UK - Legalise cannabis sales to cut crime and save the NHS millions, says expert

E

edgarshade

Bluelighter
Joined
Aug 31, 2010
Messages
1,954
Location
UK
Daily Mail
By FIONA MACRAE
Last updated at 7:08 AM on 14th September 2010

(comments available)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1311819/Legalise-cannabis-sales-cut-crime-save-NHS-millions-says-expert.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

"Legalising cannabis and selling it alongside cigarettes and alcohol would cut crime and costs to the NHS, Britain's leading expert on the drug has said.
Professor Roger Pertwee said that a system that legalises cannabis with very strict regulations 'could be the way forward'.
The Aberdeen University professor, who has dedicated the last four decades to researching the drug, said that the current prohibition clearly isn't working and feasible alternatives include producing branded products that undergo strict safety tests."


"But drug campaigners described the scheme as 'foolish'.
Mary Brett, of Europe Against Drugs, said it was impossible to predict who would react badly to the drug.
Questioning the practicalities of policing such a scheme, she said: 'We have been terrible at keeping alcohol away from kids. Why would we want to add to our misery?'"


Also in The Sun with comments.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/news/3136954/Licences-to-sell-and-smoke-cannabis-proposed-by-drug-expert.html
 
Last edited:
Mary Brett, of Europe Against Drugs, said it was impossible to predict who would react badly to the drug.
Click to expand...

erm… isn't this the same for every single drug? And probably every single thing put into the body?!
 
edgarshade said:
'We have been terrible at keeping alcohol away from kids. Why would we want to add to our misery?'"
]
Click to expand...

Welcome to existence!

Keep writing down stuff on pieces of paper while throwing adults into jail to make yourself a wholesome person, the drugs currently wait just as close out the door for your children as the booze. (Well, maybe a bit less in the UK lol.)


7zark7 said:
erm… isn't this the same for every single drug? And probably every single thing put into the body?!
Click to expand...


The universe seems like a gigantic chance machine set into "spacetime" at the occurrence of the Big Bang.

We don't know exactly how it works yet, make sure you don't take any level of risk, forget about relativity... make sure you stand still too!

I am glad realistic people are here to make news-goers smile about how chemicals no longer hurt people at the moment.
 
http://cannabisculture.com/v2/conte...Should-be-Licensed-and-Sold-Shops-Expert-Says


Cannabis Should be Licensed and Sold in Shops, Expert Says
By The Guardian - Tuesday, September 14 2010
Tags:


Leading cannabis researcher calls for legalisation with controls similar to alcohol and tobacco.

Cannabis for recreational use should be available in shops under similar restrictions to those used to control the sale of alcohol and tobacco, according to Britain's leading expert on the drug.

Under one scenario, people would be able to apply for a licence to buy cannabis products once they reach the age of 21, provided they have the approval of a doctor, he said.

The drug would be regulated by a body that ensures the quality and safety of the products before they go on sale.

A rethink of the laws surrounding cannabis and related products was necessary to take cannabis out of the hands of criminals, said Roger Pertwee, professor of neuropharmacology at Aberdeen University.

In the 1970s, Pertwee co-discovered THC, the active ingredient in cannabis.

Speaking ahead of a talk this week at the British Science Festival in Birmingham, Pertwee said: "In my view, we don't have an ideal solution yet to deal with recreational cannabis. We should consider licensing and marketing cannabis and cannabis products just as we do alcohol and tobacco.

"At the moment, cannabis is in the hands of criminals, and that's crazy. We're allowed to take alcohol, we're allowed to smoke cigarettes. Cannabis, if it's handled properly, is probably not going to be any more dangerous than that."

The government upgraded cannabis to a class B drug late last year against the advice of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs. The council's chairman, Professor David Nutt, was sacked after criticising the government's drugs policy, a move that prompted five others to resign in protest.
Advertisement

Possession of class B drugs, which include amphetamines, such as speed and barbiturates, carries a maximum penalty of five years in prison plus a fine. Dealing the drugs can lead to a 14-year prison sentence. The most recent Home Office figures show there are 158,000 convictions for cannabis possession a year.

Pertwee said he wanted to reopen the debate on cannabis, saying he favoured legalisation if the drug was well regulated. He added that healthier alternatives to smoking cannabis were available.

Outlawing the drug forced users to either grow it illicitly or buy it from an illegal dealer. "They have no idea what the composition is, what has been added to it, and they are at risk of being invited to take other drugs," he said.

Attempts to relax the ban on cannabis have been countered by concerns that it can cause schizophrenia in a minority of people who are susceptible to the condition. Pertwee said it might be possible for doctors to assess people's backgrounds and risk of mental health problems before allowing them to buy a cannabis licence.

"You would need a minimum age of 21, but I would go further: that you have to have a licence. You have to have a car licence, you have to have a dog licence; why not a cannabis licence, so you can only take it if it's medically safe for you to do so?" he said.

Nutt, who is a professor of neuropsychopharmacology at Imperial College London, said: "I welcome this attempt by the UK's leading expert on cannabis to bring rationality to the debate on its legal status.

"As cannabis is clearly less harmful than alcohol, criminalisation of people who prefer this drug is illogical and unjust. We need a new regulatory approach to cannabis. The Dutch coffee-shop model is one that has been proven to work but some of Professor Pertwee's new suggestions may well have extra benefits and should be actively debated."
 
