Tim Worstall

Two Lunacies in One Report

No, I don’t think I am looking forward to this Ian Duncan Smith report on drugs and so on:

One of the key measures will be a new ‘treatment tax’ on drink which
would be used to provide an increase of £400m on the amount spent on
treatment and recovery programmes for both alcoholics and addicts. The
tax – which could see an increase of around three per cent on alcohol,
adding 25p to the cost of a bottle of whisky – would not go straight
into the Treasury as VAT and excise duty does, but would instead be set
aside for medical treatment.

Hypothecation of taxes: a truly idiotic idea.

There there’s this which really ought to be classed as stark staring lunacy:

The health risks of cannabis are so great that it should now be
reclassified as a class B drug, carrying much greater penalties for
possession and trafficking,……For years people have been allowed to get away with this rather loose
and wishy-washy idea that in the Sixties we took it and it didn’t
matter. But in the Sixties it was a much less potent drug, and now they
have this stuff that is home-grown, which is at least 12 times more
powerful.’

And why was skunk developed? Because it’s home grown, it doesn’t have the import problems that are associated with trying to bring in tonnes of a Class B drug. So our reaction to the rise of the answer to cannabis being a Class B drug is that we’ll make it a Class B drug again.

What would actually be a sensible answer is to make it legal, to have it sold in tobacconists, where the manufacturers will be really rather careful about variability in strength as will consumers.

But that of course might mean people actually being allowed t enjoy themselves, something that would never do now would it?

In

8 responses

  1. Opinionated Avatar
    Opinionated

    One thing I’ve never understood is why, when the ‘health risks’ are said to be so severe to warrant criminalisation of possession of a common plant, it’s thought to be a good idea to send the possessor to a prison. Presumably, this is to protect his health, in an environment where there is violence and heroin use? There is no credibility in the ‘health risks’ argument at all.
    The ‘real’ so-called health risks of cannabis are that it makes people think for themselves and question authority. That’s the real reason why it’s banned. The criminalisation of this substance is nothing to do with health – only about scaring people off from using it.

    Reply
  2. Mark Wadsworth Avatar
    Mark Wadsworth

    Totally agree, well said.

    Reply
  3. Tim Almond Avatar
    Tim Almond

    “And why was skunk developed? Because it’s home grown, it doesn’t have the import problems that are associated with trying to bring in tonnes of a Class B drug.”
    A similar thing happened in prisons.
    The effect of the government bringing in random testing in prisons was that prisoners switched from cannabis to heroin (heroin is detectable for a much shorter period of time).

    Reply
  4. Ed Avatar
    Ed

    And why was skunk developed? Because it’s home grown…
    Why does the fact that it is home-grown make it so much stronger? Something in our soil or water? Or is it that the users want it to be stronger than “ordinary” cannabis? If they do, then surely they will still want skunk even if the ordinary stuff is available in the tobacconists. So do we legalise skunk as well? And what about other illegal drugs? Legalise all of them?
    The ‘real’ so-called health risks of cannabis are that it makes people think for themselves and question authority.
    I can manage that perfectly well without any chemical assistance, thanks.
    Tim adds: Ed, it’s stonger because it’s easier to move around: less bulk for the same effects. That concern is caused by the illegality of course.
    And yes, we do make skunk legal, just like we do heroin, cocaine, crack and meth.

    Reply
  5. Opinionated Avatar
    Opinionated

    Ed, you wrote: “I can manage that perfectly well without any chemical assistance, thanks.” That’s great – so can I. However, many people who have been strongly conditioned by the relentless brainwash of mediocrity: the production chain of school, army, work, etc. do need cannabis a few times before they are able to question the deep-rooted beliefs and assumptions they have about themselves. If they have any psychological or sexual problems, in my view it’s much better that these can be identified with the help of cannabis rather than letting these people carry on and take positions of authority, where their sexual or psychological problems may have damaging consequences for the rest of society as a result of decisions they make.
    If cannabis was legalised the vast majority of cannabis users would buy weed (the old-fashioned stuff) and not skunk. Skunk is unpredictable and can cause drowsiness rather than the fun, upful high of sative-type weed such as Jamaican collie. For most people, weed is definitely better. Cannabis is not ‘fun’ unless you’re doing something else while high, e.g. thinking, art, music, exercise, eating, work, or anything you would normally enjoy. Furthermore because of the difficulty and expense involved in skunk production, less potent weed would be a lot cheaper over the counter than skunk.
    The reason skunk was developed is because of the illegality of cannabis. You need a huge bag of weed to make the same number of joints as you’d need with a bag of skunk. A really big bag. Skunk is more concentrated with active ingredients, and more portable, and because you carry less of it the legal consequences are less serious. Skunk was developed deliberately, by crossing various species of cannabis chosen according to strength.
    It is not generally true, that the plant skunk is much more potent than weed in the 1970s for instance. The difference today, is that we have much more knowledge of botany and chemistry. For instance, the way to flower the plant was only discovered very recently. Furthermore, early growers didn’t know that they had to keep their buds unseeded for maximum potency, or which additives to give to the soil. In recent years massive advances have been made, in growing cannabis in a chemical solution rather than hydro. In short, if the 1970s growers knew what today’s growers knew, the average quality of their product would equal today’s.
    The good quality of today’s skunk compared to the variable quality of yesterday’s herbal cannabis means that users smoke far less of the stuff, to achieve the same effect. That’s all.
    There is one important exception: the hippy generation who visited India, Nepal, Morocco, South America, etc. would have used cannabis from those countries that is equal in strength to today’s cannabis. In addition, ALL hashish from the 1970s and earlier that found its way to Oxford, London, etc. was at LEAST as strong as today’s strongest skunk (which has about 15% THC). And hashish is very uncommon in the UK today, but was very prevalent in the old days.

    Reply
  6. Ed Avatar
    Ed

    And yes, we do make skunk legal, just like we do heroin, cocaine, crack and meth.
    Ok, we make them all legal, but legal where and when? Which ones are airline pilots or doctors allowed to take? What about the politicians who make the laws that govern us? Police officers? Pension fund managers? Can an employer refuse to hire a user? Or sack an employee who starts using? What about insurance coverage?
    I am willing to be convinced that legalisation of some or all of these drugs may reduce the associated problems we have now. However we will still have many of these problems, especially a not-insubstantial hard core of unemployable heroin and crack addicts, who will either be funded by the taxpayer or by crime. We need a more complete solution that allows people to be free to enjoy themselves and make their own decisions about their health as you wish, but leaves everyone else free of any burden that comes from that decision.
    Tim adds: Try using the same rules we have about alcohol.
    What you do to your body in your time is your business. As and when it poses a risk to others, then it ain’t solely your business.

    Reply
  7. JuliaM Avatar
    JuliaM

    “The ‘real’ so-called health risks of cannabis are that it makes people think for themselves and question authority.”
    …and then they forget what they planned to do about it the minute they get the munchies.
    Good grief, did I ever read a more ridiculous statement than that!

    Reply
  8. Mark Wadsworth Avatar
    Mark Wadsworth

    Ed “a not-insubstantial hard core of unemployable heroin and crack addicts, who will either be funded by the taxpayer or by crime”
    It’s cheaper and less damaging to fund them by taxation/legalistion that for them to fund themselves by crime.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Discover more from Tim Worstall

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading