Forum menu
16th state to do so.
I know and understand there are a bunch of people anti weed and hate the smell etc. I know there are people who can become acutely unwell when smoking it. I totally get this. But given the revenue the states are getting from sales, is it time that BoJo really considers decriminalisation or legalising? Police numbers are low, and a great deal of their time is spent "busting" people for possession, and dealing with organised crime. Their resources could be better used I'm sure. As for people saying there has been a huge increase in RTC's and road deaths in the US in places where weed has been given the go-ahead, I wonder if there is a correlation between weed being available, more people moving to these areas, more tourists, hence more traffic in general?
As I said, I know there are haters. There always will be. But in 2019 isn't it time to really look at things?
Let's keep this discussion nice as I'm sure the mods will be swift in closing the thread if it turns bitchy. Play nice.
I would like evidence based drug policies with the aim of harm reduction. Take the best of other countries experience and use that. Plenty of evidence around different approaches
Netherlands, Portugal, Uruguay are 3 to look at.
It’s interesting to observe that it’s the individual States of America who are seemingly going against the Federal policy of war on drugs, which was started by them back in the 1920’s/30’s.
One of the best evidence based programs is here in the UK. Have a google for Dr John Marks and drug treatment program in Merseyside in the 1990’s.
Or alternatively, feast yer eyes on this
Drug treatment research
Whilst the above deals with opioid dependencies, the song remains the same. By regulating supply, not only do the authorities start to realise their social responsibilities, they also reduce the burden to the tax payer through lessened time currently devoured by law enforcement, judicial and prisons, in fact, do it right and the tax revenue further enhances communities through increased resources for education and health.
I’ve been saying this for what feels like decades now and I’m almost getting bored of hearing myself say it.
I’ll leave you with one snippet of information that I’m sure I’ve stated on here before, the reason we have this ridiculous war on drugs is because of one man, Harry Anslinger, who ran the Fedral Bureau of Narcotics in 192/30 something, who publicly stated that drugs needed to be criminalised because “it made the black man lazy”. The bloke was a ****.
Big Dope - the only reason it's being legalised is that there are fortunes to be made, and the businessmen and women are looking for new markets and new products in a low yield world.
Nothing to do with medical, humanitarian or economic studies I'm afraid.
UK will be one of the last western nations to legalise IMO :/
For a very long time the only sensible sounding explanation anyone could think of for why cannabis hadn't already been legalised in the UK was because 'the US would never allow it' bearing in mind the millions they were spending on their war on drugs at the time. Now look at what they are doing! Making us look like a right bunch of saps lol
The thing is OP, why did you bother starting this debate in the first place? You've already labelled anyone who thinks this is a bad idea as a "hater"...
You then have the cheek to tell everyone to "play nice" - when you've already started off by playing naughty!
You don't want a debate, you want an argument, on a forum where the odds are stacked in your favour as you know most people here are pro-legalisation.
Governement have plans to wipe out smoking period by 2030 no??
going to be a short lived legalization
Personally I don't mind people smoking it but do dislike the smell.
Should you be able to say to someone , just head over there mate I don't want to breathe your shit in.
It's coming isn't it. Long over due too.
There's too much money to be made in taxation.
There's too much money to be saved in policing.
There's too many votes to be won from users.
But being British, we won't rush in, we'll do as we're doing now, the Police will be asked to slowly but surely stop enforcing the laws as they do now, not to mention as long as you're not growing a field of the stuff with a by passed metre in a house or drug driving, smoking in public (unless there's enough of you to call it a demo) or under 18 there's almost no chance the Police will bother you, unless you give them a reason to.
Now look at what they are doing! Making us look like a right bunch of saps lol
As someone has mentioned the US has got this rather confused position at the moment.
Federal government is still heavily opposed whilst some states are legalising it.
New York haven't legalised it. They've de-criminalised it.
I am not entirely sure what the difference is, but there is a difference.
I think you can be fined if in possession, but won't get a criminal record.
And you can't legally sell it.
leaving aside the drug making you high bit...
Smoking tobacco is bad for your lungs
Wood smoke from log burners is bad for your lungs
particulates from exhausts are bad for your lungs
So won't smoking cannabis be just as bad for you lungs?
Or took look at it another way. If smoking cannabis was legal, the government would be legislating against it because it is bad for you lungs.
You don't have to smoke it, there are other ways of ingesting.
Space cakes, sweets, capsules and sprays
As above, my question is, why, when smoking in general is considered unhealthy and is pretty much banned everywhere except in your own home, would the govt. take steps to legalise (and encourage?) another form of smoking?
You don’t have to smoke it, there are other ways of ingesting
So it would make more sense to legalise eating it, but not smoking it.
