Cannabis seeds

Cannabis seeds

Didn't find your answer?

Someone phoned me the other day and said he was looking for an accountant to help him with his new business selling cannabis seeds. He was going to import them from Holland and sell them as "souvenirs" or for genetic testing. Believe it or not, it is apparently perfectly legal in this country to sell cannabis seeds (or hemp as he called them) so long as you don't grow them into plants or give any advice on germination. In fact, there is already a firm called Attitude Seeds doing this. He reckoned it was just the same as garden centres selling hydroponic equipment for growing tomatoes indoors. Everyone knows what they are really for, he said.

I phoned the ACCA for advice. They said it was OK to act for him provided it didn't bring the accountancy profession into disrepute. Thanks a lot guys - that was a big help! I ended up turning him down. I said that unless his main clients were buying them for industrial use, or he did something to render the seeds unusable as drugs (maybe roasting them like peanuts) I couldn't take the chance.

Was I being a bit unfair or would other members have done the same?

Chris

Replies (125)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

By mwngiol
11th Jan 2011 14:59

CD

"Legalising canabis would have the same effects that legal drinking has, namely drivers not fit to drive with the accompanying danger to everyone else.

I once saw a study which said that at any time one in every ten drivers is unfit to drive through drink or drugs. Do we really want to add to that percentage, which is what would happen if canabis was legalised ?"

So are you saying that alcohol should be illegal too? Or are you saying that only so many drugs should be legal at any one time? Because if you are then I'd legalise cannabis rather than alcohol any day. Might be interesting to see how many motor accidents there are in Holland per year compared to other countries though!

I think the main difference (along with many other lesser ones I'm sure!) between us is that you seem to think that something should be banned unless there is a very good reason to legalise it, whereas I believe things should be legal unless there is a very good reason to ban it.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By carnmores
11th Jan 2011 15:22

interesting take C_D

would it be alright if drug users took out private medical insurance then - what a delicious irony

Thanks (0)
avatar
By chatman
11th Jan 2011 15:23

"On this basis then suicide would be legal ?"

It is, isn't it?

Thanks (0)
avatar
By andypartridge
11th Jan 2011 16:05

Suicide legal?

Only since 1961. But that's comparatively recent in C_D's world. Sorry C_D ;)

-- Kind regards Andy

Edit - Obviously, aiding and abetting someone else's suicide isn't an act of suicide! C_D, you need a holiday!

Thanks (0)
avatar
By cymraeg_draig
11th Jan 2011 16:08

Suicide
"On this basis then suicide would be legal ?"

It is, isn't it?

 

Posted by chatman on Tue, 11/01/2011 - 15:23

 

It was illegal until 1961 when the Suicide Act removed the threat of prosecution of those whose attempts failed. However, that Act states - "A person who aids, abets, counsels or procures the suicide of another, or attempt by another to commit suicide shall be liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years". This has been interpreted very widly, including simply leaving tablets where the deceased could reach them etc.

As it is an act which can have traumatic effects on others, then there is some justification for its criminalisation.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By carnmores
11th Jan 2011 16:33

so its not illegal then?

the DPP Keir Starmer issued new guidelines at the front end of last year re asssited suicides following the H of L decision

Thanks (0)
avatar
By chatman
11th Jan 2011 17:31

So suicide is not illegal.

Assisting a suicide may be, but that is not the same thing. 

Thanks (0)
Teignmouth
By Paul Scholes
12th Jan 2011 11:40

Alcohol is a drug

Perhaps if we all agree with the above and that (after the USA's disasterous experience in the 1920s) it would be equally disasterous to attempt to prohibit its use today then I fail to see why other drugs should not be treated in exacly the same way as we treat this one.

We have had decades now of attempting to prohibit the use of other drugs with disasterous results, ie higher drug use, higher crime, higher health spending, increasing family and community disfunction etc etc.

So if legalising alcohol with penalties for its misuse is seen to be the best policy why don't we do the same with all drugs?  It's just a question of degree, ie making sure we restrict the supply as necessary and, as others have said, impose tough laws on misuse that can or could lead to harm to others.

The dichotomy between the treatment of alcohol & other drugs exists because the former has been around for so long in our society and, because of prohibition, there is a huge chunk of the population who have never experienced other drugs like canabis and who therefore fear it rather than realise that, as with alcohol, if treated with respect, it is no more harmful.  So, as with operating without timesheets, don't knock it till you've tried it!

