We would have houses full of cannabis plants and the tenants chucked out on the streets because they could earn more money from drug crazed morons.
Just like all the houses in Prohibition US, full of illegal stills, barrels and bottles of spirits for clandestine bars...oh, no, wait...that happened BEFORE alcohol was legalised...
By legalising it, it would pull the rug out from the illegal growers and the legal growers would undercut the market. Would also give the cash strapped farmers an instant cash crop to support the other parts of their business.
Are you seriously suggesting that acres upon acres of currently fallow fields being replaced by acres upon acres of fields full of cannabis plants would be a good thing for this country? Just my point of view, of course, but I find the thought of a whole, legalised industry springing up to produce a stupefying drug with possible links to psychosis and other potential adverse health and social issues quite abhorrent. [Of course one can point to the alcohol industry, but I think the history and circumstance of that has been more than adequately dealt with already] On the subject of replacing those involved in the illegal production and supply of cannabis with a workforce of authorised personnel, how does one imagine that those usurped will react? I really have no idea, but I don't suppose that they'd think,"Oh well, that was good whilst it lasted. I'd best go me get a proper job now."
If you read my earlier post, the psychosis is linked to skunk and not to the non tampered with strains. I myself have said that those tampered strains should not be grown. As for it being a stupefying drug I personally don't agree it is. Don't group it in with things like smack, coke and the likes. In it's non tampered forms, I don't see it as any more of a health risk than tobacco. So while tobacco is legal what's the difference? (In my opinion.) I also didn't suggest that all other crops should be dropped for the production of it. Besides, I am under the impression that it without sufficient sunlight it couldn't be grown in open fields in this country anyway. Our climate isn't suited to it. It would need to be cultivated in growing houses, so the space would be limited. In the case of history, prohibition has never been shown to be effective for any banned substance. Prohibition just plays into the hand of the criminals. Grown under licence, it would take it away from them. Anyone growing without a licence would be subject to the law but it would reduce the amount of time and money spent on those that consume it by the police and make the law much clearer in regards the cultivation of it. So in answer your second paragraph, it would be much more of a risk for it to be grown illegally and the police would have the resources to tackle the illegal growers. Also the legal growers would be able to under cut the illegal ones on price, so who would go to them to buy it anyway. (No one would deliberately pay above the odds for any product. Would you deliberately go and by a packet of painkillers for twice the price?) Crime tends to be about money and by making it harder to make illegal money from it, the criminals just wouldn't bother and look to another way to make money.
Thank you for your response. Yes, I read your earlier contribution regarding the various forms of cannabis. I have no reason to doubt your credentials and you clearly seem well informed on the subject. None of this, however, does much to change my abhorrence with the notion of an authorised industry centred around the production and supply of this stuff, irrespective of what strain it involves or doesn't. If there is a strain of this muck (sorry, can't help myself) that is no more a health risk (!) than tobacco, then why hasn't it been decriminalised aeons ago? Could it be that experts can never agree? I'm not convinced that cannabis users would content themselves with just the strain that you say is less harmful. The people that Stan describes as easily addicted, or naturally looking for highs and other such experiences, might easily (I would imagine) ignore the legal stuff on account of it not doing the business for them. Hell, I'm no doubt talking bollocks on account of the fact that I have **** all experience of this **** (through choice) since the odd dabble in my teenage years, but this all worries the bejaysus out of me. If the use of cannabis were to become decriminalised, how would the authorities know whether the stuff people are using is the legal stuff or the still-banned stuff? Will they bother to analyse the stuff in everybody's pockets, or will they simply turn and look the other way? I think we all know they'll turn and look the other way. So decriminalising the OK stuff will in practice mean decriminalising all strains. You may have a point on pricing and undercutting the criminal fraternity, but the criminal fraternity will always find new ways of making money in this field. If I were such an individual then I'd undercut the decriminalised stuff for a period with something more 'addictive' and that gives a higher high (snigger) for a period, capture myself a new market before putting up prices. Goldie's right, I'm getting hysterical. I'm not persuaded into your camp and I doubt you'd be persuaded to move your position either. Let's talk about girls and ****.
