Lib Dems To Propose Legalisation Of Cannabis

[Bazooka Joe]

i have nephew with a 15yr drug habit (mainly skunk) , the emotional , physical , and financial damage , that has been done to my family is beyond belief .

i also have several friends that have been life long weed smokers , nice enough guys , but , totally headshot.

weed is most definitely a gateway drug , not many junkies start by injecting heroin .

 

 

 

I've two in the family Mel b3, I can add lying, thieving to your paragraph aswell.

 

 

 

[digger]

As an aside a lot of pro canabis people cite alcohol. Bit odd when the debate is about weed, comparing it to something else seems to be admitting it's bad BUT it's not as bad as...

[grrclark]

i have nephew with a 15yr drug habit (mainly skunk) , the emotional , physical , and financial damage , that has been done to my family is beyond belief .

 

i also have several friends that have been life long weed smokers , nice enough guys , but , totally headshot.

 

weed is most definitely a gateway drug , not many junkies start by injecting heroin .

 

due to my job , i mix daily with a few weed smoking members of the public , not all but most of the weed smokers are just dirty scumbags.

 

before i get jumped on by the pro druggie types , this is what i have seen on a daily basis for years , not heard it or read it , but seen it with my own eyes , its also getting very much worse , i now see women walking kids to school and smoking weed , or driving along smoking a spliff , in my book that kind of behaviour is shameful !.

it was mentioned earlier that a lot of pw members are the more conservative types and that may be why they have anti drug views, quite a few may well be , but , im a binman , you cant really get much more working class than that but i still think that drugs are destroying the country , and in the main , it starts with smoking weed.

 

no insult is meant to any other posters on this subject , im just sharing my experience of the issue.

Mel, I have no doubt at all in the integrity of your post and you are telling it as you see it.

 

To add a counter point I also know lots of guys and some girls who are partial to smoking a bit of puff and they are successful in both life and career, a good number of them are musicians and having a toke seems to go with the territory. I also know a fair few very successful people who are quite happy to snort a bit of blow of a weekend.

 

All of those people are worthwhile contributors to society and you would never question them about their recreational drug use as you would never suspect them of using them.

 

I also know a small handful of people who have very real problems with drugs, but all of those are involved class A substances and without exception they all have significant flaws elsewhere in their personality.

There is sufficient evidence around the use of cannabis that mean for certain vulnerable individuals it would not be a sensible thing to take, typically those are the developing teenagers, so typically younger than 17-19 and those who are predisposed to having certain mental health issues. Interestingly enough exactly the same holds true for alcohol use.

 

There is also sufficient evidence to show that a measured use of cannabis can have extremely effective healthcare benefits for those suffering from some really hellish chronic illnesses and I find it an appalling lack of compassion and basic scientific integrity that we deny people something that can offer them such a meaningful change in their quality of life for want of ignorance, political agenda or fear.

 

I personally believe that our approach to cannabis regulation in the UK is far too blunt and counter productive. As a nation we really do need to have a sensible debate on the subject and not default to a position of blissful ignorance based on what is an extremely narrow perspective.

 

It is of course natural that those who have first hand experience of drug abuse would wish to see further criminalisation and not less, but due to such a powerful negative influence those people don't choose to look to see what the wider picture might be, likewise those who happily toke away every night with no ill effect may choose not to consider what the downsides are. Both are as equally guilty in sustaining and propagating ignorance.

 

Blunt legislation is never effective and what we have now is blunt to the point of being effectively useless. The UK approach to policing drug crime is spectacularly ineffective, there has largely been a continual growth in the use of cannabis.

 

We have tried making it illegal, then we tried making it even more illegal with harsher sentencing, then we backed off a little and then we toughened it up a little more again. Our current approach is failing and more people than ever indulge despite the controlled status of the drug.

