So The Independent now decides that cannabis should not be legalized. Because the new stuff is much more powerful.
Err, so what? The argument is that it is the illegality that causes the problems, not the power of the drugs. The logic of legalizing pot applies equally to heroin. So how does arguing that pot has got stronger change that logic?
In
Once drugs are legalised they can be regulated. So quality and strength can be controlled. So skunk is an argument for legalisation.
Skunk is a homegrown hybrid, developed in response to, er… criminalisation that has made importation risky.
Well, the point is that the Independent is fully signed up to the principle of health fascism. It’s perfectly permissible to ban things that are bad for you, even if they harm no-one else. With alcohol, so with cannabis.
It’s not the illegality that’s the problem, to an Indy writer, but your own weakness; and it’s the job of government to save you from yourself.
Skunk lite?
I remember back in the day when the Indy ran a spread on page 3 celebrating the start of the hallucinogenic mushroom picking season. How times change, eh?
Getting ripped to the tits does not make you a criminal and everyone knows it. To claim otherwise devalues the rule of law.
Take your ironic drugs policy and sling it.
Once drugs are legalised they can be regulated. So quality and strength can be controlled. So skunk is an argument for legalisation.
Once legalised, the quality and strength of the drugs sold legally may be controlled. Others, which do not meet the required standards, will still be sold illegally.
So what exactly is the argument here? That we legalise “ordinary” cannabis, but not skunk? And we think that if ordinary cannabis is available from your GP, or from Boots and Tescos, that no-one will want a stronger variant such as skunk? Sounds naive to me:
* If drug users didn’t really want skunk, but that is all they can get here, why do so many take even more harmful drugs such as heroin? Surely many drug users will always want a stronger drug, to get a higher high or whatever?
* There will still be no shortage of people willing to supply substances that remain illegal. Or do we really think the major drug importers and distributors will just give up, and get a nice, legal job, perhaps even one that only pays minimum wage?
Also, do we trust the government to set the required standards? What will be the criteria used? It’s worth noting that the drugs available illegally now are clearly of sufficient quality and insufficient strength that the whole drug problem is not self-solving.
Surely many drug users will always want a stronger drug, to get a higher high or whatever?
Discuss, with reference to beers, wines, fortified wines, and spirits.
Discuss, with reference to beers, wines, fortified wines, and spirits.
Many years ago, the government (in its infinite wisdom) decided the maximum amount of alcohol we should consume in a week, without risking our long term health. For convenience, they translated this into x pints or y glasses of wine. Since then the average size of wine glasses has increased, and the percentage of alcohol in wine has increased (maybe we are now just drinking better quality wine?). So many people are consuming much more alcohol than they think they are. Beyond some in the medical profession, I don’t see many complaints about this.
Similarly, are skunk users unhappy with its higher strength? If yes, why do they use it? If not, taking Kit’s argument, will they change to the hypothetical, safer, lower strength, newly legalised version?
So we’re back to Tim’s point of legalising everything. Which may reduce the problems and costs we have in society from drug (mis)use (I remain to be convinced). Of course, even if we legalise everything, we still need to decide where one is allowed to consume each drug, how much and how long before performing various different jobs/tasks, and how to make problem users pay for all the burdens (financial and otherwise) they impose on the rest of us.
Leave a Reply to EdCancel reply