Only full legalisation and regulation of cannabis can drag it out of the shadows of the underworld

Look up the term ‘narcotic’ in the dictionary and you’ll find something along the lines of ‘an addictive substance that in moderate doses dulls the senses, relieves pain and induces profound sleep, but in excessive doses causes stupor, coma, or convulsions’.

Make a list of narcotics and you are probably going to come up with a lot of substances that can earn you jail time or at least a hefty fine if the cops stop you with it.

The interesting thing, however, is that you could also find yourself including a lot of legal drugs on your list. Alcohol and tobacco spring to mind, but an argument could  be made that chocolate also fits the definition.

But just as it is hard to imagine anyone ever outlawing chocoholics’ drug of choice, it is also hard to believe that cannabis would ever become fully legal. The question, however, is why not?

Cannabis and alcohol are both associated with health and social costs. Yet, only one of them is illegal.

One of the key arguments for keeping it that way is that wine, whiskey, sake and all the other variants of alcoholic drink have played an important role in the history and culture of many nations. That may be true, but so have long-since outlawed practices such as slavery, human sacrifice and polygamy.

A complete end to the modern day cannabis prohibition would open it up to the same type of strict regulation as that imposed on alcohol and tobacco. Doing so would have two obvious benefits.

First and foremost would be the income earned from excise taxes. The other would be to take the drug trade away from gangs and put into the hands of legitimate businesses.

Like it or not, pot is here to stay. Instead of giving it the uncertain ‘decriminalised’ status, the City Council should use full legalisation as the first step towards regulating drug dealers into submission.

Related article

City trying to 'hash out' pot issue