Thanks (0)
avatar
By cymraeg_draig
12th Jan 2011 11:55

I disagree Paul

if treated with respect, it is no more harmful.   Posted by Paul Scholes on Wed, 12/01/2011 - 11:40

 

I disagree.  Alcohol is only harmful if abused - ie excessive drinking.

Canabis on the other hand is harmful at all levels of use as it causes mental health problems, even a "one off" use can be sufficient.

Thanks (0)
Teignmouth
By Paul Scholes
12th Jan 2011 12:51

I never doubted you would

After 30 odd years (some more odd than others) I talk from experience, but I'll let others judge over my mental health.

The various experts are still out, and no doubt will always be, over the harm or not of any drug be it alcohol, canabis or asprin.  Life (thank goodness) is risky, so just take care.

Thanks (0)
Teignmouth
By Paul Scholes
12th Jan 2011 12:56

I never doubted you would PS

CD - you take one phrase for the purpose of disagreement, how about the other 95%?

Thanks (0)
avatar
By chatman
12th Jan 2011 14:38

"Canabis ... is harmful at all levels of use as it causes mental

Is this true?  Where did you hear it? 

The problem with alcohol (and, in fact, all drugs, including chocolate and even food) is that some people can not use it without abusing it.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By chatman
12th Jan 2011 14:46

"The various experts are still out, and no doubt will always be,

Actually the experts are almost unanimous. It is the politicians who disagree with them.  When Professor Nutt got sacked from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs for disagreeing with that well-known scientist and drug expert Alan Johnson, his successor had to change his public view on cannabis before being allowed to take up the post.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By carnmores
12th Jan 2011 17:22

interestingly the Evening Standard

reported today that prostutues are to be taxed in Holland -  'coffee shops' are legal they pay tax so it seems only fair!  - how may other countries have some sort of tax on drug use?

Thanks (0)
avatar
By carnmores
12th Jan 2011 17:24

and one other thing

if everything is properly declared at Customs on import why the worry - the authorities do not seem to be

Thanks (0)
avatar
By andypartridge
12th Jan 2011 17:45

Two camps

Is it fair to suggest that users will say it's OK and non-users will say it isn't, or is that too simplistic?

-- Kind regards Andy

Thanks (0)
avatar
By cymraeg_draig
12th Jan 2011 18:02

Danger
"Canabis ... is harmful at all levels of use as it causes mental health problems, even a "one off" use can be sufficient"

Is this true?  Where did you hear it? 

 

Posted by chatman on Wed, 12/01/2011 - 14:38

 

According to expert witnesses I've encountered canabis is more dangerous that heroin or tobacco or alcohol. They say that the first "joint" you smoke could be the one that causes irrepperable brain damage.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Roland195
12th Jan 2011 18:04

I'm with Paul

Without going into the rights & wrongs, I agree that the disparity in views and status of the legal drugs - alcohol, tobacco, caffeine etc against the various illegal ones is illogical. 

Personally, I have experienced far more crime & anti-social behaviour resulting from alcohol use than I have ever knowlingly have done from  illegal drugs use. I have know alcoholics but again to my knowledge do not know a junkie and have known many people who have died from smoking related illnesses but none related to drug use.

 

 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By cymraeg_draig
12th Jan 2011 18:57

A few facts

Personally, I have experienced far more crime & anti-social behaviour resulting from alcohol use than I have ever knowlingly have done from  illegal drugs use. I have know alcoholics but again to my knowledge do not know a junkie and have known many people who have died from smoking related illnesses but none related to drug use.

Posted by Roland195 on Wed, 12/01/2011 - 18:04

 

 

80% of burglaries are to fund drug habits.

Similarly street thefts/robbery.

99% of prostitutes are "working" to feed a drug habit.

If you mix with a cross section of society then it is almost certain that 1 in 10 of your aquaintances is an addict - drug addiction can go for years undetected by others. 

The first drink doesnt cause severe damage - the first "joint" can cause mental illness later in life. 

Tests have shown that drivers smoking canabis are more likely to have an accident than drinkers at three times the drink-drive limit. Thios is because drinkers coordination is affected, whereas canabis smokers coordination is affected AND they lose all fear of accidents and tend to drive at high speed.

