Canabis farms

UKworkshop.co.uk

Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
My original post was to highlight the sheer scale of this operation. This operation was in a small town on the South Coast.
I absolutely agree with SammyQ. Deregulating would lead to a downward spiral in cost which would make the availability much greater with no quality control. I have seen the result of starting with canabis which leads onto much stronger drugs. I heard from a "Bricky" that the use is widespread on building sites, already one of the most dangerous work enviroments.
 
You two gentlemen are SO uninformed. Jacob, I suspect you are up to your incendiary tricks again. Slap your own wrists; save me the trouble.

I first worked with analyses of cannabis back in 1979 and I regularly had to revise and update my knowledge of the variants ("skunk" et al) as the years went by, for the execution of my daily job. I've also seen the effects close up and achingly personal in some of the individuals for whom I have had a caring responsibility. My son is a first line responder; his experiences would "bring curls to the head of a bald man".

Cobbs, there is everything wrong with waccy baccy. Just ask any of the paranoid individuals who were long term users - if their long term memory is still intact enough for them to recall pre-hash times. Go comfort some of the R.T.C. victims who were crashed into by a drug driver. Or, the (usually pensionable-age) victims of high-street muggings that are carried out to finance the habit. Go swop places with a 'rent boy' for 24 hours.

Jacob, de-criminalising would simply put a false 'sheen' on, and 'legitimise' the callous, greedy, criminality who presently import and HUGELY profit from, the cannabis trade. (The Albanians and Vietnamese patsies that act as caretakers and gardeners are just exploited stooges). The shadowy boyos in Beamers, Jags and Mercs with 6-or-7-figure houses whoop with joy when such ignorant opinions are espoused by the chattering classes. "Get the rozzers off their backs", they just continue to make oodles of cash, but this time, Gov.Com is calling it "legit"??? Yippee!!

Publishing sweeping casual generalisms for the sake of hearing ones digital 'voice' are irritating at the best of times, but when its use continues to prop up a convenient urban myth - one actively pushed and provided for by the ungodly - the practice becomes a more serious and utterly unacceptable "accessory to criminality" Shame on you both.
You miss the point of my argument. I have seen drug abuse of all stripes and agree that it can be devastating. I accept that cannabis psychosis is real and I've seen that too. The fact remains that if people want to use drugs, they will, they always have. It makes no sense whatsoever to gift huge amounts of money to the criminal underclass who exploit that tendency. If you want to to harm the "unscrupulous", then hit them in the pocket. I stick to my views on legalisation. If people are struggling with mental health issues, does it really make sense to label them as criminals too? Legalise it and free up the funds currently used in the fruitless efforts to suppress something that cannot be suppressed and use those funds for better things.
Would you have us ban alcohol as well?

I realise I'm not going to change your mind on this, but neither will you change mine.
 
My b.i.l worked recently on a major civil engineering site - they were drink and drug teated every morning. It's chemical drugs that are common here rather than cannabis or opiates. My daughter sat outside a local club back in the summer next to fifteen people in their 20s - she knew at least nine of them to be dealers.
 
The only way to get the criminals out of it is to regulate the supply and the only way to do that is to legalise it. If it is produced legally in this country, and the quality and price is regulated, what profit is there for criminal gangs?
 
My b.i.l worked recently on a major civil engineering site - they were drink and drug teated every morning. It's chemical drugs that are common here rather than cannabis or opiates. My daughter sat outside a local club back in the summer next to fifteen people in their 20s - she knew at least nine of them to be dealers.
I worked on building sites back in the early 70s for five years. Most of us went down to the pub at lunch time and had a couple of pints. More on a Friday. Then we'd come back and operate JCBs, excavators, dozers and dumper trucks. It was the culture back then.
 
I rubbed shoulders with both policemen and the judiciary off-and-on for 37 years. The judiciary have increasingly been keen over that time to give rehabilitation a go instead of incarceration, otherwise the pathetic contemporary provision of prisons fills up quicker than we can keep up with. Fine if the funds are available to pay for support services to make that alternative feasible. Enter stage left, the "Austerity years" and the steady decline in real supply since. So, no, it's not a runner.
Secondly, the judges of this world are only as good as the statutary limitations imposed on them by politicians with vote-determining popularity as their prime driving force, not workable and effective deterrents. Having politicos with backbone to make the importers and distributors of drugs more arrestable and their punishment more of a deterrent would be a nice start.

