Good piece. When can we get some data on heavy user's voting patterns and subsequent employment history? When can we blood test the entire staff of the various EPA's and DNRM's.

According to ABC Catalyst (date unknown) the research from MRI scans also shows that the brains of heavy users function in the same way as schizophrenics. That is, a capacity to demonise, to extrapolate to extremes and then accept that extrapolation as incontestible fact, and a capacity to exclude enormous volumes of material that do not support their recurrent theme. This is then manifest in actions that are disproportionate to the situation at hand.

Could it be that the green movement is not so much a religion but, rather, a treatable medical condition? This would render all the forest closures and persecution of farmers as little more than palliative treatment for self inflicted injuries. And what, then, of the government's duty of care to take all reasonable and practical steps to prevent harm to persons? Surely, a person with the brain functions of a schizophrenic could not be regarded as a "reasonable man" (or woman) in law? And to allow them to continue working in a policy unit, when a test can easily identify the problem, must amount to negligence?

We don't let drunks drive cars, buses or planes because of the potential to cause harm. Blood testing is an accepted part of the monitoring process, including in workplaces. So it must be time to extend that principle to those who drive the ship of state.

Marijuana has been shown to predominantly only affect those who are prone to psychosis anyway. As usual, certain statistics are used to blow the dangers well out of proportion. Anyway, scientists have established beyond any doubt that marijuana has less negative effects than alcohol, both short term and long term. In other words, potential harm from cannabis is negligent in comparison to potential harm from cigarettes and alcohol (and yet the legality…strange…). Not to mention, it’s pretty rare to get addicted to it.

I’m not saying ignore the dangers, just that perspective is needed. Of course heavy long term use is dangerous, so is heavy long term eating of fried chicken. Excess is the problem.

To quote the late Bill Hicks: “Let’s say you’re at a football match, and there’s someone who’s getting rowdy and violent. Is he drunk, or has he been smoking weed? That’s right, he’s drunk. You can’t get into a fight when you’re stoned because it’s f-ing impossible.”

Words to live by.

In my 30's I had a major weed habit. I believe it can lead to psychosis in certain individuals, but I also believe that alcohol leads to worse anti-social disorders than pot.

It benefits no-one to have cannabis declared illegal - and would certainly free up some space in our prisons (if pot was decriminalised) for real criminals.

Whenever my ex husband belted me about he was usually drunk. He never got violent on weed (unfortunately weed was not his preferred stimulant)

However, I am prone to bouts of depression and I did use pot to alleviate the mental pain. I no longer do this - smoke pot that is. I still have to monitor my depressive episodes and have learnt how to cope with this.

Finally, when I am old and retired and don't have to work 9 to 5 anymore I am going to smoke as much pot as I like, listen to rock music and generally be as outrageous as I can't be now.

Most of the marij around these days is hydroponic, very strong sit-in-the-corner type of stuff that leads to the paranoid schizophrenic, which I've experienced first-had from my intelligent, sensitive boyfriend, who smoked around $100 worth a week. When he couldn't get his choof, he turned into a temper-crazed monster. The lowest point was when he thought my parents were "Nazis", or that I was an alien sent from outer-space to bend his mind.....and he did all those things that Perseus mentioned (in 2nd para). No-one can ever really know if he was "normal" or not before he started smoking so much, since he began smoking as a teenager. Having said all of this...the laws should be softened - allow people to have their own home-grown pot - it's much milder and (apparently, according to ABC again) moderate use doesn't lead to this extreme behaviour

" That is, a capacity to demonise, to extrapolate to extremes and then accept that extrapolation as incontestible fact, and a capacity to exclude enormous volumes of material that do not support their recurrent theme. This is then manifest in actions that are disproportionate to the situation at hand."

mmmm,Perseus, sounds like they display some of the prime characteristics of the merry band of far right christians that inhabit this site. does that mean nationalism and a tendancy to vote one nation are also treatable conditions?

bill hicks has a point, while excessive pot use will have a detrimental effect to your health, i would stake a large sum of money on alchohol being the chemical most likely to result in injuries to people other than the user.

"this is not a war on drugs, this is a war on personal freedom"
bill hicks again.

it's not easy, I'm happy to do a bit of extrapolation and suggest that the description applies to most out on the extremes regardless of orientation (left, right, up or down) or religious preference.

It would explain a lot wouldn't it if we could find a common cause for extremism but I'm not confident that this is it.

Cheers
R0bert

your right of course r0bert, i just felt that since being green was obviously cureable, i should be 'fair and balanced'.

perhaps extremists (on all sides) could use a fat blunt (in moderation of course). in fact everyone on this site should relax, kick back with your friends and family, chuck on hendrix or beethovens pastoral, and burn one down.

the discussions will be much more civilised.

p.s. "if you dont like my fire, then dont come around, cos im gonna burn one down, cos im gonna burn one down" ben harper

I have no particular "position on drugs" although I choose not to use them, having experimented with a few over the years and found them pretty much a self-deluding waste of time, money and brain-tissue. But I do think we waste a ton of money worrying about "the best way to handle this terrible evil."

