Legalising Cannabis

fastonebaz

LastMantra said:

fastonebaz said:

I want to try lsd, but I'm worried I'd be addicted to it. 

It not very addictive at all. You can get some shrooms easy enough for a trip.

I wouldn't know where to start. 

WiresDreamDisasters

ICBM said:

WiresDreamDisasters said:

I think this is pretty utopian in nature and there is very little evidence to suggest it's true.

IMO, the social issues that would explode from rampant and unchecked drug use, would eventually cause crime to rocket, policing to rocket, tax revenues to be depleted on social projects that don't work, and would fuel social decline to the extreme.

I used to think we should legalise all drugs, but I just don't see any evidence for it being a good idea.

Why would drug use become any more rampant than it is now? Illegality is no obstacle to use whatever. I’m not sure why you think it’s utopian - the evidence is all around us, it’s exactly the situation we now have with alcohol.

If anything I would expect health issues to improve if it was possible to simply walk into the equivalent of an off-licence and choose the type and strength of drug you actually want, as you do with alcohol - rather than being given no choice other than what the illegal drug dealer has.

I’ve never been more than a very occasional hash user, but I stopped entirely about fifteen years ago when all that seemed to be available was high-strength stuff that just made me feel ill.

Alcohol in excess is at least as dangerous as what are currently illegal drugs. You like a beer as much as I do... do you think it would be better if all we had was illegal backstreet gin with no idea of the strength or what was actually in it?

It's utopian because you're making unverified and untested claims about an approach to a social phenomenon, on the mistaken belief that all drugs are the same and that if they were all legally available, that society would improve. They are not. Someone smoking a joint every night of the week is far less likely to descend into crime than someone injecting heroin or smoking crack every night of the week. Because the effects upon the body and mind are very different. So a blanket "let's legalise all drugs" approach simply doesn't take into account all of the factors.

The current state of society is not and cannot be evidence for why legalisation should be the way forward. The evidence would have to come from societies where it has been tried. Now with weed, there have been some successes. But that doesn't automatically translate to all drugs.

All in all, it's my opinion that each drug needs to be tested individually and on it's own merits and bases of evidence. That's the scientific approach.

Alcohol is not as dangerous as currently illegal drugs - what a preposterous claim. You can't lump all illegal drugs together like that. Is alcohol more dangerous than mushrooms?? Undoubtedly yes. Is it more dangerous than PCP or meth? Fuck no.


Finally, illegality is indeed an obstacle. In Camden in 2005 you used to be able to by all varities of magic mushrooms from as many head shops as you liked. Now? You can't. They were made illegal in 2008 iirc, because of concerns over psychosis reports. Not an unfounded concern at that. But it's much harder to get magic mushrooms now, even though they grow everywhere every year.

The same is true for heroin.



I mean.... the Brass Eye sketch kind of nails it really....



I mean.... if you really think society is going to be as peaceful and as productive and cohesive as it currently is (even if it isn't fully) in a world where all kinds of drugs are available at every shop.... then I think you might need to take a walk down Skid Row!!

WiresDreamDisasters

Oh, and the assumption that legalizing it would lead to lower strengths is highly suspect. The additional assumption that people would actually BUY those lower strengths is even more suspect!!!


People do drugs for a lot of reasons. But one of the main ones is to get fucked up.

This is a root truth. And it should inform everyone's view of drugs, whether they're pro or against.

ICBM

The problem with criminality associated with drug use is due to their illegality. It becomes a vicious circle. Break the circle and you destroy all the crime that feeds off the demand and profits made from it.

Yes, people do drugs to get fucked up - that should be their choice, and if you want to minimise the harm to them and everyone else, the best way to do that is to take the criminality out of it.

WiresDreamDisasters

ICBM said:

The problem with criminality associated with drug use is due to their illegality. It becomes a vicious circle. Break the circle and you destroy all the crime that feeds off the demand and profits made from it.

Yes, people do drugs to get fucked up - that should be their choice, and if you want to minimise the harm to them and everyone else, the best way to do that is to take the criminality out of it.

See, you're more uber free market ultra capitalist on this issue than I am!

