"Cannabis use under Licence" Proposes leading Scientist

[thenumberthirteen]

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

 

[Agayek]

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.

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.

 

[Kpt._Rob]

It's a tricky issue. For me, smoking cannabis was the first step that lead me to much harder drugs and some serious addictions... and having been through that I don't feel like legalizing cannabis would necessarily have broken the gateway affect like I used to think it would. That said, if people are going to use it, then they're going to use it. Trying to fight them on it can just create even more problems in the long run, because you create a society in which a sizable portion of the populace is willingly breaking the law. This puts even the average person at odds with law enforcement, and makes the jobs of law enforcement more difficult in all areas. I know that the difference between how much I trusted cops before I ever used, and after I got clean, changed a lot. Spending time as a criminal causes one's attitudes of law enforcement to change, and while it makes me better able to sympathize with those on the receiving end of the law's wrath, it also really has made me much more paranoid about law enforcement, even though I'm not breaking the laws anymore, I still feel like they're out to get me. That, needless to say, could be problematic for me if I was ever in a situation where I needed a cop, but didn't want to find one because I can't trust them. Having a societal norm like that isn't even slightly healthy.

I think I would probably say that something like a cannabis license would be for the best, not so much because I think it'd be a good idea, but because I think that of all the bad options we've got to choose from, it's the best one.

 

[Macgyvercas]

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.

 

[SonicWaffle]

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

And the requirement for such a licence would be...what? A certain age, having to pay a certain annual amount, not having a criminal record, being judged by the government as a "responsible user"...It would just keep driving people to the illegal dealers. If you add a specific set of requirements, and presumably an annual fee, a lot of people aren't going to be eligible or will be unable to afford the licence. They will buy their weed illegally, and the problem continues.

The only sensible option is to legalize, with a similar age limit to alcohol, and similar restrictions such as driving under the influence.

 

[WittyInfidel]

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

Obviously you've never had a cashier ask you for ID on either. And I mean state ID as well, not just a driver's license.

A license would work very well in the ways for identification.

Of course, I like my own thoughts on drug use.

Now bear with me on this: Legalize all narcotics/substances. However, if you need medical care, you are required to submit a blood sample for a drug test. You fail drug screen, you do not receive medical care. You have license for certain substance, and you fail screening for that substance, you are allowed medical care.

See, pretty simple. It would make most people be very, very careful about what they used, and when.

Granted, something like this would never pass. As I'm sure somebody soon will point out by shaking fingers and lecturing.

/gets popcorn

 

[Shpongled]

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

Obviously you've never had a cashier ask you for ID on either. And I mean state ID as well, not just a driver's license.

A license would work very well in the ways for identification.

Of course, I like my own thoughts on drug use.

Now bear with me on this: Legalize all narcotics/substances. However, if you need medical care, you are required to submit a blood sample for a drug test. You fail drug screen, you do not receive medical care. You have license for certain substance, and you fail screening for that substance, you are allowed medical care.

See, pretty simple. It would make most people be very, very careful about what they used, and when.

Granted, something like this would never pass. As I'm sure somebody soon will point out by shaking fingers and lecturing.

/gets popcorn

Wouldn't act as a sufficient deterrent because people taking narcotic substances are already taking risks with their health, and in a situation where drug intake has lead to medical aid requirement, there not be time to check for some silly license before providing medical assistance.

There is also the issue of human rights. Denying a citizen a basic necessity of life in health care because of some arbitrary reason like whether they had the "right" (in the form of a license) to ingest a substance.

 

[Mr.Mattress]

I am in favor of legalizing all drugs just to end all the drug violence. Sure, Cancer Death Rates would go higher and what not, but America does have the most Cancer Survivors of the world (A La Wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Healthcare#Overall_system_effectiveness_compared_to_other_countries] Though the rest of our health care is crud). If it were to pass with a Licence though, that'd be fine for me

 

[tmnnerd]

Maybe a license to grow it would make sense, I'd support that, but not to use it.

