https://www.theguardian.com/society/202 ... dApp_Other

Straight up won't work IMO, it totally ignores human nature. Drug dealers used to making thousands a week aren't about to be crowded out by the government lmao, they'll simply make their drugs more addictive or effective. And that's if they have to change at all. The whole point of going to a dealer is the secrecy! The young and the middle class sure as hell don't want anybody knowing what they're up to, overall. It's the social stigma that keeps a lid on drugs, imperfect as it is.

Also, I've never read of any positive knock-on effect in the West from legalising cannabis. It likely just creates more habitual users I'd imagine.

But, if it's legalised, there will be no stigma towards it's usage.

Mark

That's kinda what I'm getting at, legalisation let's it go mainstream and who's gonna want whatever weak version the state is selling after being used to street drugs? That's why I think it'll create more addicts, not help those who already are, or at least in the habit.

There's a few things we always hear are crippling NHS funds, obesity, smoking, and alcohol. If we're struggling with those I really don't think it's time to be introducing folk to Charlie and Molly.

Just realised you'd need one hell of a security set-up too!

Not read the article but in Canada, they legalised cannabis. People bought stores with the intent of selling legal cannabis. People don’t buy it from those stores. Why? Too few stores, too expensive, not strong enough quality, and not “glamorous” or “dangerous” enough.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/202 ... l-go-wrong

What this shows us that in the relatively low risk business of cannabis distribution it is possible to screw the pooch at the government end with burdensome regulation and strangulation level taxaes, as well as at the production end with terrible quality control, and then to pile on top of all that a messed up distribution regime.... but still end up with a market large enough to support companies with market capitalisation in excess of 10 billion dollars, albeit because they have export access to the USA where those above factors are different (banking problems replacing the others)
https://www.investopedia.com/top-canadi ... ue-4587803

Cocaine and Ecstacy are of course very different markets to weed though. Both are products suited and originally born on the pharmaceutical production line, so the regulated prodict would be certain to be better than the street product, cutting out one major issue there. The cost of a single dose of ecstacy from a pharma production line would be in the order of pennies and the distribution costs wouldn't be all that great, so the chances of street corner peddlers undercutting the retail price is quite low, even if they could match the quality.

The practicalities of the state and big business taking over the cocaine indistry would be a bit challenging due to the input being leaves grown in the South American jungle. But it's a great idea if somebody can make it work, worthy of a nobel peace prize. It should be possible to do a deal with Peru to get raw coca leaves at market prices and cut out all the chains of violence that it traditionally funds, from guerilla warlords to smugglers to the nasty little urchins that stab each other in Britain. We should absolutely do that right now, and we should do the same with heroin as well, and then the world will be a much less violent place.

Companies would still fire people who tested positive for drug use. If it impares your ability (like alcohol) to use machinary, endangering colleagues, then they have teh right to do so.

That's what I said would happen years ago, and tbh you have to wonder if governments even care about stopping the illegal trade so much as creating their own.



There's so many more things that need considering over some people who just really like pot shouting 'you've lost the war on drugs!'. Knobs.