I don't think a lot of people are smart enough to know when they've gone too far, and they need protecting. I don't think everyone should have the choice to get fucked up, because getting fucked up has ramifications for the rest of society.

I have to chuckle though.... to solve criminality, just get rid of laws!!! That'll fix things!!

OK.


I don't have a problem with legalising things. But I do have a problem with the blanket statement that all drugs should be legalised without question. In my view it's a profoundly unreasoned thing to say, lacks scientific understanding and lacks the nuanced view of biology and the effects drugs have on society that is required to postulate a position, and all together is a bit too hammer to crack a walnut for me.

cm01

The alcohol clients I see are way more problematic than meth / opiate clients 

EricTheWeary

There isn’t much political will to do this and there isn’t an example of a model that works. I guess ‘works’ would be: remove as far as possible criminal activity associated with cannabis ( illegal production, illegal sale, crime to pay for and crime under the influence of), have no increase in the overall use, have no increase in the associated health problems, have regulation over the quality ( such as we might do for off the shelf paracetamol, so it would not be a completely unrestricted market) and to collect some sales taxes to pay for the costs of the system. 

The decriminalisation of cannabis use in parts of Amsterdam for example means that it has become a destination for cannabis users and people wanting to try it. I’m not sure which British city wants to be a cannabis destination and if one did then that wouldn’t be the model working. 

The regulated model in some US states seems to have only created a two tier system. There is cannabis for those who can legally register and afford it and this provides funding to the state. On the other hand the illegal sale has not been changed. Overall cannabis use has probably gone up slightly as there are now legal users who were previously deterred by the illegality. Effectively it’s largely been a way for nervous middle class cannabis users to buy their way out of prosecution. 

The regulated model in Canada is similar but seems to have failed largely because cannabis use is seen as part of the counter culture and not something to be bought at Wal Mart; illegal sellers also offer the amount and strengths that users want. Cannabis users don’t seem to want legal cannabis. 
The Portugese model doesn’t really hit all the outcomes either. However, what they have done is to decriminalise the personal use of drugs ( including cannabis) so that these are health and social concerns. This stops the police and courts spending time on minor drug issues and means users don’t get criminal records. They are also more likely to be directed to addiction services than prison. The outcome is that Portugal has not had an increase in drug use as a result but has seen decreases in issues like drug related deaths and transmission of HIV through drug use. And far fewer people with criminal records for what are pretty minor matters.*
 In effect in the U.K. was evolving to something like the Portugese model and that diversion to addiction services for minor drug matters is usually the first choice before criminal prosecution or to use criminal proceedings only to reinforce attendance. The U.K. could make a number of steps to go further down this line but it would need serious investment. However,  funding for addiction services in the U.K. has been significantly cut in the last few years and that seems unlikely to go back up any time soon. I’m including alcohol services in that, a substance far more linked to criminal activity than any other drug. 

There are some other suggested models such as cannabis clubs but they all seem to have the issue that all they do is provide legal cannabis use for a chosen few and almost certainly wouldn’t affect the majority of use/ users. 

* decriminalisation of personal possession of drugs in the USA would be a massive change in a country that has a three strikes policy leading to huge over imprisonment of black men. 

Winny_Pooh

WiresDreamDisasters said:

ICBM said:

The problem with criminality associated with drug use is due to their illegality. It becomes a vicious circle. Break the circle and you destroy all the crime that feeds off the demand and profits made from it.

Yes, people do drugs to get fucked up - that should be their choice, and if you want to minimise the harm to them and everyone else, the best way to do that is to take the criminality out of it.

See, you're more uber free market ultra capitalist on this issue than I am!

I don't think a lot of people are smart enough to know when they've gone too far, and they need protecting. I don't think everyone should have the choice to get fucked up, because getting fucked up has ramifications for the rest of society.

I have to chuckle though.... to solve criminality, just get rid of laws!!! That'll fix things!!

OK.


I don't have a problem with legalising things. But I do have a problem with the blanket statement that all drugs should be legalised without question. In my view it's a profoundly unreasoned thing to say, lacks scientific understanding and lacks the nuanced view of biology and the effects drugs have on society that is required to postulate a position, and all together is a bit too hammer to crack a walnut for me.

