| Topic: | Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Drugs Live: Cannabis on Trial | |
| Posted by: | Alastair Banton | |
| Date/Time: | 04/03/15 14:49:00 |
I do agree that there are dangers with skunk, though probably less than with alcohol or tobacco, but I disagree that liberalisation of the law would lead to all hell breaking loose. This has not been the experience of the countries and several US states that have moved in this direction. With alcohol prohibition in the U.S. came horrendous problems that dissipated once it was brought under control. And that is what people are calling for with cannabis. Cannabis is actually a medicine that has been around for millennia and was only made illegal in mid 20th century for very dubious reasons (racism and politics). But I don't believe there should be a legal free-for-all. It should be sold to adults and taxed through licensed retailers. There should be quality control and proper labels denoting strength - THC and CBD content etc, and health warnings. That would actually be a much safer situation for children. Here's what I think would be other results. Roughly the same number of people would indulge in it. There might be a slight short-term increase initially due to curiosity but that would level out - let's face it, most people don't like the stuff, especially not skunk. Jon Snow's bad experience was not unusual. Crime would continue to fall. Policing would be less expensive. The government would get a tidy sum of tax revenue which could be directed into the NHS. Gangs would be deprived of a significant source of income. Skunk would become less popular - other, milder varieties would be more available. Many youngsters would not have their lives blighted by a criminal record. It is deeply ironic that many leading politicians who support the status quo might simply not be in the positions they are if they had been unlucky enough to be charged with possession in their youth - charged by laws that they support. |