It's not like coke or smack re. Strength. Also most of the stuff is poor quality. By cleaning up the quality of non tampered strains it would give the consumer the desired effect. I do agree that some people would want to grow the tampered strains but that would put them at risk of prosecution. But people like that would be akin to the meths drinkers over the normal alcohol drinker. The only reason I can make out for it's non legalisation up till now is a lack of understanding by many of those that make the law. I'm sure a way to chemically mark it could be found and that would make it easy to tell legal from illegal sources. I also agree with you that the criminals would try and continue to make money but by freeing up police resources it would make detection of the illegal farms the priority over just prosecuting anything and everything to do with it. (Chose you battles wisely is the phase that springs to mind.) It's worth noting a couple of things. There is a cut of point with using cannabis where no matter how much you smoke you don't get any more stoned. (See the strength comment at the beginning of this post.) Also it is imposable to overdose on it unlike any other drug including alcohol. (You can kill yourself by drinking too much remember.) That's why I compare it to tobacco. It's effects and interactions with the human body are so dramatically different to any other illicit drugs out there. Also what do you mean by addiction? Mental or physical? Morphine and smack are the same thing and have a withdrawl effect on the body. (Physical Addiction) Alcohol has a physical withdrawl as well remember. Cannabis is only a mental one and that is a very different thing. Mentally anyone can be addicted anything. (Sex, exercise have been shown to have mental addictive issues. Should we stop them too?) I can understand your hesitance, hell the whole thing would need carefully looking into. I'm not advocating a blind rush into legalization but when you consider the criminal issues, the funding issues in both policing (and the effectiveness of that policing) and the tax benefits it could generate, I do think it is worth considering. (All a personal point of view of course and I'll always understand the different strokes for different folks outlook.)
Just to help understand how cannabinoids interact with the brain, they attach themselves to a neural receptor in the brain. There is only a finite number of them in the brain so once they have all got cannabinoids attached to them, no matter how much you smoke it cannot make you any more stoned. Hence why you cannot overdose on it. As a side note, the receptors are linked to the need to eat, hence why a stoned person gets the munchies. Hoopington obviously has some experience in the chemistry of this process. I'd be interested in his appraisal of what I've said.
An interesting discussion being well represented on both sides. For me, one question is why people smoke it if it's not addictive. I'd speculate that it's either boredom or self destructive escapism. Neither seems like a behaviour that particularly needs encouraging on any new level. There's also the fact that, unless you're into your paraphernalia then it will be taken with tobacco which is highly addictive (although the mind won't make the distinction of differing between the cannabis and the tobacco when becoming hooked). Also, the pro campaigners are not going to be a bunch of white knights - the vast majority will be existing smokers will be buying, perhaps from a nice guy they know. Who does that guy buy it from? Perhaps a slightly less nice guy up a chain to the point where there's a dealer of all sorts of class A drugs too. These campaigners for the harmless are lining the pockets of some vastly evil people. I would question the validity of submitting to people who have such disregard for the existing laws and the consequences. Legalise it because it's a losing battle without significant legal resources to tackle? Why not legalise petty theft - it's relatively harmless too and rarely warrants a custodial sentence. I'm also not convinced by the notion of putting dealers out of business. Surely basic economics teaches us that the price of superior strength strains will be pushed down through overabundance. Not to mention the counterbalance on the legitimate stuff being taxed very heavily (I doubt it would be just a 20% tax rate applied). You'd end up with the government doing a rather feeble "our version is better because it's safer" campaign while the consumer chooses the best value option from the man who has added incentive to get you on the harder stuff (with easy sells of government self-interest and it's OK for this so why shouldn't that be legal too). Let's face it, the market for this have already shown that obeying the law pails compared to self-interest so it wouldn't take that much selling. Sorry if this has covered existing arguments (especially some of Uber's brilliantly lucid analogies) but it's taken me a while off and on to write this.
I have to admit to making a mistake. (been a long time since I have been involved in this.) Tobacco is addictive it does have a withdrawl, but like I asked Uber, what do you mean by addiction? It is not a black and white issue. There are different types of addictions. Cannabis can be consumed in different ways. (Never heard of space cake?) Smoking is just a quicker way to feel the effects. Eating it removes the need for tobacco. As for reasons why people like to consume it. (Boredom or self destruction) The same can be leveled at alcohol and that's legal and far more destructive both physically and mentally. Your example of where does a small dealer gets it from is a great one. By growing under licence it would remove the bigger (not so nice dealer) out the chain. That would do two things. One, it would stop the lining of his pockets. It would also prevent him from offering the really nasty things like smack and coke to his customer base. The difference between cannabis use and petty theft is this. Someone who uses cannabis is making a choice to do something to themselves where as petty theft effects others. What some one choses to do to themselves is there own business. I totally agree that people shouldn't have adverse effects on others, which is why theft is wrong. I'm no economist re. Tax, but legally grown strains could be deliberately marketed to under cut the illegally grown there by pulling the rug out from under the bigger dealer but still leave scope to make tax. (Then the tax man would get something, where as at the moment they get nothing but the policing bill for it. Turn a negative fiscal loss into a positive fiscal gain.) If policing is better targeted it makes it much harder to make the tampered strains and also more expensive to grow, meaning the illegal dealer would have to charge more to cover his growing costs. (Not stronger, once again because of the way it interacts with the body strength is a moot point with cannabis. Understanding that about strength is important as the way you are seeing it is muddying the water and is not relevant. See above as to how it interacts and why it just doesn't work that way. Post #69) I understand why it seems that way but once you understand the difference in the biology of it and how it is so different in a biological way from other drugs, it makes it a very different thing all together.
