http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-25566863

At a time when everyone's talking about the cost of healthcare around the world, amongst other issues, to me it's a backward step.

The healthcare issue is separate. This is about recreational use. Cannabis has definite health benefits for some conditions and is more cost effective than many other drugs.

The real problem with its criminalisation is that it basically ends normal lives for many people. They end up in prison and permanently ends their right to vote in the US. It supports a private prison system that wants more inmates and stupid taxpayers willing to pay up to defend stupid laws. And the ultra conservative right like that it denies votes for millions of mainly democrat voters.

When does it become a mainstream crutch like alcohol or nicotine though? I know any number of people who have only ever came off dope for a short while before going back to it, it's far from recreational at that point. And that's gonna lead to health issues, that's what I'm getting at. For all the studies we still don't know exactly how it affects people long term. Certainly anyone I know got lazy and paranoid, and it's not like the gear in Ulster's premium

The dealers will keep on dealing; you don't give up those sorts of profits.

I have known people who have been regular smokers of the stuff for decades. Nothing wrong with them. It might make you lethargic but then so does years on the dole. I do not think that it is actually physically addictive. It might be psychologically addictive in that they think that they need it, but I do not think they go cold turkey like heroin. I think a big factor is when they start smoking it. If young then it could harm them. One person I know who did get a bit paranoid was a late starter and may have been paranoid before. I do know people who have smoked the stuff for thirty plus years and none have had any psychological problems. Though maybe they stick to what they know and avoid skunk which has lower levels of the anti THC component.

Legalising it might actually take it out of the control of the gangs, and raise the prospect of raising additional tax revenue.

PS I have never smoked the stuff myself.

If you legalise it the dealers will still operate cos Joe Average doesn't wanna be seen buying it full-stop, they can also then sell 'better' stuff with a whole new angle. You're not taking the problem away, you're just creating more addicts.

It could be restricted to being sold only at off licenses. Making it legal will not necessarily create more addicts. Look at Holland where numbers of users is actually down. By legalising it you also stop moderate drug users associating with drug dealers. If it were legal most people would not start taking it merely because it is legal. If that were the case there would be no tea-totallers. Dealers might still operate but they could fall foul of tax evasion laws and the stiff sentences that would bring. They could make it a condition of sale that you had to be licensed.

More cannabis addicts might be a good thing. You never hear of anyone ODing on cannabis or causing trouble on cannabis. Alcohol causes more problems on a Friday and Saturday night than all other drugs legal or not. I would rather be in a pub full of stoners than drunks. Drunks can be very volatile, though never found a volatile stoner yet.

We're not Holland though, and that's partly why they added restrictions to their own laws with the amount of numpties travelling there. The guy who gets it off a friend of a friend is a long way from walking into a shop in the UK, also why even introduce new people to it at all?

The business side of it reminds me of every other industry whether niche or mainstream - brands, what the market's willing to pay, location, experience at every stage from production to consumption, reputation etc. That's why the dealers will never go out of business, that's why mobile gaming hasn't killed home gaming, why Apple and Samsung get into disputes whilst selling almost identical devices etc. There's room for everyone.

I think things are going the other way in Holland because making cannabis use routine didn't hold any general appeal once they got it out of their systems, so to speak. The UK and US for instance are well known for their overconsumption of everything from food to prescription drugs to alcohol. Why add cannabis to that mix?

it is still an intoxicant, which means that you can't drive after taking it, and it stays in the body and affects the body for longer I can see more people losing their licences after driving to work after smoking the night before...

There are millions of people globally who have been using cannabis in varying quantities and with varying frequencies for decades. If there were any very special long term risks they would be quite apparent by now - the fact that vague doubts about health effects are all that is on offer thus far indicates that this is not a terribly risky development.

