Cannabis - time for a proper debate?
Discussion
Yes, I know the link below is from the Grauniad, but it does in essence summarise what has happened in recent years.
USA, famous for Ronnie’s war on drugs, has legalised it in many states. Many other countries have also moderated their approach.
Medical cannabis has been shown to have benefits to many for various ailments, and even if you use the argument ‘lots of people are doing it anyway’, there doesn’t seem to be any evidence that it even approaches the harm tobacco and alcohol can do. The current legislation seems a bit ott for personal users with no intent to supply, for example.
So what’s your opinion? I’m pretty certain a large proportion of readers would have tried it at least once, but I may be wrong. Maybe an anonymous poll?
To preempt a response to the above sentence, as you can guess, my opinion is legalise and tax it, only available from licensed shops (the difference in cost between legal and illegal supplies would be minimal), firm crack down on anyone driving under the influence, use resources to clamp down much harder on class A (e.g. Coke) etc.
https://www.theguardian.com/news/ng-interactive/20...
USA, famous for Ronnie’s war on drugs, has legalised it in many states. Many other countries have also moderated their approach.
Medical cannabis has been shown to have benefits to many for various ailments, and even if you use the argument ‘lots of people are doing it anyway’, there doesn’t seem to be any evidence that it even approaches the harm tobacco and alcohol can do. The current legislation seems a bit ott for personal users with no intent to supply, for example.
So what’s your opinion? I’m pretty certain a large proportion of readers would have tried it at least once, but I may be wrong. Maybe an anonymous poll?
To preempt a response to the above sentence, as you can guess, my opinion is legalise and tax it, only available from licensed shops (the difference in cost between legal and illegal supplies would be minimal), firm crack down on anyone driving under the influence, use resources to clamp down much harder on class A (e.g. Coke) etc.
https://www.theguardian.com/news/ng-interactive/20...
Personally I think it should be legalised (I'm not a user, tried it when I was like 14).
It should be used for medical and personal use but, like Alcohol there needs to be a limit to operate cars etc.
Like people have said below, heavy users tend to end up being tin foil hate brigade after a while so the levels need to be controlled.
It should be used for medical and personal use but, like Alcohol there needs to be a limit to operate cars etc.
Like people have said below, heavy users tend to end up being tin foil hate brigade after a while so the levels need to be controlled.
Edited by the-norseman on Saturday 31st May 16:30
Of course it should be legalized. All these drugs should be legalized. The state has no valid right to ban or mandate the compounds a person chooses to put or not put in their body.
The whole "War on Drugs" is completely phoney. As if the government bans these things because it cares about your health.
The whole "War on Drugs" is completely phoney. As if the government bans these things because it cares about your health.
Panamax said:
Spare tyre said:
Everyone I know who is into it has eventually gone a bit loopy
It seems to rot the brains of heavy/long term users, especially in the stronger forms.If I wanted a spliff I’d far rather be able to buy it legally and know what I’m getting, rather than some dodgy bloke who probably also sells class A’s (which are truly evil) with all the associated social problems, both at the point of source and consumption.
Legalise it for personal use and tax it. Use proceeds to help pay for treatment centres.
I think most users would be far happier to buy from legitimate sources like a pharmacy where quality can be controlled and there s no need to use dealers except for those users who constantly require a stronger and stronger blend to meet their needs but for most people who use it, a pharmacy hit would be sufficient.
Would also free up police time and resources as they could concentrate on the dealers and hard users rather than the social user.
Although, I was in New York a year or two back and whilst seeing the cannabis van parked on the side of the road plying its trade was a novelty, the stink of weed was sometimes almost overwhelming on the street so there s that to consider I suppose.
Don t see it any worse than alcohol although I’ll preface that in saying I’m not a user at all!
I think most users would be far happier to buy from legitimate sources like a pharmacy where quality can be controlled and there s no need to use dealers except for those users who constantly require a stronger and stronger blend to meet their needs but for most people who use it, a pharmacy hit would be sufficient.
Would also free up police time and resources as they could concentrate on the dealers and hard users rather than the social user.
Although, I was in New York a year or two back and whilst seeing the cannabis van parked on the side of the road plying its trade was a novelty, the stink of weed was sometimes almost overwhelming on the street so there s that to consider I suppose.
Don t see it any worse than alcohol although I’ll preface that in saying I’m not a user at all!
okgo said:
The ease of which anyone can get almost any drug and the complete lack of consequence if you re caught with it means it basically is legal.
I kind of get your point , I think, as the police have better things to do. But the maximum penalty for possession of cannabis is five years imprisonment (*not* with intent to supply). A magistrate's court can also impose a fine of up to £2,500. So ‘the risk’ is there, even if it is rarely/never implemented.Al Gorithum said:
Spare tyre said:
Everyone I know who is into it has eventually gone a bit loopy
That said it s possibly down to their personality regardless of the smoking
Agreed. I've seen it completely ruin lives and families. Evil stuff.That said it s possibly down to their personality regardless of the smoking
It kills motivation like nothing else I've seen. And EVERY SINGLE PERSON I know whose used it, then tried harder Class A in due course.
Makes me laugh that people think it will raise millions in Taxes. The dealers will just slightly undercut the shops.
