Should Cannabis be legalised?

Wouldn’t want my kids to be driven by someone who has just had a lungful of this…has to stay illegal.

I dont think anyone would nor would they want them driven by someone who has just had some tequila slammers, some special brew , was texting on their phone etc.

Modern cannabis namely skunk and it’s derivatives have had the depressant compounds bred out. It’s now a far more potent and dangerous proposition.

Like spirits are more dangerous than wine which is more dangerous than Lagers? They could just put less in ?

I think there may be some merit to your point to be fair but I am not sure what the research shows on this re risk tbh.

decriminalise maybe. legalise no.

hmm so let the criminals sell it a bit easier but not do any of the positive things – or am I missing something?
(having already misread stoners post) 😳

It’s now a far more potent and dangerous proposition.

atleast if it was legalised you would know the strength and someone would have researched possible affects, instead of the currently lottery

yes, legalised and quality controlled and appropriately classified.
there is a huge problem bubbling just under the surface owing to the strength of the weed that kids are smoking nowadays

anyone who thinks weed is harmless is as out of touch as the person who still thinks ‘drugs are bad’

edit: had to scroll back, but what neninja said.

But arguing that consumption wouldn’t go up is IMO incorrect, which is the point I was making.

The most telling sign of just how much the present policy is failing is the reality of how ridiculously easy it is to buy just about any drug that takes your fancy, just about anywhere in this country.

Its a quick phone call away. I can’t see how selling them through licensed suppliers would increase use by any significant amount. And considering the obvious advantages over the present ‘system’, I just don’t get how anyone capable of rational thought can look at the present shambles objectively, and conclude that the status quo is working just fine, and we shouldn’t be looking at alternatives.

As i mentioned above the evidence is counter intuitive and it tends to reduce consumption – perhaps a reduction in thrill because it is now legal?

IIRC prohibition in the US also increased alcohol consumption

Organized crime received a major boost from Prohibition. Mafia groups limited their activities to prostitution, gambling, and theft until 1920, when organized bootlegging emerged in response to the effect of Prohibition.[71] A profitable, often violent, black market for alcohol flourished. Powerful criminal gangs corrupted law enforcement agencies, leading to racketeering. In essence, prohibition provided a financial basis for organized crime to flourish.[72]

Rather than reducing crime, Prohibition had transformed the cities into battlegrounds between opposing bootlegging gangs. In a study of over 30 major U.S cities during the prohibition years of 1920 and 1921, the number of crimes increased by 24%. Additionally, theft and burglaries increased by 9%, homicide by 12.7%, assaults and battery rose by 13%, drug addiction by 44.6% and police department costs rose by 11.4%. This was largely the result of “black-market violence” as well as the diverting of law enforcement resources elsewhere. Despite the hope of the prohibitionist movement that the outlawing of alcohol would reduce crime, the reality was that the Volstead Act led to higher crime rates than were experienced prior to prohibition and the establishment of a black market dominated by criminal organizations.[73]

Furthermore, stronger liquor surged in popularity because its potency made it more profitable to smuggle…..
Which seems to mirror home grown skunk.

But arguing that consumption wouldn’t go up is IMO incorrect, which is the point I was making.

I think there is a possibility of some “good” boys and girls who will never do anything illegal who once legalised would try drugs. But as others have said the positives we’d get from regulation and control of the drugs would far outweight the minor increase. As a counter there’s probably a lot of “naughty” boys and girls who only do stuff coz it is illegal.

Forgot to say re the super strength skunk, you can get super strength lager and spirits and some nutters will imbibe them but most drinkers want something a bit more mellow. If super strength stuff is easier to smuggle/grow/sell for the gangs then that’s all you’ll be able to buy, something legalisation and control would sort out. Pretty sure there’s a lot of smokers who want a nice mellow bit of old style weed but skunk is all that’s available.

