Need to generate new tax streams?? - legalise Cannabis

thebman

Jakkass wrote: »

due to the medical facts on the matter.

Such as?

turgon

So I assume Jakkass wants alcohol illegalized too?

I wouldn't describe drunks roving around streets as "socially desirous," nor would I describe alcohol as safe either.

philologos

turgon wrote: »

So I assume Jakkass wants alcohol illegalized too?

I wouldn't describe drunks roving around streets as "socially desirous," nor would I describe alcohol as safe either.

I don't see how this argument assists your position though. This merely bolsters the point of view that we have enough problems to deal with concerning alcohol. Why throw another one in the mix?

SeanW

Jakkass wrote: »

Should we legalise assassination? Theft? They both exist, but we decided that it wasn't socially desirable to do so.

Both are an explicit violation of the rights of other people. One of the few legitimate roles of the State in a free society, is to protect the rights of its people. If someone smokes weed, they are not violating your rights simply by that act - but the criminal underworld that comes about because of prohibition might!

Likewise, sometimes ethics come above finances. I couldn't care how much cannabis could earn for the Government, it really wouldn't sway me to legalise it due to the medical facts on the matter.

How about alchohol (I'll give you a hint, it is far more destructive to society than cannibis could ever be, but its prohibition caused an insane crimewave in the U.S. in the early '30s.)

And as for "ethics," my moral code disallows telling people with MS and other illnesses that they're criminal scum if they seek alternative remedies, or forcing them onto the Black Market. I also strongly question both the ethics and the logic of locking people in jail and giving them criminal records for doing nothing more than looking to zone out for a bit.

Just like the pro-Prohibition of alcohol people in the U.S. in the 1930s, your ethics are costing society vastly more than it has gained, both in societal losses through crime and lives destroyed by gangs and criminal records, and government funds, pursuing a policy that has backfired so thoroughly and completely.

It remains the fact that the biggest beneficiaries of Prohibition are the criminal gangs, who are now poised to threaten civilisation itself in areas like Northern Mexico. Are you really prepared to sacrifice everything at the altar of this policy?

Macsimus

Daithinski wrote: »

By making it legal you would probably be making the murdering crime lords into legitimate businessmen.

Surely turning them into legitimate business men is exactly what we would want?? Hypothetically though, those licensed to sell it would be screened and obviously shouldn't be known criminals.

Macsimus

Jakkass wrote: »

Just because something is there doesn't mean it's worth exploring. It's entirely fallacious reasoning.

Should we legalise assassination? Theft? They both exist, but we decided that it wasn't socially desirable to do so.

Likewise, sometimes ethics come above finances. I couldn't care how much cannabis could earn for the Government, it really wouldn't sway me to legalise it due to the medical facts on the matter.

Are you seriously comparing smoking weed to killing another person??? - Methinks its your reasoning not mine that is a tad wrong headed..

You refer to the medical facts on the matter - lets hear them....

philologos

Macsimus wrote: »

Are you seriously comparing smoking weed to killing another person??? - Methinks its your reasoning not mine that is a tad wrong headed..

I think your reasoning to suggest that just because something happens that it should be legalised is a joke. People need to assess and factor in harm into any potential situation.

Macsimus wrote: »

You refer to the medical facts on the matter - lets hear them....

Take a read of the following to suggest that cannabis consumption increases mental health risks:

http://itn.co.uk/news/d202565508089e832 ... fd28b.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6732005.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/2923647.stm
http://www.vhi.ie/news/n300707a.jsp
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ss-40.html
http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?hl= ... al+illness

We have no reason to believe that this wouldn't be a huge burden on the state if it were to brought in in terms of extra medical expenses, and in terms of the health of the population, I have no reason to believe that it is worth it. Given most of what has been reported though, I do have a good reason to think the War on Drugs is worth fighting.

thebman

Jakkass wrote: »

I think your reasoning to suggest that just because something happens that it should be legalised is a joke. People need to assess and factor in harm into any potential situation.

One has to question why people are doing it if it is harmful to them and they continue to do it. Regardless it shouldn't be illegal to do something just because it is harmful to ones self.

People should have the common sense not to. Why make thousands criminals in a failed (war on drugs has failed spectacularly to stop cannabis use) attempt to protect a few people who will most likely disregard and misuse the drug anyway?

Take a read of the following to suggest that cannabis consumption increases mental health risks:

newspaper articles aren't science

We have no reason to believe that this wouldn't be a huge burden on the state if it were to brought in in terms of extra medical expenses, and in terms of the health of the population, I have no reason to believe that it is worth it. Given most of what has been reported though, I do have a good reason to think the War on Drugs is worth fighting.

How much usage is required for it to be harmful why is it Cannabis related and not Cannabis caused? Is this not because there is not sufficient evidence or facts to make this statement.

So since they can't say it is the case then you can't say it is the case. It is like saying mobile phone masts cause cancer. There isn't enough evidence of that to say that is the case.

Fluffybums

Legalise prosititution and tax (VAT and PAYE).

philologos

thebman: All those newspaper articles are based on scientific findings. I also linked to Google Scholar at the end there to show that there are journals on the subject. I'm sure I could find rakes more on JSTOR if I wanted. It's certainly better than anything you have provided thus far.

You say there is not enough evidence, but there is plenty of evidence if you bother to look for it.

O'Coonassa

Jakkass wrote: »

You say there is not enough evidence, but there is plenty of evidence if you bother to look for it.

Anything from an actual scientific or medical journal for us to get our teeth into? Much as I love the Daily Mail and other 'mass meeja' outlets you've provided links to I wouldn't exactly trust them to tell the whole truth they are notoriously crap at relaying scientific findings.

philologos

Look at my last link, it links to an entire search from google scholar and the stuff it throws up concerning it.

Goodness me though, so you don't trust anything from the media at all, even when they reference what sources they base it on.

I think those who are going to promote a change in our current system, should be the ones who are trying to sell it to the general population, and the ones who should be attempting to tell us it is safe?

sub-x

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Thanks for your fantasy stats, guys.

So you legalise cannabis and the illegal trade for it simply vanishes, right? Right?

Wrong. Just walk down the streets of your favourite city in the world and you will be offered illegal, yes, illegal cannabis by street dealers all the time.

Legalising the drug does not mean that criminals will stop selling it.

Which cities would these be now,the ones where marijuana is actually illegal ???

Check out the "fantasy stats"for yourself as you clearly have no idea what you are talking about,apart from having a bad trip to Amsterdam


American Drug War:The Last White Hope.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8231634812734884936&ei=VFTqSeoxz7D4Btjkmf8D&q=american+drug+wars+the+last+white+hope&hl=en

thebman

Fluffybums wrote: »

Legalise prosititution and tax (VAT and PAYE).

Don't see why not. OH STD's are a burden on our health service.

People that crash cars are too so we should ban all transport and walk everywhere.

Jakkass wrote: »

thebman: All those newspaper articles are based on scientific findings. I also linked to Google Scholar at the end there to show that there are journals on the subject. I'm sure I could find rakes more on JSTOR if I wanted. It's certainly better than anything you have provided thus far.

My point was they don't prove that Cannabis is the cause. They are all very careful to make sure they say that the cases are "Cannabis related" since they can't prove Cannabis is the cause which means it may not be the cause so it isn't a proof or a fact. Just like mobile phones causing cancer isn't a fact.

Even if it was proved, they'd have to prove that it occurred with casual use and not just in extreme cases to justify keeping it illegal.

If it only occurs if you smoke 30 joints a day then it won't occur for most people and warnings can be placed on the packs same as cigs and people can make their own informed decision. There is no justification for making so many people criminals in our society needlessly IMO especially on such weak evidence.

It may be the case that it only causes problems for people with specific conditions beforehand in which case, keeping it illegal for the masses wouldn't be justified if it wasn't harmful for most people. Making them criminals and causing them to lose their jobs because they smoke something that may not be very harmful to themselves and certainly doesn't harm others is unjustified IMO.

The war on drugs has been shown to be a complete failure so I don't know how anyone can say it is the right way to go since it so obviously doesn't work.

philologos

thebman wrote: »

My point was they don't prove that Cannabis is the cause. They are all very careful to make sure they say that the cases are "Cannabis related" since they can't prove Cannabis is the cause which means it may not be the cause so it isn't a proof or a fact. Just like mobile phones causing cancer isn't a fact.

They show that smoking cannabis increases your likelihood by up to 40% with a single joint. I think that is enough to prove that it is harmful for a society where there are quite a lot of people with mental issues, or mental issues that could be exascerbated by cannabis. It's been clearly shown.

thebman wrote: »

Even if it was proved, they'd have to prove that it occurred with casual use and not just in extreme cases to justify keeping it illegal.

Bear in mind you should be the one to tell me why it should be legalised, and you should be ensuring me that this is safe. I have no reason whatsoever that would tell me that there isn't an extreme danger to society by legalising this.

thebman wrote: »

If it only occurs if you smoke 30 joints a day then it won't occur for most people and warnings can be placed on the packs same as cigs and people can make their own informed decision. There is no justification for making so many people criminals in our society needlessly IMO especially on such weak evidence.

It's clear you didn't actually read what I linked.

thebman wrote: »

It may be the case that it only causes problems for people with specific conditions beforehand in which case, keeping it illegal for the masses wouldn't be justified if it wasn't harmful for most people. Making them criminals and causing them to lose their jobs because they smoke something that may not be very harmful to themselves and certainly doesn't harm others is unjustified IMO.

It's the responsibility of the State to protect the population at large. Just because a group of people won't be affected by this doesn't mean that the State shouldn't protect those who do. You're merely showing me that it is too much of a risk to legalise. Some things are better than cash. I think one of the links showed cases in cannabis related violence in the UK, again we'd need to be sure that this wouldn't be a threat to public safety as well as personal health.

thebman wrote: »

The war on drugs has been shown to be a complete failure so I don't know how anyone can say it is the right way to go since it so obviously doesn't work.

I think it's done a good job if it has stopped lives from being ruined that would be ruined if it were legalised. I have faith that police operations could work on cannabis considering the success that the Swedish authorities have had in Stockholm in crushing the prostitution trade. Heavier policing can deal with things like this. Then again we do a pathetic job of stopping the stuff actually reaching here too. We need to do better, and just because we aren't doing good enough now doesn't mean we can't in the future.

thebman

Jakkass wrote: »

They show that smoking cannabis increases your likelihood by up to 40% with a single joint. I think that is enough to prove that it is harmful for a society where there are quite a lot of people with mental issues, or mental issues that could be exascerbated by cannabis. It's been clearly shown.

Which one of your link conclusively proves this beyond any reasonable doubt?

Bear in mind you should be the one to tell me why it should be legalised, and you should be ensuring me that this is safe. I have no reason whatsoever that would tell me that there isn't an extreme danger to society by legalising this.

I don't have to show why a product should be made legal. The government have to show why they should be allowed keep something illegal and keep it from the people who want access to it especially when it has contradictory policy with alcohol being legal.

It's clear you didn't actually read what I linked.

I don't read when people link to the daily mail. I read some of it. I noted that the articles I did link ensure they used "Cannabis related" and not caused by Cannabis. I already stated I want proof not obscure links between two events.

If someone can show some people might possibly act crazier on a full moon, should we introduce a curfew for dusk for everyone in society on the off chance its true?

It's the responsibility of the State to protect the population at large. Just because a group of people won't be affected by this doesn't mean that the State shouldn't protect those who do. You're merely showing me that it is too much of a risk to legalise. Some things are better than cash. I think one of the links showed cases in cannabis related violence in the UK, again we'd need to be sure that this wouldn't be a threat to public safety as well as personal health.

Yes at large. If it only effects a minority, it has not such responsibility. A warning similar to many other products would be more fitting in that case. There are thousands of examples of this.

Or should we outlaw all harmful chemicals from every day products (such as paint or light bulbs)? Cannabis related violence, lol. I'm sure everyone that smokes Cannabis becomes violent. :rolleyes:

The argument that if a few people do something stupid while using a product that the product should be banned, does not hold up. I'm not even going to waste my time talking about it any more. Someone else can try to explain why that is a nonsense position.

I think it's done a good job if it has stopped lives from being ruined that would be ruined if it were legalised.

I have faith.

Your faith is worth bollocks and it is clear that the war on drugs has failed because illegal drugs are widely available and consumed by anyone that wants them.

I disagree with throwing money at something based on faith.

O'Coonassa

Jakkass wrote: »

Look at my last link, it links to an entire search from google scholar and the stuff it throws up concerning it.

Goodness me though, so you don't trust anything from the media at all, even when they reference what sources they base it on.

I think those who are going to promote a change in our current system, should be the ones who are trying to sell it to the general population, and the ones who should be attempting to tell us it is safe?

Well no I don't trust the media, they're a flagship for the status quo generally speaking. And in my experience when it comes to science they are highly adept at distilling often highly complex findings down into simplistic soundbites that echo the status quo. The media, for instance, were the 'discoverers' of the 'gay gene' there a few years back. Obviously, when you go to the science, there's no such thing.

I do not think that anything is safe. Some idiot somewhere will have come to grief with practically anything I can think of. The State has no right to proscribe this or that on the grounds of protecting idiots. Idiots need to leave the genepool and good luck to them with it. Government needs to stop blocking Evolution IMO and let the species grow up. Legalise everything and put the gangsters, muggers and burglers out of a job. Before you know it drugs would be about as sexy as cancer.

philologos

O'Coonassa wrote: »

I do not think that anything is safe. Some idiot somewhere will have come to grief with practically anything I can think of. The State has no right to proscribe this or that on the grounds of protecting idiots. Idiots need to leave the genepool and good luck to them with it. Government needs to stop blocking Evolution IMO and let the species grow up. Legalise everything and put the gangsters, muggers and burglers out of a job. Before you know it drugs would be about as sexy as cancer.

The State has every right to protect people from harm. That's like saying that we should let murderers and thieves run around because well, you're an idiot if you can't fend for yourself.

As for evolution, it's to be left to biology. It doesn't pertain to social situations. Actually Social Darwinism as an ideology is very very dangerous.

sink

Jakkass wrote: »

They show that smoking cannabis increases your likelihood by up to 40% with a single joint. I think that is enough to prove that it is harmful for a society where there are quite a lot of people with mental issues, or mental issues that could be exascerbated by cannabis. It's been clearly shown.

You have to be very careful when looking at statistics. The report says the likely hood is increased by 40%, but 40% from what? It it's 0.1% it goes to 0.14% if it's 1% it goes to 1.4%. A certain percentage of the population are allergic to peanuts and could die if they consume and don't receive the proper treatment, should we outlaw peanuts? If aspirin is consumed in large quantities it is severely damaging to ones health, should we make that illegal too? How about ice cream and waffles, if you consume too much of them you greatly increased your chance of a heart attack and you become obese placing greater strain on hospital and public transport and you decrease your economic productivity, should they be illegal?

Jakkass wrote: »

Bear in mind you should be the one to tell me why it should be legalised, and you should be ensuring me that this is safe. I have no reason whatsoever that would tell me that there isn't an extreme danger to society by legalising this.

It's the responsibility of the State to protect the population at large. Just because a group of people won't be affected by this doesn't mean that the State shouldn't protect those who do. You're merely showing me that it is too much of a risk to legalise. Some things are better than cash. I think one of the links showed cases in cannabis related violence in the UK, again we'd need to be sure that this wouldn't be a threat to public safety as well as personal health.

Criminal law should not be used to regulate what people personally choose consume on health grounds, it's bizarre. There are so many things that fit that same justification which are perfectly legal e.g. unprotected sex and wearing light clothing outdoors on a cold & wet day. Criminal law should be used to protect one from other people, not to protect one from themselves, what people choose to do to themselves is their choice and nobody else business and they certainly should not be turned into criminals.

Jakkass wrote: »

I think it's done a good job if it has stopped lives from being ruined that would be ruined if it were legalised. I have faith that police operations could work on cannabis considering the success that the Swedish authorities have had in Stockholm in crushing the prostitution trade. Heavier policing can deal with things like this. Then again we do a pathetic job of stopping the stuff actually reaching here too. We need to do better, and just because we aren't doing good enough now doesn't mean we can't in the future.

Prostitution is quiet different. The richest and most well equipped country in the world has being fighting a war on drugs with little effect for 30 years. Former police chiefs and prime ministers have come out in favour of legalising drugs on the grounds that the war is unwinnable.

