Brit suggests license for cannabis users

Yet another suggestion from the crowd that loves to legislate - licenses for legitimate cannabis users (adults only of course). Britain certainly has some wacky ideas.

Yet another prominent scientist has attacked the government's position on drugs by suggesting that cannabis could be sold to people who have been issued with a "cannabis licence".

Roger Pertwee, professor of neuropharmacology at Aberdeen University, and the foremost British authority on cannabis, is expected to outline his ideas about how the drug could be legalised responsibly at the British Science Festival in Birmingham, which begins today.

His intervention comes almost a year after the Labour Home Secretary Alan Johnson fired Professor David Nutt, the chairman of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) and the government's top drugs advisor, after he suggested that drugs such as cannabis and LSD were less harmful than alcohol.

Prior to that, the Labour government had upgraded cannabis from a Class C to a Class B drug against the advice of the ACMD. So it was no surprise when another seven members of the ACMD resigned after Nutt's dismissal - either citing Nutt's shoddy treatment or the government's prohibitionist attitude towards drugs.

Pertwee appears to harbour similar views on cannabis to Nutt, saying: "At the moment, cannabis is in the hands of criminals, and that's crazy. We're allowed to take alcohol, we're allowed to smoke cigarettes. Cannabis, if it's handled properly, is probably not going to be any more dangerous than that."

In order to ensure the quality of the cannabis, and to reduce the risk of users being exposed to other more harmful drugs, he proposes a licensing system:

"You would need a minimum age of 21, but I would go further: that you have to have a licence. We have to have a car licence, we used to have a dog licence, so why not have a cannabis licence so you can only take it if it is medically safe to do so?

"That would exclude some people who are at risk of becoming schizophrenic." Such people would be denied a licence because some scientific studies have suggested that cannabis can cause mental illness in those people already prone to psychoses.

A further advantage of legalisation would be the ability to perfect new ways of ingesting the drug that are less harmful than joints, which burn and produce carcinogenic chemicals. Pertwee suggests one way could be the so-called 'volcano' method, in which cannabis is vaporised.

Any hopes that the coalition government, including as it does the Liberal Democrats - whose election manifesto made clear the party would "always base drugs policy on independent scientific advice, including making the ACMD completely independent of government" - would take the opportunity to make a clean break from the previous Labour administration, which so alienated the scientific community, have been swiftly dashed by a Home Office spokesperson, who said:

"There is clear evidence that cannabis is a harmful drug which can cause damage to mental health in the immediate and longer-term. Even the occasional use of cannabis can be dangerous for people with diseases of the circulatory system.

"The Government does not believe that decriminalisation of cannabis is the right approach. Our priorities are clear: we want to reduce drug use, crack down on drug related crime and disorder and help addicts come off drugs for good."

From the Guardian.

I agree about licenses for psychedelics, but a license for marijuana? There aren't any licenses for common users of cigarettes or alcohol (which are dangerous), and marijuana doesn't send one into a trip like psychedelics.

Psychedelics are soft drugs and really safe, I know, but it'd be like earning a driver's license. I don't see as much justification for marijuana, though.

Still it's a huge step, and it's better than nothing. Also, I'd say the age should be, at the most, 18, although ideally I'd say younger than that for both marijuana and psychedelics.

I know there are exceptions, though, where marijuana sends people into trips that have previously used psychedelics, but I'm not sure that that reason should warrant a license.

It may be the only way to initially get things going, though, considering how the drug board is.

Is that bad thing?! Sounds like a free pass to toke up to me!

Most of us live outside of Cal. But all people on hipforums should know about this and they DO NOT know. Paste this into other forums and help to spread the word.
-------------------------------
New Law would change an ounce or less to being legal, instead of a $100 fine.

Voting on November 2, 2010. California Proposition 19.

New proposed state law.

“Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010.”

http://yeson19.com/node/6