 

 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By chatman
12th Jan 2011 19:38

Two Camps

 @ Andy Partridge

That is probably true to a large extent; either people don't do drugs because they think it is wrong, and therefore no-one should do them, or people do not mind things being banned if it is not going to affect them.

On the other hand, there are people like me, who do not drink, smoke (anything) or do heroin, who think it should all be legal for reasons already given above by other posters.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By chatman
12th Jan 2011 19:49

"canabis smokers ... tend to drive at high speed."

This is, without a doubt, incorrect, as anyone with any familiarity with cannabis knows. My evidence is only anecdotal, but there is a lot of it! People who have been smoking cannabis feel like they are zooming along when, in fact, they are going very slow.

As an example (not evidence, as one case is insufficient), I know someone who got stopped by the police on the motorway. He thought he might have crept over the speed limit - until they told him they had stopped him for doing 30mph!

I know of no evidence to suggest that cannabis increases risk-taking behaviour.

People on cocaine drive too fast (and feel much braver), so that might be a better one to cite in an argument against drugs. On the other hand, it does not adversely affect co-ordination, so maybe not.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By chatman
12th Jan 2011 19:56

"The first drink doesnt cause severe damage - the first "joint"

I was amazed to hear this the first time (further up this thread), as I have never heard it before. I have just had a look on the internet and cannot find this effect anywhere.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By chatman
12th Jan 2011 20:11

Where do these statistics come from?

80% of burglaries are to fund drug habits.

Similarly street thefts/robbery.

99% of prostitutes are "working" to feed a drug habit.

If you mix with a cross section of society then it is almost certain that 1 in 10 of your aquaintances is an addict - drug addiction can go for years undetected by others.  

==========================================================

These percentages seem very rounded (except the 99%, but you know what I mean).

Alcohol addiction can also go for years without being detected but anyway, if the addiction can go for years without being detected, how much of a problem is it?

Another thing we have here is the tendency to group all illegal drugs together (and to exclude legal ones); whilst I am sure people steal to buy heroin, I would be surprised if anyone had ever stolen to buy weed or ecstasy, as they just don't make you feel like that. Equally, I am sure there are some people who would not steal if they had not spent all their money on alcohol and cigarettes (or sweets or ten billion TV channels or anything else you can get addicted to).

Thanks (0)
avatar
By cymraeg_draig
12th Jan 2011 22:32

Stats
Where do these statistics come from?

These percentages seem very rounded (except the 99%, but you know what I mean).

 

Posted by chatman on Wed, 12/01/2011 - 20:11

 

The statistics come from years and years of dealing with addicts in the courts, and the 99% comes from first hand knowledge gained in our charity involvement.

The observations regarding canabis' effect on drivers is from a scientific study carried out for the Association of Chief Police Officers.

Perhaps you should question some of the anecdotal evidence (gossip) which you quote.

The simple fact is that any drug (and I include alcohol) which affects or alters the mind, is potentially dangerous.  Canabis, unlike most other drugs actually builds up as a toxin in the body,and is, therefore, extremely dangerous.  Unfortunately there is a vociferous if misguided lobby for its legalisation which seeks to talk down its dangers.   

Not only in my view should it remain illegal, it should be recatagorised as a Class A drug and possession of any amount whatsoever should carry automatic imprisonment of at least 2 years. 

  

Thanks (0)
Teignmouth
By Paul Scholes
12th Jan 2011 23:03

Statistics are useless in this debate

XX% of prostitution & burglaries are to feed drug habits....so what's your point?  Are you saying that it shows that drug addiction is a harmful thing because it results in all this extra crime?  If so then all you are doing is "staing the bleedin obvious" and all others have to do is quote stats to illustrate that the social and financial damage from alcohol and tobacco misuse far outweighs the damage done by drug misuse.  Typical politician stuff, a war of stats, with nothing being done.

Stepping outside the box, why do people commit crime to feed their addiction?  Might it be that the stuff is only available from criminals and that, in many cases, its price is way beyond the user's pocket or purse or that the suppliers, being criminals, use their power to manipulate the users into crime thus providing them with more than just the price of a score?