 

Canada have supported the legalised use of medicinal cannabis for many years with people allowed to grow at home to avoid putting money into a criminal supply chain; the US are starting to wake up to the fact that their ultra harsh approach to criminalising cannabis users was a spectacular failure and are achieving results through a controlled use system that totally contradicts the received wisdom of the previous approach. The Netherlands have a very much more tolerant approach to cannabis use and see way less problems than we see in the UK.

 

High time that we look beyond scare mongering, ignorance and prejudice and actually consider what might achieve a better result for all of us. As with so many things in the UK we seem to revel in our ability to stifle any discussion before it starts through fear of political correctness or offending the sensitive and ignorant.

[UKPoacher]

 

I agree with all you say, but the legal standard it is produced to will not be good enough for the skunk heads, just wont be strong enough, & taking the agreed standard will dent the street cred....the drug dealers will still have the market.

 

Exactly, incidentally, how many on PW have a member/s in the family who are druggies, directly relating from taking a bit of blow.?

 

 

Yep, there will still be a demand for illegally produced cannabis due to it being cheaper and / or better for some users.

 

There are other factors that could become likely too. Look at the pressure put on GPs to prescribe Tamazipan and the like. Same is likely to occur for cannabis. And the ones driving this campaign, the producers, distributors and all the chain involved in milking money out of the legal supply will be happy for GPs to prescribe as much as the users demand. Result; a massive increase in prescribed usage of cannabis to keep the unwashed and unemployed happy and most of these prescriptions will come out of the public purse given that the recipients are on benefits. A money go round for the lucky few with licences and those in their pay. So whilst they suggest that the NHS might benefit from extra taxes on legally produced cannabis, much of the costs of prescribing it to the unemployed, etc will add to the burden of the tax payer. Work that one out!

 

Another point the pro-legalising lobby make is that the government's policy on being hard on drug use isn't working so why not try something different? Well, the reason it isn't working is that it never happened. The governments of the last ten to fifteen years have progressively reduced their impact on illegal drug use. So much so that it is often futile to spend time and money arresting and investigating anything except the higher level suppliers; i.e. those at least three steps up from street level. Catch Laddo selling cannabis or Ketamine on the street corner or with thirty plants in his loft and he'll never see a jail cell. All will happen is that he'll be put on a drugs rehabilitation program run by a private company for profit. Virtually no one fails the course even if they don't turn up because the company running it are more interested in ticking a box than doing a proper job. And of course a few months later the same Laddo will be back for another profitable course. It is a joke!

[Danger-Mouse]

As an aside a lot of pro canabis people cite alcohol. Bit odd when the debate is about weed, comparing it to something else seems to be admitting it's bad BUT it's not as bad as...

 

You`re quite correct. However most debates will use comparisons in some form or other so in that sense it`s not really odd.

 

In this case the comparison to alcohol, a legal drug, that also happens to have been banned for a period of time in the USA, is a pretty rational comparison. Firstly we can clearly state that alcohol in terms of damage to heath, damage to society and as a cause of death is in many ways far more extreme than the problems caused by marijuana. And secondly as prohibition has been tried on alcohol and was proven to be a failure it also proves that whatever measures are imposed on other drugs they will always fail too.

 

When you compare them subjectively the logical choice of which one of them should be legal, ie the least dangerous, then marijuana comes out ahead. So the rational and reason for comparison is to say why should a more deadly drug be legal and a less deadly drug illegal?

 

I wouldn`t dream of saying that marijuana is completely harmless. There is a chance some people will react badly to it and it may cause psychological damage in some and there may be other side effects too. However, just as with alcohol or tobacco it should be the individual`s right to choose whether or not to partake.

[grrclark]

As an aside a lot of pro canabis people cite alcohol. Bit odd when the debate is about weed, comparing it to something else seems to be admitting it's bad BUT it's not as bad as...

The reason that alcohol is referenced is that is a fair analogue. People drink alcohol as a means to alter sensory perception and cognitive behaviour, even if it is just a glass of wine with a meal or a wee dram after a hard day, it is still taken to alter the mindful state.

