Time to Review Cannabis Laws

[Vinnie]

Lord Hague has overnight admitted that cannabis laws are outdated and unfit for purpose.  The Home Secretary has conceded the government needs to review the use of cannabis for medicinal purposes.

Surprising turn over events from the Tories?

[SanguinePar]

They're probably trying to work out how on earth they will fill the hole in the finances after their stubborn pigheadedness leads us out of the EU with no deal, no bargaining chips and no hope.

[Teuchter]

Hague just said what everyone has known for years - including the police.

Not surprising from the Tories given they have one eye on the young vote.

Also, to add some cynicism in, there will be millions to be made when it is legalised. There are already Tories - as high up as the cabinet - with financial stakes in what there is of the legal cannibis industry.

[Vinnie]

10 hours ago, SanguinePar said:

They're probably trying to work out how on earth they will fill the hole in the finances after their stubborn pigheadedness leads us out of the EU with no deal, no bargaining chips and no hope.

To be fair, under each government for the past 25 years or so that I remember, that financial hole has grown and grown, and at some point, somebody has to make the decisions that plug that hole. Successive governments have failed to make those decisions.

23 minutes ago, Teuchter said:

Not surprising from the Tories given they have one eye on the young vote.

Ive said that before, possibly on these boards. If a party was throw its weight behind the legalisation of cannabis, its a vote winner. Even if they relax the rules of use for medicinal purposes while reviewing the possibilities of legalising cannabis shops.

 

27 minutes ago, Teuchter said:

to add some cynicism in, there will be millions to be made when it is legalised. There are already Tories - as high up as the cabinet - with financial stakes in what there is of the legal cannibis industry.

Millions to be made from taxation. And millions to be saved in legal prosecutions of dealers. Millions of man hours saved by the police.

It doesnt bother me that a politician might make financial gain from legalising cannabis. Politicians arent guaranteed a living from politics, its practical sense to have outside interests. If I had the funds, Id have various investments outside of my job too. 

[SanguinePar]

6 hours ago, Vinnie said:

To be fair, under each government for the past 25 years or so that I remember, that financial hole has grown and grown, and at some point, somebody has to make the decisions that plug that hole. Successive governments have failed to make those decisions.

Ive said that before, possibly on these boards. If a party was throw its weight behind the legalisation of cannabis, its a vote winner. Even if they relax the rules of use for medicinal purposes while reviewing the possibilities of legalising cannabis shops.

 

Millions to be made from taxation. And millions to be saved in legal prosecutions of dealers. Millions of man hours saved by the police.

It doesnt bother me that a politician might make financial gain from legalising cannabis. Politicians arent guaranteed a living from politics, its practical sense to have outside interests. If I had the funds, Id have various investments outside of my job too. 

Aye, but having investments and then making political decisions which hugely benefit those investments is blatant corruption. They should be forced to divest before being part of any such decision.

[Teuchter]

@Vinnie

I agree about the savings and revenues - you are preaching to the converted here.

I just happened to read the other week about the Tories with financial connections to the cannibis industry which is why I mentioned it.

In general, I am in favour of paying politicians more, but in return tightening up what they can gain from outside. 

I agree with SP. At best it is a conflict of interest, at worst it is corruption. The best example is Ernest Marples who as minister of Transport, pushed through the massively short sighted cuts to the railway network in the 1960s, the repercussions of which are still felt today. He had massive interests in companies that profited from motorway building. In the eyes of parliament, he didn’t have a conflict as he “sold” all his shares to his wife with a clause to buy them back at same price.

He later fled the country in the 1970s to avoid tax fraud charges, not realising that he simply could have changed his name to The Ernest Marples and carried on as before.

[Vinnie]

37 minutes ago, Teuchter said:

In general, I am in favour of paying politicians more, but in return tightening up what they can gain from outside. 

I agree with SP. At best it is a conflict of interest, at worst it is corruption. 

I understand that, however, my thinking is that it depends on how much you might gain and your position within government.  A backbencher with a small investment in a pharmaceutical firm will be unlikely to have much of a influence on government spending, or business development within the pharma company. Of course, if its the PM or a Cabinet member, that's a different kettle of fish.

[Surface Agent X20]

I honestly do not care, and I understand the medical benefits. In some very public cases.

However,  There is also a lot of evidence that cannabis is linked to mental health issues.

As someone who works in the public sector dealing with people who have basically made a {unt of their lives and their families lives I would not welcome a relaxation in the laws.

If the argument in favor is about raising tax revenues then give the keys to the country to the neo-liberal cabal in charge just now for ever. We are all ****ed.

[Teuchter]

7 hours ago, Surface Agent X20 said:

I honestly do not care, and I understand the medical benefits. In some very public cases.

However,  There is also a lot of evidence that cannabis is linked to mental health issues.

As someone who works in the public sector dealing with people who have basically made a {unt of their lives and their families lives I would not welcome a relaxation in the laws.

If the argument in favor is about raising tax revenues then give the keys to the country to the neo-liberal cabal in charge just now for ever. We are all ****ed.

Apparently the Guardian came out in an editorial against legalisation after studies linked cannibis to mental health issues, so the opposition is quite wide with differing arguments.

Before I gave up smoking in the 2000s, I recall that it reached a stage where pretty much the only stuff available was grass, which is a different beast to resin. If I recall (my memory is not so good these days for some reason), it was skunk that was driving the mental health scares. I am not sure if skunk makes up the majority of stuff on the market, but even resin is very dodgy given that it can be cut with all kinds of crap.

Tax revenue is one argument, but from my point of view a more important argument is to take production away from the shady enterprises in the laissez faire black market and introduce controls on what is sold.