Excellent article. I don't think Ms Kanck's bill has a hope in hell of getting up, but hopefully its introduction will stimulate a debate that is better informed than we usually see on this issue.

My only problem with the bill is that it doesn't go far enough. Currently, tens of thousands of otherwise law-abiding Australians risk criminal convictions by indulging in recreational and medicinal use of marijuana. Many others are serving prison sentences for growing and supplying what is a relatively harmless, indeed often beneficial, drug - simply because it is ideologically and illigically illegal.

We even have some OLO members who vociferously call for marijuana dealers to be executed. How ridiculous is that? If marijuana was legalised and regulated, a large amount of victimless 'crime' would disappear at the stroke of a pen.

But that's too logical for any Australian government, not to mention numerous ill-informed ideologues.

But think of the children! Drugs are bad Mmmkay.

Don't you know that all people who use it end up being schizophrenic? Like every one knows all users of drugs end up stealing to support their addiction. It's a moral absolute. Drugs are bad. That's all you need to know and any talk of a grey area is just wickedness.

I have included here a quote from a study done on the association of cannabis use and schizophrenia. The results are troubling to say the least. I don’t really need to add anything more except to say as a nurse working in an adult acute mental health facility the association between cannabis use and schizophrenia is glaringly obvious. I would also like to draw the readers attention to the numbers of participants, 50,087 in Swedish study.

For the full study please go to the following link

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pmcentrez&artid=135490

'Cannabis use is associated with an increased risk of developing schizophrenia, consistent with a causal relation. This association is not explained by use of other psychoactive drugs or personality traits relating to social integration.'

1 April 2006
Psychiatric Times. Vol. 23 No. 4
Gone to Pot: The Association Between Cannabis and Psychosis
Asif R. Malik, MD, and Deepak Cyril D'Souza, MD

‘Emerging data suggest an association between cannabis exposure and the development of schizophrenia (Table). Interest in the association between cannabis and schizophrenia received a major boost from the Swedish Conscript study, a large historical, longitudinal cohort study of all Swedes conscripted in 1969-1970 (Andreasson et al., 1987). Since Sweden mandates military service, 97% of males aged 18 to 20 years were included. Individuals who at age 18 reported having used cannabis >50 times were six times more likely than nonusers to have been diagnosed with schizophrenia in the ensuing 15 years. Adjusting for other relevant risk factors, including psychiatric diagnosis other than psychosis at conscription, reduced but did not eliminate the higher risk (odds ratio [OR]=2.3) of schizophrenia conferred by cannabis use.
A reanalysis and extension of the same Swedish conscript cohort reconfirmed that those who were heavy cannabis users by the age of 18 were 6.7 times more likely than nonusers to be hospitalized for schizophrenia 27 years later (Zammit et al., 2002). Further, the finding of an increased risk of schizophrenia conferred by cannabis use persisted after controlling for the possibility that cannabis use was a consequence of prodromal manifestations of psychosis.’

Helen54,

See, I am confident there is a 'association', but luke warm on any causation. Even if causeation is proven, I think it would probably be due to under 18 usage and also very heavy usage. I also think people who are already prone to this kind of illness may be more likely to want to use the drug.

When you see the massive amounts of it found in drug busts, where are all the schizophrenics to match the amount of users?

I know personally at least 30 people who have used this drug casually, along with much harder drugs, and they present no mental problems and all have very fulfilling responsible healthy lives.

What I'm saying in my post is that this hysterical drugs are bad message is just nonsense. Alcohol has infinately more portential for harm than dope or extacy.

For the life of me I cant understand why people put so much effort into attempting to prove negative side affects in illegal drugs to keep them illegal, when there is all this data on legal drugs proving massively worse side effects, and they are happy for them to be legal.

I can only assume their fear is more widespread use of the drugs if they become legal, but the widespread use is ALREADY there. Just look at the quantities found in drug busts and tell me their use isn't already massively widespread.

Usual Suspect
Alcohol does have a devastating effect on society. It is almost trendy to detox from alcohol, but it is taboo and very hush, hush, if a family member should become psychotic. Very few family members visit psychotic inpatients. Very few psychotic people venture outdoors at all.
My 25 year old son who holds down a very responsible position was 'bark raving mad' for eighteen months when he was 18. This was directly related to excessive cannabis use. He still hallucinates in the dark and if he is emotionally charged, but is otherwise able to function normally. My second son who is 20, developed an illness similar to obsessive compulsive disorder at age 13. We took him to a psychiatrist who told us to take him out of school, as his mental health was much more important than his education. We found out three years later that this was precipitated by him smoking marijuana. He never did any more schooling of any significance, even though he was enrolled in several distance education curriculums. When he was 17 he took a job working with people who smoked dope heavily and he too became a heavy smoker. He became quite psychotic and was fired from his job. He has schizotypal personality disorder and is on a pension. His chances of being a tax payer are small. His chances of developing full blown schizophrenia should he encounter stress or use cannabis again are very high.
Importantly there is a genetic relationship related to the COMPT carrying gene that decides whether you are going to be a cannabis winner or a cannabis loser. It is discussed beautifully in a longitudinal study from Dunedin New Zealand here
http://www.ukcia.org/research/COMTgene.pdf

My family are cannabis losers. So are many, many other families. It has never really been studied here in Australia but New Zealand and Swedish people have the same physiology as us, why would their studies not be pertinent to Australia? This is especially true now that the Swedish study has adjusted for predisposition and still finds a significant relationship between cannabis use and schizophrenia

Naive position driven by glib rhetorical cliches of the pro-decrim lobby. Laughable really. This sort of thing has been bandied about regularly. The victorian govt had a drug summit about 15yrs ago, with masses of personal and professional submissions. That talkfest resulted in a big bill and a cannibas cautioning system.

In the meantime...
1.'users' can grow a couple plants, its a simple offence carrying a small fine. In the meantine they have plenty to 'medicate' their 'illness.'
2. various US states have had a medical cannibas regime going on 15yrs and its a fantastic lark, manipulated by growers.
3. victoria slaps 'offenders' on the wrist (cautioned) for personal use (a month or two of supply).
4. govt levies greaters fines for breaking the speed limit than being caught in possesion of.
5. cannabis (and other drugs) are easier to get and cheaper than alchohol. Illicit poison of choice pretty much available any time of the day, minors more than welcome.
6. users and growers are being charged, then let off via a cautioning/mediation system where they dont go before a judge. They meet with case workers (whilst on a bond) in the local coffee shop, have a chat, are told to 'write' (cut and paste) a 10k essay on the 'evils of' and do 'random' urine tests (they get forewarning and get to handle the transit of the results... bwahahahahaha). Administration is flawed and lax, at best.
7. Recidivists LEARN the system, stay under statutory limits, keeping their heads down when bonded. They routinely re-offend, apprehended with substantial amounts and dont get anywhere near a goal cell. A good lawyer and a tale of woe works nicely. So too does keeping 'clean' for a few yrs b/w apprehensions.

Use and modest cultivation are more or less decriminalised, via the backdoor of soft policing, sentencing and administration. Few offenders get a prosecution, they get good behaviour bonds and NO RECORD.

As usual people miss the point.

The Medical Marijuana argument is not about decriminalising marijuana or if it causes schizophrenia. It is about the use of a therapeutic drug being made available to people who would benefit from taking it.

I get a prescription for a Contolled Drug - it states on the pack "Possession without authority illegal" (Oxycontin (oxycodone), a synthetic opiate).

Why cannot marijuana be treated the same way? The problem is that all research on the therapuetic use of canabinoids has stopped, this is just crazy.

An excellent article, Sandra.
Is the AMA’s paranoia about pot caused by deprivation of cannabis or is that just colleration? Or perhaps they simply don’t see a profit to be made from cannabis in its natural state.

Big Pharma, perhaps, has a hand in the prohibition of marijuana because they frantically must be searching for a way to patent (and market) it.

Approval for medication doesn’t have to based on scientific merit and logic alone- politics come in it as well.
So, me speculates with the help of my crystal ball, as soon as Big Pharma finds a way to patent a product manufactured from THC or similar extracts, they will convince governments that there is a profit to be made from it and we’ll see sudden compassion for the ill rising and awareness increase as well of the logic behind decriminalisation.

Hmmmm seems there could be more reason to believe that there is more of a correlation between greed and decriminalisation than between logic and decriminalisation- says my crystal ball.

The problem with Cannabis is that nearly all the use is "recreational", and calls for medical use are rightly viewed with some scepticism.

As tobacco is far worse, I would like to see similar steps taken with regards its use, especially as it has claimed members of my family.

Shadow Minister

Cannabis use has been shown to significantly lower lung cancer rates, why? We don't know. Because researchers have zero chance of funding.

Cannabinols have potential to replace opiates in analgesia with less side effects and less dependance.

The irrational anti cannabis stance of do gooders is causing more harm and possibly preventing cures to many diseases. :(

I seem to remember that there are already pills that are based on (THC?) the active ingredient in Grass and has shown promise in palliative care.
Maybe Sandra needs to chase them up.

I have spent years picking up the unfortunate who become addicted to various substances. As I understand it there are people whose genetics or mental disposition have a predisposition towards addiction. In most cases these victims aren’t aware of this hidden monster until too late.

History shows that such addictions (to booze, tobacco, pokies what ever) devastates our community to take the lid off and make access easier for these people seems to me to be somewhat short sighted from a community perspective.

I have no problem of the drug for medical purposes. but from a harm minimum perspective I hod fears if it became more widely available. Without wishing to sound wowserish I wonder at the value of such products in an open capitalistic market.
If it becomes legal how long before marketeers start pushing it like tobacco, booze and pokies.

I ask the question while I enjoy a drink or three do I really need it and would I be prepared to ‘sacrifice’ my access to such diversions for the good of the unknowing potential addicts and community.? I would have to answer yes.
We all sacrifice options to belong to a community and this one is truly trivial sacrifice. If it’s not then you need to ask yourself why not? Seems to me you’re selfish or addicted yourself.

A better thought out article (but so long!) than her stance of giving ecstacy to victims of the Eyre Peninsular fires.

I didn't realise that there were still people seriously advocating dope as a form of pain relief. There are pills available. That's the path to go down.

Wonder when her book 'I'm the last Democrat still standing' will come out?

Pushing the dope barrow is like Custer calling for more Indians.

You’re quite right, Examinator, that there already are pills based on THC. The brand name is Namisol, which contains 1.5 mg THC (dronabinol USP).
But Namisol is not available outside the Netherlands where they’re manufactured.
http://www.echo-pharma.com/namisol.htm
If there are other tablets elsewhere available on doctors prescription I don’t know about these.