 

Cannabis use is exactly the same and pretty much so is smoking a cigarette.

 

Given the fundamental demand of humans to wish to seek to alter their mindful state, every human culture or society on earth have some form of self consumed narcotic product whether it is licking the back of a toad, chewing a leaf, drinking fermented liquor, smoking plants, etc.

 

So if we accept that some form of external mental stimulus is acceptable, which we must accept because we all do it and always have done, then it is entirely reasonable for a discussion to be one of comparison of the relative merits of each.

[Danger-Mouse]

 

 

Blunt legislation

 

 

 

Without wishing to detract from your well reasoned post . . . this made me chuckle

[grrclark]

 

Without wishing to detract from your well reasoned post . . . this made me chuckle

Hahaha I wish I could say it was intended

[rovercoupe]

Scumbags will be scumbags if they smoke weed

Scumbags will be scumbags if the drink alcohol

Scumbags will be scumbags if the take heroin

 

Scumbags are scumbags because they are scumbags what they choose to get them messed up is up to them but it does not make them, it makes a excuse for why they are a scumbag.

 

The last lot of yoofs that had taken over the pub car park at the end of my road were stoners and i had no quarms going and telling them to move on, because they were wrecked i could talk to 5 of them in a group and ask them to move on and because they were so baked they were scared stiff of a sub 6 ft skinny guy. Had they been getting ****** i would not have gone near them. I have seen perfectly normal people go mental on the **** but never seen anyone who is stoned kick off, they dont have the ability to.

[keg]

Mel, I have no doubt at all in the integrity of your post and you are telling it as you see it.

 

To add a counter point I also know lots of guys and some girls who are partial to smoking a bit of puff and they are successful in both life and career, a good number of them are musicians and having a toke seems to go with the territory. I also know a fair few very successful people who are quite happy to snort a bit of blow of a weekend.

 

All of those people are worthwhile contributors to society and you would never question them about their recreational drug use as you would never suspect them of using them.

 

I also know a small handful of people who have very real problems with drugs, but all of those are involved class A substances and without exception they all have significant flaws elsewhere in their personality.

There is sufficient evidence around the use of cannabis that mean for certain vulnerable individuals it would not be a sensible thing to take, typically those are the developing teenagers, so typically younger than 17-19 and those who are predisposed to having certain mental health issues. Interestingly enough exactly the same holds true for alcohol use.

 

There is also sufficient evidence to show that a measured use of cannabis can have extremely effective healthcare benefits for those suffering from some really hellish chronic illnesses and I find it an appalling lack of compassion and basic scientific integrity that we deny people something that can offer them such a meaningful change in their quality of life for want of ignorance, political agenda or fear.

 

I personally believe that our approach to cannabis regulation in the UK is far too blunt and counter productive. As a nation we really do need to have a sensible debate on the subject and not default to a position of blissful ignorance based on what is an extremely narrow perspective.

 

It is of course natural that those who have first hand experience of drug abuse would wish to see further criminalisation and not less, but due to such a powerful negative influence those people don't choose to look to see what the wider picture might be, likewise those who happily toke away every night with no ill effect may choose not to consider what the downsides are. Both are as equally guilty in sustaining and propagating ignorance.

 

Blunt legislation is never effective and what we have now is blunt to the point of being effectively useless. The UK approach to policing drug crime is spectacularly ineffective, there has largely been a continual growth in the use of cannabis.

 

We have tried making it illegal, then we tried making it even more illegal with harsher sentencing, then we backed off a little and then we toughened it up a little more again. Our current approach is failing and more people than ever indulge despite the controlled status of the drug.

 

Canada have supported the legalised use of medicinal cannabis for many years with people allowed to grow at home to avoid putting money into a criminal supply chain; the US are starting to wake up to the fact that their ultra harsh approach to criminalising cannabis users was a spectacular failure and are achieving results through a controlled use system that totally contradicts the received wisdom of the previous approach. The Netherlands have a very much more tolerant approach to cannabis use and see way less problems than we see in the UK.

 

High time that we look beyond scare mongering, ignorance and prejudice and actually consider what might achieve a better result for all of us. As with so many things in the UK we seem to revel in our ability to stifle any discussion before it starts through fear of political correctness or offending the sensitive and ignorant.

Well put and balanced as always Grr. My issue has always been that you don't know how you will react until you try it. Then it's too late. Two stories below supporting both sides in some ways.

 

My late mother-in-law suffered and died from MS.She often joked about using the stuff and was quite close to at some points when the pain was too great.

 

My mother walked into a house devastated by thieving scumbags a year after my father died. Nothing of any huge financial value, so much sentimental stuff. Taken to feed a habit.

 

 

Finally, 2 identical twin sisters of a lady who worked for my wife tried some strong weed one night, blew their synapses, now in full time mental care.

[grrclark]

Well put and balanced as always Grr. My issue has always been that you don't know how you will react until you try it. Then it's too late. Two stories below supporting both sides in some ways.

 

My late mother-in-law suffered and died from MS.She often joked about using the stuff and was quite close to at some points when the pain was too great.

 

My mother walked into a house devastated by thieving scumbags a year after my father died. Nothing of any huge financial value, so much sentimental stuff. Taken to feed a habit.

 

 

Finally, 2 identical twin sisters of a lady who worked for my wife tried some strong weed one night, blew their synapses, now in full time mental care.

That's true of everything however, I have to have regular blood tests because the disease modifying drugs i take to manage RA can cause all sorts of bad things to happen to me.

 

Hopefully there is a pharmacist on the forum who can confirm this, but I believe the most commonly named substance in the British National Formulary, the prescribing and pharma' guidelines, is the humble grapefruit. Due to whatever enzymes that exist in that fruit it can cause so much harm when taken with a surprisingly high number of drugs. The point of that wee ramble being that anytime we take a drug whether natural or synthesised we take a risk and it is only through monitoring of usage that we know that taking drug X in the morning whilst having a grapefruit for breakfast could kill you.

 

I don't pretend that the use of cannabis is risk free, it absolutely isn't, but it is used by massive numbers now and they all engage in the same level of risk in addition to the risk of becoming a convicted criminal with all of the implications in later life that will bring. Changing the legal status may not remove the risk, but it allows us to monitor and record.

 

Just now the most common type of cannabis that is smoked is known as soap bar or solid, it is a waxy type product that is adulterated with all sorts of stuff and is massively harmful, then we range through resin to smoking the plant material itself, bud, and then using cannabis oil which is highly refined and so is class B.

 

For most smokers they will prefer to get bud as it is more natural, but as it is sold by weight the plants are often dusted with silicon dioxide, very finely ground silica gel, when they are growing and as the plant is sticky then it adds significant weight, this can cause silicosis when smoked unfiltered.

 

So in addition to any risk to an adverse reaction to the active ingredients in the plant the current users also face a heightened level of risk due to the other additions to the product, the drug is also grown in large scale quantity to meet demand and all the big farms are part of a larger criminal enterprise. Cannabis is cheap and easy to grow and doesn't need a complicated setup to achieve, it is called weed for a good reason; a warm room, an led light and a timer is all that is really needed. The criminal supply chain in cannabis could be wiped out overnight.

 

The use of the drug medicinally has found that there is a very definite sweet spot for the amount of active ingredient that should be administered in order to achieve maximum efficacy. There is sufficient science around the development of plants strains to ensure that plant with the appropriate level of cannabinoids can be grown and so eliminate some of the risks associated with over exposure to the more psycho-active elements to the plant, even the point at which the plant is harvested in it's maturity phase will determine whether it is more or less psycho-active.

