Artificial Emotion
Bluelighter
Apart from 'free the weed' the most popular mantra cannabis enthusiasts use is 'legalise, tax and regulate', but not many people actually give much thought to the the actual specifics of how to go about implementing this. On the taxation from one extreme, cannabis would be taxed heavily as a sinful vice, much like cigarettes in many Western countries (a pack of 20 fags costs £7 or $11 USD right now here in the UK). One might argue that this, along with constant public education campaigns such as mandatory health warnings and public service announcements has been quite successful in reducing cigarette consumption, although cannabis is a completely different substance because unlike tobacco use, all use is not necessarily harmful or problematic. Another extreme would be to use the vegetable model i.e. to allow little taxation and to allow market forces to prevail, which would have the advantage of undercutting serious organized criminals from being involved in the supply side.
On the regulation side you have the personal grower aspect as well as more formal 'authorized' supply, whether it be a dispensary, off license or other retail outlets. Do you interfere with the personal grower? Do you allow them to grow as much as they want without any interference as long as they don't sell? If they break the rules do you prosecute them civilly or criminally for something like tax evasion? The alcohol model allows personal production of alcohol but not sale and so far has not caused any serious issues. As it stands, many of the cannabis activist organisations are, albeit quietly, lobbying for the regulation of home growers. This could mean home growing is either kept banned, severely limited or generally interfered with in a negative way. In dispensaries or off licenses do you only allow the sale of cannabis that has been tested for pesticide residue and which hasn't been grown with harmful growth regulators? In some states in america afaik they have introduced strict control where CCTV has been installed in grow rooms. This isn't necessary for apples or strawberries so why would it be needed for cannabis if the prices are low enough? Who do you allow to sell cannabis? Would you leave it up to big pharma, big tobacco or would you allow the current domestic growers to come out the closet and continue doing what they're doing already, but just above board legitimately?
Do you introduce age restrictions?
I'd love to get your ideas.
On the regulation side you have the personal grower aspect as well as more formal 'authorized' supply, whether it be a dispensary, off license or other retail outlets. Do you interfere with the personal grower? Do you allow them to grow as much as they want without any interference as long as they don't sell? If they break the rules do you prosecute them civilly or criminally for something like tax evasion? The alcohol model allows personal production of alcohol but not sale and so far has not caused any serious issues. As it stands, many of the cannabis activist organisations are, albeit quietly, lobbying for the regulation of home growers. This could mean home growing is either kept banned, severely limited or generally interfered with in a negative way. In dispensaries or off licenses do you only allow the sale of cannabis that has been tested for pesticide residue and which hasn't been grown with harmful growth regulators? In some states in america afaik they have introduced strict control where CCTV has been installed in grow rooms. This isn't necessary for apples or strawberries so why would it be needed for cannabis if the prices are low enough? Who do you allow to sell cannabis? Would you leave it up to big pharma, big tobacco or would you allow the current domestic growers to come out the closet and continue doing what they're doing already, but just above board legitimately?
Do you introduce age restrictions?
I'd love to get your ideas.
Last edited:
