Should Cannabis Be Legalized And Taxed?

[lynnmarie]

It has been recently stated in the I paper that legalizing cannabis and also taxing it could cut deficit by 1.2 billion. Do you think cannabis should be legalized and taxed? I am studying politics a level and this is one of the issues i will be conducting my debate on, so I was wondering if you could perhaps post your opinions on this issue here? Thankyou!

[RATTER15]

Yes it should be, but properly regulated, its safer than tobacco and alcohol.

[ummmm]

I don't know how people function on it...

[RATTER15]

ummm, the same way as alcohol and tobacco but without the severe side affects of hangovers, hacking coughs and cancer risks.

[ummmm]

I know people who smoke daily and carry on as normal. If I smoked it I'd struggle to get off the sofa.

[DJHawkes]

yes I agree with the mental health side effects but if it had been legalised years ago much of the problem would have been avoided

[andres]

No it shouldn't be legalised. We don't know enough about the long term effects . Look how many years it took before it was found that cigarette smoking might be the cause of lung cancer . I think cannabis could possibly cause problems with the brain giving rise to mental health problems. Those smoking it now are taking risks. But only time will tell.

[pixie373]

It has been proven already, andres and usually is smoked with tobacco,so that increases the risk too. Ratter, nice to see you :-). Why do you say it's safer than tobacco or alcohol? Are you talking about fatalities, or long-term effects too?

[whistonian]

I have never in my 78 years seen or witnessed the use of cannabis or any other street drug. However I have witnessed the severe pain my wife has endured to a point where she has said on more than one occasion that she would be better off dead. I have read that cannabis is a cure for pain and I would have certainly purchased some whatever the price to give my wife some relief if I had known where to get it.
So yes I think it should be legalised and available at pharmacists.

[pixie373]

It might be worth it for her, whistonian. I'm unconvinced that recreational use has equal benefits to drawbacks though. We use heroin medicinally, but again, i wouldn't legalise it for fun.

[RATTER15]

Pixie "Are you talking about fatalities, or long-term effects too?" both really, I'm not saying its totally safe but it is safer than alcohol and Tobago and not everybody smoke it with tobacco.

[RATTER15]

Tobago *tobacco

[pixie373]

Thanks, ratter. I'm not convinced after chat with doctor about it. If i had a choice of alcohol, smoking or cannabis, in equivalent measures, i now think cannabis is the last thing I'd do.
everything good with you? Is Charlie behaving?

[tamborine]

Tax all drugs to raise revenue but limit use while driving with heavy penalties; to raise more tax.

[Eve]

Maybe some restricted medicinal use but not for general sale. I think the long term affects of mental health could be another ticking time bomb if it were more readily accessible and the thing with smoking it that it is addictive and can lead to increased amounts being needed to get or maintain the effect.

Having lived with a number of dope smokers I have seen the effect it has had on them, some of them smoked it like normal cigarettes, from first thing in the morning, I don't know how they functioned but more worrying at times was seeing them when they hadn't smoked any, often not a pretty sight.

Just walking round Manchester City Centre in certain areas you will get frequent smell of dope being smoked, even on buses. Given it can impair your mind, increasing the availability could just lead to increased problems with more people driving, working etc... with it still in their system.

[atalanta]

I think the big drug companies hould be asked to invent near-substitutes for all illegal drugs. They would have to bid zillions of pounds to get government licences to start the work, then they would have to put the drugs through all the purity standards to prevent unwanted side-effects or toxicity. The new products could be heavily taxed, the profits of the drug companies could be heavily taxed, and criminals who can't stop doing crime would be welcome to smuggle our new legal drugs out of the uK into countries which don't have them.
Then - Bingo - everyone's a winner !
And the government's deficits would all vanish in a puff of funny-smelling smoke.

[Old_Geezer]

Don't see that. If the drug company can come up with a drug substitute for a drug already on the street what incentive is there for the existing sellers to stop selling, or existing buyers switch to a highly taxed alternative ? One would need to be much cuter than that.

[Svejk]

The current way of dealing with drug use is a failure. Has been since c.1970? when, I believe, they were first criminalised. We need to try some new, bold ideas to deal with drug use. It can't be legislated away.
@ratter. Tobago is a lovely place.

[Graham-W]

Legalise and tax cannabis and people will just grow their own for their own and friends use.
It's very easy to grow and bring to maturity. That would close one link in the chain to "harder" drugs as the potheads wouldn't have to go to a dealer to get their drug of choice where other drugs were available.
The ease with which it is grown would mean the taxman wouldn't make a great deal of tax out of it.

[LazyGun]

I do not think we should be considering legalising cannabis simply so we can tax the revenue, nor should we necessarily believe the projected "deficit cut" of 1.2 billion. I have no idea of how robust that calculation is, nor what it is predicated upon - number of users, quantity consumed, rate of tax etc. Sounds more like a nice round figure plucked out the air, to me.

The real issues relate to the relationship between those in Governance and those being governed; Just how much interference should we accept into our lives by the Government? In this instance, Cannabis consumption is essentially deemed illegal because of concerns over the negative health implications related to addiction, its association with narcotics, the notion that it is a "gateway" drug to stronger drugs, and the health implications - deleterious effects of smoking and the concern that long term useage can lead to mental health problems.

So - should the government outlaw something because it has proven negative health effects? Well it becomes difficult to support that stance since governments legalise alcohol and nicotine and make some serious money from both through taxation, despite the very well documented effects on health of both, and the known addictive nature of particularly smoking.

So you could argue that we should be looking for a consistent approach from governments. If they legalise drinking and smoking, then they should legalise marijuana as well. And, as a happy benefit from such a decision, the treasury might benefit from a new revenue stream. So, job done, high fives all around.

Not quite that simple, of course :) Because Governments where drinking and smoking are legal are also engaged in public health campaigns trying to nudge people into quitting or moderating such habits, through a combination of tactics; raising the costs and education. So, in such an environment, should they really be considering legalising yet another drug?

Thorny question, good arguments on both sides. Personally, I think that governments should legalise all drugs, except drugs like crack, heroin, LSD etc, and control them in much the same way as they do for alcohol and cigarettes - That is to say, tight controls on production, emphasis placed on quality control and all of that, enshrined in law the notion that you cannot operate machinery or drive or what have you whilst under the influence, and you can be fined/imprisoned if you are found to be.

[jomifl]

Having worked with a few pot-heads I'm wondering what the country will do on Mondays :-)