the problem will be, I suspect
that the royal commission, if they have one, will go the way of David Nut and Leveson. it will spend a lot of time and effort getting to a sensible answer, which will then be roundly ignored.

*dons tinfoil hat* I suspect this may have less to do with fear of alienating sections of the public than it does to do with alienation sections of the media who seem to have an unhealthy influence over the government. Bad as the semi-elected pricks are Murdock is both worse and not even vaguely elected or accountable.
( CQ Knows the truth, all of it., Mon 10 Dec 2012, 12:32, 4 replies, latest was 12 years ago)

That's right Wilf, the media industry is famously anti-drugs.

( Monty Boyce, My cheese game is strong, Mon 10 Dec 2012, 12:35, Reply)

the people in the industry take a lot sure
but point me to any headlines that are pro-drugs and it's the headline that influence policy, not the private opinions of those who write them.
( CQ Knows the truth, all of it., Mon 10 Dec 2012, 12:36, Reply)

I think it's a supply and demand thing.
The papers just pander to the worst facets of society, rather than actually creating it. Everything they say and do is geared specifically towards sales, rather than some kind of genuine moral stance.
( Monty Boyce, My cheese game is strong, Mon 10 Dec 2012, 12:38, Reply)

I said that below.

( Windy Pig I'm naturally quite suspicious about the moon., Mon 10 Dec 2012, 12:40, Reply)

true, true
but don't you think they also encourage that kind of mind set, people get their info from the papers and form views accordingly, scary but tru, a lot of people believe what they read in the papers and a lot of people read the Mail.
( CQ Knows the truth, all of it., Mon 10 Dec 2012, 12:41, Reply)

to a point, yes,
it goes both ways.
( Windy Pig I'm naturally quite suspicious about the moon., Mon 10 Dec 2012, 12:42, Reply)

Hang on,
that doesn't make any sense at all. The media can put pressure on the government when it comes to big decisions, but normally they only get whipped up because they know the public will support them, and then buy their newspapers. So either way, they are alienating both.
( Windy Pig I'm naturally quite suspicious about the moon., Mon 10 Dec 2012, 12:38, Reply)

See above reply to Monty
Papers have a big influence on opinions and voting behavior. OK, it's not all one-way but compare the number of people who are OK with the odd joint etc with the number of papers ever to come out in favour of legalising anything.

I dunno, maybe I just move among hippies, but I struggle to think of anyone I know who wouldn't at least legalise cannabis.
( CQ Knows the truth, all of it., Mon 10 Dec 2012, 12:43, Reply)

I wouldn't.
Maybe bacause of the problems it would cause my industry, like I said above, but if we can't even trust most people with booze, which, yes, I know is more harmful, how are you ever going to argue that the common man is going to use cannabis responsibly, when people are already fuck ups with the one vice that is legal?
( Windy Pig I'm naturally quite suspicious about the moon., Mon 10 Dec 2012, 12:46, Reply)

two points:
firstly, legalising it does not mean people have to be allowed to smoke it in pubs

secondly it's absurdly easy to get hold of, I doubt that many more people would smoke it than do if it were legal, but that's an opinion.
( CQ Knows the truth, all of it., Mon 10 Dec 2012, 12:54, Reply)

of course they would,
It is a lot more difficult to get hold of than just popping down the shop for a six pack of special brew. It would be cheaper if legal most probably, and therefore might attract the down and outs.

And try making it legal without allowing it in pub gardens. This is the problem I see, and this isn't aimed at you, I have many friends on the legalise side of the argument that are the same. In our little circle (i do smoke) we would all be responsible if it was legal, probably even be ok to do it in the pub as well, and they argue that that is the reason it should be lagalised, forgetting the sort of people I encounter every day at work, espeically on weekends, who have no self control, are cretins, do not act like repsonsible human beings, and i run quite a nice pub in Oxford. Now, these people shouldn't be allowed booze, let alone any other substance that could cause them to vomit on my furniture, or pass out and mash their head open on the cobbles. But its too late to ban booze, we should not encaurage these people. at all. We're not all like you and me and our hippy mates.
( Windy Pig I'm naturally quite suspicious about the moon., Mon 10 Dec 2012, 13:14, Reply)

I can get drugs delivered pretty much 24-7, don't even need to leave the door.
Also given the taxation it would attract, I doubt very much it would be cheaper, just less likely to be adulterated or whatever.

The rest of your point is sound though.
( Monty Boyce, My cheese game is strong, Mon 10 Dec 2012, 13:16, Reply)

MAybe you're right about the taxation,
but where there is a market, there is a marketeer, and therefore cheap cannabis, on the lines of special brew, would exist I'm sure.
( Windy Pig I'm naturally quite suspicious about the moon., Mon 10 Dec 2012, 13:19, Reply)

Just think the sales of nuts and pork scratching’s
Would go through the roof.
( hartley hare Just some prick who thinks it doesn't apply to him, Mon 10 Dec 2012, 13:16, Reply)

wait a minute, the mental one from The A-Team is involved?
Fucking hell.
(dozers, do fuck off ur a nob m8, Mon 10 Dec 2012, 12:38, Reply)

He's the shadowy mastermind I tell ya!

( CQ Knows the truth, all of it., Mon 10 Dec 2012, 12:44, Reply)

Or "The Man" prefers debt as a means of controlling the masses?

(localboy purveyor of pisspoor puns, Mon 10 Dec 2012, 12:46, Reply)

relevence?

( CQ Knows the truth, all of it., Mon 10 Dec 2012, 12:58, Reply)