Uruguay becomes first nation to legalise marijuana trade

[Dis86]

Do you have any evidence to suggest that bootleg alcohol is a major problem?, I only ask as I've yet to meet a single person who purchases (or has ever purchased) 'bootleg alcohol'.

Imported tobacco I can agree, it occurs - but this is more to do with the volume of consumption between tobacco & cannabis & the costs involved, not to mention the inability to grow tobacco at home to save money.

Ruffneck's post below mine touches on it. It's very hard to determine how much bootleg stuff there is out there as it can be very hard to distinguish. In several cases from the same documentary mentioned major supermarkets were found to be selling 'fake' alcohol. As you can appreciate if it's getting through the quality and supplier controls of the big four then it's a serious problem.
The trouble is whilst the bottles it comes in may look like the genuine article, the stuff inside isn't. One of the major side effects of incorrectly produced alcohol is blindness. Don't know if you remember but a couple of years back there was a large explosion and a few men killed (might have been as many as five) at a Garage on an industrial estate in the Midlands. The cause was found to be that they were producing bootleg vodka and had incorrectly mixed some chemicals.

 

[zenf]

Yup - which is why I seldom drink it (special occasions), and would never drive or go to work under the influence. However, I love the social environment that having a few drinks offers, so as long as you're sensible, there's nothing wrong with it.

Fair enough, I was thinking about your suggestion of work environments having mandatory drug testing at the start of the day. I work mostly with the military and if alcohol was included, I could imagine quite a few getting sent home.

If I was feeling suspicious & in the mood to wear aluminium on my head I'd theorise it's been a deliberate move, as a simple drug which can be grown anywhere could significantly impact on alcohol & tobacco sales (drugs which require significantly more time & effort to grow/produce at home or it's simply impossible due to the climate).

Quite! And after years of government propaganda, a huge amount of people still seem think a couple of smokes will turn you into a braindead idiot. I like to think those are the older generations though.

 

[Dis86]

Really, societies attitude on the drug is quite strange if you look at it objectively - the evidence against it's consumption is minimal at best (regarding specific health impacts), it's a natural product with no processing or refinement needed - essentially it's just a plant.

If you compare it to say alcohol or modern cigarettes (in which countless evidence exists against it's consumption) along with the refinement processes involved, I'd have thought those would be the two society rejected.

If I was feeling suspicious & in the mood to wear aluminium on my head I'd theorise it's been a deliberate move, as a simple drug which can be grown anywhere could significantly impact on alcohol & tobacco sales (drugs which require significantly more time & effort to grow/produce at home or it's simply impossible due to the climate).

Historically (if I recall correctly) this was the reason for it's prohibition & wouldn't surprise me if it's impact was still being felt today.

Agree with you on your thoughts there. From what I know that was only one reason for the ban, another was that hemp fibres are an excellent textile. They could have replaced cotton which in the past made certain powerful individuals in certain slave trading nations very wealthy. Thus they used their influence and a smear campaign to get the stuff outlawed through every dubious argument they could.

 

[SlyReaper]

I can't believe there are actually still people who think marijuana shouldn't be legalised. I thought the case was clear as day, and it was just politics getting in the way of actually doing it. Apparently not.

Under prohibition, the only way for a person to obtain it is for them to give money to criminals. Legalise it, and you weaken the criminal gangs. As for the health effects, there are Class A drugs which have less impact on a person's health and are less addictive than alcohol, and yet that's legal. Weed is a lightweight as far as recreational drugs are concerned, and yet it's banned. It's a ridiculous double standard.

Personally, I'm of the opinion that we should legalise all recreational drugs. What a person puts into their body is their own business, and so long as they're not hurting others, I fail to see why the law should get involved. Obviously caveat that with the requirement to be clear-headed for certain tasks such as driving, etc, like we currently do with alcohol.

 

[pitchfork]

I'm actually dead against legalising marijuana.

I think if you let the government and big business lay their greasy hands on it, they'll first make it so you need to be licenced to produce it which will cost money and mean only certain people can do it, they'll then rather monopolise the markets on legal weed, slap on a bunch of taxation (like with booze and cigarettes) and it'll shoot up in price.

Then to prevent illegal production, suddenly a bunch of big business guys in government are paying to have a lot of police forces allocated to detecting illicit weed factories and penalties for illicit production are tantamount to murder charges.

All of a sudden we reminisce about 2013 where 1/8th of an ounce cost the same is it did 5 years earlier. I mean how many things can you say haven't risen in price for 5, hell, even 10 years!

Black markets are the closest thing you can get to a truly self regulating free market, unhindered by government or law or ethics they are incredibly efficient.

It might be illegal, it might be dirty work, but anyone can make a living as a pot dealer. And for the guys like "Mr. Me" who buy it very occasionally and smoke it in their own home the same way they'd drink some scotch, there's no risk to the buyer.

 

[Freefaller]

At least this way you'd know about the users. You can't imagine the pains some people go to just to chill out, while others are punching each other in the face after a few beers, bought from a government approved intoxication establishment.

True - but for me I think understanding why people aren't able to "switch off" is more important, rather than relying on a drug (be it medical purposes or not). I agree, generally from experience people who smoke weed are more relaxed and less aggressive - that's a good thing, and I don't suppose you're killing as many braincells either.

However, I find that general "zombieism" associated pretty disturbing. Sure, occasional smokers probably have absolutely nothing to worry about - but like anything which is abused it can lead to bad things. But that's the same with any form of substance abuse (abuse being the key point).

Nor does anyone really do tests to see who has had a drink the night before. The effects of cannabis in terms of the equivalent of a hangover are very limited, unlike the effects of alcohol.

I don't know, I haven't had a huge hangover for many years, and I've never that much weed to be able to remember. I know feeling rough as hell after having a few cigs though! Hangover aside, my understanding (happy to be corrected) is that the effects of both drugs can still have long term effects (i.e. beyond the night before) which can be detrimental to general function.

I don't think, either, that there would be a massive rush for people to start smoking it because it was legalised. Those who live in criminality will move into legality, and maybe a few more people will join in, but part of the thrill for some people is the fact that it is illegal.

I don't really disagree with that, I think that's probably fair. However, it's hard not to judge or compare to your own values even if legalised I don't see myself ever doing it.

One of the strongest campaigns in America for decriminalisation of cannabis is called Norml. What it hope is that by normalising the drug, in the same way that alcohol and cigarettes are common place, the excitement of "ooh an illegal drug, I'd better try that. It must be better because it's illegal" eventually vanishes.

The principle and argument is sound - I completely agree. And it does remove a lot of the potential for drug related crime.

The thing is there are already enough people driving high (you can smell it in your car at times!) and driving with mobile phones, over the limit...

It may just adds more chance of people doing it? Perhaps it'll have negligible effect.

I'm not wholly anti it, if there is empirical evidence showing a clear improvement then fine, you cannot argue with facts. I'm just not a fan of such things - but if it lowers crime and improves communities with no detriment to those that are not interested in them.

 

[elmarko]

Agree with you on your thoughts there. From what I know that was only one reason for the ban, another was that hemp fibres are an excellent textile. They could have replaced cotton which in the past made certain powerful individuals in certain slave trading nations very wealthy. Thus they used their influence and a smear campaign to get the stuff outlawed through every dubious argument they could.

Thanks for that reminder actually, I should have remembered the hemp trade for textiles (as I have been playing ANNO 1440 recently!).

 

[Freefaller]

Fair enough, I was thinking about your suggestion of work environments having mandatory drug testing at the start of the day. I work mostly with the military and if alcohol was included, I could imagine quite a few getting sent home.

We have a 0 policy at work - instant dismissal. Random testing, and although it covers us in head office as well, it's a very sensible rule, especially with people operating 100s of tonnes worth of machinery, and digging under London and working in high risk environments. I fully support it. One person being injured is unacceptable, if God forbid someone loses a leg or dies, then it's unforgivable. The chance of that increasing if the person is not compus mentis is higher.

 

[pitchfork]

We have a 0 policy at work - instant dismissal. Random testing, and although it covers us in head office as well, it's a very sensible rule, especially with people operating 100s of tonnes worth of machinery, and digging under London and working in high risk environments. I fully support it. One person being injured is unacceptable, if God forbid someone loses a leg or dies, then it's unforgivable. The chance of that increasing if the person is not compus mentis is higher.

What is the testing for, being high/ drunk at work?

Or general drug usage, even outside of work?

 

[zenf]

I think if you let the government and big business lay their greasy hands on it, they'll first make it so you need to be licenced to produce it which will cost money and mean only certain people can do it, they'll then rather monopolise the markets on legal weed, slap on a bunch of taxation (like with booze and cigarettes) and it'll shoot up in price.

I would've thought that if they legalised it, there would be some provision for people growing their own at home, much like the 6 plants allowance in Uruguay.

If the price for buying it increased massively as you described, I don't think the black market would disappear completely. It'd be similar to the tobacco black market I imagine, with most people happy to pay the higher rate but some people preferring to pay less but illegally.

 

[Freefaller]

I can't believe there are actually still people who think marijuana shouldn't be legalised. I thought the case was clear as day, and it was just politics getting in the way of actually doing it. Apparently not.

Under prohibition, the only way for a person to obtain it is for them to give money to criminals. Legalise it, and you weaken the criminal gangs. As for the health effects, there are Class A drugs which have less impact on a person's health and are less addictive than alcohol, and yet that's legal. Weed is a lightweight as far as recreational drugs are concerned, and yet it's banned. It's a ridiculous double standard.

Personally, I'm of the opinion that we should legalise all recreational drugs. What a person puts into their body is their own business, and so long as they're not hurting others, I fail to see why the law should get involved. Obviously caveat that with the requirement to be clear-headed for certain tasks such as driving, etc, like we currently do with alcohol.

As long as the punishments are severe enough to scare people from putting others in danger and there is modern/innovative technology that prevents people from going to work, or driving or doing things that put others or themselves in danger etc... then it's all good. Furthermore, as long as no increased strains on the NHS as a result, or people owing to their behaviour do not end up in a position of diminished responsibility then it's fine.

I don't really care what people do to themselves - as long as it doesn't affect me or those that I care about then it's all good. If they allow me to kick the **** out of anyone does without repercussions then it's even more fair!

 

[The Dread Pirate]

I'm actually dead against legalising marijuana.

I think if you let the government and big business lay their greasy hands on it, they'll first make it so you need to be licenced to produce it which will cost money and mean only certain people can do it, they'll then rather monopolise the markets on legal weed, slap on a bunch of taxation (like with booze and cigarettes) and it'll shoot up in price.

Then to prevent illegal production, suddenly a bunch of big business guys in government are paying to have a lot of police forces allocated to detecting illicit weed factories and penalties for illicit production are tantamount to murder charges.

All of a sudden we reminisce about 2013 where 1/8th of an ounce cost the same is it did 5 years earlier. I mean how many things can you say haven't risen in price for 5, hell, even 10 years!

Black markets are the closest thing you can get to a truly self regulating free market, unhindered by government or law or ethics they are incredibly efficient.

It might be illegal, it might be dirty work, but anyone can make a living as a pot dealer. And for the guys like "Mr. Me" who buy it very occasionally and smoke it in their own home the same way they'd drink some scotch, there's no risk to the buyer.

Actually you'll find that the price now is determined by risk to the importer/grower rather than the actual cost of producing which is incredibly low compared to the price on the Market you'll probably find after Legal production and taxation that it'll work out much the same price that we're currently paying possibly a bit more or a bit less but not drastically different.

 

[Freefaller]

What is the testing for, being high/ drunk at work?

Or general drug usage, even outside of work?

No just at work.

However, I guess if you do some substances, and they stay in your system, then you deserve what you get. If you want to use a product that may hinder your performance/acuity for days, either take time off work long enough to recover, or don't bother doing them if you want to work in this current industry.

Would you want to work with someone that is still under the influence of certain mind/altering drugs (be them legal or not?). I certainly don't.

 

[pitchfork]

I would've thought that if they legalised it, there would be some provision for people growing their own at home, much like the 6 plants allowance in Uruguay.

If the price for buying it increased massively as you described, I don't think the black market would disappear completely. It'd be similar to the tobacco black market I imagine, with most people happy to pay the higher rate but some people preferring to pay less but illegally.