Sashakins? "sob story about poor childhood upbringing, missed social services support and they had their teddy taken away." From my experience, I can say that this condescending comment, with its roots in real misery, but its concluding strap line in mock satire does not help. Poor upbringing can happen right across the financial spectrum. One of my worst ones had two parents driving matching Volvo estates. "Taking their teddy away" reads more like: 'taking their childhood away' in real life. If someone is conditioned by circumstances not to develop responsibility and judgement, as should be imparted by a rsponsible adult, one does not function within the expectations of "society" as we know it.
How is it then that the many with same backgrounds don't resort to criminal behaviour.
It's called growing up, and realising that life changes, blaming the past, while understanding it was wrong, does not make it an excuse to maintain that prepencity. Learning morals continues throughout life. Just being wronged early on does not preclude you from learning right from wrong.
No it wasn't a sarcastic statement, it was an example that is used to express the nature that someone else was to blame for their actions. The culture to blame others is too prevalent today, responsibilities for your own actions seems to have been largely ignored.
 
Last edited:
Time the made it legal and stopped all this criminality and waste of police time.
So speaks someone who has not had to pick up the pieces from someone doing drugs.

The local hospital has an "Early Intervention in Psychosis" Team dedicated to attempting to help those who also thought it was harmless.
 
The only way to get the criminals out of it is to regulate the supply and the only way to do that is to legalise it. If it is produced legally in this country, and the quality and price is regulated, what profit is there for criminal gangs?
What makes you think it would be profitable. Remember, as well as the growing, the growers are paying for the expensive use of electricity, business rates, water etc etc. Add all that into the true cost and profitable business model goes out the window.
Result would be like tobacco, its legal, but millions is made from the illegal importing of tobacco, so the illegal manufacture would still go on for drugs, as there cost base is nonexistent.
 
I worked on building sites back in the early 70s for five years. Most of us went down to the pub at lunch time and had a couple of pints. More on a Friday. Then we'd come back and operate JCBs, excavators, dozers and dumper trucks. It was the culture back then.
So did I. Half a dozen beers on a Saturday lunchtime then back 100feet off the ground.
 
What makes you think it would be profitable. Remember, as well as the growing, the growers are paying for the expensive use of electricity, business rates, water etc etc.
The criminals use electricity because they grow it indoors under artificial light. Legally it could be grown in greenhouses for the same cost as tomato plants. I can buy a live basil plant in a pot in a supermarket for less than a fiver. It isn't a difficult plant to cultivate.

The repeal of Prohibition in the USA in 1933 killed the illicit booze industry stone dead overnight. (And, ironically the criminals there moved into, among other things, illegal drugs.)
 
Last edited:
So speaks someone who has not had to pick up the pieces from someone doing drugs.
Not true.
But alcohol and tobacco have been a much bigger issue with people I know, and also everywhere else worldwide
The local hospital has an "Early Intervention in Psychosis" Team dedicated to attempting to help those who also thought it was harmless.
Would they be more productive looking at alcohol and nicotine? They are a much bigger problem statistically. They'd be an even bigger problem if they were banned 100%.
 
You two gentlemen are SO uninformed. Jacob, I suspect you are up to your incendiary tricks again. Slap your own wrists; save me the trouble.

I first worked with analyses of cannabis back in 1979 and I regularly had to revise and update my knowledge of the variants ("skunk" et al) ......
Do you think "drugs" are more or less harmful than alcohol and tobacco?
 
My original post was to highlight the sheer scale of this operation. This operation was in a small town on the South Coast.
I absolutely agree with SammyQ. Deregulating would lead to a downward spiral in cost .....
and a downward spiral in criminal activity, upward spiral in quality control/regulation, upward spiral in tax revenue, etc etc, and very likely a decline in usage, as happened very successfully with tobacco.
 
I think there's an awful lot of hypocrisy when it comes to drug laws, even allowing for the fact that most people have dabbled at some point in their past. Why is it that alcohol for instance, is perfectly legal when I would guess the vast majority of us have personal experience of losing friends or family members to its abuse, while cannabis, which is responsible for vanishingly few deaths, is still proscribed? Obviously, the government is happy to profit from alcohol taxes, as well as those from tobacco, vapes and caffeine.
Speaking for myself, I think it's long past time when ALL drugs should be legalised, with the money saved on enforcement going towards quality control, licensing and education. Probably a contentious viewpoint, I admit, but better to save lives and take the money away from the criminal networks. Let's not forget that the Mafia in the US only grew to serious proportions when prohibition provided lucrative returns for bootlegging and rum running.
I have to confess to never having even dabbled beyond alcohol and tobacco -having always intended to try everything in my final decade when any adverse impacts have limited consequences.

