RE : The cigarette smokers may disagree...
"...but if this is the start of a process of decriminalising all currently prohibited drugs, then I say OK."
With you there, that was pretty much my first thought as well. If one dangerous addictive drug can be licensed, then it's only fair that others should be to. I'd be perfectly willing to spring 200 quid a year if meant I could buy skunk from the corner shop at knock down prices (which is the way I buy ciggies now).
On the other hand, why the license. Why not just legalise and tax other drugs, which would provide a massive increase in tax revenue straight away ?
"If, as most people accept, prohibition and "just say no" doesn't work."
The sad answer is that, in fact, most people **don't** think that way. The hysterical middle classes (e.g the people who actually a)give a shit about drugs, etc and b) swing vote ) have been brainwashed by years of tabloid/ITV stories about retards like Leah Betts who killed themselves through their own stupidity, into repeating the mantra "Drugs are bad, m'kay" without applying any kind of critical thought process.
So much so that they can't even join up the dots thus :
Caffeine == drug; Booze == drug;
if(drug == bad) then Gin,Latte == also bad.
It's this same audience who have been now been convinced that Smoking == killing children & reducing biodiversity & funding terrorism (probably) who are the target market for stupid announcements like this.
Nothing will ever come of it, but Daily Wail/Express/etc reading Parents (note the capital P) will warm to the party because they are being seen to "Think About The Children"(tm) and because they see a policy that targets those "other people" who cost "them" a fortune in taxes to pay for "their" health service. And similar.
And of course smokers are fucked, because we *know* smoking is bad for you, it's written on the packet and everything, and we've been told that it's bad for other people as well, so it seems churlish to complain.
All in all a genius piece of political manipulation, which leaves with the interesting position that if it's actually implemented, our rulers are Stalinist, but if it's just fluff, they're more like, erm, hang on, it's Stalin again.
Funny how many times that name's come up.