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…
And all the DU junkies go Yeah, that’s riiight, duuude…
Just like alcohol intake decreased after it was legalized. Today, practically no one drinks. Alcohol related accident do not exist anymore, they’re a thing of the past.
Although I’m sure you meant that to be facetious, in fact, you are correct.
Try looking up the per-capita consumption of liquor in the US around 1920 sometime. It’s MUCH MUCH less now.
#2 – pedro – Alcohol related accident do not exist anymore, they’re a thing of the past.
Geez… Get off the bong, pedro…
Does anyone here know the real reason the prohibtion on alcohol was repealed? MONEY. The federal government was out of money so they repealed prohibition for the taxes. I predict that when the federal government has driven our currency into the ground they will legalize pot …. to tax it.
The non stoner uses for pot are persuasive too; it’s a much more environmentally sound crop!
#3, UTH,
Do you have any numbers to disprove pedro’s statement? Or are you just pulling something out your butt and making others prove you wrong?
Probably gonna sound like a troll, but I’m serious. What about “adreniline junkies”? those goofballs who climb sheer rock cliffs, jump out of airplanes, ski, where nobody should ski, etc. These people bust themselves up, die, put others at risk trying to save them yet they are touted as “courageous” or “heroic”. My thought is, it’s your body, kill your fool self if you want to, but I don’t see how getting a rush from doing something stupid is any better or different from getting a rush from a substance. Yet you’ll see an ad from someone who is doing boneheaded stuff on a skateboard, whose body is full of pins and metal plates (from surgery, though the body “art” probably falls into the same category) saying “don’t do drugs!” when they are addicted to an adreniline rush.
Alcohol was decriminalized due to the Tax Revenues falling off during a period where our country was in a DEPRESSION.
The Government decided that with Alcohol Taxation gone, they ran out of revenue to feed all these other programs that were needed to assist in the recovery.
The same can be done for Cannabis. Imagine the revenue that a tax on a plant will create? Especially when it grows like a ‘weed’ and can live in most any climate in the USA?
Also, you have a source for Cellulosic Ethanol (without having to subsidize CORN) and other materials (Paper, Lumber, Oil, Food) all derived from the same crop.
It replenishes itself in 3 months, it adds to the soil rather than stripping elements away from it, and it would help clean the environment and the air (especially if EVERYONE grew their own).
Natures Miracle Plant. Yet, it is illegal.
What a Country.
Do you have any numbers to disprove pedro’s statement?
No, but the NIH does. http://tinyurl.com/2j2rnw
And the Cato Inst. (FWIW.) http://tinyurl.com/7xh4r
I hate tinyurl.
[If you use FireFox, there’s an add-on the will quickly create them for you. – ed.]
There are so many reasons to legalize drugs and so few to keep them illegal. The concern over drugs should be at the point at which victims of crime are created, not at the point at which there is no victim. Just as drunk driving is a crime (as is any other form of reckless endangerment) but drinking in and of itself is not, so should it be with all drugs. I think I’ve stated my detailed reasons for legalizing drugs enough times on this site that I’ll not do so again. Instead, if anyone is interested and has not read my opinion before, please go to my own post Let’s Win the War on Drug Lords where I have detailed my opinon, including a reference to a great old thread on this blog where I first laid it out in detail.
The short answer though is that our laws should be changed to reflect the basic fact that if there is no victim (or unreasonably high risk of victim in cases like drunk driving), the act should should not be a crime. Our jails are full of people jailed for victimless crimes. This is, at best silly, at worst criminal in itself as the victims are now the recreational drug users that have been imprisoned.
Pedro, there is a difference between “less” and “none”.
Of course, you are just being a smart ass and have no intent to discuss anything, and use retarded humor to tell a greater truth using false facts, right?
For people with brains: Risk of being caught is related to how hard the contraband is to hide. Whisky is more alcohol per gallon than beer, and has a higher value, so people refined the beer to make whiskey or gin. Once prohibition was repealed, drunkeness fell off because less potent booze was available.
Less drunkeness, less pain and suffering. Less profit, less criminal activity, and less pain and suffering.
Legislators recognizing that they were not making money on taxes they could be collecting probably played a role, but a convincing case can also be made that the juries of the day had the wit to realize that they were supposed to also be determining that a law was just or sensible, and were refusing to convict people who were plainly guilty.
IOW, “jury nullification”.
I can grow corn, tomatoes, roses, and tobacco in my backyard too, but I prefer to buy them. Most people do.
(Hell, I can make booze myself too, but I also prefer to buy it)
>>> I can grow corn, tomatoes, roses, and tobacco in my backyard too, but I prefer to buy them. Most people do.
>>> (Hell, I can make booze myself too, but I also prefer to buy it)
well, ya got me there, i guess legalizing pot really is a simple issue.
the funny thing is that the average pot smoker ain’t gonna do shit but sit there on their couch listening to pink floyd’s the wall while watching the wizard of oz or 2001 a space odyssey.
either way, i don’t expect much movement on this issue
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
btw, even holland is rolling back it’s liberal ways — magic mushrooms are coming off the menu
Seriously though, it soo true, ever since the decriminalized weed all the Tustafarians (think Rastafarian, but with a large trust fund and usually descended from aristocratic lines) have all been cutting their hair, forsaking their patchuli oil for CK, and trading their in broken down buses for SUVs. This country is now becoming unbearable. Its hard to even find a street performer these days ….