You need not to be fearful about slippery-slope arguments. Cannabis has been available in Holland for decades. Nothing happened. The cannabis usage is lower than in almost all other Western countries. Heroin has been available to addicts on prescription as well, which resulted in a significant reduction in heroin users- in fact they have the lowest percentage of heroin addicts in the world.

Oi!! Hands off my one and only glass of daily red wine :)
I enjoy that and am not willing to sacrifice that –call me selfish- just because others abuse alcohol. I bother nobody when I drink a glass of wine with my dinner. If my community doesn’t like it they can all move elsewhere.

But I don’t mind my tax being spend on drug education, anti-drug campaigns, health programs.

Celivia

Thanks for the link. I checked and noted the following:

<<<<<<Namisol® is the first sublingual tablet containing dronabinol USP (ultrapure THC), which has been developed using our unique formulation technology.

Namisol® is indicated for the treatment of different diseases symptoms such as:

- Spasticity with pain, for instance from Multiple Sclerosis and spinal cord injury
- Nausea and vomiting by chemotherapy, radiotherapy or treatment with HIV-medication
- Chronic neuralgic pain
- Gilles de la Tourette Syndrome
- Palliative treatment of cancer and HIV/AIDS

Namisol® posseses several unique characteristics compared to existing products. Namisol® offers superior stability, unproblematic administration, is more robust and is cheaper to produce.>>>>>

As a sufferer of chronic pain, which can only be treated with chemicals that have side effects such as gastric ulcers and constipation, I (and many like me) would support a rational approach to medicinal cannabis. For far too long cannabis has been deliberately maligned to protect the interests of companies whose products would not be able to compete.

It is similar to the campaign against renewable energy and before that the lies put out by tobacco companies. Where-ever multinational corporations are threatened we are fed lies and disinformation.

Apart from medicinal treatments, cannabis also provides oils, paper and fabric. It is easy to grow and has a faster production rate.

Check the following government publication for yet another example of what might have been but never eventuated:

http://www.rirdc.gov.au/pub/media_releases/15nov95.html

Quite so CELIVIA I too like my home brewed beer (too my taste no preservatives). Red wine tends to have too much Sulphur dioxide preservative perhaps a consequence of too much at executive (business) lunches etc.

By the way your taxes wouldn’t pay for much it’s the limited amount ($) we as are prepared to spend in pre-emption and treatment. (no where near enough).

My concern is that the amount of damage in the wider community wives, children even some husbands and even potentially you and I beaten because by those who abuse booze (drugs etc). Incest, rape, car deaths and innocent bystanders etc it is far more pervasive than can be fixed by education, needle exchange or even drug rehab centres.

For every reasonable user there are dozens of abusers.
If booze was solely a backyard activity I would postulate that much of our community’s problems would evaporate.
Research I’ve seen suggests that the more EFFORT required to acquire the recreation the less attractive it becomes as opposed to taxes etc.

Governments are inclined favour Corporate wants and voter selfishness (votes) over the logic that if we could reduce the need for perhaps 20% of our health expenses they could provide more important benefits.

I would also suggest that ‘primitive (?)’ societies mind altering substances are less of a problem…ritual use (controlled).
I was suggesting that recreational drugs are just that, hardly essential.

My reasoning is largely self preservation if we want a better society with less hoons less B/E and street crime then we need among other things less mind altering substances.
I've also seen something about trials of THC drugs in the US too.

Anyone claiming that Cannabis is harmless is on it. Only the other day we discussed it in the Pub with several "smokers" who told us we didn't know what we were talking about. It turned out to be a classic example of what this stuff does do to users. Within an hour two users were just blotto whereas those of us (veteran beer appreciators) on a few beers still communicated & walked straight. One chap who had two smokes in one hour couldn't even remember where he'd left his shopping bags.
Medicinal properties ? Well, yes ! But so have venom & alcohol.
It's really a matter of mentality, just like drinking. Where I grew it was never "let's go out and get p....d". We went out to socialise & slowly got under the influence. What's the difference ? As we got older we could handle the stuff, that's the difference.

Fractelle,
I too, find it very frustrating that a potentially profitable and environmentally-friendly hemp industry is given no change for as a superior alternative to many products.
It can even be used as a food source as it has more protein than soy. And for what reason is this excellent source banned? There simply is no rational argument against legalizing cannabis under regulations similar to those of alcohol, let alone legalizing it for medical purposes only.

Examinor,
*Here’s to you* - re brewing your own beer. At least you know what’s in it.
I’m aware of the Sulphur Dioxide in red wine, but I prefer to cherry-pick the anti-oxidants :) with the excuse that I enjoy wine, as well as very good health, am fit, and my BMI is 20.
Even though I strongly support legalising cannabis, I don't use it, but *I* want to be solely responsible for that choice.

There’s no logic for banning it and people should be free to choose what goes into their own body, especially when information is so freely available.
People have access to a large range of crap on the market including all legal drugs, transfats, so why ban some and not others.
It can be regulated, and taxing it can contribute to health care and drug education.
I’d like to see warnings on legally available and regulated cannabis, like we see on tobacco products if there’s conclusive evidence that x causes y if studies that link cannabis to psychotic problems would be conclusive- but there is no ultimate proof.
These studies are eagerly used by the anti-cannabis brigade, spread by the media, who fail to take the whole picture into account.

