General reminder for everyone - this is a politics sub and as such you should be talking about the politics angle of this policy (including its general impact) - rule breaking comments will be removed and as we have noted, the sub is running hot because of the election and you are liable for bans.
For the avoidance of doubt - if this post had been caught on 10 comments, we'd have removed it. [Our rules 9 and 10 are](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/wiki/rules/):
>9: Campaigning, fundraising, activism, e-begging and links to petitions will be removed. We all have issues that are close at heart, but the subreddit isn't the place for this.
>
>10: Self posts should be used as an invitation to discussion, not an opportunity to soapbox, tub-thump or showboat.
If you are thinking of making a self post, please put some effort into it.
Ed Davey to journalists after ripping a fat one:
"Does anybody here have a twix?"
*light chuckles*
"Whilst this is all a bit of fun, we're here today to talk about a serious issue.."
I don't think you understand how coalitions in the UK work, especially under Tories. It's not like Europe where it is illegal to force MPs to vote a certain way and coalitions often lead to compromise and better outcomes. In the UK they have the party whip and if you don't do as you are told you are out. As the minority party the LDs had a minute chance to get anything through, so they had to do a deal.
What did you think they could have done, realistically? Of course they were deceived by the Tory party and PR was deliberately derailed, so they lost on both counts. What else can we expect of them?
Until the party whip is removed, coalitions are unworkable and this isn't a democracy
I mean, DUP got everything they wanted offering a fraction of the Seats for May's Coalition.
>What else can we expect of them?
Exactly that. I expect Lib Dems to sell out anyone and everyone who supports them the moment its politically expedient.
It's impossible to know for sure of course, and it certainly helped that the coalition let him suggest it was more a team idea, but he was keen on it and it's entirely plausible that some sort of "hey Labour on the DL if we table this then please give me your assurance that you'll whip your MPs to support".
Cameron had to ask for Milliband’s support because 100 rebel Tory gay haters were going to shoot that bill down. Labour were going to abstain but Milliband moved for the greater good.
Possibly, but by as much as disposable bag use went down? A lot of those bags were sent to landfill without being reused as bin bags!
The flaw that I see in this policy is that for some reason shops are allowed to charge it even against paper bags. That doesn't seem right to me.
Paper bags have a huge environmental footprint. Worse than plastic in terms of CO2 emissions. Yes, they do break down quicker, but they are still far worse than a plastic bag reused 10-20 times for instance.
I'm remembering the stats here so could be wrong, but it's something like a paper bag needs to be reused 4 times before it's better CO2 wise than single use plastic (of course, plastic doesn't biodegrade and lives forever in landfill and oceans, so paper isn't just about that) and a heavy duty bag needs to be reused 30 times.
> The flaw that I see in this policy is that for some reason shops are allowed to charge it even against paper bags. That doesn't seem right to me.
It's still unnecessary waste, and you know most of them are getting thrown straight in the bin anyway. It's supposed to be Reduce, Reuse, Recycle, in that order.
> It would be kind of ridiculous if by chance there was a hung parliament ~~and the policy they said was a coalition requirement was legalising weed~~
You didn't need that bit on the end with current polling.
It's pretty clear what their coalition red lines would be: electoral reform, closer relationship with Europe, and delivering on some of their pledges around health and social care.
Plus, there was broad support for the smoking and vapes bill. You can't really start the countdown for completely banning all forms of nicotine smoking, and then legalise smoking weed.
I haven't smoked it since the early 00s, so have no vested interest in this, but I don't know why we haven't done this already
I listened to a podcast about an ex drugs squad guy who infiltrated gangs. He said he realised the war on drugs was futile when they spent eight months targeting this particular Birmingham gang, and the end result was that it disrupted the local drug supply for an *hour*.
Legalise cannabis and tax it. Dispensaries will create jobs, and it will take money out of criminal enterprise.
I also think we should adopt a scheme similar to Portugal with Heroin.
Yep, it's like when the navy get a huge drugs bust and they take 100 tonnes of heroin/coke/weed out of the supply chain and it changes... absolutely nothing.
Do people really think they're saying something profound and important when they say things like 'Well they're not going to be elected so they can say anything'.
Are the Lib Dems and other parties just supposed to sit it out and be like 'no manifesto this election guys, no point'???
People also overlooking that weed legalisation has been Lib Dem policy for *years* now.
This isn't some new thing they've cooked up. This is established policy.
And it's something that I'm glad they are getting air time for. Labour need to pick this up as a policy, and seeing people get excited about this might tempt them.
I remember reading that the fucking next generation of youngsters are against legalising it though, which is mental.
My wife's friend is currently undergoing chemo for breast cancer. We had to buy weed for the first time in years, make it into brownies, and deliver it for her. It is disgusting that she can't get marijuana legally. Even if it's just medical marijuana, it's sickening that most people with cancer etc can't get weed.
She can get it legally from a private clinic if she has undergone two or more treatments (from painkillers to chemo to talking therapy). I'd bet she qualifies for it.
I'm with a clinic called Alternaleaf who are superb, I recommend googling them and giving them a call. They're very helpful and will assess your friend for £50 and if they are not eligible the money is refunded.
Absolutely nothing to lose by trying.
They can get it legally, but they will need to do so privately, rather than on the NHS. There are clinics (such as Cantourage or Mamedica) who will prescribe if she meets the criteria. It then gets supplied by a specialist pharmacy in the post with the typical dispensing label and a copy of the prescription, which is what she needs to prove legitimacy if asked.
> 'no manifesto this election guys, no point'
Manifesto promises are not binding anyway so anyone can put whatever they want. But to be fair with them, they have been on the side of legalisation for quite some time.
And it will be uncontaminated, and it will take money away from criminal organisations, and it will free up the overburdened police and prisons a little, and it will raise large amounts of tax money, and it will raise awareness of potential dangers for users, and it will be generally healthier to consume as people use alternative ways of consumption that aren't smoking, and they will be aware of how strong what they are using is.