Maybe it's just the ressult of my failing mental health after nearly 40 year's of tax returns but it seems "bleedin obvious" to me that we need to remove criminals from the drug supply chain, handing over the supply to properly licenced authorities taxing the supply with the money raised being used to fund policing, education and drug rehabilitation programmes.  As is the nature of these things it would not work perfectly but it would stand more of a chance of starting to reduce the problem than continued crimialisation that has only increased the problem.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By chatman
12th Jan 2011 23:22

"Perhaps you should question some of the anecdotal evidence (gos

It is anecdotal because I have witnessed it myself, but have not conducted any statistical analysis, not because it is gossip. I see no reason to question it.

I am not going to make allegations of "gossip", but I am reluctant to place reliance on statistics that cannot be backed up by a reputable and verifiable source, especially when they are exactly 80%, 99% etc. and I would seriously question the credibility of an "expert" witness who says that cannabis makes people drive faster and take more risks. This is so patently untrue that I should really not need to have to quote the following finding of the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology which says precisely the opposite, especially in relation to the comparison with alcohol made at the same time in this thread:

" the impairment in driving skills does not appear to be severe, even immediately after taking cannabis, when subjects are tested in a driving simulator. This may be because people intoxicated by cannabis appear to compensate for their impairment by taking fewer risks and driving more slowly, whereas alcohol tends to encourage people to take greater risks and drive more aggressively."  http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199798/ldselect/ldsctech/151/15105.htm

It is a great concern if people are being sentenced in the courts based on such "expert" evidence.

To be fair though, the way drugs are reported in the press, I can easily see why someone with no contact with drug users could believe that cannabis turns people into crazed, thieving, speeding psychos with a single puff, when in fact it turns them into couch potatoes with an overly developed sense of humour and a penchant for snack food.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By cymraeg_draig
12th Jan 2011 23:35

chatman

To be fair though, the way drugs are reported in the press, I can easily see why someone with no contact with drug users could believe that cannabis turns people into crazed, thieving, speeding psychos with a single puff.

 

Posted by chatman on Wed, 12/01/2011 - 23:22

 

I think over 30 years in the criminal courts gives me a fairly good personal insight, and I have defended enough drug addicts (including canabis users) to see for myself the damage it causes. Having been very heavily involved in a charity helping the homeless and sex workers for almost all my adult life (including having pimps threaten me with guns and knives on many occasion) I think I have a good idea of the role drugs play in that area too. I certainly dont need to rely on the press, or on propoganda by either side.  I speak from a lifetime of personal observation.

 

 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By chatman
13th Jan 2011 00:27

C_D

I apologise. Clearly someone with lots of contact with drug users could still believe that cannabis turns people into crazed, thieving, speeding psychos with a single puff.

I am glad that your personal experience is enough for you make these decisions. I am not so competent, and as you have pointed out, my personal experience is merely gossip. I am therefore forced to rely on expert scientific opinion instead.

I take it the cannabis-and-driving issue is no longer disputed.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By chatman
13th Jan 2011 00:51

"Statistics are useless in this debate"

I wouldn't say they are useless, but they need to be relevant, as you have pointed out, and they need to be have been obtained from a study by a reputable body. If I say 86% of drug users I have seen turn green and grow an extra arm, then this statistic is useless in this or any other debate. However, if I quote a study from a reputable university (for example) that says the same thing, this could be quite useful and would add credibility to any claim I might make about the turning-green/third-arm thing.

I do think that a proper evidence-based approach to discussions on AWeb would improve it massively.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By cymraeg_draig
13th Jan 2011 10:41

Sarcasm ?
C_D I apologise. Clearly someone with lots of contact with drug users could still believe that cannabis turns people into crazed, thieving, speeding psychos with a single puff.

I am glad that your personal experience is enough for you make these decisions. I am not so competent, and as you have pointed out, my personal experience is merely gossip. I am therefore forced to rely on expert scientific opinion instead.

I take it the cannabis-and-driving issue is no longer disputed.

 

Posted by chatman on Thu, 13/01/2011 - 00:27

 

You seem to be trying to convince yourself that canabis is acceptable. Your sarcasm is noted, and does you no favours. I wonder what experience & contact you have with the judicial system and the criminal fraternity which gives you such an insight. Whatever it is, you obviously know more than someone who has spend a mere 30+ years in regular contact with the legal system and 40 years of charity involvement helping addicts.  

As previously stated I quote from established statistics and from the testimony given on many occasions under oath by various experts in the field.

