"Cannabis use under Licence" Proposes leading Scientist

[De Ronneman]

I honestly think that making any drug legal/permited would help out when it comes to accidents.

It's like porn. No, seriously, hear me out.

As kids, you learn that sex is something cool. It's a peer/older sibling thing. Around puberty, porn and sex are absolutely the shit to talk about and joke about. when you grow up, you try it, learn that it's fun, but not as awesome as you were always told, thus your interest drops (somewhat)...

In short: it's the illegalness that makes it "cool".

When it's suddenly legal/permited, people would shrug and walk past it, or try it and use it as relaxant (like liquor/cigarets).

Also, if the drugs are regulated, you could be assured of getting good stuff, and not some evil, diluted junk, mixed with detergent and what not. When regulated, you can be assured of quality and strength, making accidents less likely.

 

[cerebus23]

like pen and teller said most people that get on hardcore drugs start with beer not marijuana. making beer the gateway drug, mj as a gateway drug is very overblown. hell i would argue air is the gateway drug .

drivers license is fine for and private mj check, i mean you do not take classes on beer and whiskey and rum, or cigs. anything beyond private use tho growing etc should be licensed small fees for homegrow x amt of plants allowed etc. larger growing stuff larger fees commercial etc.

nice that an egghead finally came to realize something that anyone with half a brain in their head, parents and politicians to boot, that keeping mostly harmless, non addictive drugs like weed illegal, and telling kids it is born in the 7th circle of hell and if you take a toke you will become addicts and rapists, you not only create crime, but you create the doubt in kids heads that do try mj and find out it is nowhere near as evil as their parents and schools and the government tell them it is, then there is a definate danger of them wondering what other drugs they have been lied to about. and meth, cocain, and heroine are drugs that are true naroctics, saying mj is a narcitc is downright insult to real drugs.

 

[Hateren47]

In my opinion a 18-21 year old birth certificate or similar personal ID should be enough to legally buy hash, weed, skunk and maybe mushrooms. It's not like the restrictions have had any effect except pissing away government funds on a "war" that can't be won. I can grow weed in the backyard (or my closet for skunk) and find magic mushrooms in just about any field full of horse or cow shit.

 

[Cherry Cola]

I'm for complete legalization of Cannabis myself.

Now, I'm not going to go into how "Cannabis is less harmful to your body than alcohol and cigarettes" or anything like that. I'm going to go full out and say: I don't think any kind of drug should be illegal.

Being arrested for doing drugs is like the police storming into a MacDonald's, arresting the nearest person and saying "THAT IS NOT HEALTHY! YOU'RE GOING TO JAIL!".

Make it legal, slap an age restriction on it, and use the money the government spends on trying to stop drugs for something better. Like educating kids on drugs, as well as educating adults on how they can best stop their children from going down that route.

 

[Dags90]

Exactly what factors would be considered as a "risk" for schizophrenia? Schizophrenia is known to be genetically influenced, but limiting one's ability to buy a consumer product because of genetic predisposition (or, "family history") is genetic discrimination.

So right off the bat this system seems like it would have serious problems. How effective would this screening actually be if they can't ask family history? And wouldn't allowing them to ask family history be a case of discrimination based on the chance of having particular genes?

We already know that there are genetic factors to alcoholism, perhaps we should keep people with "family histories" of alcoholism from buying booze, too? Doing one without the other would be inconsistent and they're both terrible ideas.

The moral of this story is "Doctors are not lawyers."

 

[individual11]

Yeah, probably not going to go ahead... the 'POT IZ BAD, MMMMKAY?' has been drummed into the collective conscience since the late 30s.
If you want a laugh, try watching 'Reefer Madness.'
Besides, everyone knows Prohibition works.
/sarcasm.

 

[Ldude893]

I disagree. You don't need a license for alcohol or cigarettes,

Come to think of it, putting in licenses for alcohol, cigarettes and cannabis actually sounds like a great idea.

 

[SenseOfTumour]

I'm in favour of the legalisation and taxing of it, but...ONLY if the Government is forced by law to keep at least half the tax profits to invest in care for those damaged by the drugs.

They still get a huge stack of cash, but those who are drawn in by having easier access are looked after.