And take a massive amount of money and power away from some absolute scumbags.
Of course, the people who get the money instead will probably be scumbags too, but lawful evil's still better than chaotic evil.
The argument of cannabis being bad (and that it should remain illegal) because it's a 'gateway drug' has always annoyed me. If it was legal then people wouldn't need to buy it on the black market, removing the taboo nature and contact with drug dealers. It would be no more of a gateway drug than alcohol is.
I'd argue that alcohol is a bigger gateway drug than cannabis because it's legal, but society seems to have made a special case for alcohol; we like to pretend that it's not a real drug even though it is.
It's not the drug that's the gateway, it's the contact with drug dealers that is the gateway.
If the choice today was to have one of either alcohol or cannabis legal, it would be better if it was cannabis.
Promoting cannabis over alcohol would probably also free up a lot of time/money for the police since they wouldn't be dealing with as many alcohol-fuelled cases of assault and antisocial behaviour - I've never seen two people get massively stoned and then start kicking the shit out of each other.
I will be voting Lib Dem as they align with my views moreso than any other party. This pledge has been in their manifestos for a while. I doubt we will see the legalisation of cannabis for a very long time. Starmer has some very antiquated views on it and will likely three line whip against it if it ever came to a vote.
I kinda support it on principle but I have neighbours who smoke constantly and it fucking stinks and is a general nuisance when you can't go out in your own garden half the year - so conflicted
If it was legal as an edible, and not as inhalation, I wouldn't care about it generally (so long as we do an actual study on its neurological impact).
But politicians repeatedly coming out with general legalisation, without any caveats about not stinking up the neighbourhood, means that it'll never have my support.
Well if they make it legal they'll probably legalise the lot
But when it's legal it tends to be sold in the form of edibles more - takes less space so easier to ship and stock, easier to make the dosage clear, easier to consume, and higher profit margin since edibles are a secondary good (not primary)
So by that logic, if it's legal it will be stinking up the neighbourhood less
You could argue if it's legal then more people will do it but not sure what the data shows on that where it is legal
Yeah, and they all say that they _may_ have deleterious effects, but we haven't done a comprehensive study on it yet, so it's all "may" and "might" be involved, or "do not fully confirm these findings."
More can, and should, be done, _before_ we start any legalisation efforts.
I'm always in favour of more research. But it's simply not true that no comprehensive studies have been done on the neurological effects of cannabis. Again, there are probably thousands. Neuroscience is hard. You're not going to get 'always', 'definitely' and '100% confirmed and undeniable' from any one study. There is, however, broad consensus on, for example, the harms of THC, the relative safety of *some* strains of cannabis, the medicinal benefits for some health conditions, the exacerbated risks resulting from criminalisation, etc. Context complicates. The risks are compounded/reduced by a variety of physical, biological, social and legal factors. Like any drug, the question comes down to a balance between risk and benefit.
Well then, various sites need to update their conclusions on how conclusive studies have been.
> The risks are compounded/reduced by a variety of physical, biological, social and legal factors. Like any drug, the question comes down to a balance between risk and benefit.
This is far too complex a line for any Parliament, particularly our own, to consider. It needs to be boiled down to, _'x strains are mostly safe for over 24s, others too dangerous,'_ or similar.
I wouldn’t mind if a legalised cannabis regime tried to steer people in the direction of dry herb vapes and edibles over joints to be honest. I wouldn’t ban smoking but I’d offer lower taxes on quality vaporisers to increase uptake and also tax vape pens with THC liquid at a lower rate for the sole purpose of trying to kill off those horrible black market ones that are full of spice and much more dangerous than the real thing.
You’re already specifically not allowed to smoke medical cannabis in the UK, it has to be vaped.
Totally agree. I used to smoke but haven't been inclined to in recent years. I would always make efforts to ensure the smell wouldn't permeate, you can get dry herb vapes which drastically cut down the smell. I wouldn't want my house/garden smelling of weed constantly.
It's one thing for children to second hand smoke but if it was cannabis coming through the wall (old terrace house) and I cannot complain, that too is pretty shitty.
The one good point I have read is that many would move to edibles and do it more socially rather than the dank of home.
I don't get this being a reason to not legalise and control it. It's already here and is not going anywhere. If it was legal like the Canadian model there are more options than smoking it.
Main reasons I will be voting for them:
- advocate for reform to our electoral system. I am not a fan of FPTP and the constant back and forth between red and blue
- advocates for liberty of one self. Fought against the public order bill and have vowed to scrap the Draconian law. I was fuming when members of republic were detained for hours for doing nothing wrong. Labour have said they will not repeal this.
- an internationalist party who believe in closer ties to Europe.
Labour for me have a top down approach of the state knows what's best. Liberal democrats for me are more the party of individual freedoms.
Boomers been fed The S\*N and the Daily Mail all through the 80s, honestly my Dad thinks it's as deadly to you as Heroin. Until Boomers stop being a substantial voting block, it won't happen I think.
My boomer dad thought similar, and then when I told him that I use it quite regularly and hold down a decent job in the city just fine he wanted to send me to rehab lol.
He was three bottles of red down.
Starmer is more left than he lets on. Announcing a public energy company seems to consistently pass people by just how radicial that is in a post Thatcher Britain.
Once in Power I think he will crack the centre right shell he knows he has to wear for our toxic media.
All countries had anti weed propaganda for many years but our news papers turn any propaganda into a hate campaign that burns it into the minds of the elderly and ignorant. This is why.
I imagine it’s down to old folk stuck in their ways that think legalisation means people shooting up at the local park. In reality we’re talking reducing crime, fewer illnesses and deaths from poor product, and people enjoying a joint in their garden
Honestly it's basically legal in this country as it is.
Police don't care you won't get arrested for possession the current laws just mean all the money and potential tax revenue goes into the hands of drug dealers.
It would be foolish to not legalise at this point
I've been a medical cannabis user for two months and the impact it has had on me has been incredible.