The simple fact is that, whether you "approve" or not, canabis is illegal, it is a crime to possess it, and anyone who uses it is a criminal. For a professional person that of course should lead to immediate disbarment.

Another fact is that canabis use is known to cause permanent brain damage.

The "liberal" attitude that misnamed "soft" drugs should be legalised is totally misguided. The arguement that we can't stamp it out is spurious and by the same flawed logic one could argue that shoplifting and other "minor" offences should be legalised.

What is needed is a more robust detection system and anyone shown to use or have used any so called recreational drug should face immediate incarceration until such time as they are clear of their addiction.

 

 

 

Thanks (0)
By Becky Midgley
13th Jan 2011 10:33

From a member of the (not so vociferous) lobby

So here's the thing, I can't not respond anymore even though I know I should resist this urge...

I can confirm, from personal experience, that smoking the odd joint in my teens did not reduce my fear of accidents or indeed make me do anything fast, rather as Chatman says, it made us more inclined not to go out but instead stay home, safe and sound, watching movies, listening to music and eating large quantities of crisps. The effects of the crisps have caused me more health damage I can assure you!

We did not pose any threat to society; we all had jobs or were in college/uni; did not ever steal to 'fund our habit'; did not take risks; did not end up as heroin addicts; did not put people in harms way; and have all grown up to be sound of mind without criminal records and good jobs.

CD, you may have had 30 years' experience in courts, and I am not in anyway trying to undermind that, but I do speak from experience also (and indeed not gossip) when I say that a member of my family is an alcoholic. Has been for years, even though none of us had a clue for long enough. They take risks beyond those I could ever rationalise and they don't even see the risk; they do not contribute to society, are on benefits; take up tax-payers money in counselling and benefits; and spend what money they do get given by the state on booze as opposed to paying their bills for example. Our lives have been ruined and their health is in tatters; their children, lucky to get through each day. I don't need to rely on the press or scientists to see who causes more social damage (for want of a better phrase).

Alcohol, in my belief and experience, is more harmful than cannabis to everyone involved and should be better regulated and managed.

Thanks (0)
By mwngiol
13th Jan 2011 10:50

CD

"What is needed is a more robust detection system and anyone shown to use or have used any so called recreational drug should face immediate incarceration until such time as they are clear of their addiction."

Hmm I'm not sure I fancy a 40p basic rate of tax to fund building all the extra prisons that would be needed to incarcerate all these people.

It's only right though that recreational cannabis users be incarcerated. How dare they sit at home eating crisps and laughing when they should be out fighting, intimidating passers-by and vomiting all over pavements like respectable alcohol users.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By cymraeg_draig
13th Jan 2011 11:34

mwngiol

 

Firstly it would not require a rise in taxation as whilst costing money to "treat" these addicts, there would be a saving to the NHS by not having to treat them for the mental illness their addiction inevitably leads to. In any case addicts could be fined sufficient to pay for their own treatment.

As for those who abuse alcohol, did I say anywhere that I approve of their behaviour?  Again it is a criminal offence to be drunk in a public place, and this again is an area where zero tolerance should be applied.  

 

Thanks (0)
By mwngiol
13th Jan 2011 11:49

CD

I find it ridiculous that you would wish to see someone sent to prison for an activity which does no harm to anyone but themselves. And the huge, vast majority don't even harm themselves (personal opinion based on the fact that I know a very large number of people who have used cannabis regularly for years and yet I don't know a single person who has mental health problems. Interestingly I also know significantly more people who use cannabis than I do people who vote Tory or read the Daily Fail!)

I am 34 years old and for every single one of those years, cannabis has been illegal in this country and yet in each of those years cannabis use has increased and indeed more people use it now than ever (according to any 'war on drugs' documentary shown on tv). Sounds like a very unsuccessful policy to me.

Legalising it would save the police time and resources which could be re-allocated to chasing after terrorists and poppy-burners. I thought you'd approve.

Thanks (0)
By mwngiol
13th Jan 2011 11:54

Let's ban everything!

"Tobacco, alcohol, the whole shooting match.  These sad losers with their nast dependencies and addictions all cost the rest of us a fortune, funding the NHS!"

Are you going to add cars with their horrible emissions causing asthma etc to that list? How about calories and the cost to the NHS of heart disease? Ban sports too, it's shameful that taxpayers should pay for NHS treatment for sporting injuries.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By andypartridge
13th Jan 2011 12:02

I wonder if . . .

