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…
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?
#9 I’m sure MADD is 100% in agreement with you.
#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……
#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.
#11, UTH,
Sorry, your NIH link doesn’t work. Your CATO Institute article is just crap. The guy is so obviously wrong right off the bat I only read the first few paragraphs.
Prohibition removed a significant source of tax revenue and greatly increased government spending. It led many drinkers to switch to opium, marijuana, patent medicines, cocaine, and other dangerous substances that they would have been unlikely to encounter in the absence of Prohibition.
Opium and cocaine were illegal and only available with a prescription. There was a very limited supply of illegal drugs at this time as both opiates and cocaine had to be imported. Marijuana was still legal but seldom used when Prohibition was overturned. Patent medicines were very seldom inebriating although they may have had some alcohol content. Those that did drink, bought alcohol that increasingly became toxic as producers went for profits over quality.
For proof, he cites himself.
#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.
#32 so drunk drivers victims are just figments of imagination. No problem with overdrinking people driving or doing many other stuff, right?
#37 you know what population loves alcohol? the Germans. Now, try and drive a car and being caught enhebriated and let us know how much driving can you do afterwards.
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.