i've actually been thinking about this for some time now and to me it makes a lot of sense. if people were licensed to grow cannabis, for whatever reason, then there would be several benefits: 1. organised crime would no longer be able to make big money growing and distributing weed. you could say that this would lead them to pursue other, harder drugs, as revenue streams but the market is not nearly as big and, particularly cocaine and heroin, cant be produced without smuggling in supplies from overseas which would become more difficult as suddenly the police drugs units would have more time and resources left over from chasing weed cartels that no longer existed. 2. everyone with a license would be known to the police in the same way that a gun license holder is registered and so if anyone underage or unlicensed was found with weed on them, it would be very easy to keep an eye on the licensed growers and rule them out before moving to find the illegal supplies. 3. people's health would improve. the weed in the uk can be shockingly unhealthy with fertilisers left in by lazy growers, glass sprayed on the buds to bulk them out and of course the ever present, dog shit and plastic bag filled soapbar. there would be no need for anyone to use this shit anymore and it would die out. also i suspect the majority of stoners in britain would very likely stop using tobacco in joints. if you had your own supplies and could smoke or vaporize pure weed, you would.

there are of course problems with the idea, angering the mafia isn't a good plan and there would have to be restrictions on the number of plants grown and the age of the growers (at least 18 but i would say preferably 21) but it seems to me to be a workable scheme... that will more than likely never be enacted. why? politicians are interested in power as opposed to the good of society and so would not want to anger middle england's aged, bigoted and cantankerous voting class by sensible drug policy. "lock 'em up!" the idiots cry, "lock 'em up or we'll never vote for you again!"

*sigh*

 

[Engarde]

Maybe a license to grow it would make sense, I'd support that, but not to use it.

This makes good sense, as it would take revenue away from illegal sellers of it, etc, etc. Though I am afraid I am not very well versed on the dangers of it all, so I cannot speak much more than this.

 

[thenumberthirteen]

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

And the requirement for such a licence would be...what? A certain age, having to pay a certain annual amount, not having a criminal record, being judged by the government as a "responsible user"...It would just keep driving people to the illegal dealers. If you add a specific set of requirements, and presumably an annual fee, a lot of people aren't going to be eligible or will be unable to afford the licence. They will buy their weed illegally, and the problem continues.

The only sensible option is to legalize, with a similar age limit to alcohol, and similar restrictions such as driving under the influence.

From what I can tell it would be like a driver's licence in the way that you'd have to be a certain age, and medically capable. There are people who have certain medical conditions that mean they cannot drive and so are not given a license to do so for their, and others', wellbeing.

The article doesn't go into great detail as to what the requirements could be, but I'd assume you'd have a medical check of some sort (or even just a records check) before you're issued with a license, and if you develop a condition that leaves you at risk schizophrenic behaviour then the license is taken away.

 

[thenumberthirteen]

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.

From what I read about Cannabis risk in relation to alcohol and tobacco makes me want to put greater restrictions on them. Let's be honest a lot of alcohol and tobacco legal exemptions are grandfathered in.

the article also discusses the licensing of production, but only to pharmaceutical companies or the like. Not individuals.

I've never smoked it so I don't really care much if it's Illegal or not from a personal point, but I have seen some of its effects on crime and do sympathise with some of the points of the legalisation movement.

For me it's an issue that will be decided by science. The two heads of the opposing sides shall each build giant robots and whoever kills the other shall win.

 

[SonicWaffle]

From what I can tell it would be like a driver's licence in the way that you'd have to be a certain age, and medically capable. There are people who have certain medical conditions that mean they cannot drive and so are not given a license to do so for their, and others', wellbeing.

Don't forget that there are several other hoops to jump through. You have to take a theory test to make sure you understand the rules, you have to take a practical test to show you can actually drive, you have to pay for both of these and the actual licence. I can't imagine that there would be anything less than that for a weed licence, and assume that there will be a great many more little tests and checks and guidelines. I stand by the point that a weed licence would only serve to drive people to illegal dealers.

The article doesn't go into great detail as to what the requirements could be, but I'd assume you'd have a medical check of some sort (or even just a records check) before you're issued with a license, and if you develop a condition that leaves you at risk schizophrenic behaviour then the license is taken away.

I'd guess medical check-up, psychiatric examination, background check, assesment of parental and living situations, and a hundred other things that would cause more than half of people to fail. Bear in mind that the criteria would be being created by people who have had innacurate anti-drug propaganda shoved down their throats for most of their lives.