Some pretty relevant points made already, particularly regarding the strength / thc content of skunk, etc, in comparison with dope 20 or 30 years ago. As a psychiatric nurse, I’ve probably seen more people permanently damaged (ie the development of full blown psychosis) due to cannabis than any other drug (having said that, mephedrone seems to be taking over lately). This may have a lot to do with the aforementioned increase in thc content, but I also suspect it has a lot to do with the fact that its generally seen as a soft drug, perhaps more respectable (probably not the right way to put it, but there you go) than speed / smack, etc, therefore more people are likely to try it. Do I think it should be legalised? Possibly, mainly because I think it’s a complete waste of money and resources attempting to police it, and people are always going to use it. Better to educate rather than criminalise. I just object to the fact that so many people see it as harmless – it’s not, and I’m aware that cigarettes and booze carry risks as well, but I personally haven’t nursed anywhere near as many folk damaged by these substances. I realise that that last sentence could be construed as me saying I believe smoking and drinking are in some way less harmful than smoking cannabis – of course, I’m not, I’m just saying that in my particular line of work, drug induced psychosis is far more prevalent.

Current approaches to drug abuse, (including alcohol) don’t work. Therefore, it is blatantly obvious that continuing to do something that doesn’t work, or in fact doing even more of that which does not work is daft. (NB: Happy to defend that statement should anyone disagree).

IMHO therefore the sensible thing to do would be to open our minds to more constructive approaches to the issues. Bringing the issue out from the shadows as has been done with alcohol may not resolve the issue, but it does remove it from the hands of criminals to a large extent, which is quite a part of the battle.
You can see very clearly that this is a narrow path to walk, where undue attempts to influence behaviour tend to drive the problem back underground into criminal hands. See cigarettes for the most obvious example.

So in short re OP yes it probably should be “Decriminalised” as should all other “recreational drugs” that however is not the same as saying its open season per se.

I realise that that last sentence could be construed as me saying I believe smoking and drinking are in some way less harmful than smoking cannabis – of course, I’m not, I’m just saying that in my particular line of work, drug induced psychosis is far more prevalent.

Well, you do work as a psychiatric nurse. On a cancer ward your opinion might be different. (Though that doesn’t change the point about it being dangerous, of course).

I think there is a possibility of some “good” boys and girls who will never do anything illegal who once legalised would try drugs. But as others have said the positives we’d get from regulation and control of the drugs would far outweight the minor increase. As a counter there’s probably a lot of “naughty” boys and girls who only do stuff coz it is illegal.

I think consumption generally would go up, not just the “good boys and girls” (although there’d be a bit of that, too). After all, full legalisation means you could smoke a joint in the park, outside the pub, wherever.

What if you decided to get completely stoned one Sunday afternoon on a mate’s house as it was legal.
On the drive home you kill a cyclist in an accident as we all know you’re reactions are severely impaired.
Do you still think it should be legalized?

What if you decided to get completely stoned pissed one Sunday afternoon on a mate’s house as it was legal.
On the drive home you kill a cyclist in an accident as we all know you’re reactions are severely impaired.
Do you still think it should be legalized?

?

That’s no different from necking 10 pints and then getting behind the wheel of a car though, is it?

You’d have to be a moron to do that. And morons are morons whatever their drug of choice, legal or otherwise

But it only takes one joint to be stoned. One pint and you would be within limits.

so four pages of agreement (barring the rather pathetic half arsed trolling)
unheard of in STW history, but can this conversation be transferred to the HoC?

But it only takes one joint to be stoned. One pint and you would be within limits.

It’s illegal to be driving under the influence, be it one joint or many pints.

iolo – Member

What if you decided to get completely stoned one Sunday afternoon on a mate’s house as it was legal.
On the drive home you kill a cyclist in an accident as we all know you’re reactions are severely impaired.
Do you still think it should be legalized?

Sleeping is legal, what if someone decides they should sleep while driving!

BAN SLEEPING.

But it only takes one joint to be stoned. One pint and you would be within limits.

What about a pint of vodka/whisky/wine?

What if you decided to get completely stoned one Sunday afternoon on a mate’s house as it was legal.
On the drive home you kill a cyclist in an accident as we all know you’re reactions are severely impaired.
Do you still think it should be legalized?

Have I just stumbled into a ‘worst debating skills’ competition or something?

still pissed after last night is my guess 😉

But it only takes one joint to be stoned. One pint and you would be within limits

But still have alcohol in your blood stream, that you can feel, so “pissed”.