Dealers will absolutely go bust. If a half billion pound market moves from the black sector to the normal, tax paying and regulated sector, they will mostly have to go back to their day jobs (which most of them have anyway). You can't just decide that if all your weed buyers are now heading to the cornershop for their fix, that you can compensate by selling them crack instead. Your old clients aren't interested in that product, and the existing retailers in that sector are known for aggressively protecting their market share.

The idea that nobody wants to be seen purchasing cannabis seems unlikely. Weed has a thriving merchandising business right now in spite of its illegality.
Here are some t-shirts you can buy from Amazon to illustrate this point
http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/?ie=UTF8&keyw ... w1nq3zx2_e

If the stuff was in a normal shop, and I wanted some, I would just walk in and buy it. Not that this absence makes much difference, I could buy some tonight if I felt the urge, and so I am sure could anyone here. Except (possibly) the one who might be on an oil rig right now.

Cannabis is far from a harmless drug. I've seen people go from normal to violent, attacking their families. One guy tried to kill his son who was around 4-5 yrs old. We also have a rise in patients with acute symptoms of schizophrenia which coincide with shipments of cannabis.

I suspect the old fashioned stuff that was very mild probably didn't cause harm and mellowed people out but the "superstrength" stuff is what appears to be causing the damage. It's a bit like people swapping pints of beer for pints of vodka and expecting there to be no problems.

Add into the mix COPD. Ordinarily this is a (tobacco) smoker's disease and typically picked up in people around the age of 50-60 but there has been a rise in those aged 35-45 and it has been linked to cannabis use. Consequently I now ask all patients in whom I suspect it not only about smokig tobacco but other drugs incl cannabis.

So basically there is no consumer protection. New products are developed without consideration of safety. And once shown to be less safe than previous generations of product, they remain widely sold by unauthorised persons. It sounds to me like all this unfettered capitalism should be replaced with a regulated environment that protects consumers and allows the development of safer generation of product.

Legal means tax, quality control and, probably, a higher price.

I doubt the dealers will go under - there's a market for cheap cigarettes, why shouldn't that be the same for weed? Besides, I bet there will be one or two already hoping to get in at the ground level as legit suppliers.

I originally thought that about tax etc leading to higher prices.

However, how does tax compare I the risks of dealing drugs illegally? I would say the latter will put the price up more than taxes.

I'm with Foggy on this one.

If all countries legalised and controlled weed in the same way as ciggies, then you would for sure be able to run an arbitrage trade by smuggling in large bulk from countries with low duties to those with higher ones. But in the short term that wouldn't be achievable. Most UK weed is grown here because the product is bulkier than other drugs, and (by weight/bulk) much cheaper. The amount of green stuff you could shove up your bottom before flying for instance wouldn't pay for the ticket - even on Easyjet.

Cannabis farms in temporary private houses are not that efficient, and their distribution networks aren't either. Then there is the risk, which means there needs to be a very healthy mark up every time it changes hands. When up against the steamroller of agribusiness and the consumer products companies with brand development strategies etc, they would be thoroughly out-competed, even given quite a high tax rate.

As for dealers getting into the legit market - why shouldn't they? Many of them treat it as an art form. Cadbury's and Nestle et al dominate the chocolate business, but there's plenty of niches for specialist little outfits. They can become the equivalent of bespoke choclatiers, and micro-brewers.

Before long, a legalised cannabis industry with scope for product and brand development would probably sell flavourless beers and e-cigarettes rather than raw marijuana. There would probably be a small market for traditional varieties of weed still, in the same way that some people grow tomatoes that aren't damp lumps of drearyness, and apples that are not golden bloody delicious. They're marginal to the industries they confront though, not a threat.

I recognise the probable costs of drug-dealing, but I'm thinking about the government's incredible ability to tax the hell out of anything that's legal but not strictly good for you.

An £8 pack of cigarettes is around 77% tax - there's a fair amount of scope to undercut a similar rate of tax on weed, if your costs amount to a disused farm building, a few rows of heat lamps, packaging and transportation.