The reason why so many (illegal) drug users take them in the privacy of their own home is because it is illegal or socially unacceptable?

My own view (and I have led a very sheltered life) is that legalisation would, over time, make drug taking more socially acceptable and we would soon see the affects of this on the streets. I do believe that there is a quiet majority who do not wish to break the law and it is the knowledge that they would be breaking the law that prevents some people from experimenting.

I agree that the use of alcohol does, of course, create unpleasantness in and harm to society. The argument that, therefore, other drugs that cause no more harm should be legalised seem strange to me if it can be demonstrated that the harm to society would be in danger of increasing. As Northern Europeans we are not good at treating alcohol with respect, unlike Mediterranean Europe who tend not to have the same social problems with it. I have never been found drunk in possession of a sherry trifle and would not wish to be up before a magistrate on suspicion of having eaten one.

Overall I would opt for maintaining the status quo in the cannabis debate which on a practical level appears to allow people to do as they please in the privacy of their own homes but not to bring it on to the street.

 -- Kind regards Andy

Thanks (0)
By mwngiol
13th Jan 2011 12:47

Andy

You might want to edit your post because you seem to have forgotten to say anything ridiculous!

All I'd say in response would be that in respect of cannabis, I'm not sure what you think the results on the streets would be? There would be no increase in crime or violence or anti-social behaviour. The only effect I can think of is that people would be smoking it on the street? Quite possible but I'd much rather smell the occasional whiff of a joint as I walk around town than smell cigarettes!!

You say you'd rather maintain the status quo and that's perfectly valid but, and admittedly I am naturally liberal, I don't think anything at all should be banned without very good reason and I'm yet to hear a good reason for cannabis being illegal. It's not that it's 'no more harmful' than alcohol but it is less harmful (especially if you think of harmful in terms of the overall effect on the user and other people), and if it's eaten or drank then it is much less harmful than tobacco.

Thanks (0)
Teignmouth
By Paul Scholes
13th Jan 2011 12:48

Brakes on for a bit

CD - can I make the observation that just repeating that it's a criminal activity and therefore should be treated as such is of no use to the debate, I and others are making considered suggestions as to why the current means of control is not working and what else might be an option. 

Maybe the degree is a bit questionable but much of what you say is fact but it seems as though, because of your long and intensive involvement, you find it hard to step back and look at it with new eyes and, unless someone in authority is able to do this, we are destined to fight a battle that can not be won.

Going back to basic this is all about addiction and how to manage it and, as has been said above, we can apply the same thought processes to all addictive drugs/chemicals, gambling, obesity, greed in general and in the case of my dog, slippers! 

All forms of addiction will end up causing grief of some kind and we have all had our say at the relative degrees of harm.  So what do we do about it/them?

With things like alcohol, tobacco, gambling & even junk food they have been around for so long that to attempt to control them by outright banning & criminalisation is clearly stupid (USA 1920s) so we take a half way approach and bring in laws to control their manufacture and/or supply, but what about new addictions?

A case in point are the growing number of prescription drugs that are being used for non-medical purposes.  These are mainly painkillers and drugs like Ritalin (for kids with ADHD).  They are addictive and give highs similar to cocaine and amphetines.  There are alternative non-addictive therapies but how do you control the addictive ones that clearly are of help to some in manageable quantities?

Do you ban their use and criminalise them?  If so they will still be available, the chemicals to manufacture them are still there, there is a demand from people who love their effects and so the only suppliers will be criminals, and here we go again.

This was the choice that faced us in the 40s, 50s & 60s and we chose the above route, were we right?  Could we have been less knee-jerk?  I think we could and that it's time to undo the harm we have perpetuated.

Thanks (0)
By cfield
13th Jan 2011 13:02

Prison?

I see this thread is now far removed from the original question I posed, which was should we act for people selling cannabis seeds as souvenirs, and has de-generated into the usual debate about whether the drug should be legalised along with the usual comparisons with alcohol. In gerenral I agree with Andy in his last post in that the status quo should be maintained. Paul makes a compelling case for legally controlling cannabis and funding it with taxes but I'm sure the criminal gangs will give up on such a profitable business so easily. In practice I think it would quite difficult to control.  Why should the current users and dealers agree to subject themselves to taxes and controls when they already operate with pretty much no interference? Tobacco is taxed so much now that many people simply buy smuggled cigarettes in pubs. Why should cannabis be any different?