Violence,
Agreed that there’s a link between alcohol and violence and between certain drugs and violence, but cannabis isn’t one of them.
Cannabis is a relaxant; a peaceful drug, flower-power people used it.
There have been studies that indicate that cannabis may even reduce aggression and risk taking.
So as an aggression-causing drug, it would be more reasonable to ban alcohol than it is to ban cannabis.

Cannabis is a relaxant; a peaceful drug, flower-power people used it.
Yes, Celivia, and just of how much use were & are those flower-power people to the rest of us apart from having been mainly dole & bludgers & students of uselessness.

Individual,
If you are so concerned about people’s functionality in society, then let me remind you that this article is about prescribing cannabis to patients suffering from illnesses so that they can feel better and therefore function better.

Besides,
Alcoholics can end up very dysfunctional, not contributing to society.
Should I be forced to give up my daily glass of wine because a minority abuses alcohol?

People who suffer from obesity-related illnesses cannot always function normally either.
Should I be banned from eating the occasional pizza, or piece of cake because some others super-size themselves to death?

Apart from perhaps a few pothead stereotypes, most marijuana users function as well as anyone.

Now here is indeed a conundrum. How does this relate to Indonesia's sentence of Schapelle Corby to 20 years imprisonment when here is being debated the fors and againsts of cannabis use? Why did our government (and I am ashamed to call myself an Australian here) not intervene and has done nothing to help her, rather, has hindranced her, because of her supposed exporting to Indonesia of 4.2kg of cannabis? And she did not - repeat - emphatically - did not - export cannabis from Australia.

The headline of this article speaks for itself. It goes way beyond that - specifically - the 'illogical war against cannabis'. To me that means that the Australian government should have and could have intervened in Schapelle Corby's situation.

By virtue of the fact that it is being discussed here and now.

What do YOU think?

Do YOU think she should be incarcerated in a third-world jail for 20 years for cannabis importation? - wrongly convicted? Does that sit well with you? I mean it is really taking tea to the Olympic Games isn't it?

I have, by the way, retained archives of this very discussion from 2006. On this very forum.

The THC producing plant has been deliberately confused with industrial hemp, resulting in the banning of all types of cannabis.

WHY? Because vested business in the USA interests in the 1930’s stood to lose money.

One of the most versatile and useful plants remains mostly ignored and misunderstood today.

http://altnews.com.au/drop/node/1434

"...In 1937, Dupont patented the processes to make plastics from oil and coal. Dupont's Annual Report urged stockholders to invest in its new petrochemical division. Synthetics such as plastics, cellophane, celluloid, methanol, nylon, rayon, Dacron, etc., could now be made from oil. Natural hemp industrialization would have ruined over 80% of Dupont's business.

Andrew Mellon became Hoover's Secretary of the Treasury and Dupont's primary investor. He appointed his future nephew-in-law, Harry J. Anslinger, to head the Federal Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs.

Secret meetings were held by these financial tycoons. Hemp was declared dangerous and a threat to their billion dollar enterprises. For their dynasties to remain intact, hemp had to go..…

……In September of 1937, hemp became illegal. The most useful crop known became a drug and our planet has been suffering ever since……

….Today, our planet is in desperate trouble. Earth is suffocating as large tracts of rain forests disappear. Pollution, poisons and chemicals are killing people. These great problems could be reversed if we industrialized hemp. Natural biomass could provide all of the planet's energy needs that are currently supplied by fossil fuels. We have consumed 80% of our oil and gas reserves. We need a renewable resource. Hemp could be the solution to soaring gas prices...”

Today most people are better informed than they were back in the 1930’s, so the question must be asked, why is cannabis not utilised?

For the same reason tobacco is still grown, oil reserves exploited, nuclear power promoted over clean energy, desalination plants favoured over water storage and catchments; the list goes on and on.

If we actually produced sustainable and less polluting products the balance of power would shift from the status quo.

celivia,
you're absolutely right that this debate is about the medicinal side of cannabis. I didn't actually state I was against that. what I AM against is the defence of cannabis as a so-called recreational substance.
Alcoholics can end up very dysfunctional, not contributing to society. Absolutely. I don't even pretend to condone alcohol. It's as bad as cannabis.
Apart from perhaps a few pothead stereotypes, most marijuana users function as well as anyone. Now that's where I don't think you're wrong, I know you're wrong.
ANYthing is bad if used or produced out of proportion, One doesn't need to be a rocket scientist to know that. Prolonged use of cannabis DOES cause users to lose sense of many functions which are needed to not be a burden to the rest of us. One of them is the loss of a sense of responsibility. Try as anyone may, prove otherwise.

helen 54
posted this
..>>97% of males aged 18 to 20 years were included.

Individuals who at age 18
reported having used cannabis >50 times
were six times
more likely than nonusers to have been
diagnosed with schizophrenia in the ensuing 15 years.

Adjusting for other relevant risk factors,
including psychiatric diagnosis
other than psychosis at conscription,

reduced but did not eliminate
the higher risk
(odds ratio [OR]=2.3) of schizophrenia conferred by cannabis use...<<

[I HAVE ONLY SPACED YOUR STATMENT]

to fine some grain [spec of light in it]

SO we COMPARED ALL
those [15 ago years [one] intake?]
for 15 years [or 15 years of intake?]

not including that
those with ADICTIVE personality
who WILL forgo the NON working drug
[for the super addictive drug booze ,

slipping from their lower addictions into the bigger stones

[ie
they changed drugs in the army
get it
[ie stoped the dope
got hooked into booze

how many people the phyciatrick industry
still going to subert us into their pilled out being

into US being their drugged out machines
subsidising a true coorerapte welfare
industrial culture

into the booze pills and policing
[and polution even prostitution of their position and 'culture''
a sepperate [divide] and conquer every 'DEVIANT' other culture

they [the doper recruits]changed addictions !

being naturally addictive type
easy in love ,go with the flow

its the vairiables they dont reveal that is the lie

yes 2 IN 100 dope smokers get phycotic
BUT in the general [NON smoking]population
[it is FOUR in 100]

do your numbers
2 percent LESS for dopers

Celivia and others
How absolutely unAustralian of you BMI 21! Never mind with a bit more effort and dedication you can get that up to triple figures &#61514;

Seriously though, BMI isn’t a good measure because it doesn’t take into consideration issues including genetic metabolism, and height. Somehow I doubt that your pink of life has much to do with your nightly imbibe. Good on you anyway, you probably won’t be such a cost factor on the health system.

I believe that with every benefit comes a responsibility and the benefit of the Community means we all give up some of our ‘rights’ for the common good. However equating a discretionary indulgence with “rights”? Strewth that over guilding its importance a bit isn’t it?

Taxation doesn’t work nor do warnings. There are still 100s of millions denialists who suffer/will suffer the consequences of tobacco and society the costs. Because it makes jobs and profit for a minority and for individual’s “rights (?)”.

In Qld some dozy sod got high drove his car into 3 pedestrians killing 1, seriously injuring the others. All that unnecessary grief and pain I look at it like this Add up all the deaths, mental illnesses, addictions, broken lives and costs to society and weigh that against individual indulgence and I have to say is wanting. I favour choice but at what cost to the Community and individual’s misery. Caveat emptor is a cynical (immoral) warning not a value system.

What I would like is an alternative solution that can guarantee that wide spread Grass/Mary Jane et al won’t aggravate the problems/consequences we ALL face today (not all consequences are recorded as addiction based)? People in the front line CAN guarantee that it will get worse. The question should be “Is there a way we can reasonably have both?” I’m not opposed to legalization on any “moral” grounds just a lack of viable answers to the known consequences. I look forward to reading any solutions anyone can offer.

Individual,
I’m glad to know that you approve of medicinal cannabis.

“ANYthing is bad if used or produced out of proportion”
True. We all have to be aware of the quantity and quality of substances we put into our systems as much as possible.
Cannabis would be a safer drug to take when regulated and controlled by the government than by maffia-like underground dealers.

Even IF cannabis was a threat to our health in the same way as tobacco or alcohol, this is all the more reason to regulate it.

Moderate, recreational users of alcohol are able to function socially and in their work in the same way as moderate cannabis users are.
I personally know quite a few marijuana users with responsible occupations and who are successful, including a dentist, a robot engineer and a published, award-winning author.
For them, marijuana relaxes and reduces stress. It helps the author overcome ‘writers block’ and get creative juices flowing.

I view marijuana in the same way as I view alcohol- use it in moderation and there is no problem. Use it irresponsibly and over-indulge regularly and one can become dysfunctional.

Apparently, fundamental religion has created some nut cases as well, while the moderately religious function well.
We’d be wise also to not over-indulge in hype from the media about drugs or we lose our balanced view :)

Fractelle,
I have to admit that I was oblivious to the extent big businesses like oil companies have influenced the hemp industry. This certainly explains a few questions I had. Thanks for this article, it inspires me to do some more research on this.

Examinator,
There is no evidence that decriminalisation/legalisation of cannabis leads to increased use.

I’d agree if you said that there needs to be restrictions of our rights when we are under the influence of drugs like alcohol or cannabis- e.g. we need to give up the right to drive.
Taking a drug in itself should not be a crime as this harms nobody.
We need to be held responsible for our actions whether or not we’ve taken a drug.

I have no problem with using cannabis in a controlled manner when its use facilitates a prescribed medical course of treatment or procedure.

We do, after all, grow the opium poppy in Tasmania for the same purpose.

However, my view to its illegal trade remains as it does will all and every illegal drug, that the illegal dealers are deserving (upon a second offence) of the ultimate criminal sanction.

I see fractelle trawled the “altnews” conspiracies-r-us to find some dross to supposedly support the litany of pseudo-facts commonly espoused by the semi-literate agitators.

Cevelia “There is no evidence that decriminalisation/legalisation of cannabis leads to increased use.”

And there is no evidence that its legalization would reduce its use.

Trading in a drug which induces paranoia is a heinous act.
Using a drug which induces paranoia is stupidity.

Even as a libertarian, I can understand that we have a moral responsibility to protect the habitually stupid from themselves.

ruawake,

I actually believe that Cannabis has some beneficial properties, and that those in need should not be denied.

The question is how to do this while preventing its misuse. The two things that could do this are:
- Only allow doctors in the relevant field to prescribe ie. oncologists,
- Make the users register on a national data base (restricted access to pharmacists) so that limited quantities are issued. Much like what is done for ritalin etc.

The point I was trying to make with the previous post is that the strictures should be even tighter for tobacco.