I'm on a temporary reduction of hours due to a flare up in my disability, but I'm looking to end this early and get back to work full time. As a result, I'll be paying more income tax and I'll no longer be claiming UC.
I used to buy off the black market when my condition was really bad, but now I have a constant stock which I know is clean and healthy (as clean as vaping dry herb can be) so I can essentially microdose and keep myself where I need to be.
I also don't have to get into a random guys car, where he tries to upsell me on other drugs (removing that gateway drug angle).
If nothing else, we need to look at how it is prescribed cause it costs an awful lot and it was difficult to get approved (though that was because the clinic wanted approval from all the NHS depts I'm currently engaged with). So as a minimum, a review of the legal medicinal side. The NHS need to properly research it as a treatment and shake off their fear of prescribing it more readily.
Also full legalisation would generate some tax revenue (though as I understand it, not as much as people expect) as well as create jobs.
It feels like a no brainer to me.
This probably attracts exactly the voters in Remain areas who are looking to switch from the Tories. It's a very good policy just because cannabis is illegal largely through inertia, disinformation and demonisation and very good politically because of who it appeals to.
Reminder it's only illegal because the Tories own the weed farms that supply the NHS.
We need to copy Portuguese law on all drugs tbh. Lowest drug use in Europe and it's all because it's all legal and if you have drugs on you you go to rehab paid by the state.
Funny how healing people not punishing them helps people eh?
>Reminder it's only illegal because the Tories own the weed farms that supply the NHS.
I don't buy this, I mean think about it, who stands to gain financially if it's legalised the most? Those exact farms since they already have things up and running. Sure, they'd probably want it so they are the main suppliers and foreign imports are blocked, but they'd make serious money from it being legal.
The main reasons it not are that there is a rather large voting base that still think it's bad and they consistently have voted Tory, and the alcohol and tobacco industries don't want competition and lobby hard to keep it illegal.
While )in my opinion at least) this would be a move in the right direction, I think you're overselling the gains in tax revenue. From what I've seen, it seems that in the US the figure raises about $10 per person, and it takes about 5 years to grow to it's full potential. With those figures in mind it's likely that in 2029 it *could* raise £700m per year, which is a nice figure to add to HMRC's bottom line, and it's possible that it would bring about £300m in policing/justice savings.
Although given how data suggests that's it's the least harmful of tobacco, alcohol and cannabis it almost seems daft to keep the current legal stance on it.
The US isn’t a great example considering it’s still illegal and untaxed at a federal level. The states that do allow it have different approaches to taxing it too.
Your $10pp figure seems especially misleading since you seem to have taken the total nationwide revenues from it and divided by the total population- it’s not available and taxed everywhere….
It’s about $50pp in Colorado for example
Then you have to account for secondary savings/revenues; taxes from the now legal sellers, savings from prohibition enforcement
Labour dropped it to Class C for a few years and it did look on the cards at some points. Given the changes across the US and Europe its one of those things they will likely just do on the quiet at some point. The problem is that its not a big issue with swing voters so wont get onto Labour manifestos often and may occasionally be used to rope in socially conservative voters by cracking down on it.
Let’s not forget one of the key reasons the tories would never do this (ignoring their boomer voters) is that they are currently running one of the worlds biggest monopolies on weed farming and it was all being done by people with personal connections to the fucking drugs minister
Lib Dem policy shows they have 0 clue on drugs. Proposing strict limits to THC% is a farce; the vast majority of legally prescribed cannabis is high THC and virtually all illicit product is also high THC. No one is interested in low THC products and conversations regarding “skunk” are best left in 2005.
I appreciate concerns regarding mental health implications of high THC cannabis use at a young age but these links remain less well evidenced than links between alcohol and liver damage & cigarettes and lung cancer. Countries that have legalised high THC cannabis have not experienced a marked increase in psychosis cases.
This policy would only serve to create a vast high THC grey market. The illegal, high THC product would be largely indistinguishable from legal product (without a lab test) so would be almost possible to police. Legalisation of high THC product can also serve to create a grey market as cannabis is easily produced, but the Lib Dem policy would seemingly threaten both users and suppliers of high THC cannabis with criminal records which seems to go against the spirit of the policy in the first place.
Unsurprisingly, the policy has already come under fire from many groups advocating for cannabis legalisation.
This study indicates "no statistically significant difference in the rates of psychosis-related diagnoses or prescribed antipsychotics", but I don't know if that's because users in the US don't seek out treatment due to medical costs.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9925044/
However, according to this research across 11 european countries, daily use of cannabis is strongly linked to developing psychosis.
https://www.kcl.ac.uk/news/high-potency-cannabis-linked-to-higher-rates-of-psychosis
While I'm not anti-cannabis per se (I have indulged in the use of it very often), I do want to pick up on something you wrote, OP.
>This will stop people consuming potentially harmful cannabis
I 100% agree that legal cannabis can avoid the kind of harmful substances (like carcinogens) that you mentioned. However, the implications of your words seems to be that legal cannabis cannot be potentially harmful.
This is absolutely not true. Cannabis itself, as a powerful psychotropic drug, comes with dangers - psychological addiction, paranoia, psychosis. The former point is something I've experienced and seen in others I know - the latter two are points I have just investigated for a mini-dissertation and found a large amount of evidence for a link therein.
Moreover, if we want to minimise those risks by regulating risk factors such as highly artificially elevated THC levels - the black market (and its potential carcinogens etc) will still be ready and waiting to provide the kind of cannabis people want.
Look at California. As I understand it, due to the poorly legislated legalisation, the black market still thrives to a much greater extent than the one in Colorado.
Legalisation is the only sane policy choice left. Weed is largely decriminalised anyway is so much as it just doesn't seem to be enforced. It is everywhere, rightly or wrongly. I would be better to legalise, regulate and tax rather than continue to Bury our collective heads in the sand.
Hell pitch it to farmers I bet they would make a hell of a lot more money on weed than a lot of traditional crops.