As someone has already said, drugs are not a societal problem as much as the culture, trauma and family environment that drive individuals to escapism. If alcohol can be legal and we have support systems in place for abusers then it's hypocrisy to have a problem with other stimulants, especially some like natural psychedelics that have shown to be very beneficial in dealing with PTSD and other mental health issues. 

The energy & cash should be used to help treat addicts with counselling and support.

I agree that just blanket unbanning all drugs feels wrong, but as its been shown that bans make no practical difference and just criminalise users (and those in certain racial groups in the US) it won't in reality lead to way more users. 

It could be (no hard data unfortunately) that drug users are always a certain part of the population regardless of access eg US users of legal opiods may be people who will have otherwise have used illegal drugs anyway. My point being more about access and legality being a small factor (not about the ethics of a for profit drug pushing US medical culture) in the desire to be addicted.

WiresDreamDisasters

Here's an interesting doc I just found:
https://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1003&context=scjpeerpubs

This surprised me:

Most importantly, meth users were not more likely to commit violent crimes, a finding that is consistent with the interview responses collected. In fact, when the Crimes Against Persons variable was compared by drug of choice, marijuana users had the highest mean number of prior crimes against persons (3.17). Meth and alcohol users were identical with means of 2.7.

zepp76

Paranoid schizophrenia, severe anxiety and panic attacks. That’s what I’ve been dealing with after being introduced to pretty much military grade skunk. When I gave up the booze, the so called “friend” who became the bane of my life (now cast away) got me into heavily smoking that shit, and as I later found out for his own gain because if I bought large quantities he got his cheaper. Some have argued my problems have stemmed from the violence and abuse I suffered for a long time. But the mental illness started after prolonged use of that stuff, no doubt a mix of the two. But I’m coming out the other side of it all now with the help of the wonderful mental health team, it’s a shame I’ve wasted their resources as they could be helping people who didn’t make that choice to take drugs but are still suffering.

If people want to smoke it, that’s their choice as long as it doesn’t impact other people who don’t want anything to do with it.

While out for a ride on the bike yesterday I followed no less than five cars with the stench of the stuff bellowing out from the drivers side and they were all driving like divs. That is the shit that has to stop, simple as that.

boogieman

I doubt crime would disappear just because weed was legalised. Once the govt were in charge of supply and distribution then it’s a nice tax earner... and before long they would naturally milk it for all they could get out of it. That leaves an opening for criminals to sell cut price drugs. 

drpbier

I think some of the comments here are conflating legalisation with regulation. They're not the same and I haven't seen anyone advocating for an unregulated legalised free for all where kids can buy heroin from their local newsagent with their comics and sweets. We need proper controls over who can buy and sell drugs, as we do with alcohol. That's just a basic feature we'd need to see in any legalisation scheme to protect the vulnerable from the harms, with sensible evidence based controls. Street dealers don't care who they sell to as long as they can pay.
The drive to ever stronger products is a direct and well documented result of prohibition since illegal suppliers are only concerned with profit and stronger product tends to cost more and provide better ROI against the high costs and risks of supply. 

And the idea that people only consume currently illegal drugs to get fucked up is surely also related to prohibition. We know that some people are happy with a glass of wine with a meal, some people just want to enjoy the odd pint with friends...you'd never say that every alcohol user just wants to get fucked up. Because alcohol consumption has evolved free from prohibition and is a complex thing where people can choose the strength they want. Why wouldn't weed follow the same pattern?
So a well regulated scheme where people can easily access weaker product just cuts out the harms and the cost to society. 

WiresDreamDisasters

drpbier said:

I think some of the comments here are conflating legalisation with regulation. They're not the same and I haven't seen anyone advocating for an unregulated legalised free for all where kids can buy heroin from their local newsagent with their comics and sweets. We need proper controls over who can buy and sell drugs, as we do with alcohol. That's just a basic feature we'd need to see in any legalisation scheme to protect the vulnerable from the harms, with sensible evidence based controls. Street dealers don't care who they sell to as long as they can pay.
The drive to ever stronger products is a direct and well documented result of prohibition since illegal suppliers are only concerned with profit and stronger product tends to cost more and provide better ROI against the high costs and risks of supply. 

