"Cannabis use under Licence" Proposes leading Scientist

[Serge A. Storms]

If they seriously made a weed license, I'd have to vomit forever. One more thing that everyone should be able to do in a free society, only for the government to insert itself into the personal lives of everyone unnecessarily.

 

[Hateren47]

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

But that's the same with alcohol. Some people can't handle it and some can't function without a little schnapps in their morning coffee (grandpa <3). You are of course right that psychedelics can be dangerous to both the user and potentially the users surroundings. I wouldn't know though because so far I have been immune to the effect both times I tried. But I don't believe they are that dangerous. Of course you wouldn't be allowed to operate heavy machinery or guns etc. under the influence.

 

[brunothepig]

Considering I am firmly against the idea of making any illicit substance illegal, I'd have to say imposing a licensing structure for marijuana seems like a terrible idea.

Here's an idea: Let's just make the stupid shit legal. The only people it harms are those who choose to ingest it, and the victims of the drug cartels. Make it legal and eliminate the cartels almost overnight, and then let the dumbfucks who want to get high that badly kill themselves off.

There is absolutely no reason to limit the sale of narcotics, and there's a whole host of incentives (mostly economic) to legalize and tax the fuck out of it.

Edit: Before anyone starts yelling at me:

No, you cannot use "but we must protect the children!" as a valid argument against the legality of narcotics. It is the parents' responsibility to ensure their child's mental and physical welfare. If they can't be bothered, no one else should be. Any crimes a child commits in the pursuit of narcotics should be penalized just like every other crime (and I would argue that the parents should suffer the same punishment as the child).

"But addicts commit crimes!" is also not a valid reason to outlaw narcotics. It's like saying "But people commit crimes!". If an addict commits a crime in pursuit of narcotics, they should be punished just like if they had done it stone sober. It's incredibly foolish to insist that a crime committed under the influence is any different than one committed sober. Sure, whoever it was may not have done it when sober but it doesn't change the fact that they did it. Or that they could do it again.

And in support of legalizing narcotics:
1) Drug rings would almost instantly evaporate. Almost everyone except the most destitute/desperate would go for the legal product, even if it was more expensive. The lack of risk for various diseases and/or bad product more than makes up for all but the most extreme difference in price.

2) The government would receive a huge surge of funding. A simple 10% tax on any narcotic (which from my understanding is less than a third of the taxes on cigarettes) would net billions every year. We could make significant inroads in, if not outright eliminate, the national debt in a handful of years.

I am in fact all for the idea of legalising the "softer" drugs like weed. Not because I like it, but because as is said above, they won't harm anyone else, and may in fact stop certain problems, create government revenue etc. However, the hard drugs are a little scary. it's difficult to spike someones drink with weed. Ecstacy tablets are another matter altogether. Not to mention the fact that, again, I agree the idea of a lenient sentence because you were under the influence is stupid, it doesn't change the fact that severe hallucinogenics or something (ice for one) would cause a fair bit of crime, or chaos.
Still, if they won't go all the way, then I suppose a license isn't a bad idea... Could work even better actually.

 

[Agayek]

I am in fact all for the idea of legalising the "softer" drugs like weed. Not because I like it, but because as is said above, they won't harm anyone else, and may in fact stop certain problems, create government revenue etc. However, the hard drugs are a little scary. it's difficult to spike someones drink with weed. Ecstacy tablets are another matter altogether. Not to mention the fact that, again, I agree the idea of a lenient sentence because you were under the influence is stupid, it doesn't change the fact that severe hallucinogenics or something (ice for one) would cause a fair bit of crime, or chaos.
Still, if they won't go all the way, then I suppose a license isn't a bad idea... Could work even better actually.

And anyone caught slipping a drug to someone should be treated the same way you would treat someone who tried to poison someone. Flog the ************ and be done with it.

And anyone dumb enough to go outside on severe hallucinogenics deserves whatever the hell they get (whether that be getting shot by someone their harassing or getting arrested for drunk & disorderly conduct).

The stupid ones will take themselves out of the genepool pretty quick, and the rest will be left just fine.

It all comes down to my philosophy on crime and punishment more than anything else, really. I firmly believe the only valid response is to punish the offender, not the tool they used to offend. And that legal punishment should actually be punishment, not rehabilitation.

 

[Bloodstain]

I disagree. You don't need a license for alcohol or cigarettes, and being that cannabis is significantly less harmful it should be held to the same standards as they are. Maybe a license to grow it would make sense, I'd support that, but not to use it. We are meant to live in a free country here, but we aren't free to put whatever we want in our own bodies? Bullshit.

I once did a report on why Marijuania should be legalized. Drug companies severely overhype the dangers of this one. Also, if the government would subsidize the sale of it, they could make one hell of a lot of money.

These people speak the truth. It's not as harmful as everyone seems to think.
Several friends of mine regularly consume it, and they're perfectly healthy.