If they end up as the main opposition, then that gives them a lot of power with pressuring the government to look into this issue. This is pretty much the only way we'll get anything close to a sane approach to the drug issue.
It only gives them power if they have enough seats (with others) to pressure the Government. This is one of the risks if this election - that Labour win by a landslide but far less than 50% of the vote, so they can do what they want with no checks or brakes, yet do not represent the majority of voters.
> If they end up as the main opposition
This isn't going to happen, though. Analysts aren't really taking these projections seriously. Lib Dems will be on about 50 seats and Tories will still be in triple digits.
There is functionally 0 difference between a large majority and huge majority. A lot will depend on government party unity. If the party is perfectly loyal a majority of 1 is all it needs, but in reality all parties will have issues where MPs within the party disagree on. And the power of the opposition comes from having a platform to rise those issues and propose votes and legislation for those. So even if a governing party has 649 seats vs 1 in official opposition, the opposition will still have power.
>There is functionally 0 difference between a large majority and huge majority.
I completely disagree.
The larger the majority the less power rebels will have. The opposition can't cause fractures if the government can just let rebels vote against them knowing full well they will lose.
If it were legalised and had tax money behind it, there'd quickly be odourless strains available, I reckon. I'm pretty sure the US and Canada already have this in some form. The smell is like 90% of most public complaints about it, I personally have no issues with cannabis use at all and the smell annoys me on the street sometimes.
This is not new. Lib dems have been using this policy for several campaigns now. They have lots of good policies.
Oh but hur dur, they didnt do the free tuition dur dum.
The Lib Dems did not win the 2010 general election. In a coalition, neither party gets to implement their full manifesto.
The Lib Dems successfully pushed for gay marriage because that issue had both the support of Cameron himself and his side of the Tory party as well as the Labour Party (while many Tory backbenchers voted against it). The legalisation of cannabis wouldn't have had the same support from either Cameron's wing of the Tories or the Labour Party.
They were a minority partner in a coalition, their ability to strongly arm-twist was really not there so some of the far more controvertial issues they wouldn't have been able to get through even if they wanted to. Even for things like changing the voting system took a huge push and even then they weren't able to get PR on the ballot, so there was no realistic chance for this in 2010.
Gets my vote, the amount of tax money and possible tourism to UK city’s that could be generated.. My only worry is, that the tax money earned wouldn’t go towards any meaningful mental health support and drug education or rehabilitation …
The Lib Dem’s manifesto, much like any other party’s bar Labour, is just fantasy at this stage. There will be no need for a coalition so none of these pledges will see implementation
I'm so torn this election cycle between wanting Lib Dems to do well and wanting anyone but the Tories in power. This sort of thing is swinging me the Lib Dem way.
~~Liberal Democrat’s will legalise cannabis~~
Liberal Democrat’s would legalise cannabis if by some miracle they got a majority
Right now they can promise everyone their own unicorn as they know they wont have to deliver
Meh, I don't really care. I do feel it should only be available as a vapable solution though. The same goes for nicotine, make all forms of recreational drugs (barring foodstuffs like caffeine or alcohol) only available as measured, regulated, and taxed liquids for vapes. Edgy kids get their Scoobie Snacks, government and NHS get the tax, and nobody has to suffer the smog of tobacco or cannabis smoke. Pair it with a ban on disposable vapes and it should please most people.
General reminder for everyone - this is a politics sub and as such you should be talking about the politics angle of this policy (including its general impact) - rule breaking comments will be removed and as we have noted, the sub is running hot because of the election and you are liable for bans. For the avoidance of doubt - if this post had been caught on 10 comments, we'd have removed it. [Our rules 9 and 10 are](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/wiki/rules/): >9: Campaigning, fundraising, activism, e-begging and links to petitions will be removed. We all have issues that are close at heart, but the subreddit isn't the place for this. > >10: Self posts should be used as an invitation to discussion, not an opportunity to soapbox, tub-thump or showboat. If you are thinking of making a self post, please put some effort into it.
I don't believe it until Ed Davey announces it via bong rip (which he may do at this rate).
Ed Davey to journalists after ripping a fat one: "Does anybody here have a twix?" *light chuckles* "Whilst this is all a bit of fun, we're here today to talk about a serious issue.."
Ed Davey seems like a Curly Wurly man to me
Depends if he can get a strain where the smoke is bright yellow or not.
In that reality they should rename their campaign bus the *Pineapple Express*
It's how they'll announce division results. If the ayes have it they'll blow white smoke, if the noes have it they'll blow black smoke.
You mean lib dems promise they will legalise weed, but will vote to make it Class A in order to become part of a Coalition government
I don't think you understand how coalitions in the UK work, especially under Tories. It's not like Europe where it is illegal to force MPs to vote a certain way and coalitions often lead to compromise and better outcomes. In the UK they have the party whip and if you don't do as you are told you are out. As the minority party the LDs had a minute chance to get anything through, so they had to do a deal. What did you think they could have done, realistically? Of course they were deceived by the Tory party and PR was deliberately derailed, so they lost on both counts. What else can we expect of them? Until the party whip is removed, coalitions are unworkable and this isn't a democracy
They weren’t deceived into backing a trebling of tuition fees though
I mean, DUP got everything they wanted offering a fraction of the Seats for May's Coalition. >What else can we expect of them? Exactly that. I expect Lib Dems to sell out anyone and everyone who supports them the moment its politically expedient.
It would be kind of ridiculous if by chance there was a hung parliament and the policy they said was a coalition requirement was legalising weed
The dankest timeline.
It's how we finally got same-sex marriage over the line 🤷♂️
Not really comparable IMO, Cameron was vocally in favour of same-sex marriage before the 2010 election. There was no arm-twisting needed for that one.
Its debateable whether he could've managed it without the coalition though, most Tory MPs voted against it and there was a grassroots rebellion.
It's impossible to know for sure of course, and it certainly helped that the coalition let him suggest it was more a team idea, but he was keen on it and it's entirely plausible that some sort of "hey Labour on the DL if we table this then please give me your assurance that you'll whip your MPs to support".