And the idea that people only consume currently illegal drugs to get fucked up is surely also related to prohibition. We know that some people are happy with a glass of wine with a meal, some people just want to enjoy the odd pint with friends...you'd never say that every alcohol user just wants to get fucked up. Because alcohol consumption has evolved free from prohibition and is a complex thing where people can choose the strength they want. Why wouldn't weed follow the same pattern?
So a well regulated scheme where people can easily access weaker product just cuts out the harms and the cost to society. 

Where is the evidence for any of this? I'd love to see it. Some sort of supporting document? There's a lot to unpack, but even if you just take one thing - strengths going lower... I'd like to see some evidence that there is a market for lower strengths and that people would actually buy them if it were provided.

The current strengths for skunk and weed are not down to prohibition. They're down to market demand. I'd like to see evidence that this market demand would somehow disappear. I don't see it happening.





I used to agree with ICBM that all drugs should be legalised and available to purchase by adults. I've espoused that view numerous times on this very forum over the years. But when I started analysing it, I realised that I just had, and still have, no evidence for it.

It felt good to say, because I'm pro-freedom and all that jazz. But the reality is, I don't have any evidence that society would be a better place to live in if all drugs were legalised and sat there on the top shelf.

DavidR

Cannabis reduces human capacity for achievement. However far you would have got in life, you'll achieve less if you're a stoner. It unmasks psychosis in young adult males. It leads on to other addictions. It puts you in touch with horrible people. Filthy stuff.

One of my last professional tasks before I retired as a GP was to appear as a professional witness in the Crown Court trial of one of my young patients who had stabbed his girlfriend to death whilst heavily into Cannabis. The evil idiot who sold him his cannabis never got tried. Two lives ruined. A family destroyed. A young woman dead.

Cannabis is just not cool. And that's a massive understatement.

WiresDreamDisasters

DavidR said:

Cannabis reduces human capacity for achievement. However far you would have got in life, you'll achieve less if you're a stoner. It unmasks psychosis in young adult males. It leads on to other addictions. It puts you in touch with horrible people. Filthy stuff.

One of my last professional tasks before I retired as a GP was to appear as a professional witness in the Crown Court trial of one of my young patients who had stabbed his girlfriend to death whilst heavily into Cannabis. The evil idiot who sold him his cannabis never got tried. Two lives ruined. A family destroyed. A young woman dead.

Cannabis is just not cool. And that's a massive understatement.

In fairness, that's an extreme case, and even though I do actually think high strength strains of cannabis can cause psychosis and violence (as the study I posted previously shows as well) .... I think it's not really the rule.

I don't even think it's really the rule that smokers are lazy. A lot of them are. But it's a stereotype that doesn't hold true all of the time.

But I agree, it isn't cool. Especially the older you get. I tend to think if you're in your mid 30's and you're still spending large amounts of your disposable time smoking weed instead of doing something productive, then you might need to have a word with yourself.

menamestom

WiresDreamDisasters said:

drpbier said:

I think some of the comments here are conflating legalisation with regulation. They're not the same and I haven't seen anyone advocating for an unregulated legalised free for all where kids can buy heroin from their local newsagent with their comics and sweets. We need proper controls over who can buy and sell drugs, as we do with alcohol. That's just a basic feature we'd need to see in any legalisation scheme to protect the vulnerable from the harms, with sensible evidence based controls. Street dealers don't care who they sell to as long as they can pay.
The drive to ever stronger products is a direct and well documented result of prohibition since illegal suppliers are only concerned with profit and stronger product tends to cost more and provide better ROI against the high costs and risks of supply. 

And the idea that people only consume currently illegal drugs to get fucked up is surely also related to prohibition. We know that some people are happy with a glass of wine with a meal, some people just want to enjoy the odd pint with friends...you'd never say that every alcohol user just wants to get fucked up. Because alcohol consumption has evolved free from prohibition and is a complex thing where people can choose the strength they want. Why wouldn't weed follow the same pattern?
So a well regulated scheme where people can easily access weaker product just cuts out the harms and the cost to society. 

Where is the evidence for any of this? I'd love to see it. Some sort of supporting document? There's a lot to unpack, but even if you just take one thing - strengths going lower... I'd like to see some evidence that there is a market for lower strengths and that people would actually buy them if it were provided.