I suffer from chronic pain which is only partly relieved by a combination of opioid and neuropathic drugs (along with exercise, meditation and CBT). I would welcome the opportunity to try cannabis to see if it helps reduce my pain. Drugs used for pain control do not normally lead to addiction. I imagine cannabis would be the same. There may be a causal link between over-use of cannabis and psychotic illness, however, the amounts used therapeutically are much smaller.

I agree that if marijuana became legal, it should be subject to tight controls. Some of my current drugs can be prescribed only after consultation with two doctors, for others, the doctor must be registered specifically to prescribe that drug. Marijuana would need similar controls.

But it is odd that our laws permit me to use heavy opioids (some made from Tasmania poppies) but do not allow the use of much less potent THC.

Ted
Your question is entirely valid and is the reason I started researching the history of cannabis use. And I continue:

John Craig Lupien, writes in his very comprehensive history: UNRAVELING AN AMERICAN DILEMMA: THE DEMONIZATION OF MARIHUANA

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/hemp/history/conspiracy_toc.htm

“The surge of commercial interest in utilizing hemp to produce paper, plastics, and textiles crucially affected the Bureau’s decision to launch its final assault against marihuana in 1935. Without a doubt, the Bureau was fully aware of the promising economic potential of hemp, and, between 1935 and 1937, this observation was rapidly becoming an economic reality. It certainly seems rather ironic that the marihuana issue spontaneously mushroomed into “the greatest narcotic peril in America” during the same period of time.”

Commercial hemp and narcotic marijuana became linked as one and the same product, hence a sustainable and valuable industry was effectively eradicated.

There is substantial evidence for medicinal cannabis and, as Ted rightly points out, we grow medicinal heroin, so why the problem with marijuana?

Compare the toxicity with alcohol:

According to research conducted by Jack E. Henningfield, PhD for NIDA, Reported by Philip J. Hilts, New York Times, Aug. 2, 1994 "Is Nicotine Addictive?" Marijuana is far less addictive than alcohol. ……. Marijuana has been smoked by nearly 50% of all Americans, and only 1% of that number smoke regularly. When compared to the ratio of alcoholics to the total people who tried alcohol, marijuana intake frequency is ten times lower.

There are hundreds of reported deaths due to alcohol consumption. The consumption of alcohol, and it's resulting impairment also directly cause tens of thousands of deaths in the U.S. each year. In 2001, there were 331 alcohol overdose deaths, while 0 marijuana overdose deaths. Source: U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC)."

Now I am not against the occasional glass of red, but since when has alcohol offered the range of products that is possible with cannabis?

Legalising pot would immediately eliminate the black market and allow controls on the THC levels, which at present have no limits and I find too strong for personal consumption.

Firstly, there is no such thing as "addiction", only habitual behaviour. Anyone who says otherwise is kidding no one.
Secondly, the only reason marijuana is considered an illegal substance here in Australia is on the say so of a cross dressing law enforcement loony from the US back during prohibition.
Thirdly, if the government had any sense, they'd put the kooris in charge of growing and supplying pot legitimately and split the profits with them. Taxation, control and welfare dealt with in one hit.
Fourthly, to those who say it promotes the onset of schizophrenia, so does alcohol ABUSE, probably moreso. I know this because my uncle was a schizophrenic alcoholic who took his own life. My cousin controls HIS schizophrenia with a hideous cocktail of prescription drugs. No pot use, but a fair slurp of ALCOHOL involved there, too. Nevertheless, a predisposition must exist and self accountability comes into play, in those cases. No excuses.
The tobacco and alcohol industries provide our government(s) with a lot of revenue. Employing a similar model for pot would gain similar revenue results without the health spend, methinks.
My opinion.

Col,
Why do you believe that it should be the State’s business what individuals choose to use on their own property?
Why would cannabis have to be treated differently than other substances like tobacco and alcohol?
Why is it OK to have alcohol advertised especially on sport venues, which are visited by children?
Why should we have double standards?

“And there is no evidence that its legalization would reduce its use.”
Actually, there is evidence that the decriminalisation of cannabis does not lead to an increase of use.
http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=3383

U.S. studies
“Findings from dozens of government-commissioned and academic studies published over the past 25 years overwhelmingly affirm that liberalizing marijuana penalties does not lead to an increase in marijuana consumption or affect adolescent attitudes toward drug use.
Since 1973, 12 state legislatures -- Alaska, California, Colorado, Maine, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, New York, North Carolina, Ohio and Oregon -- have enacted versions of marijuana decriminalization.”

International Studies.
"The Dutch experience, together with those of a few other countries with more modest policy changes, provides a moderately good empirical case that removal of criminal prohibitions on cannabis possession (decriminalization) will not increase the prevalence of marijuana or any other illicit drug; the argument for decriminalization is thus strong."

And according to Drug and Alcohol Services Council of South Australia:
“In the context of a society which is increasingly well informed about the risks associated with drug use in general, a move toward more lenient laws for small scale cannabis offenses, such as the CEN [decriminalization] system, will not lead to increased cannabis use."

“Trading in a drug which induces paranoia is a heinous act. ”
There is evidence of some correlation, but there’s no proven causal link.
The media hasn’t been clear on that, but if you go to the research papers there is no researcher that came to the conclusion that cannabis actually causes psychological disorders.
They do think that it may cause psychological problems for users who were already predisposed anyway.

Even so, why is it not a heinous act to trade in alcohol and tobacco?