Really enjoying the debate but it's my boys b'day tomorrow and I'd better get my head down. (Gonna need my strength to get through that.) I might take a little while to reply cos I won't be about much. Besides we got a game tomorrow as well. (Will probably need my strength to get through that too. )
It can be grown outdoors in this country. It won't be to the highest standard, or the biggest yield, but more and more strains are being bred to grow in our climate. You might be able to tell by my username that I deal with part of the cannabis plant for a living. I deal with CBD products and the people I have met who's life it has changed, is absolutely incredible. I have to sell the products as food supplements and health benefits, I have to draw the line at saying they can help with pain relief and other illnesses. I've seen first hand a guy with tourettes, he was taking 12 tablets a day for 18 years and within 6 weeks of using the spray, his tablets were in the bin and he barely gets a tick now. This country isn't ready to legalise cannabis yet, it has to be respected and not for people to want to just get high all of the time. We need to educate people around it's uses and correct daily dosages. For medicinal purposes, it should be legalised yesterday.
Wow, how did you drag up such an old thread? I’m in favour of decriminalising cannabis, though I have concerns about the effects of the stronger, more hallucinogenic versions which seem to be the norm now, and we have to be upfront about the proven link between cannabis use and schizophrenia in a small number of young users. I am sure that cannabis has beneficial medical effects, many toxic things do (almost everything is toxic), but would prefer to judge this on the basis of large, randomised double blinded clinical trials against the current standard of care than through anecdotal evidence you offer in your first paragraph.
I’m also in favour of legalising Russian Roulette amongst the young, the disenfranchised and the plain stupid. Hope that helps.
It can't be legalized It's taken this bloke over two years to reply to a thread Imagine what would happen to productivity if that became the norm Maybe someone hid his toaster and mars bar's
There's trials being conducted all of the time, granted it will be decades before we know every fine detail. The endocannabinoid system that we all have in our body was only discovered about 25 years ago, so far only two receptor sites have been confirmed (CB1 & CB2), we are pretty sure that many, many more will be discovered with more testing. These receptors are responsible for controlling pain, inflammation, appetite, sleep and anxiety, amongst other things. The CB1 receptor site responds best to THC and CB2 receptor site responds best with CBD. CB1 recpetors are located in the brain and central nervous system, which is the reason people use THC when suffering from illnesses such as cancer. CB2 receptors are located in the immune system and are great to inflammatory responses. Hence why people in pain and with illnesses such as parkinsons, chrons disease and IBS get such great relief from it. The information is out there, but a lot of people are still ignorant towards the benefits of the cannabis plant (not you) I just typed in CBD into the search bar and this come up...
As I say, I don’t doubt that CBD has medical benefits, probably mainly in pain relief and relief from certain mental conditions, as you say. But it needs to be trialled against what is already used and placebo in any disease it might be thought useful in, to find out which conditions and for which patients it might offer relief in (one size does not fit all in this area). I have just looked at one (I don’t have unlimited time available) website, which was very well put together. For almost every condition it covered, the trials have been either pre phase 1 (in mice and rats) or not randomised/blinded, or even against placebo - just small groups of people with existing conditions saying it made them feel better. None against existing standard of care. No pharmaceutical would be licensed on the basis of this evidence, quite rightly. Some of the findings are a bit ‘no **** Sherlock’ as well - smoking cannabis for 5 minutes doesn’t really help with depression, but smoking for 45 minutes at high levels does. Of course there may be better evidence out there that I haven’t seen. Putting together large scale properly designed trials is both complicated and stunningly expensive. I suspect it hasn’t happened because the big Pharma companies can’t see the profit in it. Which is a shame. I think it’s also important to recognise that CBD (sorry, always makes me think Central Business District) might help in symptom control, it doesn’t treat the causes of a disease or it’s progression. It might make you feel less anxious it won’t remove the causes of your anxiety. It might help you manage your MS better, it won’t stop or slow the progression of the MS. It might help relieve your cancer pain, it won’t change the cancer. Not that there is anything wrong with symptom control, especially if it is as or more effective than what is already available and if it is safe and hopefully safer than what we have already - and given that opioids are overused in pain control, the bar is pretty low in this area.
