Cannabis may accelerate some psychotic conditions in some users. And given it is smoked with tobacco, and in a way that inhales pure smoke rather than the mixture of smoke and air of the typical smoker, possibly more harmful than tobacco?

If extracted by around a month-long soak in alcohol then drunk as an alcohol and cannabis mix, possibly even more habit-forming than alcohol alone?

Medicinal cannabis uses the latter method, except the alcohol is then fumed off. And in some conditions has seemed to have been helpful, ditto heroin.

I mean if someone is terminally ill, what harm can ensue if they form a habit?

I think we need to allow medicinal use of the aforementioned, for the obvious reported pain relief it allegedly produces. But draw a line there?

Otherwise, we could follow Portugal and similar countries and legalize almost all recreational drugs and heroin to control strength and usage? And collect a windfall in excise and tax!

This seems the commonsense solution save commonsense is indeed a rare commodity in Canberra and folk like "Minister" Dutton guaranteed to be opposed on purely ideological grounds?

Applied with the exception of ice and crack cocaine. And as the author states, relieves the police for more important crime resolution work!

On another note and as a final observation, from a personal perspective, the very best high and euphoria was obtained via transcendal meditation, which can be practised, minus and religious dogma attached to it!

Try it, it can't hurt. Or tell the kids it's an app and they'll swarm to learn the technique.
Alan B.

Money, money and more money makes the world go around.

If David Leyonhjelm stands behind anything, it is boots and all corporate wealth.

It is also well known, the major beneficiary of legalised hooch are the tobacco companies. Go Dave!

My own opinion is keep it illegal and off the streets; this is actually a good use of police time.
And while at it, totally ban tobacco and alcohol. Two more social scourges which are not worth the space for acceptance in society.

This author should sit quietly and contemplate the savings to law enforcement, and other benefits of vastly reduced incarceration rates, and other ancillary benefits to community health, an alcohol free society would accomplish.

The risks for marajunna as far as health or side effects is probably less then it is with tobacco and alcohol. And along with the benifits that are found for medical use, the justification to legalize it seems to grow each year. This is not true with other illegal drugs. Either the side effects, the health concerns, or the addictive natures in them show a reason to ban them, or the recent reports of opioid abuse of legal drugs should show hesitation in trusting the legal markets to curb the bad elements of a drug.

With opioid use, there are enough people that get steadily more addicted to them and require a steadily stronger dose to manage pain that eventually a doctor can just descide to cut them off and leave them without any answer except to go into the illegal market of heroin. (But they are ok to start new patients down the same path as those they cut off).

Whether it's legal or illegal, drug markets are not trustworthy and therefore should be used only in a way for medical needs instead of increasing the kinds of recreational addictions that are legal.

Everyone knows I make my arguments based on merit and ethics.

Firstly, I believe recreation use of cannabis should be legalised. Why?
Because there should be a legal option to alcohol for people going through messy breakups.
Alcohol or anti-depressents are not the right medication.
Getting drunk only works if your going to be a happy drunk, not an angry one.
You shouldn't drink to get drunk if you have underlying issues that might set you off.

So cannabis should be legalised, if only as an option or a preventative measure to alcohol use and related domestic violence issues during difficult periods of emotional well-being; it's really a no-brainer.

But next we have to look at the ethics of turning someone you labelled a criminal yesterday into a cash-cow tomorrow.

Think about this:
Yesterday you said 'Drugs are bad' and those who used them belong behind bars and you spent taxpayers money prosecuting those who did not obey;
Tomorrow the government who once imprisoned many for using cannabis on the basis that it is a 'dangerous drug' now becomes the drug dealer, on the basis of 'all that bloody money'.

- How would the government be any different to the many thousands it kicked the doors of their homes in for and arrested, prosecuted and imprisoned for doing the exact same thing?

Some may oppose the proposed idea if those who use cannabis are not allowed to just grow their own instead.
It seems that you want to create a market you can profit from whilst keeping the price artificially high by restricting anyone else from growing it or allowing a free market to determine its true value.
You can't call people who use cannabis criminals one day, then become the only grower and dealer in town yourself because of the money the next day.

[Cont.]
Next, you can bandy all these big numbers around, but the truth of the matter is that to my knowledge the price of cannabis hasn't really changed much historically.
As far as I know, it's more or less the same price now as it was 20 or more years ago.
Compare that to cigarettes, they've gone up 10 times in value over the same period.

- If you try to apply the same inflationary pricing, people that purchase cannabis will go back to the black-market, so your long term prospects and model for what you envisage is not as good as what you think.

Also do you not consider growers who profit from the current illegal industry might start a price war if the government tries to step into it?
That the streets might see lower drug prices and it may become more accessible to young people in this environment?

Ethically there might be an argument that 'taxing recreational drugs' could provide funds for better education and treatment, but if this was truly their aim why don't they do it now already?
It's hard to believe they would make any more effort than they do now to frown upon drug use, if they we're profiting from it.

Think about this:
They could make cigarettes easier to give up, with cheaper patches, gum and vaping, but they don't.
Why doesn't the government make it cheap and easy to give up?
Do they care about people health or about the money?
-Once big business gets its foot in the door and Senators are getting some of the action, well you know...

But all that side, I believe there's an agenda for a slow push towards all drugs being legalised, taxed and regulated because of the push towards a cashless society.

Seems more like multi-nationals who pay no tax anyway have their eyes on a more profitable market.
The government wouldn't need the money if it taxed the multi-national fare evaders fairly in the first place.
This will no doubt be pushed as the solution to our withering economies.

Does anyone of any intelligent people who abuse drugs ?