I have tried pot back in my 20's, on at least two occasions and must admit that although it gave me a buzz at the time I have had no interest in it in more than 20 years however, I was at a new years party last/this year and a joint was being handed around and I almost took a drag but thought, no this isn't for me.

Funny thing was that while driving home I was stopped at an RBT (without drug testing involved) and I got to think, What would have happened if I had taken a drag and then been tested for drugs.

Would I have tested positive?

If so, how would I have felt being branded as a 'druggie' when I simply only took one drag in 20 + years.

I feel this is proof that the random drug testing may well be flawed as hypothetically I could have been branded as a drug user.

This may be off topic but is an interesting point I think!

Cevilia “Why would cannabis have to be treated differently than other substances like tobacco and alcohol?”

Why ask about cannabis?

Why not ask about heroin?

The same rules apply.

Why should heroin be any different to tobacco or alcohol?

Tobacco and Alcohol can both kill us, just like heroin.

I was a pack a day smoker for 25 years, went cold turkey to give in up.

I am an occasional drinker, never had a problem saying no and these days through personal choice, drink very modestly indeed.

As I stated recently on another thread, the opium trade into China resulted in an estimate of 1 in four male Chinese being addicted to opium by 1904.

Heroin is more addictive than opium. Meth-amphetamine is more addictive than heroin.

I know one family where one son was murdered by a cannabis induced schizophrenic and the other is on a downward cycle into drug and alcohol abuse, to the point he has recently been kicked out because his parents feel unsafe with his paranoid outbursts of violence and abuse. He is going to do it tough. He has no job and no real interest in getting one.

“Hitting bottom” is not far away.

So when you can get heroin or cannabis legalized then I will accept it as fact.

Maybe we should make ecstasy and meth-amphetamine legal as well?
After all they are just farm chemicals. battery acid and a few more niceties cooked up in a cesspool somewhere by a dirty biker, as well as paranoia, a couple of years on crank and your skull starts to cave in to.

May be dump 3 times more taxes into medicare. Let the doctors have the funds needed to institutionalize the landslide of junkies who will arrive with the legalization of these substances?

Or maybe the sane ones among us, who do not abuse ourselves will get sick of seeing our taxes, facilities and taxpayer funded services flushed down the toilet to support junkies and crack addicts and decide, the better option is just to ‘terminate the junkies’ on their first public hissing fit.

Doesn't look like it's the junkies who are having "public hissing fits" around here :)

"Terminate" the junkies, apply the "ultimate sanction" to marijuana dealers. I think Col's been reading too much Stalin and Lenin.

Either that or he's really a Dalek :P

ROFL… a Dalek :)

I’m pleased to see that most posters, including Col, agree with the author that cannabis should be part of our palliative armoury.

Col,
“Why ask about cannabis?”
Why not?
Cannabis is, after all, the topic of this article and I’m searching for the lone lurking logical argument that may be able to convince me that cannabis should not be decriminalised.
You can’t be reasonably be against the decriminalisation of cannabis without coming up with a logical reason for it.
Slippery-slope arguments are not logical arguments.
And the connections you make between cannabis and other drugs doesn’t make sense because they are in a different class (class A). Cannabis is a class C drug.

Not that I agree with the classification used- it needs an update.
I happen to have found an article about this and you might want to look at it to discover that the recent classification doesn’t make much sense.

Col, seriously, if you support the fact that alcohol and tobacco are legal, then it makes no logical sense to be against legalisation of a drug that is less harmful.

It would make sense to be against drugs that are more harmful than alcohol and tobacco, but it makes no sense to be against less harmful drugs.

For example…
Less harmful than alcohol and tobacco are: Cannabis, LSD, and Ecstasy.

More harmful than tobacco and alcohol are: Ice, Heroin, and Cocaine.

If these figures are correct and there’s a consensus on this new classification, then it makes sense to either legalise all drugs that are as harmful as and less harmful than alcohol and tobacco OR ban tobacco and alcohol along with drugs in the same category and over.
I support the former :)

Why would we want double standards for no other reasons than historical and hysterical ones?

If I had to pick an argument against the legalisation of drugs, then it would be one that rehctub addressed: There is no proper test yet for checking cannabis intoxication while driving.
I'd like to see more research on this.

Oops, I forgot to include the link.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/5230006.stm#drugs
“The designation of drugs in classes A, B and C should be replaced with one more closely reflecting the harm they cause.”

Thank you for the article from the BBC. While fascinating in itself, the Government report focuses on recreational use of drugs. ("How do we send a message to young people if it's not based on evidence?") However, in using drugs to alleviate pain - my primary interest - the level of danger is only one factor among many in deciding which drugs to use. (a) Therapeutic doses are usually smaller than street doses. I don't want a high, I just want analgesia. (b)I accept the risks in the dangerous drugs which I am currently prescribed. I am far more interested in their effectiveness. And if cannabis is effective for my pain, I would like legal access to it.

CJMorgan, our own mouth piece of the fatuous.

It always surprises me how those with nothing to contribute are so quick to criticize any opinion which flies over their head.

Cevelia “Cannabis is, after all, the topic of this article and I’m searching for the lone lurking logical argument that may be able to convince me that cannabis should not be decriminalised.”

From several other posts here, parallels and similarities have been drawn between alcohol and cannabis.