#12 – I hate tinyurl.
Because its so hard to use?
I never said it was a simple issue. I was only pointing out that at least one of your “facts” is nothing more than speculation.
Yet they seek to criminalize smoking tobacco.
Alcohol use did decline during prohibition, and I read it took decades to get back to the pre prohibition levels. Now people are saying we never got back there?
#21 – MikeN,
No one is criminalizing tobacco. The idea is just that I shouldn’t have to share your cigarette. I assume all the same rules will apply to marijuana, as they should to smoking any other substance, crack … opium … gasoline.
0. I think you meant the headline to be:
If You Increase Police Powers, Pot Use Declines — It Happened In Britain
From the story:
“The Home Office said yesterday the “widespread growing use” of police powers to issue street warnings was also a likely contributory factor to a 54% increase in cannabis seizures in 2005. The number of people dealt with each year by the police for possessing cannabis has doubled since the drug was downgraded.”
RBG
#12 This helps:
http://tinyurl.com/33atxn
#3. “Try looking up the per-capita consumption of liquor in the US around 1920 sometime”
If I remember correctly, booze in the 20’s was 60% alcohol and it had to be diluted to 40. No wonder they called it the Roaring 20s. With pot though, it used to be where one could smoke a whole baggie and just get hungry. Now, so I heard, a couple of drags and you’re flying with Puff the Magic Dragon to get a few pizzas. It’d be a 4 point game where legalizing pot would cut down on enforcement by millions of dollars and on the other end, create billions of dollars in revenue.
Tell me, who loses?
#25 – opposite ways
“Tell me, who loses?”
I’ll tell you – the authoritarian fascists who insist that they have the right to decide for you whether or not you choose to alter your own thought processes. You will think only in the manner they approve of, since they know that they’re right – total and complete lack of knowledge, experience and moral / intellectual humility notwithstanding. THAT’s who loses.
…oh, and of course the drug barons. Wouldn’t want them to suffer any loss of income. Every time enforcement is ramped up, their profits rise. Free enterprise at its best.
Lauren, you’re right of course. The losers are the pinheaded lawmakers who can’t see past their own noses and the drug barons, who are probably the pinheaded lawmakers.
So that means a few people lose but millions and millions win. One day maybe and after it all gets said and done, people will say “What was the big deal?”
#26 & 27,
Oh come on, you know there are more winners than that. What about the corporations that sell the DEA all of their equipment? What about the drug lords? What about the countries where the drugs are produced? What about the privatized prison industry? What about the DEA themselves? We wouldn’t want to put them all out of work now would we?
#29 pedro
MADD gets their rush from imposing their will on others!
…oh yeah, thx for reminding me, pedro
#9 – Dave
“I don’t see how getting a rush from doing something stupid is any better or different from getting a rush from a substance.”
“… saying “don’t do drugs!” when they are addicted to an adreniline rush.”
You make an excellent and valuable point. I’m surprised it never occurred to me, or anyone else I’m aware of, but you’re obviously right…
Ah, yes – MADD. Those wonderful folks who are not satisfied with responsiblity for the moranic, insane laws that prohibit people old enough to buy guns, serve in the military and get married from being allowed to buy Demon Rum – they want to eliminate all drinking, for all of us. I’ve heard a rumor that the country already tried that, a long time ago, and it was a fabulous success, so they think a rerun is sensible.
Whoaooo,
ALL British government and authority ‘statistics’ are fake.
Know it isn’t apparent to those who do not live here, but our governments fake and twist so called evidence in every field for which there is any kind of statistic. I’m not a conspiracy theorist or believer but the only Britishers who believe official figures are in hospitals for the criminally insane.
Officially our level of education is getting better. ALL universities are complaining that entrants are measurably below standards required, despite standards now being more flexible (i.e. lowered) than in previous years. Just two weeks ago our Chancellor of the Exchequer allegedly reduced taxes for the lower paid. ALL economists say this was BS they are actually £200 worse off.
Crime. Police authorities are paid more for reaching ‘Government Targets’ So. They simply do not investigate burglaries, assaults and much reported ‘crime’ in order to reach targets. So crime figures are lowered. We have ‘more policemen’ We do, they actually spend up to 80% of their time filling in paperwork – much authenticated figure from whistleblowers. If you do not investigate or pursue matters relating to Cannabis use then, logically, crime figures relating to cannabis offences go down. Our Official bodies have made statistical lies into an art form,
I’m not arguing the merits or demerits of any drug. Just making sure that you should never trust ANY figure from our officials or governments. Nothing to do with political beliefs whatsoever.
Don’t believe me? Just read our British newspapers, any of them.
#33. Norman Speight ALL British government and authority ’statistics’ are fake.
In fairness to Old Blighty, its not just British government stats that are dodgey…… 😀