The current strengths for skunk and weed are not down to prohibition. They're down to market demand. I'd like to see evidence that this market demand would somehow disappear. I don't see it happening.

Skunk varieties are easy to grow, take well to hydroponics and have been engineered for high yield.
The market can demand what it wants but it’s only ever going to get what it’s given based on maximum yield and profit.   I know people who would buy older, more natural varieties but can’t really get hold of them, because what criminal would produce something that makes less money because it takes 3 times as long to grow and yield half as much product.  

tone1

I saw a documentary when I was a kid....young lad named Zammo had a nasty reaction to drugs....put me right off really....

WiresDreamDisasters

menamestom said:

WiresDreamDisasters said:

drpbier said:

I think some of the comments here are conflating legalisation with regulation. They're not the same and I haven't seen anyone advocating for an unregulated legalised free for all where kids can buy heroin from their local newsagent with their comics and sweets. We need proper controls over who can buy and sell drugs, as we do with alcohol. That's just a basic feature we'd need to see in any legalisation scheme to protect the vulnerable from the harms, with sensible evidence based controls. Street dealers don't care who they sell to as long as they can pay.
The drive to ever stronger products is a direct and well documented result of prohibition since illegal suppliers are only concerned with profit and stronger product tends to cost more and provide better ROI against the high costs and risks of supply. 

And the idea that people only consume currently illegal drugs to get fucked up is surely also related to prohibition. We know that some people are happy with a glass of wine with a meal, some people just want to enjoy the odd pint with friends...you'd never say that every alcohol user just wants to get fucked up. Because alcohol consumption has evolved free from prohibition and is a complex thing where people can choose the strength they want. Why wouldn't weed follow the same pattern?
So a well regulated scheme where people can easily access weaker product just cuts out the harms and the cost to society. 

Where is the evidence for any of this? I'd love to see it. Some sort of supporting document? There's a lot to unpack, but even if you just take one thing - strengths going lower... I'd like to see some evidence that there is a market for lower strengths and that people would actually buy them if it were provided.

The current strengths for skunk and weed are not down to prohibition. They're down to market demand. I'd like to see evidence that this market demand would somehow disappear. I don't see it happening.

Skunk varieties are easy to grow, take well to hydroponics and have been engineered for high yield.
The market can demand what it wants but it’s only ever going to get what it’s given based on maximum yield and profit.   I know people who would buy older, more natural varieties but can’t really get hold of them, because what criminal would produce something that makes less money because it takes 3 times as long to grow and yield half as much product.  

I know people who say they would too. Anecdotes don't mean too much, which is why I've tried to steer clear of sharing them. I had an ex-housemate who used to grow weed; I'm familiar with the process. It was nice stuff too!

Bit awkward when CID had to dust for prints in our downstairs hallway once (female housemate was attacked at 3am by some junkie) and we had plants growing one floor up.  

Sassafras

No-one's mentioned Tobacco.
One of the most dangerous drugs available in shops.
Can't see much excuse for banning other drugs while tobacco is legal.

ICBM

DavidR said:

Cannabis reduces human capacity for achievement. However far you would have got in life, you'll achieve less if you're a stoner. It unmasks psychosis in young adult males. It leads on to other addictions. It puts you in touch with horrible people. Filthy stuff.

One of my last professional tasks before I retired as a GP was to appear as a professional witness in the Crown Court trial of one of my young patients who had stabbed his girlfriend to death whilst heavily into Cannabis. The evil idiot who sold him his cannabis never got tried. Two lives ruined. A family destroyed. A young woman dead.

Cannabis is just not cool. And that's a massive understatement.

I don’t disagree with any of that. But how does it being illegal stop it? Millions of people use it anyway.

All it does is mean that the only source of supply is criminal. The only people who benefit from the current model are criminals. (Well, you could argue that the police, prison officers and lawyers have more work, but they could be employed on other more useful areas of the law.)

Take the criminality out of it, regulate and tax the supply just like alcohol, and you would have some chance of dealing with the health problems in a rational way.

The ‘war on drugs’ is not only unwinnable, it’s actively counterproductive. All it does is put the profits in the hands of criminals, at the expense of everyone else.