As the proponents of dope-smoking always tell us, "society's happy with booze and fags, why pick on us?" Quite. Can this not be better handled as a matter of personal choice, with the State spending nothing on prevention, but also making sure we realize they will spend nothing on cure either? If insurance policies can be written to specifically exclude suicide, can we not have agreement that the results of drug abuse cannot be met from the public purse?

Or would this ask too much of the individual to think for themself, and to be responsible for their own actions?

Interesting point Pericles. I sometimes wonder if people's perceptions of the harmlessness of drugs is in part due to the fact that the government provides such a wonderful safety net for the few who do harm themselves. If we opened the floodgates completely - nothing illegal, no regulation, no free health intervention, no harm reduction programs etc, the real risk of drug use would become obvious and the process of natural selection would begin.

I dont believe this is the answer though, because it would lead to a lot of preventable suffering and a lot of innocent people would be harmed in the process, and I think most of us expect the government to protect the innocent and minmise preventable damage. At the end of the day most of us, whether we admit it or not, want the government to protect us from everything harmful, including ourselves.

>>At the end of the day most of us, whether we admit it or not, want the government to protect us from everything harmful, including ourselves.<<

Wow. If that is the way "most of us" think, we deserve every single curb on our liberty that we get.

Rob, you're not a public servant by any chance? I am desperately trying to get my head around the thought processes that must have gone into writing that sentence. Or are you just fishing?

As one of the 15% of adult marijuana users in Australia I would like to help Rob Moody to improve our knowledge about the potential harm.

I had my first smoke of dope in 1955 and since then have smoked, on and off, at the rate of one or two bongs a week.

I am not addicted. If I have it I use it, if I don't have it I don't worry about it and do not suffer any ill effects.

If I have work to do or if I will be driving I do not use it, in the same way as I would not drink alcohol in these circumstances.

I use it because it makes me feel relaxed and happy and I can enjoy conversations with others much better and enjoy listening to music and watching drama much more.

During the 50 years I have smoked I have been employed in responsible positions, have undertaken lots of voluntary work, been a member of service clubs and local government, been a parent and a grandparent (none of these offspring smoke) and have not suffered from depression (although I have been able to help some friends who have.) I have been fortunate never to have had to depend on the State for support and I have funded my own pension.

At the age of 70 I am fit and healthy and active and am currently involved in work which requires long periods of concentration.

The moderate use of marijuana, as with alcohol, has added a dimension to my life which I am happy I did not miss.

Pericles, we probably do get the curbs on our liberties that we deserve - and we probably deserve the government and media we have as well ! Most, but certainly not all of us do expect protection from the government under most circumstance, but often this is unrealistic. Even people who call for drugs to be liberalised are in a sense expecting the government to protect them from the impositions of antidrug extremists.

Stan, the majority of users of any illicit drug do so without ill effect, no doubt you are one of them. Just because old people, government ministers, rock stars, or priests do something doesn't prove it is harmless or beneficial for society as a whole. The vast majority of people who speed, shoot automatic weapons, kill endangered wildlife, evade tax, or parachute off buildings don't come to any harm either, but that doesn't mean the government should legalise all these pleasurable activities.

In response to Moody's article saying there was a need to improve our knowledge about the effects of cabbabis I posted a statement about my own experience.

I made no claims about any effects on society as a whole, just a simple statement about one person's experience in the interests of furthering our information.

I was surprised therefore at the missionary zeal and twisted logic of AndrewM, which I would have ignored for what it was if I hadn't felt patronised by his tone. If you are going to lecture people Andrew, please avoid tendentious and fallacious argument.

Anyone who uses marijuana is an absolute idiot and anyone using it or selling it should be jailed. And does harm minimisation work...absolutely NOT as we should all know.

Furthermore, studies have shown that marijuana is DEADLY for mental health. We wonder why we have so many new incidences of schizophrenia...well I think marijuana could have some relationship (not all cases, but enough I'm sure)

AndrewM, this may only rate as anecdotal evidence but through the course of a well spent youth I have had the mixed blessing of sharing houses with both extreme greens and the very religious. One group had a healthy dope habit, the other did not. One group included some very impressive consumption of other unspecified, undocumented, substances that appeared to include cleaning agents while the other drank tea with two sugars. One lot wanted to save the planet while the other wanted to save my soul. One lot kept the food kitty in robust good health while the other lot always had an allibi when the video went missing, again. One lot stayed up too late while the other got up too early.

Neither of them appreciated my sense of humour. I married a migrant, we both sometimes feel like strangers in a strange land.

And these days when I recognise the unmistakable attributes of people from both groups, one lot offers me a cup of tea while the other lot makes me to spend two weeks on a detailed submission on why their department shouldn't assume exclusive control of a third of my property, without a cent in compensation

If you really think cannabis smoking is OK ask yourself this question.
"If my child had to have a serious operation would I choose the surgeon who is a cannabis smoker or the one who isn't (given all other factors are equal)?"

I think we have just answered the question.

No, people dont get violent on cannabis, they get violent the day after. So they don't have a fight at the football they bash their kids the next day.

