An Act to Regulate and Tax the Cannabis Industry ?

[MadduckUK]

[chuckskull]

Most things will kill you in excess, the argument shouldn't be whether cannabis can be dangerous, because it can be, just like beer, red meat, cigs, coca cola, mars bars, mcdonalds and all the other unhealthy crap we pour down our gullets. Most of the good things in life are bad for your health in one way or another.

The point is that it's not dangerous enough that adults should have the right to choose whether or not to use it removed by law and those who do choose to use it should not end up criminals.

[Barakka]

Show me something that is not potentially dangerous. The world's a dangerous place, and it's one that is full of adults who (in theory) are capable of making our own decisions. If you think about it, it's an absolute outrage that we can be incarcerated or even fined for choosing to smoke a relatively harmless plant. They keyword is relative. I could write all day long about the things that are perceived as acceptable, yet are way more dangerous than smoking weed. It's just a shame that a large portion of society has this phony moral stigma towards drugs and drug users. I'm not getting at you specifically by the way - it's refreshing to see someone argue the antidrugs stance using an argument other than 'er well, don't do drugs coz they're bad... and CRIME AND UR A BAD A PERSON FOR DOING THEM'

Don't get me wrong, i'm not anti-drugs... I just don't view the topic with rose tinted (green tinted maybe ?) glasses and appreciate the reality of what would be practical within the confines of our modern society. Just as too many people brand all drug users as bad bad criminals, the majority of the other side take the opposite too far with a "drugs are great, M'Kay" attitude.

Personally I can see and appreciate the argument for legalising all drugs, just don't think it would be pratical

So when talking about the topic I look at the practicalities of what the taxation would realistically be if were legalised, is there actually any evidence of medical benefits, how harmful is it really etc ? I don't really consider the criminalisation part of it to be honest as i feel it's not something that's taken that seriously any more. Debate of any kind is good, it opens minds, expands knowledge, and breaks down preconceptions and boundaries.

[JPreston]

OK In what ways ? It's comparitive effect on society ? The effects of THC on tumor growth ? It's actions as a carcinogen and shared cardiotoxins with nictoine ? THC's effect on the human psyche ? The effect of long-term use on interaction skills/motivation/memory ? The physical addiction ?

There's an age old comparison that if alcohol and nicotine were newly discovered today they would be class A and banned. Just because it's not as bad (in your opinion) as something that is already legal doesn't give grounds to make it legal. Cannabis is most closely compared to nicotine, which is arguably the worst legal drug, but nicotine is gradually being phased out, the changes in pricing, availability, ability to use, and image portrayed to the rest of society has been vastly changed over the last 10 years. It's only a matter of time until it goes forever, hardly grounds to legalise another potentially dangerous substance.

No, that is a strawman argument. I believe cannabis should be decriminalised and ultimately legalised because of the principle that as an informed adult in a free society, the state has no right to threaten me with imprisonment just because my behaviour may be harmful to myself and only myself, and in the specific case of cannabis it would be entirely practical to follow this course of action immediately.

I wasn't arguing that it should be legal just because tobacco is more harmful. By saying it's 'OK' I'm arguing that a cannabis cigarette is about as harmful as a donner kebab, which is to say it is less harmful than alcohol (which is 'bad') and much less harmful than tobacco (which is 'very very bad', m'kay).

Here's a challenge if you disagree - why don't you become a daily consumer of high street donner kebabs, while I go off and smoke weed daily, and then meet you back here in five years to compare notes and see who is doing better in life? Or do you just want to outlaw donner kebabs instead? Should people have the freedom to own a donner kebab for personal consumption without fear of imprisonment? Should we let Jacqui Smith just decide either way, disregarding all advice in doing so? Isn't it OK if they make their own donner kebabs from home-grown ingredients for consumption at home, having nothing to do with the largely unregulated black market dealers of fast-food-which-can-kill-you? By the way, there are some mushrooms growing natively in my garden and if I were to pick them I would immediately be committing an imprisonable offence. I think this situation is absurd. Would you care to try and explain why it is not?

There is no argument to be made in favour of a blanket policy of drug prohibition. If tobacco use is best curbed by a combination of public education and taxation (and you even acknowledge that tobacco use is declining, at least in the developed West where these policies are in place), why is this not also the case for cannabis? Not to mention donner kebabs.