I would like to pick up on a couple of points CD made. In what seems a lifetime ago, he wondered why accountants should take a moral stance on which clients to represent when legal practitioners do not. I think the answer is that accountants no longer have professional privelege under the MLR rules and face difficult decisions with potentially severe consequences for both themselves and their clients if they get it wrong. I do not wish to be filing suspicious activity reports every 5 minutes on "dodgy" clients or lying awake in bed at night worrying if I might be arrested for not reporting someone when I should. Best to avoid these people altogether.

Secondly, I was shocked at his assertion that recreational drug users should be sent to prison. Did I read him say that he represents drug users in court? Sounds a bit like Hitler representing Jewish people accused of not wearing a yellow star or breaking the Nuremberg laws. Before CD or anyone else reacts furiously to that, I'm not saying he's a [***] or even has extreme right wing views. It just sounds a bit strange that someone who believes that should even want to represent drug users. I bet some of his clients in court would be shocked to know that he thinks they should be incarcerated.

Chris

 

Thanks (0)
By mwngiol
13th Jan 2011 13:14

Chris

"Why should the current users and dealers agree to subject themselves to taxes and controls when they already operate with pretty much no interference? Tobacco is taxed so much now that many people simply buy smuggled cigarettes in pubs. Why should cannabis be any different?"

That's a fair point but the majority of smokers still buy their cigs legally. If tobacco was banned then just think how much extra money the criminal gangs would make. Likewise, if cannabis was legalised then a huge amount of money would be taken out of their hands. In that sense, it's a double-gain in that on one hand you're taking money from criminals and on the other hand you're freeing up police time and resources.

If I was going to buy cannabis and had the option of buying it legally, albeit more expensively, then I would. Firstly to avoid having to go to a drug dealer and secondly because I'd be more confident that what I was buying was 'clean', which apparently is by no means the case with illegally purchased cannabis resin.

Thanks (0)
By mwngiol
13th Jan 2011 13:15

Paul

"in the case of my dog, slippers!"

Sounds like an extreme case of the munchies!!

Thanks (0)
Teignmouth
By Paul Scholes
13th Jan 2011 13:30

mwngiol - munchies

Yes indeed and after a joint she goes for the socks as well!

P

Thanks (0)
avatar
By cymraeg_draig
13th Jan 2011 14:11

Ive seen too much .............

Secondly, I was shocked at his assertion that recreational drug users should be sent to prison. Did I read him say that he represents drug users in court? Sounds a bit like Hitler representing Jewish people accused of not wearing a yellow star or breaking the Nuremberg laws. Before CD or anyone else reacts furiously to that, I'm not saying he's a [***] or even has extreme right wing views. It just sounds a bit strange that someone who believes that should even want to represent drug users. I bet some of his clients in court would be shocked to know that he thinks they should be incarcerated.

Chris

 

Posted by cfield on Thu, 13/01/2011 - 13:02

 

Firstly you must realise that you have no say in who you represent.  Technically I could be ordered next week to represent the Yorkshire ripper and I would be duty bound to do so.

Yes I have represented drug users in court, and their addiction is usually the reason they ended up there charged with other offences. In these circumstances many judges are open to the suggestion that charges should be left to lie on the basis that the defendant agrees to a mandatory detox being imposed - usually on the basis that if they do not comply the charges will be brought back before the court.

Our charity work has alway involved contact with addicts (drugs & drink) and again a condition of help is that the addiction is treated.

Whilst some people may argue that the law should be relaxed, drugs legalised, etcetera, and put forward financial arguements for doing so, they have not repeatedly seen the devastation caused by drugs, and the way that canabis can - and often does - lead on to more serious addictions. 

I do not approve of state interferance, I believe that as a nation we are over-policed, and I detest the control freaks of the left (Harriet Harman & Co) who want to dictate how others should live. I believe speed cameras, CCTV cameras, nosy council muppets, and all the rest of the nanny state should be dismantled - BUT, when it comes to drugs, I have seen too much damage caused by them to want anything other than their total eradication. 

