Oh That's Alright Then

My nephew tried cannabis just once and developed schizophrenia from that experimentation.  Legalising it makes people believe it's ok to dabble with, as Richard did. A family's lives ruined.

  if you have a predisposition to psychosis, cannabis can trigger this devastating condition. Not sure how you think "control" via legalisation can cure casual use of this type. Obviously schools' PSHE lessons should include discussion and information on the dangers of alcohol, cigarettes and drugs of all sorts. All have equal priority.

I think there are two sides with this argument. The ones decrying the use of cannabis as in it's "Illegal state" anyone can make it, adulterate it and flog it in any condition. On the other side are the ones who say it should be legalised are probably assuming it's grown and made under controlled conditions so that it is safe as much as a product can be.
  I know there are certain states around the world where it is legal for medicinal purposes and some where it's available for recreational use. Here would be a massive tax duty boosting product for the government. However, I have concerns that if it is unrestricted then you might have aircrew, ships crew, train drivers, lorry drivers, machinery operators all getting high and filling up hospital wards, or are we advocating "Legal Cannabis" only for some, or at certain times? Would you get on an aeroplane to The Costas knowing the pilot was as high as a kite? Lots of problems would remain.

okocha wrote:My nephew tried cannabis just once and developed schizophrenia from that experimentation.  Legalising it makes people believe it's ok to dabble with, as Richard did. A family's lives ruined.

  if you have a predisposition to psychosis, cannabis can trigger this devastating condition. Not sure how you think "control" via legalisation can cure casual use of this type. Obviously schools' PSHE lessons should include discussion and information on the dangers of alcohol, cigarettes and drugs of all sorts. All have equal priority.

Legalisation will never prevent casual use and those with a predisposition like your nephew will always be vulnerable. I think we both agree that it is very important to provide kids with the right education about these things.

However I do think legalisation of all drugs is the only practical way forward. The "war on drugs" is a massively expensive failure. It does not stop people taking drugs which are clearly harmful to themselves and/or becoming addicted. It provides most of the money circulating in the criminal community. It is a very difficult process getting this discussed in a rational manner because of the knee jerk reaction of the media and politicians as Professor Nutter found out.

Bollotom2014 wrote:I think there are two sides with this argument. The ones decrying the use of cannabis as in it's "Illegal state" anyone can make it, adulterate it and flog it in any condition. On the other side are the ones who say it should be legalised are probably assuming it's grown and made under controlled conditions so that it is safe as much as a product can be.
  I know there are certain states around the world where it is legal for medicinal purposes and some where it's available for recreational use. Here would be a massive tax duty boosting product for the government. However, I have concerns that if it is unrestricted then you might have aircrew, ships crew, train drivers, lorry drivers, machinery operators all getting high and filling up hospital wards, or are we advocating "Legal Cannabis" only for some, or at certain times? Would you get on an aeroplane to The Costas knowing the pilot was as high as a kite? Lots of problems would remain.

If you legalise drugs you would need to apply the same standards as you do to alcohol i.e. not sold to minors and not to be used at inappropriate times. It is already an offence to drive a car, pilot a plane, etc whilst under the influence of drugs.

Yes it would need controls and yes there would be abuse as there is with alcohol and tobacco, however there are plenty of arguments for legalisation that include health, economic and social benefits.
* Better informed decision making including those pertaining to people with latent mental health issues that could be exacerbated by drugs/alcohol
* Massive tax revenues that could be diverted to education, control and where necessary treatment. 
* Job creation in the drugs industry - leading to further tax revenues
* Elimination of impurities due to the current practice of cutting for profit. Many argue that the crap they cut drugs with does more harm than the actual drugs.
* Dosage control to minimise the risk of overdose
* Undermining the main income of organised crime
* Reduction of street, gang crime and robbery 
* Transparency
* Huge savings for the judiciary and prison systems

The issue for cannabis is that it remains in the bloodstream for a month so at what point are people fit to e.g. use machinery given that they are no longer stoned after a few hours? The missus employs construction apprentices and they are tested monthly - that would have to become widespread practice in the workplace. 
Drugs carry huge risks for a small percentage of the population (more people die in the uk falling off horses than cannabis, ecstasy and LSD use combined for example) but if those risks can be further reduced by legalisation and the cost of legalisation is more than covered by the income generated and there are other benefits in terms of crime reduction I reckon we should try to overcome historical prejudices based on disinformation and exceptions to the rule and give it a go.
As regards the money - which we'll need post-Brexit - California is looking at an annual tax income (cultivation tax and retail tax only) of $2 billion this year rising to $4 billion by 2020 - and that's just one state and for recreational use only. On top of that there's a whopping $6.27 billion expected from medical marijuana sales by 2020. Then there's are massive savings to be made on the judicial system in terms of prosecution and imprisonment, additional income tax and jobs. Nevada reports that 40,000 jobs can be supported by the industry in their state.
The downside of just legalising and regulating cannabis and not all drugs is that the Mexican cartels are attempting to replace their lost income with increased poppy production for heroin and I guess if we regulated everything, criminals would still be criminals and would move into something else when their money dried up. But drug money is huge and I feel it's better spent on supporting our society rather than undermining it.

Just read a (reputable) survey that shows that whilst only a third of Brits admit to having taken illegal drugs, 52% are in favour of legalising cannabis providing the controls used in America are applied.

okocha wrote:My nephew tried cannabis just once and developed schizophrenia from that experimentation.  Legalising it makes people believe it's ok to dabble with, as Richard did. A family's lives ruined.

  if you have a predisposition to psychosis, cannabis can trigger this devastating condition. Not sure how you think "control" via legalisation can cure casual use of this type. Obviously schools' PSHE lessons should include discussion and information on the dangers of alcohol, cigarettes and drugs of all sorts. All have equal priority.