[Salazaar]

Yes, but that was factored in, you need to remember the tax on cigarettes is well in excess of 300%.

So, say the price for X on the black market is £15, the economies of scale and mass production bring this down to say £5, which is probably realistic, the tax would be well over £15 on that making it in excess of £20. In reality it would probably be closer to £30, effectively doubling the price of the black market, which when faced with competition would probably drop their prices too!

That presumes it'll only drop a third in price to manufacture and it assumes that the taxation level will be exactly the same as ciggies, which is really just shaping the problem to make the argument work. My point is that when corporations get involved and there's profit to be made they will find the way to make it. Whether it's by massively reducing the cost price or by ruthelessly crushing the competition, it could easily be the dealer themselves just going legit.

You've also got to consider supply, it would be of benefit to both the consumer and the trader to deal legitimately even if the prices were higher. Why take the risk of doing shady deals in back streets and risk arrest when you could go and buy from a licensed shop?

I'm not saying that there wouldn't be a black market but that it would be on the scale of current cigarette smuggling i.e. enough to annoy the tax man but not to make any serious dent in the legitimate market.

[JPreston]

Economies of scale in industrial cannabis farming would be huge

By-products (stem fibres etc) can be processed to create textiles. In fact the main historical reason that we have the policy of prohibition today is because american paper mills and cotton plantation owners lobbied the US government to outlaw a native plant which would otherwise threaten their monopoly on paper and textile production. It would be economically viable to grow cannabis to produce hemp alone, even if noone ever smoked any of it.

And unlike cotton and especially tobacco which must be intensively farmed on a huge scale using chemical methods (today) or slavery (back then), varieties of hemp can be viably grown like a weed on even a small plot of land. It was outlawed to protect large commercial interests, around the same time that cocaine and heroin were trademarked brandnames for over-the-counter medicines. It's all a complete nonsense really.

[finlay666]

http://technology.todaysbigthing.com/2009/05/22

Brief history of Cannabis, interesting how it was legal until less than 100 years ago

I think it should be treated like my opinion for other drugs, legalised, regulated and taxed to provide funds for healthcare after, regulation removes the danger of drug dealers and people who want to use it still will but can get help kicking it (more than likely easier than currently) because of less stigma about using a legal drug as opposed to an illegal one.

Regulation also stops drugs being cut with harmful products which is another 'benefit' so to speak

[Barakka]

No, that is a strawman argument. I believe cannabis should be decriminalised and ultimately legalised because of the principle that as an informed adult in a free society, the state has no right to threaten me with imprisonment just because my behaviour may be harmful to myself and only myself, and in the specific case of cannabis it would be entirely practical to follow this course of action immediately.

I agree the criminalisation of people for smoking weed is beyond daft, the evidence for supporting decriminalisation is good if looking at Amsterdam as an example. The use of hard drugs there is minimal while very well controlled, and the use of soft drugs dropped after decriminalisation and is now one of the lowest in the EU - much lower than the UK.

However, in practice would it work in the UK ? The Dutch are much more open-minded than the stuffy British public, they are open to frank discussions and policies on what the British consider taboo subjects. We also have a goverment with too much opposition and public scrutiny thrown over everything they do making them too scared to make controversial decisions like this - or if they do they end up going back on them.

Compound with this the addicitive nature of the British public - take speeding, could we have unrestricted road sections like the Autobahns in Germany - could we hell, the general population would see that as all motorways unrestricted. The other example would be binge drinking there's countries in the EU with a legal drinking age of 12 or 15, do they have half the problem we have with binge drinking - no.

To make it work we would need to become more liberal and open-minded in our approaches, policies, rules, and genereal attitudes and that just wouldn't be British would it - I would love to see it happen, I just don't know if we're ready for it yet.

I wasn't arguing that it should be legal just because tobacco is more harmful. By saying it's 'OK' I'm arguing that a cannabis cigarette is about as harmful as a donner kebab, which is to say it is less harmful than alcohol (which is 'bad') and much less harmful than tobacco (which is 'very very bad', m'kay).