 

[Throwitawaynow]

Grow up and do cocaine like an adult!

 

[thenumberthirteen]

From what I can tell it would be like a driver's licence in the way that you'd have to be a certain age, and medically capable. There are people who have certain medical conditions that mean they cannot drive and so are not given a license to do so for their, and others', wellbeing.

Don't forget that there are several other hoops to jump through. You have to take a theory test to make sure you understand the rules, you have to take a practical test to show you can actually drive, you have to pay for both of these and the actual licence. I can't imagine that there would be anything less than that for a weed licence, and assume that there will be a great many more little tests and checks and guidelines. I stand by the point that a weed licence would only serve to drive people to illegal dealers.

The article doesn't go into great detail as to what the requirements could be, but I'd assume you'd have a medical check of some sort (or even just a records check) before you're issued with a license, and if you develop a condition that leaves you at risk schizophrenic behaviour then the license is taken away.

I'd guess medical check-up, psychiatric examination, background check, assesment of parental and living situations, and a hundred other things that would cause more than half of people to fail. Bear in mind that the criteria would be being created by people who have had innacurate anti-drug propaganda shoved down their throats for most of their lives.

Of course this is all just theoretical. I'm sure there would be a charge for the license as there is for most things, but as I can tell (this was just a preliminary press interview before a presentation on the subject) the license would only exclude under-age people or those with diagnosed conditions. I don't see large scale background assessment as that would be extremely expensive and time consuming for such a large scale, and would be largely inconclusive. This is not a plan to weed out (lol) junkies, but to stop the equivalent of a blind man driving a car. Where there is proven medical risk.

Though this is never going to happen anyway. It'll move about the legal scale becoming more or less illegal with each government and policy change, maybe being sanctioned for medical use, but it will never be free. Drug dealers will still make a fortune from growing and selling it to everyone and their dog, and millions will be spent raiding people with a grow bag a fluorescent light in their cupboard rather than the more dangerous drugs being sold around the country.

 

[DeepComet5581]

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.

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.

My opinion, 100%.

No-one can use the "Protect the kids" line because, as you said, it is the PARENT'S responsibility to keep them on the straight and narrow. There are kids as young as 9 who smoke cigarettes in the UK. Cannabis does a damn sight less damage than an equivalent amount of Superking Blue.

As for point 1) Not only that, but legalised narcotics mean that the government can monitor and regulate them, meaning that the drugs will be of a much higher quality, without a load of junk in them (For instance, some people put lead and glass in Cannabis to make it heavier). It may make it more expensive, but it will make it much safer.

There is a political party in the UK called the Legalise Cannabis Alliance. I would vote for them but they don't run in my constituency.

 

[Agayek]

My opinion, 100%.

No-one can use the "Protect the kids" line because, as you said, it is the PARENT'S responsibility to keep them on the straight and narrow. There are kids as young as 9 who smoke cigarettes in the UK. Cannabis does a damn sight less damage than an equivalent amount of Superking Blue.

As for point 1) Not only that, but legalised narcotics mean that the government can monitor and regulate them, meaning that the drugs will be of a much higher quality, without a load of junk in them (For instance, some people put lead and glass in Cannabis to make it heavier). It may make it more expensive, but it will make it much safer.

There is a political party in the UK called the Legalise Cannabis Alliance. I would vote for them but they don't run in my constituency.

Just for clarity's sake, I was also referring to Cocaine, Heroine, Methamphetamine and whatever else people want to use to get high, which are known to have far worse effects on the human body than just about anything that doesn't involve dismemberment.

People should have the right to make their own choices on how they wish to live, and if that happens to include a ticket to an early grave, no one has the right to countermand that (assuming they aren't harming anyone else).

 

[Celtic_Kerr]

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 agree with this statement. Canabis isn't acid, Ecstasy, speed, Heroine, or cocaine. It has weak effects unless smoked in large quantities or it's a strong strain. You don't halucinate, you trip. You feel carious sensations. Smokeing canabis and drinking alcohol give (almost) similar effects in this regard.

So why can we drink alcohol but not smoke canabis?