Our chief adviser on drugs policy has now resigned over the reclassification to a class B drug against his advice. No scientific case for this can be given. It's prohibition, based on other prejudices our MPs have on the issue.
There is a strong economic case for legalisation aswell: In the UK we have 10.8% - c 6 million using cannabis, causing a black economy of c £1.7 Billion. Plus 74% of UK drug convictions relating to cannabis. In the US, the same calculation ( assume $20 p/m spending per user) gives $8.6 Billion spent. Given the low cost of production if legal, a large portion of this could be tax, plus less police/court/prison time wasted on otherwise law abiding people.
Here's a campaign website in California where 54% now back legalistion. http://www.taxcannabis.org/
The CBS broadcast there shows a mature discussion in the US about this which is lacking in the UK: It's seen as immoral to deprive patients who can benefit from the drug, those with Multiple Sclerosis, AIDS, Chemotherapy, and other conditions and wrong for the police to raid premises which supply them. The Obama Administration say the National Govt will not intervene in such cases. And 14 US States have already legalized cannabis for medical use, with more discussing the issue in 2010.
However in the UK the debate is far behind America, with none of the major political parties prepared to discuss the issue, offering no democratic mechanism for it to be taken forward. I think our current prohibition is an immoral burden on our economy and the 6 million people who choose to use it. If this were a religious group it would be seen as a form of prejudice. And I want my opinions to count in the next election. So who should the 6 million UK users be voting for?
Originally posted by Black Star UchessI'm afraid legalization in the US is probably further behind than you think. With the slash and burn nature of US politics, very few prominent politicians have the balls to back legalization.
Our chief adviser on drugs policy has now resigned over the reclassification to a class B drug against his advice. No scientific case for this can be given. It's prohibition, based on other prejudices our MPs have on the issue.
There is a strong economic case for legalisation aswell: In the UK we have 10.8% - c 6 million using cannabis, causing ...[text shortened]... y opinions to count in the next election. So who should the 6 million UK users be voting for?
IMO Obama is actually for legalization, but the Republicans would have nuked the crap out of him if he even hinted at legalizing marijuana. It would have been "family values" this and "drugs in schools" that.
Originally posted by Black Star UchessFor medical reasons that's entirely possible. But the fact that only 14 out of 50 allow a freaking medical doctor to prescribe it speaks miles about where we are. In my view you have to be a complete moron to oppose it for medical use, yet most states don't allow it.
Haven't 14 states legalized it for medical reasons ? got that from CNN
http://money.cnn.com/2009/09/11/magazines/fortune/medical_marijuana_legalizing.fortune/index.htm
... odd article ... I guess there will be more conservative states?
And that's an even smaller issue than legalizing it all together. Whether or not patients can be prescribed it only affects those patients. But legalizing it fully would substantially reduce the burden on our court systems and it would be a vast source of desperately needed tax revenue.
just found this on Wikipedia ...
' THC has been found to reduce tumor growth in common lung cancer by 50 percent and to significantly reduce the ability of the cancer to spread, say researchers at Harvard University, who tested the chemical in both lab and mouse studies. The researchers suggest that THC might be used in a targeted fashion to treat lung cancer.[68] '
[68] = this link http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070417193338.htm
article dates back to 2007 so not new... is surprising ... i didn't know that...
Originally posted by Black Star UchessThat surprises me, too. I had always thought THC was only good for counteracting the side effects of chemotherapy.
just found this on Wikipedia ...
' THC has been found to reduce tumor growth in common lung cancer by 50 percent and to significantly reduce the ability of the cancer to spread, say researchers at Harvard University, who tested the chemical in both lab and mouse studies. The researchers suggest that THC might be used in a targeted fashion to tre 3338.htm
article dates back to 2007 so not new... is surprising ... i didn't know that...
Edit: Which in itself is ample reason to legalize it for medical use.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraKind of like jaywalking there, no? Technically illegal, but no one cares if you do it and everyone does it anyway?
In the Netherlands, most people seem content with the status quo - illegal, but allowed - which is a pity because many tax euros are still wasted on trying to prevent cannabis production.
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperAnyone with anything more than a double digit IQ is pro-legalisation of all drugs.
I'm afraid legalization in the US is probably further behind than you think. With the slash and burn nature of US politics, very few prominent politicians have the balls to back legalization.
IMO Obama is actually for legalization, but the Republicans would have nuked the crap out of him if he even hinted at legalizing marijuana. It would have been "family values" this and "drugs in schools" that.
Especially marijuana and mushrooms... I mean, they grow outside in bloody fields...
However, the drugs debate isn't actually about legalisation, that's just what they want you to think. For, then they can say: "You can't have a government sanctioning addiction" and all that sort of malarky (ironically, it is okay for a government to sanction murder, but that's another debate for a whole other time).
The drugs debate is about crushing the profit margins on drugs. Legalisation is a means to an end in this.
And that's when you realise that it is rather strange that governments don't want to legalise or take on the drugs profit margins...
Par example (that's my bad excuse of French, and should be read with a French accent):
20.000.000 $ worth of heroin is caught by custums.
"Well done old chaps." Everyone says in harmony, "That's less drugs on the streets!"
However, let's look at simple capitalist economics on this one.
Less product, the same amount of people wanting that product. What happens to the price? It goes up (the profit margin per gram increases... or, if you don't use grams, the profit per cow-foot or whatever your local measurement is, goes up).
This means it becomes even more worthwhile to quit the day job and push some merchandise at the local disco or schoolyard.
And, when the price increases there's less people who are able to afford their addiction and have to resort to petty crime to finance it (like stealing car radios, breaking into houses to steal 10 year old VCR's, etc.).
And when petty crime rates go up, so does your insurance costs.
Now, somewhere in that little spiral of drug-induced madness, somebody's making a god-awful profit... and your (and mine's) drug tsar, doesn't seem to want to tackle it.
Oh well.
Where's my whisky? At least that isn't bad for my health.
Originally posted by scherzoSort of, that's how various countries do it these days, with some subtle differences. I guess the key difference between those countries and the Dutch system is that the distribution of cannabis through coffeeshops has been decriminalized as well (but again, not legal). As for "everyone" doing it - no, cannabis use is pretty much average compared to other industrialized nations.
Kind of like jaywalking there, no? Technically illegal, but no one cares if you do it and everyone does it anyway?