BBC NEWS | Politics | Cannabis law change 'illogical'
(Nod to The Boomtown Rats)
“We can see no reasons, because there are no reasons, what reasons do you need to be told?”
Actually there are reasons, but not for what they are telling you.
Ok here is how my theory works, based upon a typical import model.
Years ago it was rare to find cannabis being grown in this country, with most of the substance being imported from abroad.
Question.
In that time, how did drug smugglers manage to import vast amounts of cannabis imported into the UK?
Were our borders so porous that it was an easy task to evade Customs or was it that there was a tacit understanding of gentlemen going on?
After all, the profit margins would be huge for those able to control the importation of this narcotic.
Once a domestic home grown market began to develop, those who were importing would find that they were no longer able to regulate supply and thereby control the price.
Those vast profits were no longer going to those elites who had power and control over the distribution and fell into the hands of the users/small time dealers.
Furthermore it would also be used as a form of currency and income which cannot be regulated by the State and the solution of decrimalisation would be perceived as a climb down from the War on Drugs stance.
Hence the state would not stand to profit.
The claims of the power of this ‘Skunk’ product are generally either the sellers of the drug or the media hype and bare no resemblance the anecdotal evidences of users.
More disturbing is that cannabis graded more of a risk than Gamma hydroxybutyrate (GHB) and Ketamine, both known date-rape drugs. Does this demonstrate that control over profit and distribution is more important than the elimination of these very dangerous substances which are produced by drug companies and which may harm their profit margins or are our leader out of touch with what is happening on the streets?
What I also find strange is that the government is going against their,
usually well paid advisors, and within the ZaNuLabour party, there are
many of them.
So here we are at a situation where the government is basing laws on ‘illogical’ evidence.
Would such a stance be allowed in a court of law?
Ideally no, because justice cannot be based on an illogical basis and would make a mockery of the judicial system.
Answers on a postcard.
BBC NEWS | Politics | Cannabis law change 'illogical'
Sphere: Related Content
(Nod to The Boomtown Rats)
“We can see no reasons, because there are no reasons, what reasons do you need to be told?”
Actually there are reasons, but not for what they are telling you.
Ok here is how my theory works, based upon a typical import model.
Years ago it was rare to find cannabis being grown in this country, with most of the substance being imported from abroad.
Question.
In that time, how did drug smugglers manage to import vast amounts of cannabis imported into the UK?
Were our borders so porous that it was an easy task to evade Customs or was it that there was a tacit understanding of gentlemen going on?
After all, the profit margins would be huge for those able to control the importation of this narcotic.
Once a domestic home grown market began to develop, those who were importing would find that they were no longer able to regulate supply and thereby control the price.
Those vast profits were no longer going to those elites who had power and control over the distribution and fell into the hands of the users/small time dealers.
Furthermore it would also be used as a form of currency and income which cannot be regulated by the State and the solution of decrimalisation would be perceived as a climb down from the War on Drugs stance.
Hence the state would not stand to profit.
The claims of the power of this ‘Skunk’ product are generally either the sellers of the drug or the media hype and bare no resemblance the anecdotal evidences of users.
More disturbing is that cannabis graded more of a risk than Gamma hydroxybutyrate (GHB) and Ketamine, both known date-rape drugs. Does this demonstrate that control over profit and distribution is more important than the elimination of these very dangerous substances which are produced by drug companies and which may harm their profit margins or are our leader out of touch with what is happening on the streets?
What I also find strange is that the government is going against their,
usually well paid advisors, and within the ZaNuLabour party, there are
many of them.
So here we are at a situation where the government is basing laws on ‘illogical’ evidence.
Would such a stance be allowed in a court of law?
Ideally no, because justice cannot be based on an illogical basis and would make a mockery of the judicial system.
Answers on a postcard.
BBC NEWS | Politics | Cannabis law change 'illogical'
No comments:
Post a Comment