 

The match between some of our neural receptors and cannabinoids are almost a perfect fit, better than any other natural or synthesised drug so I am led to believe, hence the exceptional effectiveness of the drug as treatment for some conditions. Although people will very often associate cannabis with paranoia and depression in the person who takes it the natural plant contains a significant amount of natural anti depressants, the problem we have is that because people want the best bang for the buck in terms of getting high we have developed strains that knock the plant out of balance, this is what we talk of generically as 'skunk'. In the states in the US where medicinal use of cannabis is legalised they prescribe certain strains of cannabis as it is such an effective anti depressant.

 

So for those who may benefit from the use of cannabis there are lots of ways in which exposure to the drug can be made to be as safe as it possibly can, just the same as we do with any other prescribed medicine.

 

Of course people who wish to indulge just to get baked will face a greater degree of risk, no different to those who knock back 10, 20 or more shots on a night out to get hammered, but that needs to be part of a wider discussion of how that can best be addressed, right now we just close the door on any discussion at all.

 

Slightly off topic we do the same with ecstasy, we could put a machine in every nightclub in the country that could test the pureness of ecstasy in seconds and prevent kids from taking some unknown poison or pushing them towards legal highs and killing themselves, but instead we just continue to close our eyes to reality and bang and thump on the table and say YOU MUST NOT TAKE IT. Of course the kids still do take it and they still die because we are so closed of mind.

 

I am not so liberal as to believe that everything should be a free for all, regrettably we have too many people who don't think enough for themselves and so need external guidance to keep them reasonably safe, but it infuriates me massively that we are so bound by our own bloody minded prejudices to even begin to have the conversation about what else we can do.

Edited March 11, 2016 by grrclark

[7daysinaweek]

That's true of everything however, I have to have regular blood tests because the disease modifying drugs i take to manage RA can cause all sorts of bad things to happen to me.

Hopefully there is a pharmacist on the forum who can confirm this, but I believe the most commonly named substance in the British National Formulary, the prescribing and pharma' guidelines, is the humble grapefruit. Due to whatever enzymes that exist in that fruit it can cause so much harm when taken with a surprisingly high number of drugs. The point of that we ramble being that anytime we take a drug whether natural or synthesised we take a risk and it is only through monitoring of usage that we know that taking drug X in the morning whilst having a grapefruit for breakfast could kill you.

as above previous post, bnf lists approx 40 or so drugs which the humble grapefruit increases or decreases pharmacological interactions within the body. A way to explain in relation to the enzymes in grapefruit is that drugs can effect enzymes. Enzymes are proteins that when activated influence the rate of chemical reactions in the body. In short, enzymes can enhance drug absorpition, metabolism and excretion at an increased or decreased rate which can result in adverse unwanted reactions/interactions. one example would be increased risk of drug toxicity as medication has been absorbed at receptor site to rapidly due to increase in enzyme amount after absorption.

regarding gaining information on the effects, both good and bad in relation to current uk legal prescription and non prescription medications, post marketing surveillance is widely encouraged though not always shared or adopted. all those involved in healthcare and individuals taking any medication should be encouraged to report any suspected adverse drug reaction.

atb

7diaw

Edited March 11, 2016 by 7daysinaweek

[grrclark]

as above previous post, bnf lists approx 40 or so drugs which the humble grapefruit increases or decreases pharmacological interactions within the body. a way to explain in relation to the enzymes in grapefruit is that drugs can effect enzymes. Enzymes are proteins that when activated influence the rate of chemical reactions in the body. In short, enzymes can enhance drug absorpition, metabolism and excretion at an increased or decreased rate which can result in adverse unwanted reactions/interactions, one example would be toxicity as drug has been absorbed at receptor site to rapidly.

atb

7diaw

 

Thanks, so much more eloquently explained than my wittering

 

I don't suppose 40 drugs is that high, relatively, given the amount of drugs in the BNF, but still a surprisingly high number for an innocent fruit.

[7daysinaweek]

Thanks, so much more eloquently explained than my wittering

 

I don't suppose 40 drugs is that high, relatively, given the amount of drugs in the BNF, but still a surprisingly high number for an innocent fruit.

about 30,000 drugs in the bnf, however you are correct, grapefruit juice ingestion results in many hundreds of serious adverse drug reactions and is one of the most common enzymes which result in adverse drug interactions, many of the 40 medications are a black dot symbol in the bnf, this symbol alerts the prescriber that taking that said medication with grapefruit poses high risk of a potentially serious interaction and should be avoided or only taken with caution and monitoring. in respect of the grapefruit juice the prescriber should inform the recipient not to take grapefruit juice with that medication. st johns wort is another baddie. about 7% of all hospital admissions are due to medication adverse interactions through self overmedicating, prescribing and dispensing errors! among many others. cost to the NHS approx £650 million per annum and 70% are avoidable

 

atb 7diaw

Edited March 11, 2016 by 7daysinaweek

[grrclark]

10% of all hospital admissions are due to medication adverse interactions and self overmedicating, prescribing and dispensing errors! among many others.

Hopefully this is not using that statistic out of context, but in respect to the discussion at hand if even in the highly regulated pharmaceutical sales, dispensing and prescription areas we still see what is a big number of medication adverse interactions it does demonstrate that risk of harm is certainly not limited to illegal drug use.

[7daysinaweek]

Hopefully this is not using that statistic out of context, but in respect to the discussion at hand if even in the highly regulated pharmaceutical sales, dispensing and prescription areas we still see what is a big number of medication adverse interactions it does demonstrate that risk of harm is certainly not limited to illegal drug use.

no not at all, especially with the 1.25 million medications prescribed daily, for year end 2014 approx over a billion prescription items prescribed and dispensed. all drugs carry some element of risk to the recipent no matter how small, effects of drugs can be wanted and unwanted, they can predictable and unpredictable. all drugs have side effects. A side effect can be defined as any unintended effect of a pharmaceutical product occurring at doses normally used in humans, which is related to the pharmacological properties of the drug. Such effects may or may not be beneficial and are related to the known properties of the drug and can often be predicted. However, when a side effect occurs above the usual/expected level, it becomes an adverse drug reaction and sometimes is unpredictable.

 

so if you take codiene as a pain relief the predictable side effect of it could be constipation and would usually not be reportable, however respiratory distress, breathing difficulties in someone without predisposing respiratory conditions would be classed as an adverse drug reaction and most definately reportable just to give you an example of the difference of the two, though sometimes the border of when one becomes the next clinically can be difficult to define.

Edited March 11, 2016 by 7daysinaweek

[7daysinaweek]

apologies if i have moved off on a tangent, carry on!

[grrclark]

apologies if i have moved off on a tangent, carry on!

I thought your post was great

 

A learning experience is plenty good excuse for a tangent.

[Danger-Mouse]

I thought your post was great

 

A learning experience is plenty good excuse for a tangent.

 

This ^^

[martyn2233]

Scumbags will be scumbags if they smoke weed

Scumbags will be scumbags if the drink alcohol

Scumbags will be scumbags if the take heroin

 

Scumbags are scumbags because they are scumbags what they choose to get them messed up is up to them but it does not make them, it makes a excuse for why they are a scumbag.

 

The last lot of yoofs that had taken over the pub car park at the end of my road were stoners and i had no quarms going and telling them to move on, because they were wrecked i could talk to 5 of them in a group and ask them to move on and because they were so baked they were scared stiff of a sub 6 ft skinny guy. Had they been getting ****** i would not have gone near them. I have seen perfectly normal people go mental on the **** but never seen anyone who is stoned kick off, they dont have the ability to.

sorry you talk ********

[Vince Green]

 

From my own experience Neil I've found that alcohol addiction is far worse than drug addiction in many way. I have come across some heartbreaking cases of genuine, decent people succumbing to alcohol and it ruining their lives and often, their loved ones lives too. BUT, there is no getting away from the fact that cannabis usage over a period of time addles user's brains. Often they become paranoid to the extreme (our old friend PB is a classic case of long term cannabis usage ) and it has other effects on the user's mental state. There is a strong case for alcohol to be banned, unlikely though. But that shouldn't be a reason why cannabis should be allowed.

 

Those stat's you produce; In my old job there was constant change. Often we were changing back to the position that we changed from a few years before. A constant see-sawing of positions and each time the change was made stat's were produced to support the change being a good thing. In many cases the stat's were either heavily edited or simply plain lies. Then a few years later somebody produces more stat's for the same period that undermines the previous ones and suggests that it is failing, That is reflected in other areas of life. People push for change for their own reasons. If they push hard enough change will be made. Then these supporters produce stat's to show that they were right and the change is for the good. A few years later more stat's are produced by persons with different interests to show that the change was a failure. And so it goes on..................

I think very few people actually realise just how much damage is being done by alcohol, much of it out of sight. Its a truely massive problem but people take it for granted.

 

Cannabis will never be legalised because it actually keeps thousands of small time criminals employed in a fairly safe way that doesn't cause problems for the public at large most of the time. Make it legal and you put these criminals out of business, then what do they turn to in order to make up the shortfall?

[rodp]

All this chitter chatter and we all know it's just the Lib Dems trying to get 10's of thousands of votes, it will not happen. Someone in the Lib Dems had a brain wave "Oo, let's con the dope heads into thinking we want to legalise it and they'll vote for us" Yeah, right, like it will happen

[Danger-Mouse]

I think very few people actually realise just how much damage is being done by alcohol, much of it out of sight. Its a truely massive problem but people take it for granted.

 

Cannabis will never be legalised because it actually keeps thousands of small time criminals employed in a fairly safe way that doesn't cause problems for the public at large most of the time. Make it legal and you put these criminals out of business, then what do they turn to in order to make up the shortfall?

 

I completely agree about the alcohol point. I found some truly horrendous statistics last time we had a similar discussion to this.

 

However I think you`re completely wrong about cannabis. It may take a decade, but it will eventually be legalised. Politicians and their backers are not people to ignore large income revenues and within a few years notice will be taken of how much revenue is being brought in in America. Lobbyists from the medical industry will push and as we know, big business can be very persuasive.

 

Then there`s the EU. If we remain in then with wide acceptance across the rest of europe a ruling may be made that we will be forced into, like it or not.

 

I must disagree with the final part of your statement too. As I`ve already posted costs for dealing with the cannabis trade in this country are around £360 million. That`s not an insignificant amount. Certain high profile police officers favour it`s legalisation/decriminalisation and their voices will surely be heard more and more.

[Bazooka Joe]

However I think you`re completely wrong about cannabis. It may take a decade, but it will eventually be legalised. Politicians and their backers are not people to ignore large income revenues and within a few years notice will be taken of how much revenue is being brought in in America. Lobbyists from the medical industry will push and as we know, big business can be very persuasive.

 

 

The Politicians & Lobbyists, & their Backers will of course take everything in the link into consideration before they do.

 

Forgot the link...http://www.cannabisskunksense.co.uk/the-facts/legalising

Edited March 12, 2016 by Bazooka Joe

[Danger-Mouse]

A rather interesting article on ending "The War on Drugs"

 

Former Latin American leaders urge world to end war on drugs 'disaster'

 

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/mar/11/former-latin-american-leaders-urge-world-to-end-war-on-drug?CMP=twt_a-world_b-gdnworld

 

As far as hands on experience goes, these guys really have it. So if they are saying it doesn`t work and reform is needed then they just might be worth listening to.