And for the 70 yr old guy who has smoked since 1955. Congratulations on your great example for following generations. Any other achievements?

If you can't be content without drugs - you have a problem whether its clinical or not and so do the rest of us.

Persus, the description of your youth spent sandwiched between two humourless extremes sounds a little like the forums here, I hope you are not suffering falshbacks. Bloodsucking bureaucracts are one of the many things I expect our government to protect us from.

Stan, I meant you no offense and only wished to question the "it hasn't done me any harm so what's the problem" view which which I thought you were proposing. In the context of a discussion about harm reduction and legalisation your personal story of 50 years of harmless but illicit use makes a pretty big statement even if you meant otherwise. No doubt Dinhaan's and Atman's posts are more to your liking as they are free of patronising, tendentious and fallacious arguements.

I have used cannabis for 30+ years, during which time I held down responsible jobs requiring one to be intellectually at the top of one's game (I am now retired).

My experience is that it is far more benign than alcohol. With cannabis I always know when I have had enough and when I should not drive. In my drinking days (long over) I often drunk-drove when I should not have. Moreover, cannabis makes me a cautious driver, whereas booze made me dangerous and irresponsible on the road.

I do not believe responsible cannabis use is dangerous to the vast majority. I have indeed seen the adverse effects use can have on those susceptible to mental illness; but note, these people had the condition or the vulnerability to it - cannabis just made it worse.

Cannabis should not be illegal. Legal drugs like alcohol and tobacco are wellknown as a poison and addictive carcinogen, respectively. Just because a small minority can have their condition worsened by cannabis is no reason to deny its benefits to the rest of us. Otherwise lots of things in common use should be banned because they are dangerous to minorities - anyone want to ban peanuts because a minority have an allergy to them which, in extreme cases, can be fatal?

Those who support the ban on cannabis have some charming de facto friends - the pushers and organised crims who would lose millions were cannabis legal. The drug should be available in quality-controlled government-regulated packages in a manner similar to tobacco. I will be happy to work as a quality-control tester.

Thanks Andrew.

Dinhaan’s and Atman’s posts came in after I replied to yours and I did not think that they justified a reply.

I did say that it had not done me any harm but “what’s the problem “is your addition. Moody’s article was about harm reduction, not much about legalization, and about improving our collective knowledge which was what I was responding to.

I thought it important to make a statement about long-term light use as a balance to some of the more hysterical accounts we hear.

Moody’s article I thought was very balanced and I agree with him that we should collect as much information as possible and be careful about the way in which we present this in the interest of harm reduction.

I would certainly caution anyone under the age of 24 about anything but very light use and I would adopt a similar approach with alcohol use, which of course is much more of a problem. I would also caution anyone about heavy use.

You have used the word illicit a couple of times in reference to my use, and I would like to point out that this is not correct when it applies to use in the privacy of one’s own home in the part of Australia in which I live. Hard –line approaches, as the American alcohol prohibition exercise demonstrated, is not likely to be successful.

Moving from the specific to the general, I remember with nostalgia the heady years of 2000 and 2001, when Australia threw the biggest and most successful multicultural party in the world’s history and celebrated Reconciliation and our Centenary.

Our society then seemed to be confident, mature, tolerant and understanding of diversity. I get the feeling that in the short space of 4 years we have as a nation become more intolerant and authoritarian which I think is a great pity for a country with the reputation for tolerance, an easy going lifestyle and a fair go for all.

One important issue in the dope/booze/substance debate is the consideration of chain of custody/chain of liability. The legal precedents being set both here and overseas on the issue of product liability in relation to tobacco and, to a lesser extent, alcohol, need to be extended to the party drugs including hooch. Sure Tobacco and alcohol cause huge costs to the community but the user generally pays for this through the taxes on the product.

And in most cases the consumer tends to buy the same product off the same supplier for long enough to overcome "remoteness of damage" questions. So if they stay alive long enough they might recover some of that money through litigation to ease the discomfort of their final squalid years.

Not so the party drugs. To say that there is no quality control is no minor understatement. There is no record of transactions from producer to vendor so there is no ability to determine liability or to extract sufficient revenue to cover those future costs to the community. Indeed, given the proportion of house breakins that fund the initial purchase, we can conclude that the community is already subsidising the product purchase as well as the future liability.

So what to do?

Legalise the product and tax it. But also attach very high penalties for untaxed, undocumented purchases. Require all legal users to supply a six monthly blood and hair test and provide receipts that confirm the legality of the supplies that have produced the blood levels etc, and identify the supply chain. And finally, ensure that those who purchase outside the system, or grow their own without paying the tax, surrender their medicare entitlements until they can demonstrate 10 years of clean blood tests.

If the community is expected to pay then it must be on the community's terms. No one has a right to demand a blank cheque from the tax pie.

Picking up Perseus’ point, legalization of cannabis is such an obvious approach I fail to understand why we do not have the gumption to do it. I understand that tincture of cannabis was freely available in chemist shops in the 1940s before we like sheep jumped on the bandwagon of prohibition.

