Agree, does raise some questions about agenda!!!Weird bounce on a 3 year old thread. Also a weird account, created 5 years ago but only has 4 posts in the last week
Agree, does raise some questions about agenda!!!Weird bounce on a 3 year old thread. Also a weird account, created 5 years ago but only has 4 posts in the last week
Isn't it decriminalised in Portugal? Quite a big difference to being legal.Isn't it legalised by default anyway, at least in Brighton? I can't go out without smelling skunk - more than in Portugal - where it really IS legal?
Legalise it. If alcohol is legal, which it obviously is, it is absurd that it is considered criminal to smoke a spliff or two.
The US has collected $19bn in taxes (for the states where it's legal), so it can definitely work financially."raise untold taxes"
Therein lies the problem IMO. If it is taxed highly, then the illegal market will still persist as it would still be cheaper. We see illegal alcohol and tobacco sales because governments impose so high duty / taxation rates.
Tobacco Products Duty rates
www.gov.uk
What would be the point of legalisation only to impose tax and duty rates that would make it unaffordable compared to illegal sources? You are just back to square one; people would buy from illegal sources because it would be cheaper.
I think rippleman was commenting specifically on some views that see legalisation as a tax bonanza. Any tax rate would have to be set very carefully to avoid the illegal supply framework undercutting the legal supply, which leaves us back at square 1. If the US is picking up decent tax returns it appears that they have pitched it sensibly.The US has collected $19bn in taxes (for the states where it's legal), so it can definitely work financially.
So you know that the illegal supply has been eliminated then?The US has collected $19bn in taxes (for the states where it's legal), so it can definitely work financially.
Out of interest, do you think that as there are people that speed, speed limits on roads should be removed or, in view that there are still rapes, the law against rape should be repealed etc etc.
Also, how long after smoking cannabis do you think you should be allowed to drive?
In Canada the legal supply FAR outweighs the illegal supply. Once weed is legalised the production cost plummets to a level where even a 20% tax makes legal weed cheaper than illegal weed. This is because economies of scale means it's cheaper to produce weed legally then illegally. Anyone growing weed illegally on a scale that can compete on price with the legal growers are easy to identify and shut down.So you know that the illegal supply has been eliminated then?
Two years on from my original post in this thread and I remain in the "legalise / decriminalise" camp.
So the answer is no then! Legal alcohol in this country far outweighs illegal hooch but it is not eliminated. With weed, what strength level would be legal? And there would still be the illegal trade for stuff stronger.In Canada the legal supply FAR outweighs the illegal supply. Once weed is legalised the production cost plummets to a level where even a 20% tax makes legal weed cheaper than illegal weed. This is because economies of scale means it's cheaper to produce weed legally then illegally. Anyone growing weed illegally on a scale that can compete on price with the legal growers are easy to identify and shut down.
Taken from this site. https://drugdrivingsolicitors.co.uk/how-long-after-smoking-weed-can-i-drive/You’ve got that speed analogy the wrong way round. To be a fair analogy, at present driving would be completely banned at any speed, all driving would be illegal, and what’s being proposed as a change would be state permitted driving with rules and regulations in place.
There are simple saliva tests that show whether an individual is currently intoxicated, and I would argue that you would need at least eight hours to be certain of not being intoxicated, but would bow to experienced pharmacologists superior knowledge.