The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > The ideological, illogical war against cannabis > Comments

The ideological, illogical war against cannabis : Comments

By Sandra Kanck, published 1/8/2008

Bit by bit the demand for medical marijuana is growing and, bit by bit, the medical efficacy of this drug is being recognised.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. All
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.
Posted by Celivia, Saturday, 2 August 2008 10:37:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by windyliz, Sunday, 3 August 2008 1:01:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by Fractelle, Sunday, 3 August 2008 10:48:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by individual, Sunday, 3 August 2008 1:23:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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
Posted by one under god, Sunday, 3 August 2008 4:18:09 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by examinator, Sunday, 3 August 2008 5:20:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy