Did your opinion change? Looking back.

[clakclak]

Four years ago we talked about the legalisation of weed.

A lot has changed since then. I for example learned that the word 'legal' only has two "L" in it.

"Crowd sourcing your legal defense fund." Was still a new idea.

And a bunch of people I haven't seen around in quite some time were still active.

Did your opinion on the topic change? If yes, why?

If it hasn't did your arguments for why it should or shouldn't be legal stay the same?

Edit: For those who were not here last time around, what is your opinion? Also do you think you changed it over the last years?

[devilofbelfast]

My opinion on the subject has never changed. I demand full decriminalisation/legalisation and a right to a regulated home grow. I dont want some big pharma corp controlling the market, I want a homegrow so i can grow my plants to the highest quality at unbeatable pricing. I mean, I can get 2 dry kilograms from a 6 foot plant under 2x600w hps lights at a cost per gram of 19p. No thats not a typo, nineteen pence per gram total cost to grow including equipment and full rate electric bills. Why would i accept Theresa Mays husband and the drugs ministers husband controlling the market and charging me the same £12.50 a gram id get charged on the streets now for the government mandated 'must not contain motre than 5% THC-A'? People just dont put the effort into it these days at all. Plants are forced to grow with synthetic 'nutrients' and forced to dry in artificialy hot conditions ect. When was the last time you heard of anyone hanging the entire plant to dry and cure for 2 months? These days its basicly dehydrated, rehydrated with sprayed sugar syrup and dehydrated again over maybe a week. GW Pharma will be doing exactly the same thing before too long with the laws on 'permitted levels of contamination'

[Bishop149]

Doesn't look like I contributed to that one . . . 2014 was it, no my opinion on this one has remained pretty consistent over my young adult --> adult life, if tobacco and alcohol are legal I see little reason why marijuana shouldn't also be legal under a similar regulatory framework.
Relevant experience since 2014: I have visited a place where weed was 100% legal, namely Colorado. It was a little weird seeing people smoking completely openly without a care, but if I hadn't known it was legal I probably wouldn't have twigged. . . . nothing was THAT different it's not like society had collapsed or the place was running over with dope fiends or anything.

[Avis]

Don't think I contributed to it back then.

I've swung from supporting legalisation to being far more cautious about it.

It's not simply 'getting high and having a good time chilling out' there are other side effects which some people might admit to but not how serious they can be.

[Antilogic]

Was yes. Still yes.

[RegisterMe]

The argument boils down to "drugs are bad for you, so we are going to criminalise them, and in the process make them more dangerous, to discourage you".

Which is simply daft.

Legalise them, regulate them (ie produce them known quality levels and determine legal routes for their sale), tax them, educate people, and provide care for those who fall foul of them (because they likely will anyway without any of the above benefits).

Oh, and you also remove probably the largest single driver of criminality from our societies removing pressure on police, prison services and health care.

What's not to like?

[Antilogic]

What's not to like?

But but but my ideology!

[Observe]

Regardless of whether you use it or not, just look at the people who are against it, and then it becomes clear which policy is correct.

[radcapricorn]

"If it's not illegal, it's OK" - that was, is, and will be the mindset of general public. People live in gray areas, they strive for them, because they give them room to breathe. Fine print, exceptions, conditions, all the extra rules, "that's not for me, it's for them, those other, stupid people. I know what I'm doing, I'm good, I'm adult enough to make responsible choices".

Smoking (tobacco) was legal for a long, long time. Today, many (most? all?) progressive countries are taking steps to combat that habit, steps that do indeed help reduce the number of addicts, afflicted, dead. Those that can't quit will still smoke regardless of laws and restrictions, but at least it severely hampers the incentive to start. Harmful habits rarely harm just the addict, in fact they often do more harm to the people around.

"Legalise, regulate, educate, control" - it all sounds good on paper. In practice, it'll just mean more corruption, more drug addicts across all ages, and more violent crimes. It will not remove any pressure from police, more so from health care. If they're struggling now, how will it be any better when the stuff becomes more accessible? Both will have to have to handle two markets instead of one. There will be misuse, transportation accidents, production faults, general malpractice or negligence. And then inevitably there will be loop-holes, and in countries with precedent-based judicial system, there will be precedents. Putting faith into public responsibility, especially with this, is a very dangerous thing to do.

To the questions posed, I haven't seen the original thread, the opinion is above, it hasn't changed over the last years. It changed more than a decade ago, and only grew stronger since.

[RegisterMe]

"If it's not illegal, it's OK" - that was, is, and will be the mindset of general public. People live in gray areas, they strive for them, because they give them room to breathe. Fine print, exceptions, conditions, all the extra rules, "that's not for me, it's for them, those other, stupid people. I know what I'm doing, I'm good, I'm adult enough to make responsible choices".

Smoking (tobacco) was legal for a long, long time. Today, many (most? all?) progressive countries are taking steps to combat that habit, steps that do indeed help reduce the number of addicts, afflicted, dead. Those that can't quit will still smoke regardless of laws and restrictions, but at least it severely hampers the incentive to start. Harmful habits rarely harm just the addict, in fact they often do more harm to the people around.

"Legalise, regulate, educate, control" - it all sounds good on paper. In practice, it'll just mean more corruption, more drug addicts across all ages, and more violent crimes. It will not remove any pressure from police, more so from health care. If they're struggling now, how will it be any better when the stuff becomes more accessible? Both will have to have to handle two markets instead of one. There will be misuse, transportation accidents, production faults, general malpractice or negligence. And then inevitably there will be loop-holes, and in countries with precedent-based judicial system, there will be precedents. Putting faith into public responsibility, especially with this, is a very dangerous thing to do.

To the questions posed, I haven't seen the original thread, the opinion is above, it hasn't changed over the last years. It changed more than a decade ago, and only grew stronger since.

Evidence would suggest otherwise. It's late now so I am going to go to bed, but if you can't google it yourself I'll do it for you tomorrow.

[Morkonan]

...What's not to like?

Because the recreational use of drugs is bad for you? Causes addiction? Causes permanent damage? Causes delayed or even permanently impaired cognitive and emotional development in adolescents and young adults? Could result in death?

A legitimate government is empowered by the people for "the Greater Good." In other words, things that governments do are, or should be, designed so that the greatest benefit accrues to the greatest number of its citizens, but with tyranny towards none.

A government also has a responsibility to work for its own stability, perpetuity, and to foster similar goals in its culture.

None of these goals are served by legalizing the use of "drugs" for recreational purposes.

However...

That doesn't mean that the People can't have fun or can't occasionally indulge themselves. There's a fine line that can not be crossed, though, because if a society promotes or condones the use of a drug, it must also provide for the welfare of those who become addicted to the drug and must institute practices to prevent abuse of the drug, for "the Greater Good." To fail to do so is unethical and immoral, IMO.

Are societies that legalize addictive substances, developmentally damaging drugs, and potentially lethal narcotics prepared to undertake the necessary ethical and moral steps to protect and care for the citizens they serve?

Unfortunately, there is a mythology that has been promoted by drug legalization activists that ignores the detrimental effects of legalized narcotics and recreational drugs. The useage "trickle down" effect on young people and adolescents is often ignored in favor of arguments involving "responsible users." There are few "responsible user" addicts or developmentally impaired people and a person who is currently under the effects of a drug or narcotic is not capable of acting in a cognitively responsible manner.

[Grim Lock]

I'm dutch, and having grown up around many drugs, myself using pretty much exclusively marijauna alcohol and tobacco though i did "experiment" a little, ill say this:

Difficulty with any drugs is that the experience is going to depandant on many traits contained in the user, some people become funnier with alcohol, some do NOT etc, this holds true with the addiction part of them to, some people i've known easily dabbled with seriously addictive substances and walked away without any problems, others, not so much and those that did get addicted got so at a very very high price.

Now the thing is with Marijuana, in itself it doesn't contain addictive substances that cause physical reliance like alchol, tobacco, many hard drugs and prescription drugs (although most prescription drugs are hard drugs especially in some countries) but from experience and it's genral knwledge) i know that it's mentally quite adictive. So there is that.

Another point: You don't die from THC (the active substance in weed) like you would from alchol or other hard drugs, sure we can come up with situations that result in death due to beeing high but what i mean is: If i down a bottle of vodka right now not beeing a trained drinker anymore, chances are high i'd straight up die, same goes for doing the equivalent with hard drugs or cigarettes.

So what i'm saying is, if you're gonna legalise anything, it might as well be weed since it's pretty much the one of the most benign recreational drugs out there.

And well the Netherlands is starting to lag behind in this i feel, it's still only semi-legal wich means we lose out on a lot of taxes and important regulation but i've typed enough

[clakclak]

...What's not to like?

Because the recreational use of drugs is bad for you? Causes addiction? Causes permanent damage? Causes delayed or even permanently impaired cognitive and emotional development in adolescents and young adults? Could result in death?

A legitimate government is empowered by the people for "the Greater Good." In other words, things that governments do are, or should be, designed so that the greatest benefit accrues to the greatest number of its citizens, but with tyranny towards none.

A government also has a responsibility to work for its own stability, perpetuity, and to foster similar goals in its culture.

None of these goals are served by legalizing the use of "drugs" for recreational purposes.

However...

That doesn't mean that the People can't have fun or can't occasionally indulge themselves. There's a fine line that can not be crossed, though, because if a society promotes or condones the use of a drug, it must also provide for the welfare of those who become addicted to the drug and must institute practices to prevent abuse of the drug, for "the Greater Good." To fail to do so is unethical and immoral, IMO.

Are societies that legalize addictive substances, developmentally damaging drugs, and potentially lethal narcotics prepared to undertake the necessary ethical and moral steps to protect and care for the citizens they serve?[..]

Question: I am from Germany. Drug addiction for most drugs (even illegal ones) is seen as an illness. Because of that health insurance companies have to pay for some type of rehab. Health insurance is mendatory, if someone can not effort it, tax money will be used to pay for the insurance.

So how would they consequences of legializing weed change anything?

It only seems like a good way to take control from the black market and move it to an industry that can be controlled.

Also, we already have legal medical weed, but we constantly suffer shortages because we only import weed from the Netherlands and Canada, because no German producer is able to fullfill the requirements to legally produce weed in Germany.

[pjknibbs]

So how would they consequences of legializing weed change anything?

It only seems like a good way to take control from the black market and move it to an industry that can be controlled.

But that's the whole point. Criminals don't really have a vested interest in making sure their product is completely safe--they can adulterate it with all sorts of nasty stuff to bulk it out and make more profit. If the product is legal then standards can be created that the manufacturers have to meet, meaning it will generally be safer and cause fewer health problems.

[muppetts]

Not being legal just changes who you buy it from and the price, there seems to be some daft idea that making it legal will suddenly have millions more people stoned and not able to function.

That already happens, it's called College, University, GAP year to India, Happy bus out of Victoria to Amsterdam over night for 10 quid.

Unless making it illegal has a logical function THAT WORKS, it's just more paperwork for the cops, the few, understaffed, under resourced and under appreciated that there are.

GO SAUSAGES!

[Chips]

Well, was (or did) say that the crime problem won't go away with legislation. Then I saw it's just about hash. What's the actual crime figures for that drug (as in conviction and criminalisation?).

The National Drug Agency thinks 270 tons of it per year is used in the UK. Would it really make much difference if it's legal or not? Apart from the "grow your own" argument, established drug routes won't change and may be cheaper still than buying it from government taxed sources. Also, grow your own aint taxed. So that isn't going to work...

Furthermore, if it's legal, then bringing it in from elsewhere without paying tax is... difficult to determine. Like cigarette smuggling - where they think about 10-20% of all cigarettes in the UK aren't duty paid. You aren't necessarily going to get the volumes you think you will from tax, and you aren't necessarily going to get the controlled / decent supply you think are you. People will still access the cheapest source possible, the drugs pushers will still exist, etc.

My main issue with drugs is:
1) Damage to individuals and others through its use.
2) Crime caused to pay for the habit*

So no issue as long as points 1 and 2 are addressed. And yes, that includes "drug driving" - just like alcohol. Would need a massive campaign of awareness to make it as socially unacceptable (and illegal) as drink driving.

*Admittedly more of a problem for hard drugs like cocaine and heroin + derivatives, so doubt this would be a huge issue? Especially if you are allowed to grow your own - but as said - then zero tax raised. So... there goes that reason. It just comes down to "lets not criminalise people" then.

[clakclak]

So how would they consequences of legializing weed change anything?

It only seems like a good way to take control from the black market and move it to an industry that can be controlled.

But that's the whole point. Criminals don't really have a vested interest in making sure their product is completely safe--they can adulterate it with all sorts of nasty stuff to bulk it out and make more profit. If the product is legal then standards can be created that the manufacturers have to meet, meaning it will generally be safer and cause fewer health problems.

Exactly

Maybe this came across the wrong way.

If I understood Mork correctly his point was that if weed is legal the government also has to pay for addicts to deal with the aftermath of their addiction, my point is that we are doing that no matter if it is legal or not.

Well, was (or did) say that the crime problem won't go away with legislation. Then I saw it's just about hash. What's the actual crime figures for that drug (as in conviction and criminalisation?).

The National Drug Agency thinks 270 tons of it per year is used in the UK. Would it really make much difference if it's legal or not? Apart from the "grow your own" argument, established drug routes won't change and may be cheaper still than buying it from government taxed sources. Also, grow your own aint taxed. So that isn't going to work...

Furthermore, if it's legal, then bringing it in from elsewhere without paying tax is... difficult to determine. Like cigarette smuggling - where they think about 10-20% of all cigarettes in the UK aren't duty paid. You aren't necessarily going to get the volumes you think you will from tax, and you aren't necessarily going to get the controlled / decent supply you think are you. People will still access the cheapest source possible, the drugs pushers will still exist, etc.

My main issue with drugs is:
1) Damage to individuals and others through its use.
2) Crime caused to pay for the habit*

So no issue as long as points 1 and 2 are addressed. And yes, that includes "drug driving" - just like alcohol. Would need a massive campaign of awareness to make it as socially unacceptable (and illegal) as drink driving.

*Admittedly more of a problem for hard drugs like cocaine and heroin + derivatives, so doubt this would be a huge issue? Especially if you are allowed to grow your own - but as said - then zero tax raised. So... there goes that reason. It just comes down to "lets not criminalise people" then.

So unless we can get rid of 100% of the black market it is not worth trying?

And on the point of only getting a small amount of money from taxing weed, so far this year the state of Colorado has collected more than 130 million US Dollar in taxes on weed (Colorado has a population of around 5 million).

[Morkonan]

...So what i'm saying is, if you're gonna legalise anything, it might as well be weed since it's pretty much the one of the most benign recreational drugs out there....

But why does it need to be legalized? Is there a missing "recreational drug" who's absence in shoe-box pharmaceutical cornucopias endangers citizens?

Question: I am from Germany. Drug addiction for most drugs (even illegal ones) is seen as an illness. Because of that health insurance companies have to pay for some type of rehab. Health insurance is mendatory, if someone can not effort it, tax money will be used to pay for the insurance.

So how would they consequences of legializing weed change anything?

I'm worried about the effect that legalizing it and providing for it in the general economy will have on children and adolescents. These groups are at the greatest risks, in my opinion, due to marijuana's effect on brain development in adolescent brains. (Under 21yr or so, could be as late as 23 before a brain is actually "adult" even though the brain is still fairly dynamic over our lifetime.)

That's what concerns me the most. APA - Marijuana and the developing brain More research is needed, but I don't think that it's unrecognized that any sort of substance abuse should not be taken lightly when it comes down to brain development and possible long-term effects. I do not believe that marijuana is the "miracle high with no consequences" that the Pot Lobbies say it is. And, if there's a more culturally permissive attitude towards it, it's going to get reflected in use in younger people, even if they aren't legally supposed to be able to use it.

It only seems like a good way to take control from the black market and move it to an industry that can be controlled.

I understand that opinion. However, the same can be said for any illicit substance or even any currently illegal activity. That, alone, can't be reason enough, in my opinion, for the legalization of anything. For me, it's a case of asking the question "What greater good is being served by this." How do people benefit? What are the "good things" that are now possible with this new thing?

Also, we already have legal medical weed, but we constantly suffer shortages because we only import weed from the Netherlands and Canada, because no German producer is able to fullfill the requirements to legally produce weed in Germany.

I think there are certainly medical uses for marijuana and I believe that doctors, in concert with their patients, should have it available as a possible treatment. So, governments should work a bit harder to make that a possibility. Unfortunately, the criminalization of it probably has resulted in regulations and cultural attitudes that make it very difficult to supply it as a medical treatment from the point of view of a commercial business. (As you pointed out)

What is the marketplace for marijuana and does it differ from any conventional market? Well, first, it's a drug, just like alcohol, nicotine or caffeine. Its market is going to be similar to the markets for those substances. Because of its effects, its market is going to be people looking for recreational, chemically altered, experiences. (For adults, occasional use, like with alcohol, doesn't likely pose an extreme health risk, though inhaling particulates isn't recommended for anyone.)

But, what is the evolution of the market and how does it work? It's going to work just like any other market - The more appealing a seller can make the product, the more it will sell. What's the most desirable appealing quality of any drug? Potency. Marijuana is certainly no different in that regard and anyone familiar with its consumption can speak to that.

And, as a new market opens and competition increases, new forms of delivery and new means of increasing potency, all focused on increasing appeal and sales figures, are going to come into play. And all of that is going to trickle down into the younger generation, even if it's "illegal" for them to consume it.

Is that worth it? Is that something that a society can actually say is "for the Greater Good" when it comes to legalizing marijuana?

And... that's why this worries me.

[Grim Lock]

...So what i'm saying is, if you're gonna legalise anything, it might as well be weed since it's pretty much the one of the most benign recreational drugs out there....

But why does it need to be legalized? Is there a missing "recreational drug" who's absence in shoe-box pharmaceutical cornucopias endangers citizens?

Well it removes weed beeing offered by the same dude as the one who's selling heroine and speed (what he'd much rather be selling you than weed for many reasons) Since we are gonna use it legal or illegal anyway. And wel whenever softdrugs have been presented as a legal alternative hard-drugs usage has gone down. So there's that, and well why not??

[clakclak]

...So what i'm saying is, if you're gonna legalise anything, it might as well be weed since it's pretty much the one of the most benign recreational drugs out there....

But why does it need to be legalized? Is there a missing "recreational drug" who's absence in shoe-box pharmaceutical cornucopias endangers citizens?

- No more needless criminalisation of people who just like to smoke a joint every now and then

- Opening up police for other tasks

- No more "laced" weed, because quality (ideally) is being controlled like it is the case for alcohol and cigarettes, reducing health problems with consumers

- Less money for criminal drug dealers

- New Tax income for the state

- Direct possiability to do prevention work, for example in the form of pictures and warnings like they exist on cigarettes

- better possibility to control that drugs don't fall into the hands of children or teenagers (may not work in all cases, but dealers certainly never want to see your ID and check if you are of legal age)

- Consumers are no longer forced to hide their consume, making it possiable to sooner detect a problematic consume pattern

- like Grim said, no more crossover of people selling weed and heroine

- creation of new legal jobs in the field (no pun intended)

- if part of the black market brakes away that reduces orginised crime in the country where Mafia like groups control the production