---

by Jayjay
I couldn't think of better value for money really. It may be slighty higher now(?), but for at least ten years a 1/16th cost £7.50

---

Lower now, I can get 1/4 for £10, you can't actually buy a 1/16 because it's to cheap to be worth dealrs selling.

And now here are my arguments for leaglization:

1. Cashcow for the government - tax, though the price would be pretty much the same since mass production, corparate price wars etc.

2. leaglization means regulation, you can make so only over 18's can smoke it, no dealer really cares overmuch about the age of a buyer, but most shop owners would.

3. no dealer would be able to compete with big business' so litlle dealers would be virtually gone. the most important thing about this is that most people get on to harder drugs (mainly the path of ecstacy to acid to cocaine and then anything) when they're little dealer gets in the occaisional batch of pills, or refers them onto a bigger dealer. leaglization breaks a link in the chain, so, theoretically at least, there would be less people going onto harder drugs.

Actually it was me who said it was value for money, JayJay said the prices were artificially high.

If you can get a quarter for a tenner, they're either dodgy quarters, or weed is a hell of a lot cheaper where you live Sure you dont mean an 1/8th?

On your arguments for legalisation, Im pretty much in agreement. Im not sure it would be cheaper though - if it were untaxed then definately corporations could get the product to your doorstep cheaper than the dealers - but once you factor in the tax (and if its anything like cigarettes, aim for about 80%), and they would have a tough time competing with dealers. Hence why illegal tobacco is big business to dealers.

Another good thing about legalisation, would mean that by nearly eliminating a dealer's trade in weed, the dealers would concentrate on harder drugs and the police can spend more time cracking down on that.

As an amusing tale, a dealer my friend used to use would let you FAX your order to him - he a predone sheet that you could photocopy, and then tick off the items and quantity you wanted then fax it to him and collect later. Made me laugh anyhow!

(Edited by Funky Monkey 05/07/2003 21:27)

Thanks Funky for the correction. I mean, where on earth did Havoc get the idea I would have the faintest idea how much anything would cost and what increments they come in. Besides, aren't they metricated yet?

Couple of things I wanted to raise after the last two posts:

Black Market ciggies - this is only possible because of the proximity of nations with less insane tax levels for the same product. With the legalization of cannabis in this country this would not be the case. If over taxed you would only be able to resort to the same methods as currently exist, with their inherent lack of quality guarantee and unsavoury characters. Also, taxing would be impossible. If its legal then you're looking at a lot of home grown. You tax goods in shops and you just get everyone growing at home instead.

Gateway of dealing. This can be massively over stated. People, in general, do not try drugs because a dealer suggests it. They try drugs they are interested in either through friends or general word of mouth. The customer asks the dealer, not the other way round. I really don't think legalisation will decrease the numbers using harder drugs, but then again, I think they should be legalized as well. Your body - No one else's business.

Although every commodity is different, the way consumers behave currently is a pretty good guide to the way they will behave in the future.

Alcohol and tobacco carry heavy duties but are we all brewing our own beer whilst our tobacco plants flourish in the greenhouse? With the exception of that dodgy uncle who comes to every family gathering with a bottle of his own wine, no we're not.

Why? Because it's too much hassle. Some people grow marijuana because it ensures a safe supply, but not many people would carry on if it was merely a cost saving exercise.

I doubt the price would change much either way in the long run, but even if it did it's kind of not the point.

The decision on legal status is never going to be determined by the going price on Coldharbour Lane.

I can't see a single good reason for the continuing illegality of Cannabis. The only people it benefits are the drug dealers. I'm not holding my breath for any government to reach that conclusion though since the media in general still seems to adopt a hysterical tone at the very thought of legalisation,

I'd love to think that it wouldnt be taxed highly, but that would be a pipe dream. Yeah, some people would continue to go to dealers in the same way that some people buy cheap, illegal baccy - I dont, I buy my fags from the local shop, and given paying a slightly higher price for cannabis from the local shop, i'd do that anyday over buying it from some shady guy I dont want to associate with, especially when I know I have:

a) a guaranteed supply
b) guaranteed consistency and quality of product

Inc's comment hits the mark - we could all be brewing alcohol far cheaper, but most don't. That said (as someone who likes to cook occasionally), I can make a delicious hearty soup to feed plenty of people for very little money, but i still buy tinned soup for convenience.

The legality thing is very difficult for the government. I think it wont become legal anytime soon, for a few simple reasons:

- if the product were legalised, and commoditised, it might likely be sold in pre-prepared cigarettes. This goes against the government's anti-smoking policy totally.

- the government has anti-drugs messages in place. Legalising cannabis distorts that message badly for the government

The main reason the government wont legalise is not for health reasons around the drug itself, but because it sends out the opposite signals they've been trying to drum into us for decades. No government will make an about face like that.

You reckon? 'The Lady is not for turning!' and 'This resolution does not legitimize war, a second resolution would still be required' - either of these sound familiar? Governments make u-turns all the time. The reclassifying of canabis is in itself a u-turn by New Labour.

However, I agree that legalization is not around the corner. We're a conservative bunch, us Brits, and we really don't like change. The media loves drugs in general 1/ because it's great for whipping up hysteria and selling copy and 2/ now Daniella Westbrooks on the wagon there's more for them to snort. And politicians are a populist lot, in general, they'll not do anything to rock the mob boat unless there's something seriously in it for them. And as most of them have their supply sorted out there's really not enough to gain in legalizing anything for it to be worth the mob's anger.

With luck we might have dope decriminalized in the next five to ten years. Maybe even legalized before I'm dead. And all I can hope is that maybe my great great great grandchildren can chase the dragon without getting hassle from the fuzz. Man.

The UK was playing lapdog to the US in this conflict though, so considering it has our 'interests' at heart, thats why they had to back peddle. Of course, i'm against it, but that is the only reason we got dragged into this, because of the USA-UK 'thang' since the war, and because most of our investment comes from the US.

So in a way, Blair didnt have much of a choice.

---

by Incandenza
I can't see a single good reason for the continuing illegality of Cannabis. The only people it benefits are the drug dealers. I'm not holding my breath for any government to reach that conclusion though since the media in general still seems to adopt a hysterical tone at the very thought of legalisation,

---

Why have we barely progressed from the "legalizing cannabis would be like legalizing murder" level? Because the moment a government relinquishes the right to arbitrarily ban a substances, it'll go for all of them. Legalize marijuana, and suddenly the arguments for legalizing, say, ecstasy become a whole lot harder to resist. The entire edifice of prohibition would fall down.

If there's one thing politicians detest, it's having to admit they're wrong. And right alongside it is relinquishing a very useful means of social control.

When Britain had an empire, we had a policy of aggressive legalisation. We fought two opium wars in the 19th century, and the principal surrender term was that China legalized the trade in opium. Prohibition is a 20th century obsession, and we can thank America for pushing it (they had to do something with the massive legal edifice they built up to enforce alcohol prohibition in the 1920s).

But the 20th century is done and dusted. They've lost the war on drugs, they've just not realized it yet.

being a weed smoker, i say weed cos i only smoke the herbal stuff not resin cos it tends to be cut with all sorts, i think the legalisation issue is somewhat silly. ok i think it should be down graded no doubt about it. but the whole legalising thing would lead to a hike in prices, probs cos the gov would put tax on it. thus this is not very good, specially since i am know a uni graduate and have well not alot of money, and before anyone starts people with little money always buy creature comforts.

also i think more issue should be made about alcohol consumption. we a drinking nation that promotes heavy alcohol use, i think this should be tackled before coming down on a drug that kills little to nobody a year.

Judging by the grammar and miss-spelling in the last post. I think you've probably stoned now.

nah am just at work, you know actually meant to be doin something!!! and the boss keeps walking past al lthe bloody time!!

i'm trying to skive here people!!!!

---

by willow_fantastico
i'm trying to skive here people!!!!

---

I know the feeling.

I dont think legalisation would make the slightest bit of difference to most regular stoners because if cannabis were legal in this country there would no doubt be a limit on the strength, booze and baccy are weaker here than in many countries so why not pot? How many people would settle for 'diet spliff' rather than getting what they really want just because of laws that havent stopped them before now? while a few present stoners and many who hadnt tried it prior to legalisation would buy it legally, the majority of people who smoke pot would consider the legal stuff to be a waste of money.

Wow, i posted how did that happen?

So...no one's against it then?

---

by slayerfest2kthere would no doubt be a limit on the strength, booze and baccy are weaker here than in many countries so why not pot?

---

i for one would not be liking that, concidering most of the stuff i get is produced overseas and is much stronger than the stuff i sometimes get from the uk, and this weaker stuff would no doubt cost more as the tax on it would increase the price.

---

by slayerfest2k
I dont think legalisation would make the slightest bit of difference to most regular stoners because if cannabis were legal in this country there would no doubt be a limit on the strength, booze and baccy are weaker here than in many countries so why not pot?

---

Damn those lawmakers and their diluted alcohol... hang on... what booze?

I drink beer from Belgium ranging up to 13%, wine from France, vodka from Russia and bourbon from America. What alcohol am I currently being denied by law from consuming?

Can't comment on tobacco but again, never noticed a major difference between the UK and other countries.

Why couldn't pot come in a variety of strengths?

Ok so booze from overseas isnt all that hard to get hold of so that is a bad example, however many of the cheap illegal cigs are stronger than the same brand bought legally in this country because the tobbaco companies arent allowed to sell them at the same strength over here. I dont think it is realistic to expect a substance that causes so much worry for some people be made legal without strict controls.

Not sure that is right, s2k.

When I was smoking, JPS was stronger than most of the brands I could find abroad. Further, I can still buy imported cigarettes legally here, which have the same strength as they do in their home country. The issue with black market fags is taxation, not strength.

As for controls, this is one of the bonus' of legalization and has nothing to do with uneducated worries. I want to be able to go to my local cornershop and buy a packet of tokes that I know has been monitored to make sure it contains what it claims to. I want to be able to know from the packaging how strong the hit is and not some stranger telling me 'this is seriously good <edit>, man!'

The strength already varies from crop to crop and dealer to dealer. It already retails well over the actual cost because it is a captive market. Legalization means being able to monitor standards and to be able to offer sensible and credible advise on the matter. While it is illegal no one is going to trust any government advise on the dangers of drugs. It also makes serious study of the effects impossible.

yeah ability to get the same hit/effect everytime would be a good thing. saying that my dealer sells us the same brand everytime so pretty much gonna be the same hit each time, plus you can tell the difference if its something slightly different but i would like the ability to regularly have a 'brand'