I think you perhaps need to re-address how dangerous you think a cannabis cigarette is. There is scientific evidence that cannbinoids contain cardiotoxins and carcinogens which cause tumor growth so while it may not be as strong a pre-cursor to cancer as nicotine, it still is one. Also factor in the emotional and memory effects of long term use and the physical additction levels that come from regular use. I don't think it's as bad as nicotine, but comparing someone drinking a glass of wine 2-3 times a week to someone smoking 2-3 spliffs a week I think the smoker would suffer most in the long term. I may be mistaking what you're saying, but you seem to be indicating it's virtually harmless which is a bit naiive.

There is no argument to be made in favour of a blanket policy of drug prohibition. If tobacco use is best curbed by a combination of public education and taxation (and you even acknowledge that tobacco use is declining, at least in the developed West where these policies are in place), why is this not also the case for cannabis? Not to mention donner kebabs.

I think what scares the government (and probably the public) is the idea that to lift the ban cannabis would become as popular as binge drinking and you would have people smoking it openly all over the place. In Amsterdam you don't smoke it in public only in private or designated areas, in Germany if the sign says 50mph for next 2 miles you slow down immediately. The worry is that in the UK people would ignore the rules and you would have groups of chavs smoking it on street corners and in groups in the park, and in some ways it's hard to disagree - I mean they're 12/13 years old and already doing that with alcohol and what do we do about it, practically nothing. Yes, smoking is being gradually removed but that's taken decades to get to where we are with it, the government will not want to "release" another substance which might then take another 20-30 years to get control of.

Don't get me wrong, I understand your argument and agree wholehartedly with the sentiment, I just think as a nation we have some things we need to sort out before we're ready for it. TBH I think we were more ready around 1995/6, we didn't have a lot of this baggage and if the laws had been passed then it wouldn't have been a surprise to most people, missed opportunity, I know me and most of my friends whether in favour or not expected a law change that year.

[antd]

Barakka is right.

It's illegal to kill a dog for no reason (even a stray which belongs to no one). But you can kill thousands of other animals (pests) for no reason and the law will do nothing about it.

Just because one is legal, it doesn't mean the other should be.

Stop those loser pot heads

[Salazaar]

I think what scares the government (and probably the public) is the idea that to lift the ban cannabis would become as popular as binge drinking and you would have people smoking it openly all over the place. In Amsterdam you don't smoke it in public only in private or designated areas, in Germany if the sign says 50mph for next 2 miles you slow down immediately. The worry is that in the UK people would ignore the rules and you would have groups of chavs smoking it on street corners and in groups in the park, and in some ways it's hard to disagree - I mean they're 12/13 years old and already doing that with alcohol and what do we do about it, practically nothing. Yes, smoking is being gradually removed but that's taken decades to get to where we are with it, the government will not want to "release" another substance which might then take another 20-30 years to get control of.

That may be the perception that the Daily Fail likes to bleat on about every day but in reality I think it's a gross underestimation of the general public.

Germans may be percieved to be law abiding on their roads but we still have fewer fatal accidents on roads per head of population than any other European country...

They may not smoke in public in Amsterdam but that's not to say we couldn't either. It took a long time to get legislation through to limit smoking (cigarettes) in public places here but we did very well in applying the law once it was passed. You could include such clauses in laws governing cannabis from the start.

[format]

Personally, I'd rather chavs stood on the street corner smoking weed than drinking alcohol.
I guarantee you'd see a massive drop in violent crime

Barakka is right.

It's illegal to kill a dog for no reason (even a stray which belongs to no one). But you can kill thousands of other animals (pests) for no reason and the law will do nothing about it.

Just because one is legal, it doesn't mean the other should be.

Stop those loser pot heads

Worst analogy ever tbh

Before you come spouting your ill informed nonsense in here, go do a little research and leave you prejudices at the door.

[MadduckUK]

stray dogs get destroyed all the time :/

[Barakka]

Personally, I'd rather chavs stood on the street corner smoking weed than drinking alcohol.
I guarantee you'd see a massive drop in violent crime

So would I, but unfortunately it's not a one-or-the-other situation and mixing sk**k and White Lightning never has a pleasant outcome

[james_d]

Germans may be percieved to be law abiding on their roads but we still have fewer fatal accidents on roads per head of population than any other European country...

Slight tangent here to the thread, but not any more. We could boast that back in 1994, but nowadays malta, netherlands and sweden are ahead of us.