O'Coonassa

Jakkass wrote: »

The State has every right to protect people from harm. That's like saying that we should let murderers and thieves run around because well, you're an idiot if you can't fend for yourself.

As for evolution, it's to be left to biology. It doesn't pertain to social situations. Actually Social Darwinism as an ideology is very very dangerous.

No the State must protect people from the harm that is done by other people. It should not assume to protect people from themselves. That is totalitarian IMO

Who is espousing social Darwinism? All I'm saying is that there are too many idiots and nobody should stand in the way of them thinning themselves out in the general population. I'm not saying the State should set up a eugenics program.

Boy racers and distracted drivers wrapped up and dead in the ditch are another example of the type of Evolution in action I'm on about. It cannot be got rid of because human biology occurs in a social situation. Over the last 6 million years it's a process that's been of great benefit to us. It may seem harsh but it isn't really

Bottle_of_Smoke

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Wrong. Just walk down the streets of your favourite city in the world and you will be offered illegal, yes, illegal cannabis by street dealers all the time.

Legalising the drug does not mean that criminals will stop selling it.

Been to Amsterdam 3 times. Never been offered cannabis by anyone but a coffeeshop. Street dealers offered cocaine/ecstacy.

I think the main problem with legalisation is teenagers would get it. Yeah you can say strict ID but they'll always find a way. Its far easier for a kid to hide a gram of weed than even a small bottle of vodka. And cannabis is most dangerous when the brain isnt fully developed.

Now I do like the idea of taking the money from dealers. Also killing soapbar. Also bringing in tourists from the UK. Also reduced crime and increased levels of employment.

Overall I'd say yes, but preventing kids from doing it would have to be of paramount importance, and I don't think we're at a stage where thats possible just yet. Ecstacy is another drug that should be legalised but I have a feeling the alcohol industry is behind that ever becoming a possibility.

CCCP^

I think it's worth thinking about, this idea to legalise Cannabis and then use it as a new source of tax revenue, but I am not so sure about 'drug tourism'. I think there should be very stringent measures involved, like no one under 21 could use it, only a certain amount could be bought at one time and that perhaps buyers would have to sign onto a government registrar, but I think alot of money could be made.

thebman

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Been to Amsterdam 3 times. Never been offered cannabis by anyone but a coffeeshop. Street dealers offered cocaine/ecstacy.

I think the main problem with legalisation is teenagers would get it. Yeah you can say strict ID but they'll always find a way. Its far easier for a kid to hide a gram of weed than even a small bottle of vodka. And cannabis is most dangerous when the brain isnt fully developed.

Now I do like the idea of taking the money from dealers. Also killing soapbar. Also bringing in tourists from the UK. Also reduced crime and increased levels of employment.

Overall I'd say yes, but preventing kids from doing it would have to be of paramount importance, and I don't think we're at a stage where thats possible just yet. Ecstacy is another drug that should be legalised but I have a feeling the alcohol industry is behind that ever becoming a possibility.

Well the kids have unlimited access to it now with illegal drug dealing so legalising provides at least some reduction in the chances they will get it since the illegal market will substantially decline if it is legalised.

There isn't an argument to keep them illegal that I have heard that makes sense. I don't smoke the stuff, I don't smoke at all. I can't see a single argument that justifies keeping it illegal.

invincibleirish

So getting back to the original point of the thread:

It would be interesting to see how exactly the tax would be placed on the weed. I'm not sure of the Dutch coffee model system but i assume as its a coffeshop there are no special taxes upon the operator?. the cannabis which is sourced isn't taxed in itself as its still illegal?.

Here i would guess we adopt a system whereby people are licensed to grow and sell cannabis on a commercial basis? i assume it'll be taxed at 21%?

SeanW

Its not strictly legal per se, but in Amsterdam they have an official policy of looking the other way, with regard to licensed coffee shops. I don't think you could actually legalise weed because that would cause an EU Common Market mess (I believe EU Common Market rules dictate that something legal in one member state must be legal in all).