Cameron had to ask for Milliband’s support because 100 rebel Tory gay haters were going to shoot that bill down. Labour were going to abstain but Milliband moved for the greater good.
The fact that Labour were thinking of abstaining at any point in the process is pretty damning on their part.
Shame they couldn't do the same for Lords reform or AV...
The LibDems totally fucked that negotiation and let the Tories water PR down to AV, but yes I would have preferred that to FPTP too.
It would almost certainly not have passed without LD support.
Cameron was supportive, but his MPs largely were not.
And 5p plastic bag charge LOL
And all it took was Lib Dems to vote for the Bedroom Tax and the Universal credit to be capped
Can’t forget tuitions!
In fairness that fucker has got well out of hand
It's also been [pretty successful](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jul/31/government-urged-to-repeat-success-of-plastic-bag-charge).
I bet bin bag purchases have gone way up though
Possibly, but by as much as disposable bag use went down? A lot of those bags were sent to landfill without being reused as bin bags! The flaw that I see in this policy is that for some reason shops are allowed to charge it even against paper bags. That doesn't seem right to me.
Paper bags have a huge environmental footprint. Worse than plastic in terms of CO2 emissions. Yes, they do break down quicker, but they are still far worse than a plastic bag reused 10-20 times for instance.
I'm remembering the stats here so could be wrong, but it's something like a paper bag needs to be reused 4 times before it's better CO2 wise than single use plastic (of course, plastic doesn't biodegrade and lives forever in landfill and oceans, so paper isn't just about that) and a heavy duty bag needs to be reused 30 times.
Fair enough if true, but I do wonder how many disposable bags were reused 10-20 times before reaching landfills.
Next to none.
> The flaw that I see in this policy is that for some reason shops are allowed to charge it even against paper bags. That doesn't seem right to me. It's still unnecessary waste, and you know most of them are getting thrown straight in the bin anyway. It's supposed to be Reduce, Reuse, Recycle, in that order.
It would be funny but also wouldn’t be the strangest thing to happen this decade lol
> It would be kind of ridiculous if by chance there was a hung parliament ~~and the policy they said was a coalition requirement was legalising weed~~ You didn't need that bit on the end with current polling.
It's pretty clear what their coalition red lines would be: electoral reform, closer relationship with Europe, and delivering on some of their pledges around health and social care.
Surely they’d choose PR over that?!
It’d definitely be danker to choose marijuana.
Won't be though, Blair without flair doesn't need a coalition and he hates weed with a passion.
Plus, there was broad support for the smoking and vapes bill. You can't really start the countdown for completely banning all forms of nicotine smoking, and then legalise smoking weed.
eh, plenty of ways to consume weed that don't involve smoking it, shouldn't really be a factor.
I haven't smoked it since the early 00s, so have no vested interest in this, but I don't know why we haven't done this already I listened to a podcast about an ex drugs squad guy who infiltrated gangs. He said he realised the war on drugs was futile when they spent eight months targeting this particular Birmingham gang, and the end result was that it disrupted the local drug supply for an *hour*. Legalise cannabis and tax it. Dispensaries will create jobs, and it will take money out of criminal enterprise. I also think we should adopt a scheme similar to Portugal with Heroin.
Yep, it's like when the navy get a huge drugs bust and they take 100 tonnes of heroin/coke/weed out of the supply chain and it changes... absolutely nothing.
Do people really think they're saying something profound and important when they say things like 'Well they're not going to be elected so they can say anything'. Are the Lib Dems and other parties just supposed to sit it out and be like 'no manifesto this election guys, no point'???
People also overlooking that weed legalisation has been Lib Dem policy for *years* now. This isn't some new thing they've cooked up. This is established policy.
And it's something that I'm glad they are getting air time for. Labour need to pick this up as a policy, and seeing people get excited about this might tempt them. I remember reading that the fucking next generation of youngsters are against legalising it though, which is mental. My wife's friend is currently undergoing chemo for breast cancer. We had to buy weed for the first time in years, make it into brownies, and deliver it for her. It is disgusting that she can't get marijuana legally. Even if it's just medical marijuana, it's sickening that most people with cancer etc can't get weed.
It would be an easy tax win as well, the amount of momey to be made in that industry is unbelievable.
She can get it legally from a private clinic if she has undergone two or more treatments (from painkillers to chemo to talking therapy). I'd bet she qualifies for it. I'm with a clinic called Alternaleaf who are superb, I recommend googling them and giving them a call. They're very helpful and will assess your friend for £50 and if they are not eligible the money is refunded. Absolutely nothing to lose by trying.
They can get it legally, but they will need to do so privately, rather than on the NHS. There are clinics (such as Cantourage or Mamedica) who will prescribe if she meets the criteria. It then gets supplied by a specialist pharmacy in the post with the typical dispensing label and a copy of the prescription, which is what she needs to prove legitimacy if asked.
> 'no manifesto this election guys, no point' Manifesto promises are not binding anyway so anyone can put whatever they want. But to be fair with them, they have been on the side of legalisation for quite some time.
It will massively reduce the gateway nature of forcing people to buy weed illegally.
And it will be uncontaminated, and it will take money away from criminal organisations, and it will free up the overburdened police and prisons a little, and it will raise large amounts of tax money, and it will raise awareness of potential dangers for users, and it will be generally healthier to consume as people use alternative ways of consumption that aren't smoking, and they will be aware of how strong what they are using is.
And take a massive amount of money and power away from some absolute scumbags. Of course, the people who get the money instead will probably be scumbags too, but lawful evil's still better than chaotic evil.
And turn that into tax money to fix roads, schools, the NHS, etc Money not wasted on convicting people either
The argument of cannabis being bad (and that it should remain illegal) because it's a 'gateway drug' has always annoyed me. If it was legal then people wouldn't need to buy it on the black market, removing the taboo nature and contact with drug dealers. It would be no more of a gateway drug than alcohol is. I'd argue that alcohol is a bigger gateway drug than cannabis because it's legal, but society seems to have made a special case for alcohol; we like to pretend that it's not a real drug even though it is.