Alcohol and cannabis, one poster commented can both result in schizophrenia and I for one have no problem acknowledging the dangers of excessive alcohol abuse. Although my family has never be blighted by such things, people close to me have suffered the effects of other family members who have not been able to manage their alcohol consumption.

In the instances I am thinking, use of cannabis and some intravenous drugs were also problems.

I would personally not be negatively effected if access to alcohol was far more restricted than it is today.
I would personally not be negatively effected if access to cannabis was far less restricted than it is today.

We have legalized prostitution (something else I have never take opportunity to indulge). The problem with prostitution is, apparently it encourages engagement in more serious crimes.

One justification for allowing alcohol and not allowing cannabis which I could think of is

The use of cannabis is more likely to encourage greater experimentation in other illicit drugs than alcohol.

And this was the finding of

http://espace.library.uq.edu.au/view/UQ:37681

“All three types of drug use were associated with higher rates of other substance use problems, with cannabis having the strongest association. Conclusions. The use of alcohol, tobacco and cannabis are associated with different patterns of co-morbidity in the general population.”

Of course another problem is the use of cannabis in combination with alcohol.

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/8.30/helthrpt/stories/s120940.htm

so I guess we can have either cannabis or alcohol but cannabis shows a higher incidence of escalation to other ‘substances’ (and I think they mean drugs of dependency, not washing up liquid).

Try googling “cannabis alcohol”

Lots of references there.

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/8.30/helthrpt/stories/s120940.htm
I have only gone as far as grade 10 in europe which is probably equivalent to university entry in Australia and I could have told you as 15 year old in the sixties what this Prof. Pearslon is saying in this link.

Dear Individual
No-one is disputing that drugs are dangerous - and can be even more dangerous in combination. The original article was asking whether the benefits in pain control outweigh the dangers. That question grabbed my attention as I constantly look for better ways to control my pain.

Col,

I think a lot of evidence of this 'Gateway Drug' theory, is due to having to buy the Gateway drug from an illegal source. This illegal source will quite likely have other illegal drugs on offer. If the drug is made legal, a lot of the "Gateway Drug' rational disappears.

I agree with Ted. I use Controlled Drugs for pain relief, if someone else got hold of these drugs they would be committing a criminal offence, that is as it should be.

Can cannabinols be used to replace opiates in amalgesia? Possibly. But we don't know because of the irrational arguments put forward by some in this topic.

I have no access to cannabis and would not actively seek it out, but if it could possibly help why should I be denied it?

It was suggested to me by my oncologist. :)

US "If the drug is made legal, a lot of the "Gateway Drug' rational disappears."

I had not considered that scenario and now you have brought it up, I agree with you US.

Of the illegal drugs I can see how cannabis does fall into a different category to the harder drugs.

I would, at this stage, not support its legalisation but I would be open to hearing more about why it should be de-criminalised.

I said on a previous post I have no problem with it being used for medicinal purposes, in the same way as we grow opium poppies, but until such time as it does become "legal" (for everyday use beyond the "medicinal prescription") I remain a supporter of a law and order approach to its distribution and those who profit from that illegal distribution.

Col Rouge: << I had not considered that scenario and now you have brought it up, I agree with you US.

Of the illegal drugs I can see how cannabis does fall into a different category to the harder drugs.

I would, at this stage, not support its legalisation but I would be open to hearing more about why it should be de-criminalised. >>

Kudos to Col! It's brilliant that you evidently don't have a closed mind on this topic. My apologies for thinking otherwise.

It's now conclusively proven that Col is not a Dalek :)

Usual Suspect,
Well said, you read my mind.

Ted,
I understand what you are saying, and yes, chronic pain sufferers and people with illnesses should be focused on first.
Cannabinoids have shown to be very effective analgesics for the treatment of chronic pain and some specific illnesses and therefore they should be able to experiment with a large range of analgesics to be able to find the most effective one.

Individual and Col,
Great to see you have an open mind about this, Col. Thanks for the links.
Yes, Individual, I thought my children were receiving inferior drug education at school so I updated them myself.
Luckily, they have no interest in either legal or illicit drugs but I have never 'forbidden' them to use drugs- just to be open about it.

It’s simply incomplete education to ONLY tell kids ‘don’t use drugs’.
I see similarities between drug and sex education.
There’s abstinence-only education and comprehensive education which includes abstinence as the safest option.
We can tell teenagers they’ll be safest to stay away from drugs altogether, the reality is that teenagers sometimes ignore good advice and do want to experience so they still need to know what they should be aware of IN CASE they do use drugs, such as to not to combine cannabis and alcohol.

Fractelle,
I forgot to thank you for the article about hemp- I haven’t had the time yet to read it, will do so over the weekend as I find it very interesting that there are so many uses for hemp.

I’m glad that this debate on drugs has turned out very amicable- I thank you all for this very enjoyable discussion which, I feel, has perhaps almost come to an end.

For all our advances in technology and synthetic drugs, why are we so afraid of pot? Is it because at some point we've all deemed that to experience a high is a lack of self-control or that we don't want to see out children giggling over nothing at all?

Besides, it's all moot point because the real point of this article is the issue of cannabis for medicinal use. How does any of our convenient pills in bottles come about if not by the path and willingness to research something for its benefits and understand its harm.

Surely we all know what preceeded before morphine in the area of extreme pain relief.

I say throw away our fears for the unknown and at least give some funding to cannbis research.