Legalising cannabis in UK 'would raise hundreds of millions'

a reply to: djz3ro

Substantial scientific evidence shows cannabis is a harmful drug that can damage human health. There are no plans to legalise cannabis as it would not address the harm to individuals and communities.

More of the same old nonsense from the pharma protection unit..i mean Government i see.

It's this kind of rhetoric that led me to post a Cannabis related thread a number of years ago (under my previous nic) , where i linked to an article on the BBC website from 2009. It was reporting on the UK government's sacking of Professor David Nutt, who as the foremost expert on drugs and their effects, was commissioned by the then government (Tony Blair's New Labour) to look into the effects and possible harm from the use of Cannabis.

The study was thorough and long, it took well over a year to complete and cost the taxpayer quite some cash to produce...only problem was though, that the results of the study did not correlate with what the then government wanted to hear or wanted the public to know about Cannabis...so the quashed the results, which did not sit well with the good professor who promptly reported to the press of both the results of the study, and the findings obtained.

The then Home secretary, Alan Johnson sacked the Professor (actually 'asked' him to step down - same thing as sacking of course) for speaking out of turn to the public and furnishing us with his team's findings about Cannabis.

The Liberal Democrat party Home affairs spokesman said;

Chris Huhne said the decision to sack the adviser had been "disgraceful". "What is the point of having independent scientific advice if as soon as you get some advice that you don't like, you sack the person who has given it to you?" he said.

and

Mr Huhne said if the government did not want to take expert scientific advice, it might as well have "a committee of tabloid newspaper editors to advise on drugs policy". Similarly, Claudia Rubin from Release - a national centre of expertise on drugs and drugs law - said the expert should not have been penalised.

Professor Nutt said;

Prof Nutt said he was not prepared to "mislead" the public about the effects of drugs in order to convey a moral "message" on the government's behalf.

The webpage is still there, despite being from 2009..for anyone who want a read, here is the link;

Cannabis row drugs advisor sacked - BBC

Since the topic of Cannabis has relaxed somewhat over the years on ATS, hopefully this time i won't get censored for posting this story again!

a reply to: PublicOpinion

Y'all do realize that this "Cannabis Legalization" is really nothing more than the marketers not being able to "Market" and simply looking for new markets to exploit don't you?.

Lotta profit to be made in that exploitation stuff, there is...


Yoda said....

a reply to: lightedhype

And you do realize that in the near future you will probably no longer be able to afford to get high, don't you?.

And what about "Stoned Driving" ?....

a reply to: MyHappyDogShiner

The thing some people on this thread are missing?
When it becomes legal, that usually means you can grow your own.

Free!

At least you can in Colorado.

a reply to: chiefsmom

Makes no difference to me because I stopped smoking the stuff a long time ago because I didn't need it to cope or whatever it was I used it for.

I guess maybe I grew up and didn't need substances other than food and water to get through my day anymore.

originally posted by: MyHappyDogShiner
a reply to: chiefsmom

Makes no difference to me because I stopped smoking the stuff a long time ago because I didn't need it to cope or whatever it was I used it for.

I guess maybe I grew up and didn't need substances other than food and water to get through my day anymore.

Well, people rely it health wise with medical use. Being legal helps some of those people so they don't have to be bound by medicinal laws. Though, Washington State has concerning issues with that-such as DUIs now implemented and medical users are heavily effected. Every legal state(all except Wash State are modeled after Colorado's laws-which are better) allows one to be able to grow some of their own and it covers ed-decriminalization.

a reply to: MyHappyDogShiner

And that is fine.

But for instance, my mother, who has rheumatoid arthritis, should be able to grow a plant in her yard, that eases her pain, without the fear of getting thrown in jail.

And so should everyone, everywhere.

Thank you all for your comments!

Special thanks to MysterX and stumason for the reminder regarding Nutt:

Prof Nutt said he was not prepared to "mislead" the public about the effects of drugs in order to convey a moral "message" on the government's behalf.

news.bbc.co.uk...


Icing on the cake!
6 years ago by now and still illegal. What a shame...

And yet... stoned drivers or the price after legalization is everything some folks can think about? Really? I mean... come on! How many people die each year due to stoned driving and how many revenues go into the pockets of organized crime for selling dope?



a reply to: chiefsmom

But for instance, my mother, who has rheumatoid arthritis, should be able to grow a plant in her yard, that eases her pain, without the fear of getting thrown in jail.

And so should everyone, everywhere.

Good point. We have such laws in place here in Germany, you can apply for an allowance to grow medical hemp if you are sick, but too poor to buy your medicine, and have a seperate room with locks in the door.

It's far from easy to get that "license to pot", but it's a start.

originally posted by: MyHappyDogShiner
a reply to: chiefsmom

Makes no difference to me because I stopped smoking the stuff a long time ago because I didn't need it to cope or whatever it was I used it for.

I guess maybe I grew up and didn't need substances other than food and water to get through my day anymore.

I hope you're not assuming that everyone who supports cannabis legislation requires it to get through their day? I want the legislation in place to help our economy, to benefit those that could use its medicinal qualities and the like. My occasional use won't be effected by this one way or the other. Occasional, in this case, meaning once or twice a month...

a reply to: djz3ro

Yeah, I found that comment to be odd... Do people need a beer to "get through the day" or is it that people enjoy a beer after a hard days work while socialising with their mates?

People need to get it out of their heads that people need weed to "get through the day". I can manage a 12 hour shift perfectly fine but I do enjoy getting home, having a cup of tea and a smoke afterwards as I do not really enjoy drinking - the same as others who think nothing of cracking open a brew or a bottle of wine when they get back.

On that note - anyone who tells you they are addicted to Cannabis is talking crap. It isn't in the slightest bit addictive as a substance. People might get into the mindset where they couldn't imagine not having something to smoke, but that's not the same thing.

a reply to: PublicOpinion

Hey politician we will pay you millions if you will let us get high.

Pretty Please!

a reply to: deadeyedick

No. Watch it:


Hey you crooked politiclowns!

Do the job I pay for and represent your people, just once in your short lifetime.

This is your chance, just do it! You can be as corrupt as you like, spread as much lies as you want and propose the dumbest laws on earth if you - just for this one single moment - do at least something for the better. We will vote the smoking (pun imposed) sh!t (the pun strikes again!) out of your hyghpocrite (uh-uh) asses!

In case you actually happen to read this and are not convinced yet, do us all a favor: create an account, hit reply and write something intelligent for your case.

Debate or quit your fricken job, pretty fast please!

a reply to: PublicOpinion

Legalize them all, remove the criminal element that results in lives lost and a clogged up prison system with heavy tax burden, and make it a lucrative endeavor for everyone.. Drugs use like that first poster tried to claim is not the same a child prostitution!

a reply to: TechniXcality

Bad idea, really, really bad. Just imagine the consequences...

- People would be better off, less profit for Big Pharma
- Fewer crime, less profit for the 'Justice' Industry
- Ton's of new jobs, less profit for the Debt Industry, Big Pharma and the Justice Industry

And finally:

- No drug money for the org. crime, less profit for corrupt cops, prosecutors, etc.

How dare you?
We might save the world with your 'extreme' measures due to horrendous high (keep 'em coming!) tax-income and save lot's of lifes, but hey... let's better forget about it rather quickly before we get nailed with the next ad hom 'argument'.