Money saving and harm reduction
I think it will become legal, there will probably be a bit of a surge and then it will settle down and revert to pre-legalised use, however I do not for one moment believe it will effect the already thriving illegal trade and therefore the tax revenues will not really amount to much. I know for a fact that there will be an overnight implementation of a zero tolerance policy on all major construction and civil/rail engineering projects with full rather than random testing and what is there to stop other companies implementing more rigorous testing in the workplace
We had to send two young electrical subbies home from a job in London after they refused a random drug test, on arrival at their base in West Yorks both were dismissed instantly. The problem here for many young lads and lasses is the temptations on offer at the weekends compared to the testing that will become inevitable. I think the Potheads need to have a good long hard think(if possible) and be careful what they wish for.
We had to send two young electrical subbies home from a job in London after they refused a random drug test, on arrival at their base in West Yorks both were dismissed instantly. The problem here for many young lads and lasses is the temptations on offer at the weekends compared to the testing that will become inevitable. I think the Potheads need to have a good long hard think(if possible) and be careful what they wish for.
But if it's not illegal would you be able to send them home? Do you give drugs tests to people who are hung over?
Obviously if someone turns up off their face on alcohol or other substances then fair enough, but if it's in their system from the weekend but having no discernible effect on them, would you be able to legally dismiss them?
The state has no business telling anyone what they can do with their body.
Bojo should lift the prohibition and end gang crime overnight.
The state has no business telling anyone what they can do with their body.
hmm
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/salt-reduction-targets-for-2017
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/sugar-reduction-juice-and-milk-based-drinks
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/childhood-obesity-a-plan-for-action/childhood-obesity-a-plan-for-action
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/smoke-free-policy-framework
But if it’s not illegal would you be able to send them home? Do you give drugs tests to people who are hung over?
Woodsmith Mine construction site in Whitby has compulsory breathalyser testing, you can take a self test which if positive means you leave site for the day however have to explain the reason to your supervisor, if you dont take the self test you still have to take the proper test, if you fail that you are instantly dismissed.
The legality will not effect what individual companies do.
Bojo should lift the prohibition and end gang crime overnight.
Yeah right, cos dem crims are really gonna pack up and go away arent they ???
The state has no business telling anyone what they can do with their body.
Fill your boots then and sign a waiver to forego medical treatment in favour of those less selfish !
I think the Potheads need to have a good long hard think(if possible) and be careful what they wish for.
So switch to harder drugs then since those pass through the system quicker?
But if it’s not illegal would you be able to send them home?
Yes. Just like another drug that you may have heard of, it's called alcohol all the cool kids are doing it.
New York haven’t legalised it. They’ve de-criminalised it.
Decriminalization is removing legal penalties for small scale possession - but that leaves the production / importation and distribution in criminal hands.
Legalization is a process whereby you establish a legal market - cut the criminals out all together
But if it’s not illegal would you be able to send them home?
Yes. Just like another drug that you may have heard of, it’s called alcohol all the cool kids are doing it.
It's different.
If you smoke cannabis it's possible to detect in your blood and pee for days afterwards, long after the narcotic effects have gone. (Apparently).
If you fail an alcohol breath test, then the alcohol will still be impairing you.
Why would you want to sack someone for something that has no effect on their work, seems a bit silly to me.
We had to send two young electrical subbies home from a job in London after they refused a random drug test, on arrival at their base in West Yorks both were dismissed instantly. The problem here for many young lads and lasses is the temptations on offer at the weekends compared to the testing that will become inevitable. I think the Potheads need to have a good long hard think(if possible) and be careful what they wish for.
I guess as part of the legalisation process there would need to be some sensible limits set. How do those drug tests work just now, what are the limits based on?
I think the Potheads need to have a good long hard think(if possible) and be careful what they wish for.
Nice condescending tone, btw.
Yeah right, cos dem crims are really gonna pack up and go away arent they ???
They aren't doing it for fun. No customers. No gangs.
I would like evidence based drug policies with the aim of harm reduction.
I'm all for that, even though it would make my drug of choice massively more expensive. Unfortunately the government has previous on sacking its own scientific advisers when they call for evidence to be used to inform drug policy.
I guess as part of the legalisation process there would need to be some sensible limits set. How do those drug tests work just now, what are the limits based on?
Not a lot from what I can see. Different countries use very different limits and due to the way cannabis stays in your body its detectable for a long time after the effects have gone. Something that good science is needed on.
Part of the issue with prohibition is its very difficult to do good science around prohibited drugs.
Certainly some measure needs to be used. I don't want a stoned train driver. On the other hand I would like to have the limits based on good science
They aren’t doing it for fun. No customers. No gangs.
They're doing it to make money. Not out of the goodness of their hearts. If drugs aren't there to make money on it would be something else. The end of prohibition on alcohol didn't end gangs did it.
Guns, prostitution, mindless violence, extortion, racketeering, or just carry on selling drugs with less risk than before.
