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.