And yes the Coffee Shops are taxed.

flas

I think the main problem with legalisation is teenagers would get it. Yeah you can say strict ID but they'll always find a way. Its far easier for a kid to hide a gram of weed than even a small bottle of vodka. And cannabis is most dangerous when the brain isnt fully developed.

Now I do like the idea of taking the money from dealers. Also killing soapbar. Also bringing in tourists from the UK. Also reduced crime and increased levels of employment.

Overall I'd say yes, but preventing kids from doing it would have to be of paramount importance, and I don't think we're at a stage where thats possible just yet. Ecstacy is another drug that should be legalised but I have a feeling the alcohol industry is behind that ever becoming a possibility.[/quote]

really dont think you can use the arguement that kids would get it,thats like saying alcohol has to be made illegal becuase kids can get it easily,and we all know how dangerous and life shattering that drug is...

Bottle_of_Smoke

thebman wrote: »

Well the kids have unlimited access to it now with illegal drug dealing so legalising provides at least some reduction in the chances they will get it since the illegal market will substantially decline if it is legalised.

There isn't an argument to keep them illegal that I have heard that makes sense. I don't smoke the stuff, I don't smoke at all. I can't see a single argument that justifies keeping it illegal.

When I was in school not many smoked it. I think if it was legalised it would be much easier for more kids to get it. They'd have safer routes of obtaining. I think the demographics of teenage weed use would change dramatically.

As I said, I don't think this outweighs the overall benefits, but it is a major issue.

really dont think you can use the arguement that kids would get it,thats like saying alcohol has to be made illegal becuase kids can get it easily,and we all know how dangerous and life shattering that drug is...

Very different drugs, no real point in a comparison. I believe weed would do more damage to a teenager than alcohol would, whereas I think alcohol does more damage to adults.

Lia_lia

I think it should be legalized. To be honest I see alcohol in a much worse light than I see weed. I have seen people get WAY more ****ed up from alcohol.

Amsterdam is a lovely city and is not horrible and out of control (the way some people probably perceive it to be), we should take note.

cd27

This 'gateway drug' argument really annoys me, nearly all drugs are gateway drugs, in fact the most addictive and harmful are legal, namely nicotine and alcohol.

Anyone who thinks the war on drugs is working is having a laugh.

There's an interesting article from 'The Economist' (link below) comparing the regimes in western countries. It shows that drug use among the population is the same in countries with tough regimes as countries with less tough regimes. The evidence is incontrovertible. This is not condoning the taking of harmful drugs. As John Stuart Mill said, I think, in a free society people should be free to do anything provided it doesn't harm others. That's a good liberal principle to live by.

http://libertyireland.wordpress.com/2009/04/29/ron-paul-wipes-floor-with-baldwin/


The article also shows the damage this is doing to poor states, Mexico is on the way to becoming a failed narco state because of this terror war. People need to look at hard facts.

Zascar

Good link. That debate is being done to death is the US. if you look on Obama's idea's website, The legalisation of Marijuana is one of the most voted for up there.

The "War on Drugs" is just like the "War on Terror" - they have little do do with War or Terror - its a method for governments to do what they want to do and manipulate the people. The masses would be up in arms if they did nothing so they put practices into place to show they are trying to tackle it but in reality the underground movement gets bigger and stronger etc etc. I think if they just put a blind eye to it. Don't arrest anyone for small possession etc. i think they did this in the UK for a while and if caught with a small amount you'd get a warning but that is it. It would free up a lot of police time for real crimes.

Imagine a teenager got busted for a chunk of weed and sent to jail, you're ruining his life - but we all know 99.9% of people can still lead a perfectly successful life and smoke occasionally.

Perhaps one day Legalising Marijuana might happen and it might help, but don't think any other drugs should be legalised. Just look at what Meth Amphetamine is doing to America - that is a drug that really destroys lives.

There are some great documentaries I'd recommend everyone watches:
In Pot We Trust: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2200160322729097762
Grass, A Marijuana History: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FvUgJEhQ5cY
Super High Me: http://video.google.co.uk/videosearch?q=super+high+me&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ei=krP5SfDCGOaZjAeehfWoAw&sa=X&oi=video_result_group&resnum=5&ct=title#
The Meth Epidemic: http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=the+meth+epidemic&emb=0#