Won't make the slightest bit of difference so long as Cameron is PM. There's no way he'd go for this.
 
very interesting idea it would be nice to see what the effects of making it legal would be.
 
33Hz said:
Won't make the slightest bit of difference so long as Cameron is PM. There's no way he'd go for this.
Click to expand...

I don't think Cameron is the main obstacle himself. If the Conservative party has voted for a particular approach and it's in their manifesto, and that's what they believe they were voted in to do, then the party leader will feel some obligation to show solidarity that outcome. It's not a show stopper, governments are forever changing course mid-term, but it's certainly one big dollop of inertia, especially for the Conservative party who make a big thing about sticking to their policies no matter what.

Currently no party supports legalisation of anything except the Green party.

I think the media have to change their reporting before the government change their policy. I've only been following the media with interest for a few weeks but I notice a change in direction, especially in publication that allow for reader comments. News papers are finding that legalisation is a hot topic that attracts lots of readers. They are also discovering that a sensational article about the failure of prohibition is more fresh than a boring sensational article trotting out the usual "right message".

What I noticed is lacking is a dependable source of comment for the media to use. Occasionally Transform or Prof Nutt make a press release but something a lot more rapid would be nice such as a take on every single news story or propaganda sound bite to make it perfectly clear that the problem is prohibition and not the people wanting to use drugs.

I don't know how it will happen but I think the media will lap it up if it is made easy for them by having a reputable charity with a very active press-release blog-roll they can depend on for comment from the "other-side" whenever some politician makes a brain-dead comment.
 
nopipesdfw said:
The universe seems like a gigantic chance machine set into "spacetime" at the occurrence of the Big Bang.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Someone who thinks like me!

Everything we do in life carries a risk; a probability that something we don't want to happen, will happen. This is why I am so against the use of words such as "safe" and "dangerous" when talking about drug use - and driving for that matter.
 
edgarshade said:
I don't think Cameron is the main obstacle himself.
Click to expand...

I have to agree with this. I personally believe that Cameron would prefer to be more liberal in his policies - but Cameron would lose the right (wing) of his party. If Cameron could some how cauterise that faction and bring in more LibDems to more towards the centre of the political spectrum, then we might see some loosening of the law.

…but, as you also rightly mention, the press would also be a barrier to a relaxing of the drug laws because they love a scandalous drug story that gets the "normal" people riled up.
 
edgarshade said:
I don't think Cameron is the main obstacle himself. If the Conservative party has voted for a particular approach and it's in their manifesto, and that's what they believe they were voted in to do, then the party leader will feel some obligation to show solidarity that outcome. It's not a show stopper, governments are forever changing course mid-term, but it's certainly one big dollop of inertia, especially for the Conservative party who make a big thing about sticking to their policies no matter what.

Currently no party supports legalisation of anything except the Green party.

I think the media have to change their reporting before the government change their policy. I've only been following the media with interest for a few weeks but I notice a change in direction, especially in publication that allow for reader comments. News papers are finding that legalisation is a hot topic that attracts lots of readers. They are also discovering that a sensational article about the failure of prohibition is more fresh than a boring sensational article trotting out the usual "right message".

What I noticed is lacking is a dependable source of comment for the media to use. Occasionally Transform or Prof Nutt make a press release but something a lot more rapid would be nice such as a take on every single news story or propaganda sound bite to make it perfectly clear that the problem is prohibition and not the people wanting to use drugs.

I don't know how it will happen but I think the media will lap it up if it is made easy for them by having a reputable charity with a very active press-release blog-roll they can depend on for comment from the "other-side" whenever some politician makes a brain-dead comment.
Click to expand...
great post. whenever drugs appear on the media, there is a 99% chance of epic facepalm... it's the case among drug users too, that marijuana users will be afraid of cocaine; that vicodin users will be afraid of heroin or cocaine; and most seem to be afraid of LSD. there are so many misconceptions about drugs firmly planted in so many heads it will take a long time, but i think we're slowly but surely increasing overall awareness
 
qwe said:
great post. whenever drugs appear on the media, there is a 99% chance of epic facepalm... it's the case among drug users too, that marijuana users will be afraid of cocaine; that vicodin users will be afraid of heroin or cocaine; and most seem to be afraid of LSD. there are so many misconceptions about drugs firmly planted in so many heads it will take a long time, but i think we're slowly but surely increasing overall awareness
Click to expand...

Thanks Que :-)

Looks like the propaganda about LSD has really worked on a lot of people. Whenever any news source mentions any psychedelic they always list the same negative effects; flashbacks, panic attacks, psychosis etc. It's like any positive effects have long since been forgotten, except in 60s and 70s music lyrics.

One thing that amuses me is that whenever mescaline is mentioned anywhere it is often described as being a "drug-induced psychosis". I remember reading Groff years ago and he explained that in the early days of psychedelic research the drugs effect was considered to be a "model psychosis" for the duration of the drugs effect. This theory was soon dropped since people who suffered psychosis reported the experience of the drugs to be quite different. Since mescaline was the first psychedelic to be studied the phrase, "model psychosis", seems to have stuck with it ever since. In fact, the mescaline experience is probably one of the more "grounded" experiences IMHO. Also research on religious peyote use has found that when used in that context there are "almost no acute or chronic emotional disturbance arising from peyote use".
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top