Nor can I. I can't see them decriminalising them either, other than the current soft policing approach of turning a blind eye to someone with an eighth for their own use. Of which I am in wholehearted support. "I'm not going to do anything about that if you crumble it up in that drain there" seems like sensible policing, and I've seen it happening in the various police docus.
Germany sees sense and legalises cannabis
- Thread starter Finnegan
- Start date
Sue Pertwee-Tyr
Accuphase all the way down
I fear you are right. Current standards of government, and their media symbiotes, make it very unlikely that good decisions will be made. But recall that in the USA, the problems with gangsters and illegal speakeasys, etc, didn't go away until Prohibition was abandoned.
Somafunk
pfm Member
As above, the use of the word “legal“ in relation to cathinone based synthetic compounds was rather misleading, the compounds were originally synthesised from the “Khat“ plant and manufactured in Chinese laboratories which sold the compounds in bulk and then packaged as “legal” highs, the law never considered banning or legislating such compounds as they are legitimately used in pharmaceutical manufacturing.
A good reference book for all “synthetic drugs” is “PIHKAL by Alexander Shulgin & Ann Shulgin” and for naturally occuring drugs TIHKAL
, both are a fascinating read and needless to say my copies are well thumbed and pages marked - especially THIKAL as I always preferred natural highs such as mushrooms, peyote, cannabis etc
PIHKAL - A Chemical Love Story - link to Wikipedia
TIHKAL - A Continuation - link to Wikipedia
A good reference book for all “synthetic drugs” is “PIHKAL by Alexander Shulgin & Ann Shulgin” and for naturally occuring drugs TIHKAL
, both are a fascinating read and needless to say my copies are well thumbed and pages marked - especially THIKAL as I always preferred natural highs such as mushrooms, peyote, cannabis etc
PIHKAL - A Chemical Love Story - link to Wikipedia
TIHKAL - A Continuation - link to Wikipedia
Last edited:
farfromthesun
pfm Member
Part of the problem is a real lack of awareness and access to proper, useful information, kinda like vast swathes of this thread. Weed smokers are almost on a par with "benefit scroungers" etc in terms of public perception and social pariah status, and most of that perception is shaped by the Govt and media.
Finnegan
I like a bit of a cavort
My point is very simple. We can keep looking away and kicking the can down the road, we can say “ah yes, but look what happened when xyz,” or we can bring things out into the open and acknowledge that plenty of activities were once illegal but have since been legalised and regulated more or less successfully: distilling whisky, gambling, same sex relations between men, abortion, even women having their own bank accounts, all day pub opening on Sundays, and the production and consumption of alcohol in the USA between 1919 and 1933.
Will legalisation/ decriminalisation act as a panacea? No. Will it be better than the current failure of “not in front of the children”? Let’s find out, because “not in front of the children” doesn’t work. Where the political, social and legal will exists, we might just surprise ourselves.
Will legalisation/ decriminalisation act as a panacea? No. Will it be better than the current failure of “not in front of the children”? Let’s find out, because “not in front of the children” doesn’t work. Where the political, social and legal will exists, we might just surprise ourselves.
Gingerbeard
Ayup Me Duck
I find it an insult that weed is illegal when alcohol and tobacco are not! One of the reasons I actually took up smoking cannabis some 20yrs ago now, was due to being raised in an environment where alcohol really didn’t agree with the person consuming it, my father in this case. I vowed never to be like him and thankfully I’m not. My old man should never have drank (a lovely man off it, a demon on it) and some people should never smoke cannabis. And should self control be an issue, they should seek professional support
gez
pfm Member
I went to a party once where the host didn't join the rest of us in drinking, but spent the evening smoking dope (as did others in the group, who were doing both). After a few hours I queried him about it, his response was along the lines of: "I get aggressive when I drink, so I choose not to". I was rather taken aback at both his self awareness and maturity (we were all only 18/19 - we'd met at a summer school).
Gingerbeard
Ayup Me Duck
The pushback on drug use decriminalisation in Europe was covered n an article (Drug decriminalisation in Europe may be slowing down 21-3-24, Economist) I read recently.
The reasons for the pussback were: increased levels of violent drug gang activity and indiscriminate/open use of drugs in public areas.
The reasons for the pussback were: increased levels of violent drug gang activity and indiscriminate/open use of drugs in public areas.
Sue Pertwee-Tyr
Accuphase all the way down
Doesn't make sense. If decriminalisation is intended, among other things, to eliminate the gang activity by pulling the rug from under them, you'd expect a backlash as they start to feel the pinch, so that's a sign that the policy is having an effect. And people do non criminalised things in public. Like drinking and smoking. Gosh, who knew?
I see your point, so searched out the article to reread it. This section helps explain:
"But second thoughts are rising. In some countries open-air use of hard drugs is more visible; in others, such as Sweden and the Netherlands, gang violence is up. This has led some politicians to go back to advocating tougher law enforcement".
I think hard drugs, ie not cannabis is the issue. Seemingly the public doesn't want to see those used openly on the street (having walked down some fentanyl users streets in Victoria and Vancouver I agree, it was a shocking sight, I think one girl that I saw was dead). As to whether associated gang crimes is up or not, well that's what is being reported.
Sounds like the Law of Unintended Consequences is making its unwelcome presence felt, as usual. What you think will happen and what actually happens are seldom the same thing.
Cav
pfm Member
Decriminalisation still leave the supply in the hands of criminal gangs so solves no problems at all.
I tend to agree.
The when its comes to weed surely the gangs have a well established manufacturing process, supply chain and customer base. If any gangs product/service is not up to required standards the customers will buy elsewhere. I imagine it's been like this for decades and as a result gangs provide what customers want. Customers don't seem to have any ethical type misgivings about buying from illegal sources.
Any none criminal supplier, post decriminalisation, will have a hard job undercutting the gangs who don't seem to have much in the way of typical overheads such as taxes, minimum wage, insurance, sick pay, pensions etc to cover in their costs. Plus the gangs have ways of dealing with legally compliant competitors who are perhaps not willing to resort to retaliatory violence/arson etc.
So where does that leave the customer, buy at higher costs from a regulated/taxed supplier or buy from their regular cheaper source?
This is the rub. The stuff costs sod-all to produce and if you remove the criminal elements and the losses from having the stuff confiscated it costs even less tahn sod-all.
Another issue that has just occurred to me is that if I can go and buy weed, legally, for the same price as a lettuce, and there's no reason why it should cost more, I can be off my face for the entire day for pennies. If you tax it to bring the cost of intoxication in line with other, currently legal, drugs, then the black market will be able to undercut it and still function. So you're now measuring the social cost of offering a legal means of being off your face all day for pennies against the alternative of taxing it heavily, as we do alcohol, and seeing the gangs continue.
As Cav has said, if it's not legal but simply decriminalised then that does nothing to take it away from the gangs.
Mike Reed
pfm Member
Why would you want to do this? Be cos. (Sorry !
)
farfromthesun
pfm Member
Just leave it.Why would you want to do this? Be cos. (Sorry !
farfromthesun
pfm Member
Not much different to booze. Cheap to produce, vast profit to made, lots of tax to take, can be off your face, to any extent you want, whenever you choose.