UK Commons Inquiry

No, Duppy, you misunderstand me, I think lol

What I'm saying is, that tobacco is a KNOWN health risk and burden upon society, as is alcohol (binge drinking culture, societal cost, etc), and yet, because those particular industries are such a financial contributor (above and beyond tax revenue) to political coffers, that the government wouldn't dare compromise their income by legislating against it's legality.

And yet, against an overwhelming proportion of evidence and opinion to suggest otherwise, they continue to regale against cannabis.

It just seems, at the very least, slightly hypocritical of them.

:confused:

I agree with you wholeheartedly, RES, but consider this.

Prohibition on alcohol has been tried, and the result was a number of organized crime cartels and syndicates, producing their own alcohol, and selling it underground. These cartels made substantial money from this - something any government would not want to happen. By prohibitioning alcohol know, they would encounter the same problems. Plus, any government that banned alcohol [I]now[I], would NOT be voted in to office by the public again. Also, the government would lose millions, even billions, of £'s made from alcohol sales and licensing. This would mean that we, the tax payer, would have to suffer all sorts of increased taxes to make up the difference.

The same is true for tobacco - there is no pheasable way the government would be able to ban the sale of tobacco. They would lose a hell of alot of money, and have to increase taxes. They would lose literaly millions of voters.

The opposite is true for Cannabis. It is now illegal, but were it to be made legal, the government would have to admit they were wrong. They would lose alot of trust from the public, and maybe not be voted in to office again. The next government that came along, wanting to win the voters back, would ban Cannabis again, and adopt a 'We told you so' attitude.

My point is this. We complain that governments are only out for themselves. This is probably true. But, think about why.

If a government that was truely out to do their best for the people came in to power, they would have to make a lot of radical changes. This would lose them the vote of many minority groups (ie, if they legalised drugs, then many older voters would be against it and them). This would likely result in them losing the next election. How can they help the country if they get outvoted? Governments HAVE to try and keep themselves in power, by keeping all the voters happy (or as many as possible), so that they can continue to help the country.

As cannabis smokers, we a minority. If the government truely want to help the country, but ALSO want to stay in power, then they have to be seen to be doing what the majority wants.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GHoSToKER

If the government truely want to help the country, but ALSO want to stay in power, then they have to be seen to be doing what the majority wants.

---

What, you mean like the fox hunting bill? lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GHoSToKER

It is now illegal, but were it to be made legal, the government would have to admit they were wrong. They would lose alot of trust from the public, and maybe not be voted in to office again.

---

What, you mean like the Bush administration and Blair's government? lol

I hear what you're saying, GHoST, but you know as well as I do, that public opinion can be manipulated - whereas financial support is fickle (ie, manipulative).
The problem with the cannabis legislative argument, is that other drugs seem to always be made subject to the discussion - you only had to watch that "If..." programme that was screened a few weeks ago, to see that...very little was discussed about cannabis, and therefore, the public's awareness was drawn towards harder drugs, rather than the humble herb.

[QUOTE=RESiNATE]No, Duppy, you misunderstand me, I think lol

sorry man miss read your post,,, your right.. I think this is the goverments latest anti Cannabis campaign which is weird why they don't legalize and take their taxes from it.as smoking is on the decline...just a thought, all the law suits going on about passive smoking related disease,,,,,,what about continuing to supply the public with nicotine without any risk to others,,,,,,,,,,,,,,Nicotine substitutes....perfect you can allow people to self terminate without harming others ..job done