You should need a license to grow and sell it, not to use it.

Edit: Besides, if it's allowed, it's not a cool and forbidden fruit anymore, so less drug abuse by minors.

 

[Agayek]

Even though I agree with most things in your first post, it would be nice if you could get off your high horse for a second, get down to ground level and acknowledge that drug users are people too. You dont have to be a cross eyed dumbass to enjoy drugs or get addicted to them. I know heroin addicts who come across as more intelligent and sympathetic than you.

See, here's where I have the problem with drug addicts. They made the choice to partake of their substance of choice, and they have to deal with the consequences, yet they demand sympathy and pity parties. I have no sympathy for them, just like I have no sympathy for people who run out in traffic and get run over, or any of the myriad stupid things people do to earn a Darwin Award. It's not a matter of intelligence, it's a matter of facing the consequences of your own decisions.

Edit: TLDR: http://www.darwinawards.com/

If you aren't sympathetic to every single person listed on that website, being sympathetic to addicts is hypocrisy.

 

[Treefingers]

You don't need a license for alcohol or cigarettes, and being that cannabis is significantly less harmful it should be held to the same standards as they are.

This. License sounds kind of silly.

 

[JammasterJG]

im going to aberdeen university a week today undergraduate courses here i come!!!

OT: as others have said you don't need a licence for things like alcohol or cigarettes, personally i think it should be a controlled substance like alcohol and cigarettes (only available to over 18s or whatever) and you should only really smoke it in designated areas, like a hash bar or something, just so people don't do it on the street or anything

 

[thenumberthirteen]

It's difficult to spike someones drink with weed.

Unless it's a Mojito. Even then you'd just end up with leaves in your mouth. The worst that would happen there it they'd look like an Idiot as they try and spit them out.

 

[Plurralbles]

A license to carry and smoke.


I like it. The revenue from a $50 or more apiece license would be pretty dang awesome for the states too.

I had a guy make me a blunt with some of my vanilla pipe tobacco. Bestexperience with the stuff so far. I told him that night that he should be allowed to get a license to do it, cuz' it's something a lot of people ought ot try. It's delicious.

 

[jasoncyrus]

Professor Roger Pertwee who is Professor of Neuropharmacology at the University of Aberdeen has come out and said that cannabis should be legalised and sold under a licensing system to prevent the spread of crime and to protect the health of those at high risk of being damaged by the drug. This would, it seems, take the form of a Licence "You have a car licence and a dog licence; why not a cannabis licence?" he said.

Now I'm on the side of keeping it Illegal (though as a lower class C drug) due to the health risks demonstrated such as Schizophrenia in some cases.I am, however, also aware of the dangers caused by it being illegal such as the revenue provided to organised crime, the health risks from not knowing what you are actually buying, and how it can be used as a "gateway drug" to more harmful substance, plus how hard it is to find good weed around here (I kid... it's not that hard).

Having licenses that stop those people at risk such as those with medical conditions or psychological disorders from buying it (if it were legalised) sounds like a good idea, and would help assuage one of my fears about recreational cannabis use.

I know the topic of "Drugs should be legalised" has been done to death and beyond here (look at my join date I've seen a lot of them). What I really want to know is if you think this is a good idea if cannabis was to be legalised. Would it be an effective control (as long as it was well enforced)?

I also love the idea of having a Weed License. Would it be like a driving license where you have to take a test and it has a photo of you stoned printed on it. It just sounds like a funny idea. Feel free to make and post your own Cannabis License. I'm making one now

<url=http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/Cannabis-Professor-Roger-Pertwee-Calls-For-Drug-To-Be-Legalised-But-Proposes-Licence-System/Article/201009215727427?lpos=UK_News_First_UK_News_Article_Teaser_Region_1&lid=ARTICLE_15727427_Cannabis:_Professor_Roger_Pertwee_Calls_For_Drug_To_Be_Legalised_But_Proposes_Licence_System>Source

Oh how I need a facepalm image right now...but i don't have one at the moment.

Yes you need a liscence to drive, but still hundreds of thousands drive without one even when warned about it by the authorities.

You need a dog liscence but hundreds of thousands do not have one.

Just because a liscence is put on it does NOT mean those currently growing and selling it on the streets will stop, at all.

It's quite frankly moronic. A driving liscence is to make sure you know HOW to drive a car. a dog liscene is to make sure you know HOW to look after your dog etc.

A cannabis liscence would simply make it ok for people to smoke toxic chemicals and waste their lives getting stoned instead of doing something productive with their life!

If they make such a liscence, I want a liscence to beat up, steal from and then burn any product I find on anyone with a liscence. Simply because that makes about as much sense as a cannabis liscence.

 

[Timmey]

A cannabis liscence would simply make it ok for people to smoke toxic chemicals and waste their lives getting stoned instead of doing something productive with their life!