As the product is generally acknowledged not to be as harmful as tobacco and alcohol, why not legalize it? “Because we have two legalized drugs does not make it sensible to legalize a third” is the stock answer. But we already have the third in common use – 15% of adult users was Moody’s figure, compared with about 20% for tobacco.

The benefits of legalization are numerous, including quality control, statistics, allowing a significant proportion of the population to become ‘legal’, greater respect for the law, greater cooperation with police, reduction in organized crime, reduction in petty crime, removing attachment of purchase from hard drug dealers, removal of big profits to law breaking cultivators, cheaper product (even after hefty tax), greater revenue for the state, more employment, a boost for farmers and market gardeners, availability of product for medicinal purposes, etc., etc.

I’m not sure about Perseus’ draconian control measures but even that would be better than the existing counter-productive, ridiculous situation. I seem to remember that making your own booze was illegal a few years ago, but that seems to have eased without too many problems.

Will it happen? It’s probably too logical an answer and too unpalatable to hard-line moralists who know what is best for everyone else. But perhaps one day…..

Stan, here’s a 250 word economic analysis;

It’s extremely expensive to run a legitimate business which mass produces pharmaceuticals. Business costs, income taxes, regulatory compliance, insurance etc cost far more than ingredients. Legalising a drug will add huge overheads to its cost unless its production is completely unregulated – which in this day and age is not possible. As a simple example consider the cost in producing a $2.50 bottle of water; it contains less than 1 cent worth of water, the manufacturer probably only gets a business return of about 10%, the rest goes on overheads.

As for taxes to pay for social and health costs, the taxes on alcohol and tobacco aren’t anywhere near enough to cover their true costs, and if they were to be taxed in full there would be an illegal market for these as well.

Hence the true “user pays” cost of legal dope would be many times that of the illicit product, so the illegal market would still thrive.

The only way you cold legalise dope was if the taxpayer covered most of the cost. Our taxes hardly cover the cost of the health or education systems, so why should they pay for more recreational drugs ? Current law enforcement and rehabilitation costs would be much smaller than the full legalisation cost, so in pure economic terms it doesn’t make sense. Of course if we turned back the clock to 1940 levels of healthcare, education, insurance, consumer protection etc the situation might be different

AndrewM

We could simply grow our own for personal use.

Interesting point, AndrewM. I have a nagging half recollection that the analyses that indicated alcohol and tobacco taxes didn't cover their costs were done without proper discounting. That is, they simply added up the current amount of tax and the current expenditure on related health costs etc. If anyone can confirm otherwise then please let us know.

This is problematic because todays health costs are the consequence of past consumption. So todays tax revenue should be treated as an insurance premium against future expenses. So a "true and fair" accounting for the cost recovery would be to put the annual tax revenue into an income earning fund (it would double every 10 years at 7.4% interest)until drawn down by the health system.

Also, a smokers health problems tend to occur earlier than the "normal" problems of old age and this creates a tendency to regard the smoke related costs as mutually exclusive when they are not. The death from tobacco related causes precludes a death from other causes. So it seems entirely appropriate to include the revenue from a smokers medicare levy etc in the cost recovery equation for tobacco. Ditto for other substances.

Legalisation of hooch and other party drugs would not work unless the health system is properly insulated from unfunded, uncertified consumption. It is an equity issue. If people demand a particular lifestyle choice then they cannot expect non-users to subsidise that choice

'It is an equity issue. If people demand a particular lifestyle choice then they cannot expect non-users to subsidise that choice'

That may be a bit too simplistic. For example, I don't drive (in fact I won't go near a car, but thats a personal thing), but my taxes still pay for road upkeep, health care for car accidents etc. I have no problem with this, because I believe people have the right to make the choice to take certain risks in life, and we as a society should be there to look out for each other financially should anything go wrong.

This allows so much more personal freedom, and everyone benefits. To suggest because someone takes a 'risk' from smoking marijuana that they're suddenly on their own is pretty unfair. Everyone takes risks. Everyone makes mistakes. Everyone needs help at some point.

On the subject of addicts (which as I've already said for marijuana, is pretty rare), the fact that they are criminalised is appauling. Addicts are victims and should not be punished. An addiction, be it to marijuana, nicotine (guilty), alcohol (was once guilty), speed, fast food, television, caffeine (guilty again), whatever - is a disease.

And finally, remember, never confuse use with abuse. Abuse of a drug - bad. Use of a drug - quite often very positive. The abusers give the users a bad name.

I first smoked cannabis in Turkey in 1967, last smoked it in Hollywood in 1978, smoked regularly from 1968-70, heavily (probably psychologically dependent) 1970-72, not much thereafter. I've never been interested in alcohol or tobacco, got drunk for the first time due to particular circumstances on my 25th birthday, got stoned for the first time a few weeks later.

I had some very positive experiences from cannabis, but out-grew it, and I believe I've made a positive contribution to society at many levels. I'm happy that I first used cannabis when I was fairly established and experienced in life, I think regular use from teenages would really get in the way of life experience and education. I have a drug-free (legal or otherwise) household, and while I haven't heavied my kids, at 17-22 they're not interested in alcohol or cigarettes and to the best of my knowledge don't use drugs. At some stage, they might want to explore them, so be it.

I've always been very trusting. Prior to using cannabis I accepted the view of life presented by my (UK) society, tried to be "good" but was always getting into trouble. I discovered when I first got stoned that there were thousands of ways of viewing the world, and that the one I had been shown was wrong - the "elders" of society were either ignorant or dishonest. This was a very powerful experience which began a spiritual awakening, which I might not have come to without the drug. (In passing, I later found LSD a source of wisdom and insight. However, the insight became memories after a few weeks rather than part of life.) Eventually I found a deep spiritual path (the practice taught by the Buddha), to which intoxication is an impediment. (mf)

(exceeded word limit - here's the rest)

I was near suicide once before using drugs, once while using. In each case, I was pulled back from the brink by an external intervention. I don't think that drug use was a factor.

I think that alcohol and tobacco are clearly more dangerous than cannabis, and that whether or not cannabis is controlled, its use should not be seen as a serious criminal offence.

The present day health costs of tobacco are in fact exceeded by tobacco taxes, however as Perseus points out you need to condsider the future cost - in which case they probably aren't enough because health costs are increasing faster than interest rates. When you look beyond health costs the balance gets even worse. Smoking is also responsible for sick days, passive smoking, litter, fires, lost productivity due to early death, poor birth outcomes such as SIDS, prematurity, low birth weight etc. Some analyses put these other costs at almost double the health costs.

I dont have recent figures, but according to government numbers for 1998, legal drug taxes raised $7.3 billion, while they cost the taxpayer about $17 billion http://www.adca.org.au/publications/Drug%20Policy%202000/84_taxation_and_pricing.htm

This cost does not even account for all the possible costs so the true cost would be even higher.

When you consider that marijuana is, by any reasonable analysis, more harmful than tobacco, and you look at the costs of legal drugs, you should see that legalisation is in fact an extremely expensive option.

The last time I smoked pot was in 1997, while I recovered from a miscarriage. The cannabis got me through a lonely and discouraged Christmas and New Year.

Haven't smoked since - but would certainly do so again. If used judiciously, I do not understand why it is still criminalised. BTW I do not smoke tobacco and I drink in moderation. However to deal with a major crisis like I mentioned above, pot really helped.

It would appear that those who would ban it don't have any understanding of its effects. I agree pot is now very strong. One bong and you're indoors for the evening, however home grown is not so 'deadly' and should be permitted.

Of course as others have stated; there is a lot of money to be gained by keeping it as a criminal offence. Interesting.

The criminal aspect is completely bizarre, it should be duty free by now.

It is not wise for us as a community to "accept" that we have cannabis for good so it should be legalised.

Have a look at Amsterdam, its a hell hole.

Do people have any idea of the problems cannabis causes in the community? Car accidents,violence and mental illness to name a few.

The most effective way to deal with the problem is to drug test workers and motorists. This will be introduced within two years. This type of testing in itself will reduce cannabis use more than all the "education" on earth.

Atman – I think you’ll find the problems that cannabis causes are quite overblown. Amsterdam is a good example of relaxed drug laws not resulting in any significant rise in crime.

I strongly resent myself, my friends and family being considered criminals because of a personal choice to smoke marijuana. I am a pacifist, and it’s absurd to say marijuana causes violence. Drug induced car accidents are 99.999% alcohol related (note: not a real statistic, but still). Mental illness has less to do with cannabis, and a lot more to do with, well, mental illness.

I’m not saying it’s not an issue, I’m saying keep it in perspective. I have a job, and if I was asked to do a drug test I would refuse, because it is a gross invasion on my privacy. I smoke weed and drink beer in my own time, not at work. There is no reason why it would ever impede on my work performance.

Drugs (legal and illegal) are here for good, whether you ‘accept’ them or not. Legalised drugs would have so many benefits – quality control (to avoid extra health risks) for one. Another would be it would sweep the carpet out underneath the dealers collective feet, eliminating all sorts of drug related crime. Prohibition in America didn’t work – no one actually followed a law against alcohol because it was a stupid law. The result – an underground crime ring was born, most commonly known as the Mafia. The law doesn’t stop people taking drugs, it just creates more ‘criminals’.

The hypocrisy is unbelievable. There are better drugs, and better drugs for you than alcohol. But that’s a nice taxable drug, so it’s socially acceptable. It is a complete and total injustice, and an attack of every single human beings personal freedom. And these laws are justified through scare campaigns that demonise users and blame drugs for everything from poverty to terrorism.

This madness has gone on for too long, and I'm sick of it.

Spendocrat you got in before me and said everything I wanted to say (but so much more eloquently)...consider this: unlike alcohol, cannabis stays in the body's sytem for much longer (days, weeks even?). So Atman, if you don't indulge yourself but hang around friends that do, you may find yourself charged one day for working/driving under the influence of cannabis. I don't know how they're gonna deal with that one.

I'm a bit worried about Atman.

I'm very worried about our society.

Thanks for the example, spendocrat. Your use of the false statistic and the "but still" shrugging excuse of same, highlights the fact that you, a regular user, are quite willing to use a factoid that you know to be false in support of your entrenched belief.

I, too, fear for society. But it is a fear of people who can sit calmly accross a table, or in a policy forum, while fact after fact is presented, without a word of contest, and then repeat the sloppy generalisations that they started the meeting with.

This capacity to exclude information that does not support their entrenched beliefs, and a capacity to conceptually leap over a number of key steps in a logical sequence, has been most prevalent amongst green representatives and captured bureaucrats. Having been raised in a Pot culture, it has been easy for me to recognise the subtle indicators of past heavy use, especially by bureaucrats who think they do a good job of appearing straight.

This is not to say that this kind of thinking is not present in the broader community, far from it. But the MRI scans show that it is most prevalent in association with heavy teenage use of canabis but less frequent use also alters cognitive functions in that direction.

And the net result is an increasing set of politically active people who do not fit the definition of reasonable men and women. They are people who are capable of acting on factors that resonate almost entirely within their own heads, without proportionate regard for the facts of their situation.

Cute, Perseus. You’re essentially saying that even those who engage in ‘less frequent’ use ultimately cannot be reasonable people. And you say I’m the one acting on factors entirely within my own head?!

My use of ‘but still’ was my way of conceding I don’t have an exact statistic with me, but that any reasonable person would know that marijuana related car accidents are negligible at best in comparison to alcohol related ones. Hell, driving is dangerous altogether, that’s why I don’t do it. I want to start my own health campaign: ‘Don’t get in cars, ever! They’re really, really dangerous!’

If my beliefs are entrenched, then so are yours. If you are able to keep ignoring the scientifically verifiable facts about marijuana, to keep focussing on the tiny minority of examples that ‘prove’ how bad it is, then it is you who have little regard for the facts of the situation.

What I know about marijuana are the facts. I’m not saying it’s a wonderful safe lovely happy substance – it has its dangers. Which is why heavy use is not a good thing. Like I said way back in my first post, neither is heavy consumption of fried chicken. But damn, it’s tasty! Imagine a world without fried chicken!

What I’m saying of course, if it’s not obvious enough, is that there is an endless list of activities we engage in that have dangers and risks and health connotations. This particular activity, which does not rank very highly at all on the risk factor, is singled out, and that is what is called hypocrisy.

How about this instead: Taking drugs is a personal choice. And every person should have the right to make their own personal choice, so long as it does not impede on the freedom of someone else’s personal choice. Good old fashioned Logic.

Well said Perseus, there is a lot of lazy logic going on this forum and valid points are being countered with personal abuse rather than reasonable debate.

Spendocrat and others, there is very little we can do that does not in some way potentially impinge upon someone else's freedoms. We sacrifice some of our freedoms in return for having a well ordered society which, although not perfect, takes very good care of most us if we get into trouble. In the unfortunate and unlikely circumstance of you getting throat cancer or psychologically addicted to dope or having a psychotic episode, my taxes will pay for your care. If I experience an unavoidable accident I may not get a bed in intensive care because you or one of your family might have taken the last one due to a marijauna induced illness or accident.

Thus it is not true to say that what you smoke in the privacy of your own home does not affect others - one day it might, and if it does I bet you will gladly accept all the support the state offers you.

Is anyone out there able to tell me how many marijuana induced illnesses or accidents there have been in Australia in the last year and/or how many admissions to hospital? Does the figure register at all in statistics?

If there is a response to this it will not be read, seen, heard, understood by 2 or 3 contributers whose minds are closed to anything they don't want to hear.

I'm clearing off to find better company elsewhere. This is a waste of time.

Its easier to get figures for the US but these government numbers should provide some insight;

"From 2000 to 2002, there was a significant increase in the number of emergency department (ED) marijuana mentions nationwide reported to the Drug Abuse Warning Network. A drug mention refers to a substance that was recorded (mentioned) during a visit to the ED. Marijuana was mentioned 96,426 times in 2000 and 119,472 times in 2002, a 24% increase.....
In approximately 45,000 of the cases in which marijuana was mentioned in 2002, the patient reported going to the ED because of an unexpected reaction to the drug. More than 22,000 reported an overdose as the reason for the ED visit....

While alcohol is the predominant substance found in fatal automobile crashes, marijuana is the second most frequently found substance in drivers.
Approximately 38,000 seniors reported that they had crashed while driving under the influence of marijuana in 2001. "

http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/factsht/marijuana/

AndrewM: of course I would accept the support the state offers me. I would gladly give the support others asked of me too...thats how it works, thats why its a SOCIETY.

Ah, drug policy in North America. There was a great documentary on SBS the other night actually, about the USA's ill-advised attempts to combat the marijuana 'problem'. I think the figure was something like 760 BILLION dollars spent on the 'war' on marijuana (not even including other drugs) between 1980 and 1998.

Couple that with military spending...sounds like almost enough to feed, clothe and educate every single needy person on this planet, not one human being excluded, doesn't it?

Good thing we have our priorities in the right place, isn't it? Good thing there's no chance we'll have peace and understanding and freedom, yeah?