Beyond the points made above, picking up canabis at the moment could not be easier. If anything legalising would make it more difficult as retailers could set age restrictions.

One of the most dangerous aspects of modern day weed is the chemicals it’s sprayed with to speed up growth and increase yield which make it the more potent ‘skunk’ which is so prevelabt now. Untreated hash or weed is far safer according to all the studies.

T.R.O.Y wrote:Beyond the points made above, picking up canabis at the moment could not be easier.

I've never seen a drug in my life. I can't believe it's that easy.

Natasha Whittam wrote:

T.R.O.Y wrote:Beyond the points made above, picking up canabis at the moment could not be easier.

I've never seen a drug in my life. I can't believe it's that easy.

He will give you a spliff if you ask nicely.

This topic always gets me mad.

Ive not smoked weed now for over 9 years (could be over 10 or 11 but i know for a fact i havent done it since my lad was born) but i did smoke it and i smoked quite a bit of it.

I never got into any fights when i smoked weed.

I never had a hangover.

I was never addicted.

I never tried any other drugs

It did far less damage to me than drinking alcohol or smoking cigarettes would of done. 

It costs the NHS proportionally a lot less to treat anything to do with cannabis compared to alcohol. (Fighting, poisoning, slips, trips and falls etc)

Alcohol can kill

Smoking can kill

Marijuana doesn't

It is proven to treat various ailments and illnesses with great results used in the right way.  

Recreationally, i would much rather be able to go to a cafe for a spliff with people than a pub for a drink.

And on the subject of alcohol people often overlook its role in crime. Not just violence and sexual assaults but many burglaries are carried out by people who have been drinking. Here is a short article about it:

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=8&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjnyfu9tsDYAhUIBMAKHbL8DIsQFghZMAc&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.alcoholrehabguide.org%2Falcohol%2Fcrimes%2F&usg=AOvVaw2REcuYwjYIdwNKke_8QzhA

Just as legalisation would cut off organised crime's main income, it could also lead to a reduction in alcohol consumption. Unfortunately the booze industry is one of the strongest political lobbies in the country.

I tried it a couple of times and it did nothing at all i wondered what the fuck they were all on about. (my mates that is)

The NHS has equalled record low performance on A&E waiting times this week, among reports of patients dying on trolleys and ambulances waiting in car parks.

Meanwhile Jeremy Hunt has his role expanded to include social care.

i wouldn't trust that prick to run a bath nevermind the NHS and now they give him social care as well for him to fuck up as well.
Anyone still think the £1billion bail out to the DUP was money well spent? 

The creeping privitisation continues and now it seems Virgin health care have sued the NHS for millions taking even more money out of the NHS.

Norpig wrote:i wouldn't trust that prick to run a bath nevermind the NHS and now they give him social care as well for him to fuck up as well.
Anyone still think the £1billion bail out to the DUP was money well spent? 

The creeping privitisation continues and now it seems Virgin health care have sued the NHS for millions taking even more money out of the NHS.

If the Tories can find £1 billion for the  DUP they can find extra  money for the NHS. Of course they won't, because the Tory end game is privatisation.The only solution to the NHS crisis is to remove a government that prioritises giving tax breaks to the mega rich over health care.

Growler wrote:If the Tories can find £1 billion for the  DUP they can find extra  money for the NHS. Of course they won't, because the Tory end game is privatisation.The only solution to the NHS crisis is to remove a government that prioritises giving tax breaks to the mega rich over health care.

Ha ha, the NHS was a shambles under Labour as well - we've been hearing these sorts of stories for three decades or more.

Plus, the population is around 1 million more than it was under the last Labour government.

Some of you need to look at facts rather than just blame the Tories for everything. My sister is a nurse, she still thinks the problem is too many middle managers who don't actually contribute. Also, there's no incentive for young people to become a nurse.

Get rid of the middle managers, increase the average nurse wage, and the problem becomes more manageable.

We’re going round in circles now. If you’re going to claim the NHS was a shambles under Labour too then you need to provide some sort of supporting evidence, because all of the performance targets and independent bodies (kings trust, Nuffield trust, BMA) say the opposite.

Money is not the only answer, your sisters right that it’s become overly bureaucratic in the number of managers there are in place. But what policies are the government implementing to deal with the problems? None, they are investing the minimum they can get away with it and leaving it to burn.New Labour didn’t get it all right, but at least they took drastic action on the NHS, which succeeded in improving the service - see the FT link I posted on another thread for a summary:

https://www.ft.com/content/168e1278-2b24-11df-93d8-00144feabdc0

Under 7 -8 years of the Tories we've now got the worst NHS performance records since they began, people dying in corridors because they can't see a doctor and cunts like  Branson siphoning money out of the system as quick as the Tories can give him contracts

Natasha Whittam wrote:

Growler wrote:If the Tories can find £1 billion for the  DUP they can find extra  money for the NHS. Of course they won't, because the Tory end game is privatisation.The only solution to the NHS crisis is to remove a government that prioritises giving tax breaks to the mega rich over health care.

Ha ha, the NHS was a shambles under Labour as well - we've been hearing these sorts of stories for three decades or more.

Plus, the population is around 1 million more than it was under the last Labour government.

Some of you need to look at facts rather than just blame the Tories for everything. My sister is a nurse, she still thinks the problem is too many middle managers who don't actually contribute. Also, there's no incentive for young people to become a nurse.

Get rid of the middle managers, increase the average nurse wage, and the problem becomes more manageable.

When are you going to provide factual evidence to back up your ridiculous claim that the NHS was in just as bad a state under Labour as it is now?

Even if it were true do you really believe that spending less money on the NHS every year than the rate of inflation is going to improve matters?