If you were to advocate legalising cannabis, what would be in place to be sure the goernment-sponsored cannabis selling machine would eradicate the illegal selling of the drug? What would be in place to achieve this?
Same as alcohol pretty much. During prohibition times there's plenty of illegal alcohol, it's pretty much non existent here to the point I've not heard it mentioned in the news in memory. I don't know of anyone who drinks alcohol, underage or otherwise, who procures it from the criminal underworld. It comes from regulated sources who put money into education and rehabilitation schemes.
I'm sure there would be a transition period as the those who make money via any illegal means don't want to lose a massive amount of their income but I'd venture most people would prefer to buy cannabis from Asda along with their beer and cigarettes than from a drug dealer. If there's a legal means of acquiring something by far the majority of people will use it, filesharing may be poised as an example against this but that's a different beast as it is more about the potential
loss of money than about money being funneled elsewhere.
Where I come from most people by their booze cheap from either shop thieves or smugglers on a 'booze cruise'... there is always a market for anything illegal if it is better/stronger/cheaper. A government-sponsored pathway to legalised schizophrenia would not affect the dealers one iota, whether or not government, legal pushers by now, gained large numbers of clients from existing dealers; there are new smokers out there to be recruited, there is harsher cannabis to be put out there, there is a massive anti-authority attitude in this country, there is 'loyalty' to the neighbourhood, the regular dealers, intimidation, under-pricing etc. So legalising cannabis does nothing to prevent the illegal
selling of the drug.
What would be in place to reduce the harm-levels of the appropriate chemicals once legalisation happens?
Proinsias wrote:Same as alcohol and cigarettes. A government body and very clear labeling - cigarettes are currently plastered with SMOKING KILLS, I've known a few people who have survived psychosis and lead fulfilling lives, being killed is pretty deadly.
Labeling cannabis with the obvious message still does not reduce the harm-levels of cannabis, the potential for psychosis. Look, I'm a former heavy smoker of cannabis, and I'm certainly no prude, but I deal with families who are utterly devasted by how their once happy children have turned into lethargic, extremely moody, violent (forget the myth about cannabis being 'passive' - have you ever witnessed the rage of a 'passive' cannabis smoker if you get on his wrong side the morning?), loss of goals, loss of ambition, change from loving child to hateful child, paranoia, extreme paranoia, morbid thoughts, hateful thoughts, eternal separation from once loving boy/girl and doting parents; I don't know how many characters this page will allow me, Pro, but I'm confident I could fill it with a list of (false) names of families who have lost their once happy, outgoing child/ren to cannabis; the child is now distant, angry at his parents as though it were their fault, abusive, jobless, goal-less, drop outs of collegue/university/school, living in disgusting accommodation... All this from cannabis alone.
What if any correlation is there between legalising cannabis and reducing the levels of usage among cannabis users thus begging the question how would legalising cannabis reduce the level of (the ones we know of) psychosis-related illnesses and consequential family breakdowns?
Proinsias wrote: I don't know.
There is no correlation.
How would we dish it out? At what 'levels' would this be regulated? Where is the cut off point and at what risk-level do we set it at?
Well the government tried that and rejected the results of the body they commissioned. Presumably they were not expecting those results. "He also repeated his claim that the risks of taking ecstasy are no worse than riding a horse. " We can provide education as to what may be safe levels for the 'average person'. They commission the studies and reject the findings as it doesn't fit with preconceptions. http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/ ... 44981.html
Pro, this fool who said horse riding is more dangerous than ecstacy was roundly ridiculed and derided. I debated this on another forum at the time, and the man's 'logic' was shockingly naive. Thankfully the silly government of the time somehow saw this nonsense for what it is.
Proinsias wrote:If they make alcohol illegal it won't go away, my homebrew experiments have shown me it's far easier to make than cannabis. It'll just push it underground, give less money to the government and give far more money and power to criminal gangs who don't care what they trade in. It's perfectly legal to homebrew and millions do it, it's not legal to distill alcohol and I've come across one very old Polish guy who done it in all my life. We would sell it in shops with age restrictions and recommend doses, It's up to people to be responsible. At 14 it was far easier for me to procure illegal drugs than legal ones.
Education and resources are what's needed; whether legal or illegal this is paramount. Trouble is, legalising cannabis will, as I have hopefully shown, do nothing to answer the fundamental questions, only to achieve the bizarre spectacle of government legalising, tendering, taxing and sponsoring this lethal drug; and make no mistake that it is lethal. I know people who say, "well it aint done me no 'arm, hur hur hur" and they are sitting around, jobless, claiming bogus benefits, no life, no get-go, constant family arguments and break ups....I mean these people are utterly self-delusional, Just like I was self-delusional!
Proinsias wrote:People use cannabis, I'd prefer the money generated by the use went to the government and registered companies than the criminal underworld. I think the problem will be the transition period. Giving people who smoke weed on occasion criminal records and custodial sentences doesn't help much in my opinion. Going after the big dealers means that there is occasionally a price increase and/or a quality decrease in the product available. I was told once at 15 that the house had been busted that morning and a few people had been taken away by the police, it would be at least 2 hours before they had anything to sell - chances of me getting alcohol on my own at that time were pretty much nil.
And you'll still be able to get cannabis just as readily from your neighbourhood than you will from Boots! Which brings me to politicians putting cannabis out to tender. All the previous aside, pro, what do you think of our current crop of politicians? Would you trust this rag-bag of political lightweights to deal (how appropriate!
) with this in anything resembling a competent manner?