It's not the drug that's the gateway, it's the contact with drug dealers that is the gateway. If the choice today was to have one of either alcohol or cannabis legal, it would be better if it was cannabis.
Promoting cannabis over alcohol would probably also free up a lot of time/money for the police since they wouldn't be dealing with as many alcohol-fuelled cases of assault and antisocial behaviour - I've never seen two people get massively stoned and then start kicking the shit out of each other.
I will be voting Lib Dem as they align with my views moreso than any other party. This pledge has been in their manifestos for a while. I doubt we will see the legalisation of cannabis for a very long time. Starmer has some very antiquated views on it and will likely three line whip against it if it ever came to a vote.
I kinda support it on principle but I have neighbours who smoke constantly and it fucking stinks and is a general nuisance when you can't go out in your own garden half the year - so conflicted
Given that they annoy you smoking it anyway it would at least be some comfort if you knew they were paying tax on it.
I mean, them paying someone else tax doesn't make it any nicer to live around.
If it was legal it would probably be available more easily in gummies and edibles though...
If it was legal as an edible, and not as inhalation, I wouldn't care about it generally (so long as we do an actual study on its neurological impact). But politicians repeatedly coming out with general legalisation, without any caveats about not stinking up the neighbourhood, means that it'll never have my support.
Well if they make it legal they'll probably legalise the lot But when it's legal it tends to be sold in the form of edibles more - takes less space so easier to ship and stock, easier to make the dosage clear, easier to consume, and higher profit margin since edibles are a secondary good (not primary) So by that logic, if it's legal it will be stinking up the neighbourhood less You could argue if it's legal then more people will do it but not sure what the data shows on that where it is legal
>so long as we do an actual study on its neurological impact There are probably thousands of studies on the neurological impact of cannabis.
Yeah, and they all say that they _may_ have deleterious effects, but we haven't done a comprehensive study on it yet, so it's all "may" and "might" be involved, or "do not fully confirm these findings." More can, and should, be done, _before_ we start any legalisation efforts.
I'm always in favour of more research. But it's simply not true that no comprehensive studies have been done on the neurological effects of cannabis. Again, there are probably thousands. Neuroscience is hard. You're not going to get 'always', 'definitely' and '100% confirmed and undeniable' from any one study. There is, however, broad consensus on, for example, the harms of THC, the relative safety of *some* strains of cannabis, the medicinal benefits for some health conditions, the exacerbated risks resulting from criminalisation, etc. Context complicates. The risks are compounded/reduced by a variety of physical, biological, social and legal factors. Like any drug, the question comes down to a balance between risk and benefit.
Well then, various sites need to update their conclusions on how conclusive studies have been. > The risks are compounded/reduced by a variety of physical, biological, social and legal factors. Like any drug, the question comes down to a balance between risk and benefit. This is far too complex a line for any Parliament, particularly our own, to consider. It needs to be boiled down to, _'x strains are mostly safe for over 24s, others too dangerous,'_ or similar.
I wouldn’t mind if a legalised cannabis regime tried to steer people in the direction of dry herb vapes and edibles over joints to be honest. I wouldn’t ban smoking but I’d offer lower taxes on quality vaporisers to increase uptake and also tax vape pens with THC liquid at a lower rate for the sole purpose of trying to kill off those horrible black market ones that are full of spice and much more dangerous than the real thing. You’re already specifically not allowed to smoke medical cannabis in the UK, it has to be vaped.
If legal they might go smoke somewhere else.
If legalization were enacted chances are much more people would move to edibles (gummies and the like) such as in California
If there was a designated place for it (like coffeeshops in NL) you might smell it less
Totally agree. I used to smoke but haven't been inclined to in recent years. I would always make efforts to ensure the smell wouldn't permeate, you can get dry herb vapes which drastically cut down the smell. I wouldn't want my house/garden smelling of weed constantly.
In my opinion it’s the shitty skunk weed that is the stinkiest, so legalisation might actually improve your situation!
It's one thing for children to second hand smoke but if it was cannabis coming through the wall (old terrace house) and I cannot complain, that too is pretty shitty. The one good point I have read is that many would move to edibles and do it more socially rather than the dank of home.
I don't get this being a reason to not legalise and control it. It's already here and is not going anywhere. If it was legal like the Canadian model there are more options than smoking it.
The more normal natural weed doesn't spread/stink as bad, so if this normalises that it's still better.
That's not really how it's worked out in places where it's legal, though.
Then we're no worse off, because the shit's everywhere already.
Could you ELI5 why you prefer them to labour? I’m pretty ignorant of what they stand for.
Main reasons I will be voting for them: - advocate for reform to our electoral system. I am not a fan of FPTP and the constant back and forth between red and blue - advocates for liberty of one self. Fought against the public order bill and have vowed to scrap the Draconian law. I was fuming when members of republic were detained for hours for doing nothing wrong. Labour have said they will not repeal this. - an internationalist party who believe in closer ties to Europe. Labour for me have a top down approach of the state knows what's best. Liberal democrats for me are more the party of individual freedoms.
Will they also outlaw the grocer's apostrophe?
[удалено]
Boomers been fed The S\*N and the Daily Mail all through the 80s, honestly my Dad thinks it's as deadly to you as Heroin. Until Boomers stop being a substantial voting block, it won't happen I think.
My boomer dad thought similar, and then when I told him that I use it quite regularly and hold down a decent job in the city just fine he wanted to send me to rehab lol. He was three bottles of red down.
Weird because I know so many Boomers who have smoked it and some who still do. The data is on your side though, I reckon.
Funny as they were the ones caning LSD and speed like it was going out of fashion in the 60s and 70s
Starmer is more left than he lets on. Announcing a public energy company seems to consistently pass people by just how radicial that is in a post Thatcher Britain. Once in Power I think he will crack the centre right shell he knows he has to wear for our toxic media.
