If you're going to have thousands of people packed tightly together who are going to be drinking...yes, I think you do need a law enforcement presence there.
I agree, but I don't know of any concerts where this has been the case - I thought you were talking about clubs or bars where there is live music. i have never heard of a concert with thousands of people with no police or security presence.
No, I dont have the drugs mixed up. While a guy who is stoned and drunk isnt going to flip out and start punching people, there is an epic loss of judgment...which, when compounded for lots of people in a small space, poses a safety hazard for not only the performers, but for the people. What if there is a fire? Its hard enough trying to move 100 drunk people, but 100 drunk, paniced stoned people? Ugh.
There is a lot of shaky science surrounding this. Some studies claim that using cannabis before alcohol results in less drunkeness because it effects how easily someone can absorb alcohol - whilst using cannabis after alcohol supposedly can result in an intensifying of the experience. I would not know, I have never tried cannabis. I really don't see much different in trying to move 100 drunk people and 100 drunk and stoned people. Furthermore, you are taking this far to the extreme rather than using figures. In the Netherlands, where the drug is basically legal, the use rate is far lower than in the USA, making me wonder why on earth this is a sticking point for you. Admittedly, as soon as cannabis was legalised in the Netherlands the usage rate rocketed, however, now it is amongst the lowest in the Western World.
Yes, if a situation shows a significant public safety risk, it is reasonable for the government to make regulations...thats why we have things like fire codes. Likewise, if we are to make pot legal, I think it should be illegal in places were many people will get together to drink (i.e, at bars).
With your first point here, I agree - the question is if there is a reasonable risk or not and if there is any call for utility to trump liberty. In the case of cannabis, I think neither is the case. You second point, as I have said above, should be reserved to a bill on smoking in private places that accept the public. Until such a bill, it is up to private establishment owners to decide how to run their business in as much as way as they can. If they wish to allow people to smoke, then so be it. If they wish to allow people to use cannabis, then so be it. I for one, would not go to those bars - and before the smoking ban was introduced where I live I was able to attend clubs and bars that had no smoking policies. I would just save that for another bill and not this one and believe me, there would be a huge market for cannabis free bars, cafes or whatever - they exist in countries where it has been legalised or decriminalised.
People will use drugs no matter what, but they won't use them in places where they know their likelihood of being caught is higher. It should not be "up to the business" to follow a law. Likewise, I agree that throwing potheads in jail in silly, but I am unaware of many countries that do that (at least, not these productive members of society). They're going to get a stiff fine, service and probation.
To your first point, although I do not have any actual statistics (I could not find any) I do have evidence of personal experience of people smoking cannabis in clubs (until the smoking ban, where they could not longer pass it off as cigarettes). It happened all the time and it still happens in beer gardens where you can still smoke. Secondly, I never said it should be up the business to follow a law (if it came out like that, that is not what I meant), instead I meant that it should be up to a business to enforce its own regulation in a free market economy. I believe regulations should only be used to a very limited degree (such as fire safety rules), when utility should clearly trump liberty.
Cannabis counts for thousands of imprisonments in the USA and the UK. All someone needs to do is not pay the fine or break probation or carry what the police at the time may deem for more than personal use. It also depends upon the state. The UK used to have much stricter laws when cannabis was a class B drug. I myself would think twice about paying a fine for an act which I deem to be completely consensual.
Look, I could be convinced of making pot legal...but I dont think that there should be any drugs at all in bars or nightclubs.
But there are drugs there, and no law is ever going to change that. It is also clear that the anti-drug policy of most western nations is clearly not working and anew approach is needed. If you really want to ban cannabis, or smoking, from a private establishment that is open to the public, then I would do that in another bill. In the same way as if I were to make a smoking legalisation bill, I would still never have a restriction for pubs/cafes/etc in it. I would leave that for a separate bill.
Anyway, this is about to be put up for a vote, so it will be interesting to see how it does
. We have had a good argument here and I hope that there are many more controversial bills in the future of this parliament!
