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.