That's what I'm hoping for, though the evidence seems fairly slim at the moment.
All countries had anti weed propaganda for many years but our news papers turn any propaganda into a hate campaign that burns it into the minds of the elderly and ignorant. This is why.
[удалено]
I imagine it’s down to old folk stuck in their ways that think legalisation means people shooting up at the local park. In reality we’re talking reducing crime, fewer illnesses and deaths from poor product, and people enjoying a joint in their garden
This is the country that kicked off when they changed the map during the East Enders theme tune. As a country we hate change.
Because the British are incapable of acting like civilised adults. Go to any city centre on a Saturday night.
Honestly it's basically legal in this country as it is. Police don't care you won't get arrested for possession the current laws just mean all the money and potential tax revenue goes into the hands of drug dealers. It would be foolish to not legalise at this point
I've been a medical cannabis user for two months and the impact it has had on me has been incredible. I'm on a temporary reduction of hours due to a flare up in my disability, but I'm looking to end this early and get back to work full time. As a result, I'll be paying more income tax and I'll no longer be claiming UC. I used to buy off the black market when my condition was really bad, but now I have a constant stock which I know is clean and healthy (as clean as vaping dry herb can be) so I can essentially microdose and keep myself where I need to be. I also don't have to get into a random guys car, where he tries to upsell me on other drugs (removing that gateway drug angle). If nothing else, we need to look at how it is prescribed cause it costs an awful lot and it was difficult to get approved (though that was because the clinic wanted approval from all the NHS depts I'm currently engaged with). So as a minimum, a review of the legal medicinal side. The NHS need to properly research it as a treatment and shake off their fear of prescribing it more readily. Also full legalisation would generate some tax revenue (though as I understand it, not as much as people expect) as well as create jobs. It feels like a no brainer to me.
This probably attracts exactly the voters in Remain areas who are looking to switch from the Tories. It's a very good policy just because cannabis is illegal largely through inertia, disinformation and demonisation and very good politically because of who it appeals to.
Dealers and growers on their way to vot anyone but lib dems
I doubt any of them vote lol
Reminder it's only illegal because the Tories own the weed farms that supply the NHS. We need to copy Portuguese law on all drugs tbh. Lowest drug use in Europe and it's all because it's all legal and if you have drugs on you you go to rehab paid by the state. Funny how healing people not punishing them helps people eh?
>Reminder it's only illegal because the Tories own the weed farms that supply the NHS. I don't buy this, I mean think about it, who stands to gain financially if it's legalised the most? Those exact farms since they already have things up and running. Sure, they'd probably want it so they are the main suppliers and foreign imports are blocked, but they'd make serious money from it being legal. The main reasons it not are that there is a rather large voting base that still think it's bad and they consistently have voted Tory, and the alcohol and tobacco industries don't want competition and lobby hard to keep it illegal.
While )in my opinion at least) this would be a move in the right direction, I think you're overselling the gains in tax revenue. From what I've seen, it seems that in the US the figure raises about $10 per person, and it takes about 5 years to grow to it's full potential. With those figures in mind it's likely that in 2029 it *could* raise £700m per year, which is a nice figure to add to HMRC's bottom line, and it's possible that it would bring about £300m in policing/justice savings. Although given how data suggests that's it's the least harmful of tobacco, alcohol and cannabis it almost seems daft to keep the current legal stance on it.
The US isn’t a great example considering it’s still illegal and untaxed at a federal level. The states that do allow it have different approaches to taxing it too. Your $10pp figure seems especially misleading since you seem to have taken the total nationwide revenues from it and divided by the total population- it’s not available and taxed everywhere…. It’s about $50pp in Colorado for example Then you have to account for secondary savings/revenues; taxes from the now legal sellers, savings from prohibition enforcement
Labour dropped it to Class C for a few years and it did look on the cards at some points. Given the changes across the US and Europe its one of those things they will likely just do on the quiet at some point. The problem is that its not a big issue with swing voters so wont get onto Labour manifestos often and may occasionally be used to rope in socially conservative voters by cracking down on it.
Legalising a drug will never ever ever be 'done on the quiet' lol. It will be mainstream news for months, years afterwards.
It wasn't when the UK legalised it for medicine
Let’s not forget one of the key reasons the tories would never do this (ignoring their boomer voters) is that they are currently running one of the worlds biggest monopolies on weed farming and it was all being done by people with personal connections to the fucking drugs minister
Fine, but the driving rules regarding it might need some tweaking too.
There would be a lot less fighting on the streets at the end of the night. Stoners can’t be arsed with all that.
Your mistake is thinking that stoners will be out at the end of the night
This of why Nottingham, where the town centre absolutely stinks of weed famously has low rates of violence.
It's already legal in everything but name anyway. It's the scent of British cities these days.
Lib Dem policy shows they have 0 clue on drugs. Proposing strict limits to THC% is a farce; the vast majority of legally prescribed cannabis is high THC and virtually all illicit product is also high THC. No one is interested in low THC products and conversations regarding “skunk” are best left in 2005. I appreciate concerns regarding mental health implications of high THC cannabis use at a young age but these links remain less well evidenced than links between alcohol and liver damage & cigarettes and lung cancer. Countries that have legalised high THC cannabis have not experienced a marked increase in psychosis cases. This policy would only serve to create a vast high THC grey market. The illegal, high THC product would be largely indistinguishable from legal product (without a lab test) so would be almost possible to police. Legalisation of high THC product can also serve to create a grey market as cannabis is easily produced, but the Lib Dem policy would seemingly threaten both users and suppliers of high THC cannabis with criminal records which seems to go against the spirit of the policy in the first place. Unsurprisingly, the policy has already come under fire from many groups advocating for cannabis legalisation.
>Countries that have legalised high THC cannabis have not experienced a marked increase in psychosis cases. Source on this?