Yeah because every one knows that every one who smokes weed are just lay abouts who do nothing product with their lives, oh wait, that not true!

It should be legalised because it would remove the black market element, criminals would no longer profit from it.

Along with this it means the government can control what goes into it and at what strength, whilst turning a tidy profit.

 

[b3nn3tt]

You don't need a license for alcohol or cigarettes, and being that cannabis is significantly less harmful it should be held to the same standards as they are

I dislike this argument for legalising anything. This is actually an argument in favour of making cigarettes and alcohol illegal. If they are bad, then they should be made illegal, they shouldn't be made the benchmark for what to legalise

Having said that, I am fully in favour of legalising not just marijuana, but all drugs. Making something illegal is not a good means of stopping people from doing it, if I wanted to go out and get some cocaine right now then I could do easily enough, regardless of the legality. If all drugs were made legal tomorrow, the number of people using them would only go up by a slight amount. It should be down to the individual to make an informed choice about what they want to put into their body. The more sensible-minded among us would be aware of the risks of doing so, and make an informed decision

 

[jasoncyrus]

A cannabis liscence would simply make it ok for people to smoke toxic chemicals and waste their lives getting stoned instead of doing something productive with their life!

Yeah because every one knows that every one who smokes weed are just lay abouts who do nothing product with their lives, oh wait, that not true!

It should be legalised because it would remove the black market element, criminals would no longer profit from it.

Along with this it means the government can control what goes into it and at what strength, whilst turning a tidy profit.

Oh so making something legal INSTANTLY gets rid of all criminal activity on it? Oh wait no.

One word: Percocet.

Legal, prescription required, yet still thousands arrested every year for illegal possesion with a prescription *gasp* Could it be that drug addicts are still totally predictable idiot? Such shock and horror!

It doesn't mean the government can control what goes into it. it means they control what goes into THEIR brand.

What exactly makes you think the current dealers will magically stop? Grow up please.

 

[jasoncyrus]

You don't need a license for alcohol or cigarettes, and being that cannabis is significantly less harmful it should be held to the same standards as they are

I dislike this argument for legalising anything. This is actually an argument in favour of making cigarettes and alcohol illegal. If they are bad, then they should be made illegal, they shouldn't be made the benchmark for what to legalise

Having said that, I am fully in favour of legalising not just marijuana, but all drugs. Making something illegal is not a good means of stopping people from doing it, if I wanted to go out and get some cocaine right now then I could do easily enough, regardless of the legality. If all drugs were made legal tomorrow, the number of people using them would only go up by a slight amount. It should be down to the individual to make an informed choice about what they want to put into their body. The more sensible-minded among us would be aware of the risks of doing so, and make an informed decision

The reason people do it is simple, the punishment is way too low. Prison is a holiday camp these days. Can guarentee you the number of addicts that get caught would drop like a brick if the punishment was being executed for possesion. Or being sent to a prison of Shawshank standards for 50 years.

 

[jasoncyrus]

Even though I agree with most things in your first post, it would be nice if you could get off your high horse for a second, get down to ground level and acknowledge that drug users are people too. You dont have to be a cross eyed dumbass to enjoy drugs or get addicted to them. I know heroin addicts who come across as more intelligent and sympathetic than you.

See, here's where I have the problem with drug addicts. They made the choice to partake of their substance of choice, and they have to deal with the consequences, yet they demand sympathy and pity parties. I have no sympathy for them, just like I have no sympathy for people who run out in traffic and get run over, or any of the myriad stupid things people do to earn a Darwin Award. It's not a matter of intelligence, it's a matter of facing the consequences of your own decisions.

Edit: TLDR: http://www.darwinawards.com/

If you aren't sympathetic to every single person listed on that website, being sympathetic to addicts is hypocrisy.

*Epic Facepalm*

Read that last sentence of yours over and over. Until you realise how stupid that statement is.

Anyhow, I guess you are right. Trying to help people who are in need is a waste of time. We should let smokers who get lung cancer die at home, without treatment. Pen tips shouldnt have those little holes in them, people need to deal with the consequences. Why do we have people at beaches to safe those dudes that get sweeped out to sea? They know full well they cant swim. We should let them die.

"it's a matter of facing the consequences of your own decisions". Someday, you will make a bad decision. And that day, you will wish people around you cared more for each other. But they wont help you, because you are acting like a senseless douchebag.

Lay off the "Tough luck deal with it" act. Yes, drug addicts made a bad decision(s), that does NOT mean they should be left to die in a ditch at the side of the road.

I really hope your attitude comes back to kick you in the ass hard someday. I am sure it will.

I part agree with your sarcasm. Smokers can die of lungcancer in the gutter for all I care. They know the risks, why the hell should we waste our health resources treating them? Same for drug addicts, if you use drug you get NOTHING from the government, no healthcare, no benefits, no police, nothing. We will however offer them the option to be air dropped into guatimala.