 

[lockeslylcrit]

I'm in favor of legalizing and regulating it. More than likely, I wont participate in smoking it (tried it twice, tasted like shit both times), but I'm in favor for the following reasons...

1. Which would you rather do? Get your marijuana from your local Walgreens, or from some shady dealer who obviously doesn't report that portion of his income on his taxes? By having it widely available, with the proper license for sale and with a standardized price, it will put the small and big time dealers out of business.
2. There are zero marijuana-related deaths a year. Compare this to the 100,000+ tobacco-related deaths. And this is coming from someone who smokes tobacco, in case you were wondering if I was biased against tobacco.
3. The extra tax revenue and license fees can provide a good boost to the economy via local infrastructure budget increases.
4. By legalizing cannabis, local law enforcement agencies can devote more manpower and money to fighting the harder drugs like heroin instead of wasting effort on arresting for possession of marijuana.

 

[thenumberthirteen]

like pen and teller said most people that get on hardcore drugs start with beer not marijuana. making beer the gateway drug, mj as a gateway drug is very overblown. hell i would argue air is the gateway drug .

The trouble can be that dealers try to push the more expensive and addictive drugs to buyers. It's like going to the store and the clerk says "Hey it seems you like Mountain Dew. Why not try some of this Tequila. I'll give you this small bottle for free". Like some sort of sinister Amazon.com

 

[thenumberthirteen]

I'm in favour of the legalisation and taxing of it, but...ONLY if the Government is forced by law to keep at least half the tax profits to invest in care for those damaged by the drugs.

They still get a huge stack of cash, but those who are drawn in by having easier access are looked after.

The trouble is in countries like the UK the government CANNOT set aside tax money like that. It all goes into a pot (pun!) and is divided up then.

 

[Captain-Cuntmouth]

I think that it should be sold on the same level as alcohol... but that is for someone who has free healthcare. (NHS in the UK)

I'd draw up a parallel with alcohol in this case. Simply because the revenue created by taxing booze would easily cover the costs of it's inherent social problems. From personal experience I'd say the people that have or still use/used cannabis is well into at least the 50% for "regular society" and well into the 80%'s for people like me in the working class.

So legalise, tax, use some of the money to inform, educate and treat any problems caused... maybe build a couple of hospitals with the extra revenue.

HOWEVER that's only for people with free healthcare. I can't explain a case for people without... Maybe apart from taking money out of the hands of criminals and making the streets safer for EVERYONE.

... so bottom line, weed legal. then you can clamp down on actually dangerous drugs... e.g.the pills and powders that ruin people's lives

 

[Smilas]

In my opinion a 18-21 year old birth certificate or similar personal ID should be enough to legally buy hash, weed, skunk and maybe mushrooms. It's not like the restrictions have had any effect except pissing away government funds on a "war" that can't be won. I can grow weed in the backyard (or my closet for skunk) and find magic mushrooms in just about any field full of horse or cow shit.

I would say no to the mushroom part. It's simply to dangerous. The effect of mushrooms varies too much from person to person...

 

[zen5887]

Even though I'm not really interested in Weed, I do think it should be legalized.

Mainly because I'm not really seeing any need for it to be illegal. According to The Emperor Wears No Clothes there is a load of propaganda and corruption surrounding its banning. Now, I don't have any more sources for that but I've kind of made up my own mind about it. I mean, why is it banned? It causes health risks? No one has died as a direct result of Weed, how many people have died from smokes/alcohol/cheeseburgers? The whole "it turns people into lazy slobs" thing is pretty silly as well, I mean.. Alcohol turns people violent or suicidal. and to my understanding weed only enhances someone's personality, meaning, if you're a lazy idiot before you got high, you're only going to be lazier and stupider when you smoke. On the flip side, people like Eddie Bravo, constantly use weed as a way to enhance their creative talents.

 

[Agayek]

I'm in favour of the legalisation and taxing of it, but...ONLY if the Government is forced by law to keep at least half the tax profits to invest in care for those damaged by the drugs.

They still get a huge stack of cash, but those who are drawn in by having easier access are looked after.

Why should the government expend any effort to care for those who are dumb enough to damage themselves with it? It's no one's fault but their own, and thus no one else's responsibility.