If we are going to go down this route because it upsets Sadiq Khans voter base. Then we need VERY clear cut rules on it. With heavy punishment if those are broken, because lets be honest, if you allow this to go on massively unchecked or overly permitted. It will go sideways very fast as the users are inherently dumb and cant be trusted to be sensible. The very fact you can smell it in a lot of public spaces tells you the users cant even be subtle about it when its actually a controlled substance.
I want a law that it must be smoked in private venues, not visible to anyone in public, and that it must not be able to be smelt 1 metre outside that premises. I cant stand the smell of this s
t! I then want anyone caught driving under the influence to lose their licence for life.
And if a user causes harm to anyone whilst under the influence to do 10years. (not just in a car, but in any way, cauae we're going to get people operating machinery whilst on it. Just like we get people operating machinery when drunk)
Going to annoy some I'm sure. But I view the users (non medically prescribed for SERIOUS conditions) as pathetic anyway. The same view I have of raging Alcoholics and degenerate gamblers. (yes its an addiction and serious, and we'll need to spend MORE money on how to get people to quit s
t life choices) They're wasting their life and they don't give a fk. So why would I consider them as equals to the rest of society?BunkMoreland said:
It kills motivation like nothing else I've seen. And EVERY SINGLE PERSON I know whose used it, then tried harder Class A in due course.
Makes me laugh that people think it will raise millions in Taxes. The dealers will just slightly undercut the shops.
If we are going to go down this route because it upsets Sadiq Khans voter base. Then we need VERY clear cut rules on it. With heavy punishment if those are broken, because lets be honest, if you allow this to go on massively unchecked or overly permitted. It will go sideways very fast as the users are inherently dumb and cant be trusted to be sensible. The very fact you can smell it in a lot of public spaces tells you the users cant even be subtle about it when its actually a controlled substance.
I want a law that it must be smoked in private venues, not visible to anyone in public, and that it must not be able to be smelt 1 metre outside that premises. I cant stand the smell of this s
t! I then want anyone caught driving under the influence to lose their licence for life.
And if a user causes harm to anyone whilst under the influence to do 10years. (not just in a car, but in any way, cauae we're going to get people operating machinery whilst on it. Just like we get people operating machinery when drunk)
Going to annoy some I'm sure. But I view the users (non medically prescribed for SERIOUS conditions) as pathetic anyway. The same view I have of raging Alcoholics and degenerate gamblers. (yes its an addiction and serious, and we'll need to spend MORE money on how to get people to quit s
t life choices) They're wasting their life and they don't give a fk. So why would I consider them as equals to the rest of society?No. Seen it destroy lives and in both cases was the gateway drug to class A's. Never touched the stuff personally as I consider drug uses losers. As if the NHS doesn't have enough problems with other addictions already. Nicotine and alcohol previously but also the new trend towards obesity.
BunkMoreland said:
It kills motivation like nothing else I've seen. And EVERY SINGLE PERSON I know whose used it, then tried harder Class A in due course.
Makes me laugh that people think it will raise millions in Taxes. The dealers will just slightly undercut the shops.
If we are going to go down this route because it upsets Sadiq Khans voter base. Then we need VERY clear cut rules on it. With heavy punishment if those are broken, because lets be honest, if you allow this to go on massively unchecked or overly permitted. It will go sideways very fast as the users are inherently dumb and cant be trusted to be sensible. The very fact you can smell it in a lot of public spaces tells you the users cant even be subtle about it when its actually a controlled substance.
I want a law that it must be smoked in private venues, not visible to anyone in public, and that it must not be able to be smelt 1 metre outside that premises. I cant stand the smell of this s
t! I then want anyone caught driving under the influence to lose their licence for life.
And if a user causes harm to anyone whilst under the influence to do 10years. (not just in a car, but in any way, cauae we're going to get people operating machinery whilst on it. Just like we get people operating machinery when drunk)
Going to annoy some I'm sure. But I view the users (non medically prescribed for SERIOUS conditions) as pathetic anyway. The same view I have of raging Alcoholics and degenerate gamblers. (yes its an addiction and serious, and we'll need to spend MORE money on how to get people to quit s
t life choices) They're wasting their life and they don't give a fk. So why would I consider them as equals to the rest of society?I would not want it legalised to smoke in public places, its been a failure in Las Vegas.
You could argue its already legal to do so in the UK, plod dont seem to be interested.
I would also add weight to the fact that anyone i know who has smoked it in large quantities or, regularly outside of weekends only, has ended up in therapy.
I believe all drugs should be legalised. Criminalising the use and supply is simply handing the market control and revenue to criminals. I see no reason why Cannabis and Ecstasy can't be available from off licences, not sure about others. The debate needs to start from the position that substances are already available and consumed, criminalisation is merely removing control, not supply and demand.
Driving under the influence is already a licence losing offence. I'm interested in what the prosecutable limit for cannabis is as it stays in the system for about a month, by comparison alcohol is IIRC around a day. I guess that means that spacecake in the Dam could cost you your licence three weeks later.
Driving under the influence is already a licence losing offence. I'm interested in what the prosecutable limit for cannabis is as it stays in the system for about a month, by comparison alcohol is IIRC around a day. I guess that means that spacecake in the Dam could cost you your licence three weeks later.
Panamax said:
Spare tyre said:
Everyone I know who is into it has eventually gone a bit loopy
It seems to rot the brains of heavy/long term users, especially in the stronger forms.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff