've already identified that what research has been done is on a very narrow range of active compounds and such research, as always has identified causes for concerns with further longer term studies needed.Then you rightly raise the issue of new strains to which one needs to add no control of growing conditions and use of chemicals to promote rop yields. No knowledge of the effects of these.
Then there's the real world example that despite attempting to legalisation and control it the legal market can be swamped by illicit trade and growers to the extent that those trying to operate legally are driven out of business.
To illustrate scale of problem just one county has 800+ certified and legal grow sites of 1 acre. It's estimated that same county has thousands of illegal grow sites. Unregulated, selling who knows what with unknown consequences for users, can only be dealt with by a war on drugs. Wasn't it argued that legalisation would end that?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff