Mr. Tea
"can't soundclash" according to a VERY HARD MAN
There's been a lot in the papers recently about the modern cannabis strains which are supposedly 25 times stronger than those from twenty years ago (which I'm somewhat sceptical of, as it happens) and the connection between this and current levels mental illness (particularly schizophrenia) in young people and also violent crime. For example, it's claimed in the trial of Tom Palmer that he was smoking it every day by the age of 15.
So what's your views on all this? Personally I think the answer is legalising the production of cannabis under government licence and taxing it according to THC content. The low-grade stuff could be taxed at a level comparable to tobacco, and perhaps even marketed as a less addictive tobacco alternative; the medium-strength stuff could be more expensive while the so-called 'super skunk' would remain illegal. You could increase the penalty for producing and trafficking it, in fact. The reason producers make stuff as strong as possible is precisely because it's illegal - after all, in prohibition-era America people didn't brew beer, did they? They made bathtub gin.
Naturally, a stringent age limit would apply and you'd only be able to buy it from licensed shops.
The police would immediately have huge amounts of resources and manpower freed up, as they'd no longer be compelled to hunt down everyone who has the odd spliff on a Friday night; this would allow them to concentrate their efforts on catching the high-level dealers of more harmful drugs, including very strong cannabis. The demand for this would soon fall due the increased street price (because of the increased police threat to illicit producers) and the availability of decent-quality legal cannabis. Consumers would know what they were getting and wouldn't be at risk of either being ripped off or spun out with weaker/stronger gear than they were expecting. The entire 'gateway drug' argument would fall apart straight away, since you'd no longer have to buy it from a 'drug dealer'. The government would rake in huge amounts of tax. Organised crime activity would fall considerably.
So, once again, what are your views?
So what's your views on all this? Personally I think the answer is legalising the production of cannabis under government licence and taxing it according to THC content. The low-grade stuff could be taxed at a level comparable to tobacco, and perhaps even marketed as a less addictive tobacco alternative; the medium-strength stuff could be more expensive while the so-called 'super skunk' would remain illegal. You could increase the penalty for producing and trafficking it, in fact. The reason producers make stuff as strong as possible is precisely because it's illegal - after all, in prohibition-era America people didn't brew beer, did they? They made bathtub gin.
Naturally, a stringent age limit would apply and you'd only be able to buy it from licensed shops.
The police would immediately have huge amounts of resources and manpower freed up, as they'd no longer be compelled to hunt down everyone who has the odd spliff on a Friday night; this would allow them to concentrate their efforts on catching the high-level dealers of more harmful drugs, including very strong cannabis. The demand for this would soon fall due the increased street price (because of the increased police threat to illicit producers) and the availability of decent-quality legal cannabis. Consumers would know what they were getting and wouldn't be at risk of either being ripped off or spun out with weaker/stronger gear than they were expecting. The entire 'gateway drug' argument would fall apart straight away, since you'd no longer have to buy it from a 'drug dealer'. The government would rake in huge amounts of tax. Organised crime activity would fall considerably.
So, once again, what are your views?
