Cannabis as a Class A drug?

[qigong chimp]

I credit cannabis with saving me from psychosis. Too much Thatcher on the telly and airwaves was damaging my developing brain, until I learned to shift gear with the repeat self-administering of chubby blunts of Afghan White Lady. Close one!

Cool and calm.

 

[AuroraSaab]

People are ALWAYS going to take them. Have done throughout all of time. Don't you think it would be better if there was some sort of control over this use or do you think the pushers will somehow get concerned as to the age of the buyer, the frequency they're buying or the purity of their product?

Legalising cannabis hasn't stopped people buying it on the black market in Canada though, anymore than legalising prostitution in Germany has done away with unregulated prostition. It just means a two tier system develops. And if it does turn out to have been a bad idea, winding it back will be near impossible.

 

[Ian H]

I had softened my attitude to legalising cannabis over the years but the more recent research should give anyone pause for thought about it. Once you've legalised it, it will be very hard to put the toothpaste back in the tube. And there will still be an unregulated black market as illegal cannabis will always be cheaper than taxed stuff from regulated outlets.

25% of psychosis admissions are cannabis related apparently:

https://www.priorygroup.com/media-c...sis-among-young-adults-says-top-priory-expert

Why would the black market continue to any greater extent than for either tobacco or alcohol?

 

[All uphill]

A legalised market for quality controlled drugs of limited effect sounds sensible to me.

The cannabis that was around 50 years ago ( I didn't inhale) is a long way from the super strength skunk that I saw the effects of ten years ago on teenagers. Maybe a regulated and taxed market and strong sanctions on street drugs would have suppressed the most harmful developments over that period. Or maybe the law- breaking is part of the appeal.

 

[PaulB]

The cannabis that was around 50 years ago ( I didn't inhale) is a long way from the super strength skunk that I saw the effects of ten years ago on teenagers.

I don't think that's correct. IIRC Ben Goldacre in his book 'Bad Science' absolutely knocks that one out of the water. It's apparently impossible for a cannabis plant to yield more of the psychoactive substance now than it was in biblical times. Additionally, as there was no way of testing then (and if there was, there's no record of it having been done), the only thing we have to go on now is subjective views or dis/information passed on to us by whoever controls the media. And who controls the media? Well the beerage* have a big say and they definitely do not want cheaper competition or a challenge to their monopoly.

*yes it is!

 

[BoldonLad]

A legalised market for quality controlled drugs of limited effect sounds sensible to me.

The cannabis that was around 50 years ago ( I didn't inhale) is a long way from the super strength skunk that I saw the effects of ten years ago on teenagers. Maybe a regulated and taxed market and strong sanctions on street drugs would have suppressed the most harmful developments over that period. Or maybe the law- breaking is part of the appeal.

This is pretty much my view too.

Legalise the lot.

regulate the sale of, and quality

tax it

put health warnings on the packaging

In other words, treat them in the same way as Alcohol and Tobacco.

Not that it is anyone else's business, but, my only indulgence in none prescription drugs is Alcohol.

 

[fozy tornip]

The cannabis that was around 50 years ago ( I didn't inhale) is a long way from the super strength skunk that I saw the effects of ten years ago on teenagers. Maybe a regulated and taxed market and strong sanctions on street drugs would have suppressed the most harmful developments over that period. Or maybe the law- breaking is part of the appeal.

I don't understand this oft repeated trope about super strong varieties. Spirits are super-strong alcohol relative to beer, so tend not to be drunk in pint measures, except by the very determined. Smoking is a fast delivery system; lungs to brain circa seven seconds. A mere coupla puffs of something bestial will see you horizontal with a playlist of 70's Japanese jazz, which effect would take longer with something milder. So what?

 

[AuroraSaab]

Why would the black market continue to any greater extent than for either tobacco or alcohol?

For one presumably cannabis would be harder to get than alcohol and tobacco are. They probably won't be selling it in Tesco. It's fairly easy for kids to get alcohol so the black market, whilst still there, is more limited.

Secondly, price. With taxes, shop overheads, regulations to keep to, cannabis bought from an official outlet will be more expensive than black market cannabis grown with few overheads. Alcohol is ridiculously cheap; I can't see cannabis being the same.

I credit cannabis with saving me from psychosis.

Cool and calm.

Meditation or therapy might have done similar, without the chance of addiction or long term mental health risk.

 

[Ian H]

For one presumably cannabis would be harder to get than alcohol and tobacco are. They probably won't be selling it in Tesco. It's fairly easy for kids to get alcohol so the black market, whilst still there, is more limited.

Secondly, price. With taxes, shop overheads, regulations to keep to, cannabis bought from an official outlet will be more expensive than black market cannabis grown with few overheads. Alcohol is ridiculously cheap; I can't see cannabis being the same.



Meditation or therapy might have done similar, without the chance of addiction or long term mental health risk.

Sorry, but I fail to see why the supply lines, profit margins, etc., should be any different.
Currently dealers have significant overheads related to risk of getting caught, stock seized - that kind of thing.
Further, legalisation would enable better control of quality and strength.

 

[AuroraSaab]

It's a risk not a certainty like taxes though. I would think the risk v rewards will still be substantial enough to make it very worthwhile, especially as the target punter will likely be those who can't buy it legally. You'll have the middle classes buying small expensive amounts from some artisan dope shop, and the under 18's and the poor buying it cheaper from kids on bikes.

And, as with prostitution, the middle class punters don't live in the areas that have to deal with the consequences of drugs or the sex trade.

Those currently dealing drugs are unlikely to get licenses to run a cannabis shop. Hard to believe they'll just pack it in and get a proper job just because an authorised outlet has opened on the high street.

 

[Deleted member 49]

Secondly, price. With taxes, shop overheads, regulations to keep to, cannabis bought from an official outlet will be more expensive than black market cannabis grown with few overheads. Alcohol is ridiculously cheap; I can't see cannabis being the same.

Legalize home cultivation ?
I don't smoke it anymore,partner sometimes does but in one of those vapourizer pipe things.Too strong for me !
It's stronger now because it's more available.Where as years ago it was harder to come by and usually low grade,resin type hash.Not that this adds much to the argument of legalization.Myself id say it would be better if it was legalized.For so many reasons.Its near enough legal now anyway isn't it,I see plenty of people openly smoke it here anyway.

 

[Rusty Nails]

As usual TC has the answer to the problem:

Centrism is a helluva drug

With the added benefit it's free and causes no future problems.

 

[theclaud]

causes no future problems.

Hard disagree.

 

[Rusty Nails]

Hard disagree.

Like any drug, don't knock it til you try it.

I've been a user for years and it's never done me any harm.

 

[theclaud]

don't knock it til you try it.

I voted for a Blair gov in 97. I remember the hit, but the comedown wasn't worth it.