I'm with Stan1 on this one I think, it's all too insane.

Wonder how many beds in hospitals are taken up by morbidly fat people? Wonder how much of my taxes go to alcohol-related emergencies? Gee I can hardly wait until my car/bag/workdesk/person is searched so I can sacrifice some of my freedom for a well-ordered society.

Good stuff AndrewM, we also need to recognise that canabis and alcohol use are not mutually exclusive. The bozo who stacks his car with a cocktail of booze and party chemicals will invariably blame the alcohol. People often refer to the one time they went driving with pot alone and cruised along at 35km. But that tells us nothing about all the other times when it has been the entire compound that has really done the damage.

My understanding is that hospitals have only recently started to test all emergency admissions for other drugs. So the absence of stats that could indicate a causal link cannot be cited as evidence of no link.

Perseus...eh, forget it. I was gonna say ‘live and let live’ or, you know, ‘judge not’, or whatever, but it doesn’t seem like reason and logic seems to get much attention here. Go on, blame all of societies ill’s on a substance that’s been proven countless times to be relatively harmless. Go on, there’s your punching bag. Go on, we’re all lazy slow giggling idiots prone to psychotic episodes. Yes, we fund terrorism. Yes, get in cars and drive like fools. Yes, we’re all jobless sponges on society.

You know, just like Rastafarians? You know, they’re the ones who smoke it as part of their religion. Look at the damage it’s done to them! They’re all so messed up, what with the peaceful down to earth culture…urgh, who could ever want that.

…………

‘Boy, I can’t wait until we win this war on terrorism, and there’ll be no terrorism anymore! It’ll be just like when they declared a war on drugs, and now there’s no drugs anymore. Remember that? It’ll be just like that!’

Bill Hicks again:

“Why is marijuana against the law? It grows naturally all over the planet, serves a thousand different uses, all of them positive. Doesn’t the idea of making NATURE against the law strike you as a little paranoid? It’s almost like saying God made a mistake.”

“They lie about marijuana, they say it makes you unmotivated..LIE. When you’re high, you can do everything you could normally do, you just realise it’s not worth the f-kn effort.”

Is this conversation worth the effort?

"Cannabis and alcohol use are not mutually exclusive". No doubt sex and rocknroll can't exist without drugs either...

Re the previously posted stats: I love how people throw in all these numbers and everyone goes oooh aaah that must mean something and in fact you can manipulate any statistic so that it "indicates" any angle you want. Read the above stats carefully: none of them prove moderate use of cannabis as being the cause of the emergencies. The numbers have either been represented by the poster incorrectly, or they've been represented incorrectly by the publisher. It's called propaganda.

Thank you Spendocrat and Lisamaree, for you additional examples of distorted thinking. Spendocrat has run off on irrelevant tangents, ascribing views to me that I have not expressed, or hold, and has then attempted to use the improbability of the tangential outcome as evidence in support of the original unsubstantiated claim. Like some sort of truth by association.
And Lisamaree has simply left the field in frustration. Suggesting that if all numbers can be manipulated then all numbers are being manipulated. I rest my case.

I went off on tangents mainly cause I was bored. If you're using that as a reason was to why your case is rested, thats...well, that's pretty lame.

(Why does everyone say 'I rest my case' on here? It sounds so arrogant and childish.)

The reason why I'm bored with this topic is because no one will ever change their mind, so what's the point? It doesn't matter how much reason or logic or facts or whatever I express, the same people will just repeat 'ehrehrerher unsubstaintiated! I rest my case! ehrher' again and again like a retarted robot politician machine with no off button.

Smoking marijuana does not make me a criminal! End of story.

I am not a crook!

Ok Perseus, if you want to use stats to prove your point, let's look at them: a 24% increase in the amount of times of marijuana was *mentioned* during a visit to emergency departments in the US. OK, 24% seems significant, but it's not 24% of the population, nor is it 24% of the emergency cases in the US. What is does say is that approx. 23,000 more people (in the US) smoked cannabis in 2002 than in 2001. Out of around 297 million population in US, that represents less than 0.008% of US population. Not sure of US population growth, but it would safe to assume (dare I?) that it's greater than this.

Then: "In approximately 45,000 of the cases in which marijuana was mentioned in 2002, the patient reported going to the Emergency Dep't because of an unexpected reaction to the drug." What does that mean? Was it too much pot? was it mixed with other drugs? were they suffering from any other ailments? were they on medication? All I'm saying is that it needs context and reference points and I won't say "I rest my case" but it's just about friday night and I have more interesting things to think about so have a nice weekend.

lisamaree - you are my new personal hero.

I agree with spendocrat, 2nd Sept!

But alas some of us with chronic illness such as I have also suffer
from severe sleep disorders where I find I can't get a good night
sleep without a little grass! Without it I just wake up feeling
like I haven't slept at all.

Also my CFS stops me from feeling hungry, & smoking a weak joint is
enough to give me the munchies so I don't lose weight!

On top of that is the pain factor! I've suffererd from CFS since I was
24yo & been housebound & on a dissability pension ever since, which is
now 11 years of constant never ending pain & fatigue, & many doctors
here in Oz STILL don't even believe the illness exists & is only in my
imagination!