It's the principal of the thing though, why should be let the government come in and make something more expensive? Why should we as the people accept that?

Actually you'll find that the price now is determined by risk to the importer/grower rather than the actual cost of producing which is incredibly low compared to the price on the Market you'll probably find after Legal production and taxation that it'll work out much the same price that we're currently paying possibly a bit more or a bit less but not drastically different.

Initially yes, it may work out slightly cheaper for the first few years, but all prices swell with greed unless your market can regulate itself. Which it won't be able to if you legalise it.

Boardrooms will come up with any excuse or any way they can increase margins on a product, it doesn't work like that on a black market. Only way to increase margins in a product not endorsed by the government of which you can't advertise and brand is to dry up supply, and that involves bloody war which costs too much and attracts heat.

Self regulation prevents greed, nothing else can guard against it as effectively. It's a good system now, it's probably one of the few things not worth changing.

No just at work.

However, I guess if you do some substances, and they stay in your system, then you deserve what you get. If you want to use a product that may hinder your performance/acuity for days, either take time off work long enough to recover, or don't bother doing them if you want to work in this current industry.

Would you want to work with someone that is still under the influence of certain mind/altering drugs (be them legal or not?). I certainly don't.

What people do in their own time is their business, I'm a recreational drug user (for the sake of argument) and my LSD usage doesn't affect me at work.

 

[zenf]

It's the principal of the thing though, why should be let the government come in and make something more expensive? Why should we as the people accept that?

Indeed, but we allow it with alcohol, cigarettes, fuel.. It'd still be better than being criminalised, imo.

 

[Freefaller]

If it doesn't, and it doesn't appear in your blood (which it wouldn't do if it's been digested and fully broken down by your body, just like alcohol disappears) then there's no problem - if there are trace elements in your body then I'm afraid it could still be having an impact / effect on your acuity/state of mind/judgement.

Of course what you do in your private time is your business, and I don't believe in eroding away people's freedoms. As long as it doesn't have an impact on others you can do whatever you feel is right for you. However mix that with a work environment or in public and it clashes with that straight away.

 

[inogen]

Err...yeah you do. Smuggling of alcohol and cigarettes to avoid taxes and duties is a huge problem. Also 'fake' cigarettes, e.g. those not made to any applicable standards and bootleg alcohol are also major problems with associated health issues. Increased risk of cancers and poisoning from the cigarettes, poisoning and even fatalities from the bootleg alcohol.

And thus laid bare is the problem with over-taxing tobacco and booze. It's not a reason to keep something else that's also widely used, illegal.

The major problem with marijuana prohibition is that it not only socially connects normal, often young and impressionable, otherwise law-abiding citizens with drug dealers. It also directs sizeable amounts of untraceable cash into the hands of criminal gangs. It's also resulted in the production of stronger, less bulky, more harmful variants.

There's far more sense in legalising it than not. Politically it's often seen a no-no because it would be "soft on drugs", but it's actually pretty irrational to support the prohibition.

 

[deuse]

If it doesn't, and it doesn't appear in your blood (which it wouldn't do if it's been digested and fully broken down by your body, just like alcohol disappears) then there's no problem - if there are trace elements in your body then I'm afraid it could still be having an impact / effect on your acuity/state of mind/judgement.

Of course what you do in your private time is your business, and I don't believe in eroding away people's freedoms. As long as it doesn't have an impact on others you can do whatever you feel is right for you. However mix that with a work environment or in public and it clashes with that straight away.

 

[Energize]

Is that because you smoke the stuff?

Since we are making stupid assumptions here I'll continue along that line by asking you if the reason you don't want it to happen is because you are a cartel member?

 

[inogen]

If it doesn't, and it doesn't appear in your blood (which it wouldn't do if it's been digested and fully broken down by your body, just like alcohol disappears) then there's no problem - if there are trace elements in your body then I'm afraid it could still be having an impact / effect on your acuity/state of mind/judgement.

What if it's still detectable in your blood, without having an effect?

Residual from alcohol consumption can still be detected for a time after alcohol itself is no longer present in the bloodstream.