Cannabis use down since legal change
Gordon Brown’s plans to tighten the law on cannabis by increasing the penalties for possession suffered a fresh blow yesterday as the latest official figures showed the decision to downgrade the drug had been followed by a significant fall in its use.
British Crime Survey statistics showed that the proportion of 16- to 24-year-olds using cannabis slumped from 28% a decade ago to 21% now, with its declining popularity accelerating after the decision to downgrade the drug to class C was announced in January 2004.
The decline in cannabis consumption prompted a call from the independent UK Drugs Policy Commission to take decisions about drug classification out of the hands of ministers. Dame Ruth Runciman, the commission’s chief, said: “We do not believe the credibility of the current system or the clarity of message has been enhanced when, in just the space of seven years, five home secretaries have sought one way or another to address the classification of cannabis.”
So, is she saying that politicians create drug laws and policies for political reasons without regard to whether they work, are needed or have detrimental effects? You don’t suppose that happens in other areas, too…
BTW, that wacky weed is now “California’s most valuable agricultural crop”. So, if we legalize it, use will decline, and the growing and selling of it can be taxed. What do you say, politicians? We know how you love your tax money! And, if we start exporting it, we help the trade deficit and…
#30, Dave
Hhmm, so information campaigns to save lives is now considered “imposing their will on others”.
Oopps, I almost missed it. Their advocating stronger penalties for drunk driving is getting in the way of your driving while shit faced out of your mind. Yes, your “right” to get behind the wheel and kill people is much more important than anyone else’s life.
#30 Fusion
“drunk driving is getting in the way of your driving while shit faced out of your mind”
I don’t think anybody is for drunk driving but, big difference between driving drunk and .08, it ain’t about getting drunks off the road it’s about control over a population who likes alcohol and own cars. It’s an industry that makes a crap load of money. Everybody knows somebody who has died in an auto accident, they are dangerous as hell, probably the most dangerous thing any of us do is drive from point A to point B. Get somebody with an agenda, say a modern temperance society, to manipulate the numbers and in a population that loves alcohol it looks like we have an epidemic. I think it’s dangerous to drive with hair on your head, I bet if you ran the numbers you would find 90% of all accidents involve somebody with hair on their head. I’m forming BAHHD, Baldies Against Hairy Headed Drivers, if we can get those people with hair on their heads off the road the number of accidents will go way down.
Ah-ha I’m learning, who the trolls are around here, pedro starts this rant against MADD then plays both sides of it;
“#9 I’m sure MADD is 100% in agreement with you.
Comment by pedro — 10/26/2007 @ 4:20 pm ”
#37 – Dave,
I don’t know exactly what the right level is to consider someone too drunk to drive. I’d bet it varies from induhvidual to induhvidual. However, if a cop pulls you over for a sobriety check and your BAL is 0.08, it’s a good bet that that was too high for you.
What really bugs me about your post, however, is that you were presumably sober when you wrote it and actually thought about that. This is not a case where someone drinks a bit too much at a bar, has no other way to get home, and makes a bad decision to drive him/herself home.
What you have is essentially premeditated drunk driving. Even when you’re sober, you think it’s OK.
FSM forbid that you ever actually hurt or kill someone in this way, I hope they track this post down to you and raise the charge to premeditated murder or whatever the highest charge they can legitimately charge you with is. Your morals on the subject are abhorrent and despicable.
That said, whatever the number is should be based on the most sound science and statistics that we have. I believe this is why it was brought down from 0.1 to 0.08. It turns out that driving does take a lot of attention. Even a cell phone turns out to seriously impair driving ability.
>essentially premeditated drunk driving. Even when you’re sober,
What does this mean?
There is little evidence that .08 is drunken. Even one drink can cause that level for some people. The real problem is these checkpoints where all drivers are checked with breathalyzers. If a cop pulls you over for driving poorly, then it really doesn’t matter what the legal level is, that’s a legit basis for a drunken driving charge.
#41 – MikeN,
So how would you determine an acceptable level? As you point out, some people get too drunk from one drink.
Those of you who haven’t used drugs can just shut the hell up right now. Those of you who can’t control themselves on drugs/alcohol can also shut the hell up, and don’t be a user.
For the rest of us, who like getting f’ed up, it’s better to smoke pot than drink alcohol. It’s easier to predict dosage, and the effects come on and wear off significantly faster.
I think THC is kept illegal because of something I’ve observed: people who smoke it tend to be rebellious. The “founding fathers”; Washington, Jefferson, and others in the group – they were “hemp farmers”, and you damn well know they were pot smokers, too. They rebelled against their king and government (Britain).
You get more pot smokers in the USA, you’ll end up with a more pissed off populace than we currently have, and the gubment can’t have that. So, it’ll remain illegal, unfortunately.
Now go get drunk. It works for Bush and Kennedy – I mean, what’s the worst that can happen? You’ll kill somebody with your car, or start an unjustified war…
#31, Lauren;
You’re right. Very rarely are there insightful and intelligent comments on any internet site.
#9 Dave had a great point, that’s for sure.
#40, Scott;
Errr, I think you misinterpreted Dave’s post. Or am I missing something?
#44;
No, great logic is cherry picking a few instances and extrapolating conclusions out of that limited sample data.
As long as rich and powerfull CEOs and such are around great ideas and innovations will be squelched so they can keep making millions.