However fully support legalisation of drugs with the more damaging subject to prescription so that quality is controlled and support can be offered.

The only folk who benefit at present are the criminals. Those who suffer are the drug takers who have to somehow pay for the habit, and sometimes their families.

Were illegality and law enforcement remotely effective, we would have seen deaths from drug overdoses reduced - sadly not the case.
 
What makes everyone think it'll be cheaper if legalised. If its still price prohibitive, then the likelihood of continued criminality to fund a habit will still be there.
 
Weed is certainly less harmful than many drugs.
Alcohol causes some problems, but not as much as class A drugs. Tobacco is very dangerous to the health if taken long term(20+ years)

With the exception of crack, I think ive tried everything, inc a lot most here(outwith the medical profession) havent heard of.

4 friends and many more acquaintances have died to heroin, and 3 friends have drank themselves to death. Tobacco has damaged my health.
 
You miss the point of my argument. I have seen drug abuse of all stripes and agree that it can be devastating. I accept that cannabis psychosis is real and I've seen that too. The fact remains that if people want to use drugs, they will, they always have. It makes no sense whatsoever to gift huge amounts of money to the criminal underclass who exploit that tendency. If you want to to harm the "unscrupulous", then hit them in the pocket. I stick to my views on legalisation. If people are struggling with mental health issues, does it really make sense to label them as criminals too? Legalise it and free up the funds currently used in the fruitless efforts to suppress something that cannot be suppressed and use those funds for better things.
Would you have us ban alcohol as well?

I realise I'm not going to change your mind on this, but neither will you change mine.
Cobbs, I may have misread or misunderstood your original post, if so apologies , as from the quoted post directly above, we may actually have more in common than I thought. Gathering the accumumulated opinions above, I take your point re alcohol; tobacco (which the industry knew for decades was carcinogenic, addictive etc etc, but deliberately suppressed research showing this) could be added and I have to say, taxes raised from both are a considerable sum each year. Rhetorically speaking, I wonder how much of baccy and booze taxation goes directly to fund 'support services' for lung cancer, alcoholism etc? It would be informative and useful to see empirical figures.

Having broadly agreed with your principle, I would most respectfully propose that we are talking about two very different sets of 'industries':

a) Tobacco and alcohol producers have moved on (in some first world countries) from the shady advertising, poteen making, etc of the nineteen-thirties and -forties and could - with one eye closed - be considered to be "mainstream" today with available accounts, share holders' meetings, yada. yada.
b) Drug provision, as in cannabis, heroin, crystal meth, and derivatives, is certainly NOT as 'visible' and as accountable as those of a). Its 'executives' are emphatically not identifiable to shareholders(!) and as such, are not sub judice until caught!

I fully agree, it would be lovely, in a utopian world, to skim off a percentage of the revenue generated from drug use to fund the rectification of the problems caused by it. [One could cynically say, those problems would not occur if the drugs were unavailable, so there would be no need to garner said funds, no statistics about drug-related crime and so on?]

Returning to a) vs b) above, given the entrenched criminological inverstment in drugs, are you realistic to ask that we 'legalise' them? I wonder if it would simply make life easier for the Pablo Escobars and José Rodríguez Gachas of this world to operate, massively manipulating the market with their already established supply lines continuing to operate 'under the counter' augmenting the "legal and scrutinised" open network that your idea would create. We would then have the unlovely connundrum of: "how can you tell illegal spliffs from legal ones?".

"I realise I'm not going to change your mind on this, but neither will you change mine." Please do not assume I am a bigot; I 'spoke' from the heart, having experienced much from 37 years in one of the caring industries. I am certainly open to my ideas and position being challenged; one is never too old to learn or be corrected. Empirical evidence is everything. If you present something I have mis-interpreted, and I can see it to be so, I will, of course, publicly recant and move on the better informed for it.
 
Last edited:
If cannabis is legalised then many people will grow it in their own garden. It is very easy to grow moderate strength plants.
the extra supply from home grown will help depress the price.

the most damaging drug for society is alcohol, ( followed by tobacco IIRC). I wonder why those substances are still legal.
 
Back
Top