half time scores
Well-known member
Should we follow the Canadian / Uruguayan model?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-44543286
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-44543286
Yes. Don't smoke myself but have been amazed by the widespread/epidemic use of the drug among young teenagers. It's easier to get weed/skunk than it is to buy a four pack if you're under 16. But I'm not sure what legalising it will do for this group.
Yes for medicinal use via prescription.
No for general use. It is a health hazard.
Yes for medicinal use via prescription.
No for general use. It is a health hazard.
Yes for medicinal use via prescription.
No for general use. It is a health hazard.
Canada have done the right thing and we should follow suit.
We won't thought because it doesn't play well with Theresa's May's Daily Mail-reading core supporters.
Go down well with the Treasury though. And the Home Office.
As are many legally available items. I don't smoke it myself at present but I can't see much of an argument against it and its taxable presumably.
Yes for medicinal use via prescription.
No for general use. It is a health hazard.
But that won’t solve the criminality issues.
Leagalise it and shaft the criminals.
People will smoke it if they want to, anyway so why not regulate it?
As are many legally available items. I don't smoke it myself at present but I can't see much of an argument against it and its taxable presumably.
Not enough tax for the health problems it would cause.
But that won’t solve the criminality issues.
Leagalise it and shaft the criminals.
People will smoke it if they want to, anyway so why not regulate it?
How much of a health hazard is it though? If it ends up being prescribed to patients I guess we will find out, but then it's already been prescribed to medical patients accross the world and has been for some time. In Israel it's been available to medical patients since 1993, and is prescribed to around 33,000 people for things like cancer, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson’s, Crohn’s & PTSD.
Even today we have enough experience with it around the world as a medicine to know whether the patients using it are being put at risk of serious harm, and it's use as a medicine hasn't been restricted due to it being found to cause harm to patients. It has largely been expanded, because it is found to be effective and safe.
The WHO concluded in their report published in early June this year that Cannabis is "relatively safe".
http://www.who.int/medicines/access/controlled-substances/Section3.CannabitPlant.Toxicology.pdf
They will probably recommend a rescheduling globally when they publish their final report. In the UK we are now looking at rescheduling it the coming days or weeks. In fact there is already a bill to do exactly that which is due on 6th July (which would reschedule to schedule II), and (if we haven't done it already by then) that bill will likely have much more support after recent events.
I think medical use should certainly be the priority, and the medical question shouldn't be distracted from by the general prohibition/legalisation question, but in the end I can't really see how keeping it illegal can be justified when so much harm is caused by abandoning it to the black market and criminalizing people who use it, and so little harm is caused by the thing itself. Either way, our understanding of it will improve when we take it off of schedule I and start to study it properly.