Legalization is a process whereby you establish a legal market – cut the criminals out all together
Not working well in Canada. Turns out apparently that when "big dope" enters the market the quality drops and people still buy it illegally (estimated arround 50%).
Thats a problem with the way the market is regulated.; The legal product is either too weak or too expensive
If your legal market meets the users needs then the crims will soon be out of the market.
Governement have plans to wipe out smoking period by 2030 no??
Do they? News to me.
Wiping out smoking would be easy. Change the age limit to "born before 1/1/2000" and wait.
If you smoke cannabis it’s possible to detect in your blood and pee for days afterwards, long after the narcotic effects have gone. (Apparently).
Correct but that's based of detecting rather than a limit that has been set.
Do they? News to me.
It was in the news the other day
Thats a problem with the way the market is regulated.; The legal product is either too weak or too expensive
If your legal market meets the users needs then the crims will soon be out of the market.
Short of subsidies, how is that going to work? The argument goes that legalised drugs bring in tax revenue to pay for any problems caused. So legally acquired drugs are going to be the same price as illegal ones + tax. So a £20 1/8th from a dealer is going to be £100 in a legal shop (assuming similar tax rates to cigarettes).
Not necessarily. Depends on the profit levels and legal growers should be able to do so more cheaply
They’re doing it to make money. Not out of the goodness of their hearts. If drugs aren’t there to make money on it would be something else. The end of prohibition on alcohol didn’t end gangs did it.
They need end prohibition on drugs, gambling, prostitution and every other popular past time that the state pointlessly meddles in.
Not necessarily. Depends on the profit levels and legal growers should be able to do so more cheaply
Cheaper than a council flat with a bypassed meter and slave labour?
I understand the arguments against the war on drugs. I just think the positive arguments made for legalisation are complete fantasy.
tinas - thats why I said take the best from other countries and use that
and yes - a commercial grower will be cheaper than an illegal one - economies of scale
Not working well in Canada. Turns out apparently that when “big dope” enters the market the quality drops and people still buy it illegally (estimated arround 50%).
By quality, I presume you mean strength. I bet the actual quality is better, less bulked out with crap.
Of course, another way to look at that figure is a 50% reduction in illegal dope in 12 months. To be fair, that sounds pretty good to me. Plus C$186 tax revenue in the first 5 months alone.
I don't think anyone's pretending legalisation is a sliver bullet, but people are already taking huge amounts of it. What we're doing currently does not work, wastes a lot of police time and costs a lot of money. Far better to legalise it, control it, tax it, reduced the appeal to criminals, offer better heath care support to those who need it, educate people about the consequences of using it.
stumpy01
Member
New York haven’t legalised it. They’ve de-criminalised it.I am not entirely sure what the difference is, but there is a difference.
Means they've made possession no longer and offence and left the black market intact. You'd imagine it basically legalises self growing.
It's basically a halfway house. I'm against it because it does leave the black market intact, I just see no logic to that in the slightest.
I'd doubt that decriminalisation will be the end point for NY, they'll fully legalise in the coming years no doubt.
Legalisation will eventually come here. Unlikely under the tories though. But one government will come along that will be happy to hoover up the tax money.
take the best from other countries and use that
Which is a good soundbyte. But which bits?
From the BBC yesterday 50% of cannabis in Canada is still bought illegally. Anecdotally from friends there those who already smoked still buy it illegally. The customer base for the shops is the middle classes, housewives and tourists. I.e. little has changed on the illegal side and more people smoke and all do it in public.
It's like that other political thing, brexit, you can't have your hash brownie and eat it.
I just think the positive arguments made for legalisation are complete fantasy.
Lets look at Heroin in a dutch context. Heroin addicts in the Netherlands can IIRC register and get a safe fix in a safe place. This make heroin addiction very dull and boring. It also kills the illegal market. Add to this the open sale of cannabis meaning kids who want to get high have something easily available to get high on. Add to this the police time saved from not chasing users giving more police time to chase dealers / importers
Result - over the last 20 years the number of heroin addicts has reduced dramatically and the average age increased - showing almost no people are now getting addicted to heroin. completely the opposite to the UK
So that is one clear and obvious benefit to the country of sensible drug policies
I don't believe the dutch model is perfect - but its a lot better than what we have.
take the best from other countries and use that
Which is a good soundbyte. But which bits?
Different approaches for different drugs
I would go for the dutch / Swiss /. Uragauy / Portugal type approach to heroin. Make it a healthcare issue and set off with harm reduction as the aim. this sort of approach is proven to work basically by making heroin addiction really dull.
I would go for a full regulated market in cannabis - Canada its still new and not settled down but again the evidence is that this leads to harm reduction and takes money out of the black economy. Uraguay is the same IIRC - state controlled market there.