[EvaH (OP)]

Philip says:

The Govt say cannabis is dangerous, causes harm to society and encourages criminal activity. Yet allow GW Pharmaceuticals to be among the worlds largest exporters for 'medical purposes.' It seems more and more we fly in the face of International and scientific opinion on this subject. Is it time we grew up and accepted change around this plant?

What do you think?

[alancalverd]

I'm all in favor of decriminalising all drug use and supply to anyone over 18, and introducing the death penalty for supply to  minors.

There must of course be a quid pro quo. All addictive pharmaceuticals apart from potable ethanol and including nicotine must be sold by licensed dealers (we already have licenses for alcohol) and only to persons presenting a user certificate. Obtaining a user certificate is like a driving licence: it will specify which drugs you can purchase and use, but at the same time it will debar you from NHS treatment for any consequences or presumed consequences of your use, and also cancel your driving licence and any other heavy machinery or weapons permits.

What you stuff up your nose or into your veins is no concern of mine, as long as you don't hurt anyone else as a consequence. By a process of licensing we can ensure that the stuff you get is clean, of consistent quality and sold by a knowledgeable professional (just like beer and wine) and instead of paying 1000 times the manufacturing cost to a criminal, you can pay 50% tax to the treasury.  As a licensed dealer you will be protected by criminal and civil law exactly as any other legitimate business. 

The immediate negative impact on The Blessed Economy will be significant as Gross Domestic Product includes assessments of the money changing hands for illegal drugs and prostitution, but  longterm it will vastly lessen the burden of pointless police activity and turn prostitution from slavery into a fair, unionised trade.   

[chiralSPO]

I'm all in favor of decriminalising all drug use and supply to anyone over 18, and introducing the death penalty for supply to  minors.

There must of course be a quid pro quo. All addictive pharmaceuticals apart from potable ethanol and including nicotine must be sold by licensed dealers (we already have licenses for alcohol) and only to persons presenting a user certificate. Obtaining a user certificate is like a driving licence: it will specify which drugs you can purchase and use, but at the same time it will debar you from NHS treatment for any consequences or presumed consequences of your use, and also cancel your driving licence and any other heavy machinery or weapons permits.

What you stuff up your nose or into your veins is no concern of mine, as long as you don't hurt anyone else as a consequence. By a process of licensing we can ensure that the stuff you get is clean, of consistent quality and sold by a knowledgeable professional (just like beer and wine) and instead of paying 1000 times the manufacturing cost to a criminal, you can pay 50% tax to the treasury.  As a licensed dealer you will be protected by criminal and civil law exactly as any other legitimate business. 

The immediate negative impact on The Blessed Economy will be significant as Gross Domestic Product includes assessments of the money changing hands for illegal drugs and prostitution, but  longterm it will vastly lessen the burden of pointless police activity and turn prostitution from slavery into a fair, unionised trade.   

I am in agreement with most of this, except the death penalty for supplying to minors.

As has been demonstrated by decades of history in the US (among others, but I'll stick to what I know), draconian punishments don't have that much more deterrence than more measured approaches, and simultaneously impede investigations because people are less likely to report crimes if they believe the punishment to be too harsh. This also makes prosecution much, much more expensive (defendants will sell everything and/or take on massive debt to fight for their lives, and the state must also dispute all of the appeals; many capital offense cases in the US drag on nfor decades.

So paradoxically, less harsh punishments are more effective, more fairly applied, and ultimately cheaper.

[Bored chemist]

If there's an automatic death penalty for anything, then anyone caught doing it has nothing to lose by having a shooting match- or whatever- with the law enforcement  and, of course killing  the witnesses.

I'm not sure that sort of child endangerment is a good thing.

[Petrochemicals]

It's time that the world accepted all recreational drug use because of the Afghanistan taliban, the Colombian and Mexican drug genocides if nothing else. Drugs funded all of this and led to the situations we see in the world. America tried prohibition with alcohol, this led to massive disobedience and crime, then tried it again with drugs and look at the state of The USA. Give violent criminals loads of money to fight over is the plan that the greatest minds of the west came up with.

[evan_au]

Cannabis is a grab-bag of chemicals which vary in concentration with strain of plant, and growing conditions.
- These chemicals differ in their impact on the human body, and people differ in their ability to metabolize them.

One of the ingredients of marijuana, cannabidiol (CBD)is available as a prescription medication for epilepsy
- As for driving license impact, CBD was recently tested for its impact on driving. The conclusion was that it did not measurably affect driving ability (...but I'm not sure of the strength of the CBD or the strength of the test).
- This suggests that for pure product containing only CBD, driving license suspension should not be automatic...
- However, people who enjoy marijuana would not appreciate this extract at all, since purification removes the psychoactive compounds. And in the same driving tests, whole marijuana did impair driving abilities.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabidiol

In my state, it is illegal to drive under the influence of alcohol or other drugs. Police regularly conduct checks for alcohol, marijuana and methamphetamines. If these tests are negative and behaviour seems impaired, more invasive tests like blood and urine can be ordered.
- A fairly popular TV show shows police conducting these tests, and many of the people tested do a good job of shaming themselves, and reminding the public of the laws...  Sort of a modern-day pillory!
See: https://roadsafety.transport.nsw.gov.au/stayingsafe/alcoholdrugs/drugdriving/?

[alancalverd]

anyone caught doing it has nothing to lose by having a shooting match- or whatever- with the law enforcement

Come off it, BC, this isn't The Land of the Free where cops shoot you for being the wrong shade of grey. We would embark on due process and simply insist that the supplier demonstrate the quality and harmlessness of his product by using it all at once.  No guns, no lawyers, no survivors.

[chiralSPO]

anyone caught doing it has nothing to lose by having a shooting match- or whatever- with the law enforcement

Come off it, BC, this isn't The Land of the Free where cops shoot you for being the wrong shade of grey. We would embark on due process and simply insist that the supplier demonstrate the quality and harmlessness of his product by using it all at once.  No guns, no lawyers, no survivors.

You do realize that there is no achievable lethal dose of cannabis, right?https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0041008X74901264
https://www1.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/health-pubs-drug-cannab2-ch52.htm

[alancalverd]

Then they can stay in the police cell and eat cannabis until they die from other causes. However

For obvious ethical reasons there is no experimental evidence to determine a lethal dose in humans. Nor is there any clinical evidence, since there have been no reported cases of death attributable to cannabis in the world medical literature (Blum, 1984; Nahas, 1984). Extrapolation from the animal evidence suggests that the lethal human dose of THC is at least as high as, and probably higher than, that observed in the monkey. If this is so, then the toxic dose of THC in a 65kg adult would be 8.45kg.

so here's a chance to contribute to science. My first ethical test is always "would you be happy if I did it  to you?"  so clearly anyone who sells the stuff as a harmless recreational material can't complain about the ethics of being forced to use it.

[JasonBailey]

Even tap water is dangerous, if used in moderation and for its intended purpose, the harm is much less than from the same alcohol.

[Bored chemist]

Then they can stay in the police cell and eat cannabis until they die

Reminds me  of this example of political, rather than rational decision making about drugs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gustav_III_of_Sweden%27s_coffee_experiment

We would embark on due process and simply insist that the supplier demonstrate the quality and harmlessness of his product by using it all at once.

And, with them knowing that; you would incentivise them to kill the witnesses and coppers.
Did you not understand that?

On the other hand, it would kill the people who make a huge profit selling water (bottled or otherwise).

[alancalverd]

The fundamental point is that there would be almost no market for "private prescription" drugs if anything and everything  were available OTC to registered users.  Home brew only succeeds (apart from the tiny amateur market) where shops and bars are prohibited from selling professionally made beer and wine.

There are plenty of serious offences against children but few cases of police, social workers and NSPCC inspectors being shot by paedophiles or debt collectors.

[Bored chemist]

There are plenty of serious offences against children but few cases of police, social workers and NSPCC inspectors being shot by paedophiles or debt collectors.

I presume you are deliberately ignoring the point that none of those offences carries the death penalty.

[alancalverd]

Yet.

[Bored chemist]

Yet.

Well, most civilised countries are moving away from the death penalty- partly because of the reason I gave.

By way of evidence, here's an example of a non-civilised country moving towards the death penalty.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-federal-executions-death-row-covid-b1767494.html

[Colin2B]

Even tap water is dangerous, if used in moderation and for its intended purpose,

please explain

[Petrochemicals]

Even tap water is dangerous, if used in moderation and for its intended purpose,

please explain

People have died in water drinking contests. The exact cause and chemical mechanism I am unsure of.

[evan_au]

People have died in water drinking contests. The exact cause and chemical mechanism I am unsure of.

The condition is called hyponatremia, and occurs when the salt concentration in the body gets too low.
- Apparently, it can also be caused by excessive enemas...
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrolyte_imbalance#Hyponatremia

[Bored chemist]

Even tap water is dangerous, if used in moderation and for its intended purpose,

please explain

People have died in water drinking contests. The exact cause and chemical mechanism I am unsure of.

But that is not using water "in moderation", is it?
So please explain your post about that.