 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By andypartridge
13th Jan 2011 14:22

@ mwngiol

Thanks. I'd like to return the compliment and maybe one day you will give me cause to ;)

-- Kind regards Andy

Thanks (0)
By Becky Midgley
13th Jan 2011 14:18

The reality of the black market

The problem is, CD, that you seem to think drugs, addiction, prostitution and violence etc go hand in hand. For the majority of people, they do not. I know plenty of nurses for example who enjoy the free party scene and everything it offers. Come Monday, they go back to work and continue saving lives. You cannot ignore this representative of the drug-taking UK nation.

The other problem I have with some of what you have said is that, if anyone wants to experiment with cannabis they have to locate a drug dealer. At the moment this takes them to alsorts of dark corners of Britain's towns and cities (trust me!), this exposes them to more danger than they should be exposed to, but if someone wants to try something, they will, regardless of whether it is legal or not I am afraid. If they had a choice to walk into a newsagents say, and buy a small amount of low-grade pot, they would be far, far safer doing so than going to a drug dealer.

As you quite rightly say, there will always be a black market for things which are taxed. Incidentally, I could buy my tobacco from the 'Backy Man' but I don't, I buy it from a shop. But the point for me is accepting what really goes on these days in modern Britain and minimising the harm it can do.

Thanks (0)
By mwngiol
13th Jan 2011 14:31

CD

I agree entirely that drug addiction is a terrible thing. But cannabis is not addictive. You cannot include cannabis in a group along with heroin etc. I know people who have smoked cannabis every single day for years. And I mean chain-smoked like some people smoke cigarettes. Then they decided to quit and did. Just like that, overnight. I've lost count of how many times some of them have tried to quit smoking cigarettes or drinking alcohol but have no willpower. Cannabis may well become a habit, no denying that. But it is not addictive.

And did their years on cannabis lead to other drugs? No. That is a myth as well. The anti-cannabis lobby always says it's a 'gateway' drug, that people who are on heroin started off with cannabis. Umm, no they didn't they started off with alcohol and/or tobacco. If there is any connection between cannabis and harder drugs, then that connection is drug dealers. If people didn't have to go to dealers to buy their cannabis then that connection would be broken. Yes, most heroin addicts took cannabis before they took heroin but to suggest that one was the cause of the other is to miss a much bigger and wider picture.

Thanks (0)
By mwngiol
13th Jan 2011 14:36

Andy

I don't plan on it any time soon!

Thanks (0)
avatar
By chatman
13th Jan 2011 14:44

You couldn't make it up

Posted by the same person:

 “possession of any amount whatsoever should carry automatic imprisonment of at least 2 years. “, and

“I do not approve of state interference”

=================================

This is my last post on this thread. You cannot argue with someone who does not understand the basics of evidential weight.

I am now going to sit back and admire the brilliance of mwngiol's posts.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By cymraeg_draig
13th Jan 2011 14:44

Becky

The problem is, CD, that you seem to think drugs, addiction, prostitution and violence etc go hand in hand. For the majority of people, they do not.

Posted by Becky Midgley on Thu, 13/01/2011 - 14:18

 

I think this could be paraphrased as - Not all drug users are prostitutes, but all prostitutes are drug users.

And that is almost the case, I am not exagerating if I say that 99% of street sex workers are feeding an addiction. Of course in recent years we have also seen a new phenomina of east european girls working because of threats of violence against their families (which east european pimps see as a cheaper alternative to getting girls addicted).

I really wish that those seeking to legalise drugs could spend a few nights on the streets seeing for themselves addicts working the streets, or sleeping in shop doorways. There are many groups working to help these people, but we can only scratch the surface, until government and society starts accepting some responsibility and helps these people not just with shelters but more importantly with treatment and help to get them back into society.

Now - if government legalised canabis, taxed it as heavily as it does tobacco, and ring fenced that tax for use in treating addicts, then I might agree with legalisation of canabis - but the chances of that happening are about the same as HMRC getting someones tax code right first time (zero).

I openly admit I am completely biased against drugs - I've seen far too much of the damage they cause.

 

 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By cymraeg_draig
13th Jan 2011 14:48

chatman

 

 You cannot argue with someone who does not understand the basics of evidential weight.

Posted by chatman on Thu, 13/01/2011 - 14:44

 

Perhaps when you produce evidence, instead of your own unsubstantiated assertions, there will be something to consider.

Thanks (0)

Pages