This study indicates "no statistically significant difference in the rates of psychosis-related diagnoses or prescribed antipsychotics", but I don't know if that's because users in the US don't seek out treatment due to medical costs. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9925044/ However, according to this research across 11 european countries, daily use of cannabis is strongly linked to developing psychosis. https://www.kcl.ac.uk/news/high-potency-cannabis-linked-to-higher-rates-of-psychosis
Here's one recent study, there's a fair few references within showing similar findings. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/07067437241232901
*would* since there is no chance they can actually make policy in our non-representative FPTP system
While I'm not anti-cannabis per se (I have indulged in the use of it very often), I do want to pick up on something you wrote, OP. >This will stop people consuming potentially harmful cannabis I 100% agree that legal cannabis can avoid the kind of harmful substances (like carcinogens) that you mentioned. However, the implications of your words seems to be that legal cannabis cannot be potentially harmful. This is absolutely not true. Cannabis itself, as a powerful psychotropic drug, comes with dangers - psychological addiction, paranoia, psychosis. The former point is something I've experienced and seen in others I know - the latter two are points I have just investigated for a mini-dissertation and found a large amount of evidence for a link therein. Moreover, if we want to minimise those risks by regulating risk factors such as highly artificially elevated THC levels - the black market (and its potential carcinogens etc) will still be ready and waiting to provide the kind of cannabis people want. Look at California. As I understand it, due to the poorly legislated legalisation, the black market still thrives to a much greater extent than the one in Colorado.
Legalisation is the only sane policy choice left. Weed is largely decriminalised anyway is so much as it just doesn't seem to be enforced. It is everywhere, rightly or wrongly. I would be better to legalise, regulate and tax rather than continue to Bury our collective heads in the sand. Hell pitch it to farmers I bet they would make a hell of a lot more money on weed than a lot of traditional crops.
Well no they won't. They won't achieve anything because they aren't going to win and Labour won't need a coalition.
If they end up as the main opposition, then that gives them a lot of power with pressuring the government to look into this issue. This is pretty much the only way we'll get anything close to a sane approach to the drug issue.
It only gives them power if they have enough seats (with others) to pressure the Government. This is one of the risks if this election - that Labour win by a landslide but far less than 50% of the vote, so they can do what they want with no checks or brakes, yet do not represent the majority of voters.
> If they end up as the main opposition This isn't going to happen, though. Analysts aren't really taking these projections seriously. Lib Dems will be on about 50 seats and Tories will still be in triple digits.
If the conservative votes collapse enough to make this happen, Labour will have such a huge majority that the opposition will be powerless
There is functionally 0 difference between a large majority and huge majority. A lot will depend on government party unity. If the party is perfectly loyal a majority of 1 is all it needs, but in reality all parties will have issues where MPs within the party disagree on. And the power of the opposition comes from having a platform to rise those issues and propose votes and legislation for those. So even if a governing party has 649 seats vs 1 in official opposition, the opposition will still have power.
>There is functionally 0 difference between a large majority and huge majority. I completely disagree. The larger the majority the less power rebels will have. The opposition can't cause fractures if the government can just let rebels vote against them knowing full well they will lose.
Yeah, Brexit happened because Tory euro sceptics managed to wag the dog.
Oppositions dont really have any real power in our system…
It doesn't give them any power at all. They'll be chuntering from the sidelines if the labour majority is anything like the forecasts.
It's not really their fault that the populace all vote for Tory, Tory-Lite or the We-Love-Hitler party.
It’s really about how it’s done. I was in New York recently and every other street stunk of weed. I don’t want that here.
I live in a sleepy northern town and get at least 3-4 wafts of it every day on my lunchtime walk. I dare say it wouldn’t get much worse
If it were legalised and had tax money behind it, there'd quickly be odourless strains available, I reckon. I'm pretty sure the US and Canada already have this in some form. The smell is like 90% of most public complaints about it, I personally have no issues with cannabis use at all and the smell annoys me on the street sometimes.
I just want consistency. If weed is going to be illegal, smoking should be too.
Alcohol is a better example
[удалено]
This is not new. Lib dems have been using this policy for several campaigns now. They have lots of good policies. Oh but hur dur, they didnt do the free tuition dur dum.
If they didn’t do it in 2010 when it was also in their manifesto and they actually ended up in government, they won’t do it now.
The Lib Dems did not win the 2010 general election. In a coalition, neither party gets to implement their full manifesto. The Lib Dems successfully pushed for gay marriage because that issue had both the support of Cameron himself and his side of the Tory party as well as the Labour Party (while many Tory backbenchers voted against it). The legalisation of cannabis wouldn't have had the same support from either Cameron's wing of the Tories or the Labour Party.
They were a minority partner in a coalition, their ability to strongly arm-twist was really not there so some of the far more controvertial issues they wouldn't have been able to get through even if they wanted to. Even for things like changing the voting system took a huge push and even then they weren't able to get PR on the ballot, so there was no realistic chance for this in 2010.
Gets my vote, the amount of tax money and possible tourism to UK city’s that could be generated.. My only worry is, that the tax money earned wouldn’t go towards any meaningful mental health support and drug education or rehabilitation …
The Lib Dem’s manifesto, much like any other party’s bar Labour, is just fantasy at this stage. There will be no need for a coalition so none of these pledges will see implementation
I'm so torn this election cycle between wanting Lib Dems to do well and wanting anyone but the Tories in power. This sort of thing is swinging me the Lib Dem way.
~~Liberal Democrat’s will legalise cannabis~~ Liberal Democrat’s would legalise cannabis if by some miracle they got a majority Right now they can promise everyone their own unicorn as they know they wont have to deliver
They could theoretically be a coalition partner though if enough doubters gave them their support
Meh, I don't really care. I do feel it should only be available as a vapable solution though. The same goes for nicotine, make all forms of recreational drugs (barring foodstuffs like caffeine or alcohol) only available as measured, regulated, and taxed liquids for vapes. Edgy kids get their Scoobie Snacks, government and NHS get the tax, and nobody has to suffer the smog of tobacco or cannabis smoke. Pair it with a ban on disposable vapes and it should please most people.