Ex-police chief to head pro-legalisation National Cannabis Coalition | Society | The Guardian
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015 ... -coalition

There are few valid reasons to legalise it to my mind. What use is taxing it when NHS bills will skyrocket? Less people are apparently smoking and drinking now, but you wanna introduce a new drug to legislature? Kids already smoke tobacco in school, you really wanna make it easier for them to get dope? That'll help with their studies... And apparently it's use is falling amongst the young due to legal highs! Why would you ever risk 'making it OK'?

It's true effects are still part of massive studies; it just doesn't affect people the way alcohol and other drugs do. Indeed, there are some people even the weak stuff sends mental. And just about everybody knows someone who can't bring themselves to kick it even though it's not really considered addictive.

You'll have utter muppets combining it with other drugs, including prescription drugs. FFS Amsterdam ran into problems just with idiotic Brit tourists... Legalising it makes little sense to me at all in real world terms.

As long as it still available, for relief in seriously ill people..............

The thing here is that cannabis is already incredibly easy to get and is already used by millions. My own experience is that at least a quarter of any group of people between 11 and 40 will be using cannabis - especially in the IT sector. So the idea that making it legal will lead to a stoner apocalypse is, to my mind, pretty bogus.

After a few years' use and then over ten years of being around users, I can safely say that I have only ever seen problems caused by using either super-skunk and stronger forms or by habitual use of cheap resins cut with things like diesel.

My own prediction is that, were cannabis to be made legal, prices would deflate, quality would increase and the more dangerous forms (rocky, squidgy black, super-skunk etc.) would pretty much vanish. The vast majority of users would use either straight-up leaf weed (which is used rather like beer) or the normal forms of bud (which is used rather like strong wine). You see, when using, I either couldn't afford decent green leaf weed (so I bought resin) or I had lots of cash to splash (so I bought the strongest stuff I could). The latter of those two decisions was driven by the idea that, if I was going to do something illegal, I might as well do something risky as well. To ban cannabis because some users take dangerous forms is like banning alcohol because some users get problems after drinking either meths or over-proof rum.

I wouldn't legalise it for one reason......
Go to a prison and ask all the drug addicts (who are banged up for nicking to fund their heroin habit) how they got started on drugs, most will day they started on cannabis.

A more pertinent question would surely be how many stared with cigarettes or alcohol. There's a difference between indulging in something legal and something illegal me thinks. If you are willing to break the law for a fix you are willing to break the law, what it's for is largely irrelevant. Furthermore, you have by definition put yourself in contact with criminals. A drug dealer may sell you hash and be interested in selling you something else that gets them a greater return. A pharmacist or even a newsagent aren't interested in quite the same thing.

Being a stop along the standard route to addiction does not mean that there is any causal relationship at all between weed and heroin addiction. Those addicts have also all drunk Coca Cola and eaten chocolate, they've drunk beer, watched TV, played computer games, and any number of other things that somebody or other will tell you is addictive. Claiming one of the above as a particular gateway, exclusively worthy of prohibition is lazy.

Nobody who is not an addict should lose their right to drink cola, or eat chocolate just because some other guy wants to use innuendo as an alternative to evidence. The fact that weed has been prohibited on such grounds is a pointless tradition.