I think, like alcohol, we would set a threshold at which your performance is so impaired you can longer drive.
Crazy thought eh

By the way it’s smoked openly on the park over by us I thought it was legal anyway. 😕

RE the driving issue – AFAIK it’s not easy to get a quick reading of the chemical’s levels in the person. Doesn’t it require a blood test?

Actually I seem to remember* that as there is no level set for the amount of THCetc that is allowed in the blood during driving there’s a good chance you wouldn’t be prosecuted if you were observed smoking a spliff and then trying to drive – assuming you don’t have more on you [another matter] and don’t appear to be intoxicated when questioned.

I’ve never been busted and don’t drive – so I don’t know.

*Don’t get used to it.

I think currently if any THC is registered in the system it’s a ban as you have an illegal substance in your body, or something like that. That’s what they said on the speed awareness course thing anyway.

a ban as you have an illegal substance in your body,

Very much doubt that.

Reasons

1) I am innocently in a place where its being smoked I receive secondary smoke.
2) I am given something with it in, cake for example, I innocently eat it without being aware of what it is.
3) etc etc etc

As with alcohol there has to be a level at which it is deemed to be a significant intoxicant.

Just to clear it up I think driving under the influence of anything is a no-no. Riding around the woods with headphones and bag full of Mars Bars OTOH….

The strengths now of skunk is vastly more powerful than was previously available

and where did you get this info, The Sun Newspaper? Ha
Skunk is just one of hundreds of different strains of cannabis and is actually quite rare to come across as most young uns want to smoke the more exotic strains.
P.s skunk was created in the late 70s/early 80s by crossing other strains and is no more stronger than certain land race strains (weed that grows naturally but has been harvested specificly for smoking/eating)

The creation of a highly taxed market will lead to criminality as OCGs muscle in to tax evasion, eg iir there was a major spike in organised crime in Kent back in the early 90’s as gangs moved into smuggling hand rolling from belgium and even now OCGs still get involved in bootlegging as it’s easy money on a risk reward basis. It’s criminal diversification – if there’s a market they move in.

That’s a fair point – I agree that legalization of cannabis wouldn’t remove OCGs entirely from the business, assuming its going to look anything like the alcohol market. However, the proportion of the alcohol market that is untaxed and in the hands of gangsters is fairly piddling.

Having said all that, there is a further problem: if the UK unilaterally legalized and regulated cannabis, it would immediately become a (bigger) hub for organised criminal activity and money laundering as cannabis was smuggled to other countries where it remained illegal.

Should Cannabis be legalised?

IMHO…… No
Most people have tried it, the vast majority grow out of it, some keep up the habit and turn into paranoid delusionals and some are OK other than they smell strange.

edit

yes . it is much better alternative to deadly tobacco and alcohol.

not bothered as I’m not fussed in the slighest about the commercialisation of cannabis. personal cultivation should be legalised though.

I dont think it should be legalised. I also think its wrong to hide it behind the veil of alcohol and smoking. Just because one thing is allowed, doesn’t mean that everything else should be. There has to be a line drawn somewhere. I think the line should cut into alcohol and smoking more personally.

A big problem to me with the legalisation issue is that it cant be generalised into a single category of user. (The same is true of alcohol). Some people can take it responsibly, some cant, so you’re not able to lump everyone together.

I’m not convinced that legalising it would make much difference anyway. If it were a taxed commercial product, you would likely still just get people growing their own and under-cutting the legal market with cheap home-brew gear and selling it on. As well as the larger OCG stuff supply chains already mentioned.

Yes it should, love it.

Hahaha, Jekkyl, I think you’re a bit slow mate 😉

not bothered as I’m not fussed in the slighest about the commercialisation of cannabis.

Aren’t you the guy that’s all enthusiastic about the paramilitaries in Ireland? I’d have thought you’d be the other way around.

konabunny – Member
not bothered as I’m not fussed in the slighest about the commercialisation of cannabis.

Aren’t you the guy that’s all enthusiastic about the paramilitaries in Ireland? I’d have thought you’d be the other way aroundWhit? 😀 repulican views on drugs are antiquated, draconian and completely ridiculous.

ps my views are wide and varied on ireland, don’t be a fool and think that means I condone or agree with everything that happened.