And so far I've been unable to find a single doctor anywhere within my
area who's willing to adequately treat my pain & sleep symptoms long
term & I've seen more than 150+ doctors/specialists at this point!

So instead I've been forced to either use HUGE amounts of OTC codeine
based medication for pain relief & destroy my liver with Paracetamol
or risk ordering stronger pain meds from overseas pharmacies without
any prescription which is *VERY EXPENSIVE* given that my sole income
is only the measly $11,500 disability pension (which is only about 1/2
that of the Howard governments own official poverty line).

Plus I have to either pay street prices or grow my own cannabis in order
to get any proper sleep!

The governments policies FORCE me to act as a criminal & the doctors
only ever go on about dependency issues in prescribing sleep & pain meds
I've needed long term.

Yet without these I've *NO* quality of life! I've
had to break the law with cannabis for 11 years now just so I can get
up, have a shower, use the bathroom etc. & spent years destroying my
liver thanks to doctors not prescribing more than 20 Panadeine Forte
tablets every 4-6 weeks (only 2-3 days worth) & I've only for the past
two years started using IOPs for pain meds.

And FINALLLY I have a life outside my house again for the 1st time in a
decade!

Yet both are illegal. What a country where I must break the law to
purchase prescription med AND destroy internal organs just incase I
develope dependency on a med, or grow marijuana for personal medical
use, which makes such a *HUGE* difference to my life! But it's cost my
family almost $45,000 to improve my quality of life & reduce my pain,
allowing me to excercise a little & get back into life again!

The disability pension certainly doesn't look after ME! It leaves me
living in dire poverty, housebound 11 years & STILL a *virgin* at 35yo
with no friends, no money, no social life, ALOT of debt and no job! And
busted for trying to grow my own grass to give me some quality of life,
now stuck with a crimnal drug record!

Marijuana should be legalized for those who truly need it for medical
use, and the long-term disability pension when it's the *SOLE*
source of income should at least be at the official poverty line of
approx. $22,500 a year! My mother has had to sell her house to help
cover costs & Dad looks like having to do the same soon if the pension
isn't doubled soon! And the doctors attitide to treating chronic illness
such as CFS, I mean what difference does dependency have if I need to
keep using it for many years! Surely only after I'm over the CFS & no
longer need the medication would this ever become an issue, and I may
*NEVER* get over this as there's no cure for CFS/ME/FibroMyalgia!

Thanks for your post, CFS. You've highlighted a very important point, namely that people tend to forget about the positives whenever they think of an illegal drug. Marijuana has so many positives.

Once again, thanks for your excellent story. It hasn't gone unnoticed.

Actually, I've just thought of something to add to my 'to do' list this weekend!

yeh i think that dope (marajuna) should be leagal alchole is and that makes u dislousional and off ur face dope does the same thing but its ilegal..
ok im a skool student and ive smoked a few bongs here and there and ok im not claiming to be a straight a student but hey im doin oright and if a few pot heds r gonna use it like idiots well thats there problem i say let dope be legal and just put a few laws on it like dont driv while on it like we have on alchole

by MM

Hello there, I am also an ME/CFS sufferer. My joints hurt with almost every movement I make and my sleep patterns are all over the place which invariably makes me more exhausted and unable to take part in everyday life. I have had this since I was 8 and I am now 20. Since I was 16 I have smoked weed, instantly my pains are relieved and if I smoke in the evening I have no troubles getting to sleep and can regulate my body back into a routine of sleeping at the right hours. I am now able to study my uni degree in Biomedical Sciences, I am achieving an upper class 2nd honors at the moment and am showing no signs producing lower grades. Last exam period I went through a very rough patch (as usually happens with the increase in stress) so in order to get to sleep I would smoke a joint. I was not far off achieving a first in almost everything (overall about 3%), if i hadn't slept and got worse I'd be lucky to have been able to get to the toilet when i needed to let alone Pass! I have seen many ppl mess up their liver having to take painkillers all the time, whereas i can smoke a joint to sleep (when needed) and in this way improve in health so i can join in everyday life.

<cont from last post>
I also smoke it recreationally since alcohol makes monsters of ppl and weed is far more enjoyable. but is it drug abuse smoking a couple of joints with friends at the weekend? what about a couple of beers? or what about those ppl who go out and binge drink and cause trouble? You wouldnt catch a stoned person in a fight. As for mental health - do you not obtain mental health problems with over use of any drug (cough cough alcohol)? And as someone has already mentioned... major health problems occur with over indulgence in food. The headline really is - all in moderation. Anyone who gets completely stoned every day is asking for trouble much as anyone who gets drunk everyday or eats far too many donuts.

As for anyone who drives under the influence of any drug, that is just stupid and quite frankly shouldn't be a part of this discussion as it is a separate issue, not used as an arguement against weed, if that is the case ban all the drugs....

The bottom line is that Cannabis has help improve my status of living where other drugs havent and cannot.

The effect that cannabis has on users is a feeling of well-being.
Wowsers don't like that.
gulliver