Medical

Compared with other licit drugs, especially alcohol and tobacco, cannabis is a relatively harmless drug and certainly the evidence to date suggests that the medical risks associated with cannabis use are significantly less than those associated with alcohol and tobacco use. Legalisation of cannabis would thus correct an anomalous situation where a less dangerous drug is illegal and more dangerous drugs are legal.

Cannabis may have a much greater therapeutic potential than either tobacco or alcohol. Cannabis preparations or derivatives could potentially be used to treat a variety of disorders and the legalisation of cannabis would enable proper investigation of its therapeutic potential and perhaps the utilisation of cannabis as a commercially viable crop for medicinal purposes.

Legalisation of cannabis would enable governments to control adequately both the tar content of cannabis cigarettes and also monitor the cultivation techniques used to produce cannabis crops so that uncontaminated and high quality cannabis preparations were available for sale. As long as cannabis remains an illicit substance, it is impossible to minimise the content of harmful substances in cannabis preparations or to monitor or control the amount of active THC in preparations. Legalisation should therefore not only ensure a cleaner crop but also reduce the health risks associated with ingesting an inadequately purified substance.

Social

The criminalisation of small-scale cannabis use means that users, often persons who are otherwise law-abiding, come into contact with wholesale dealers in illicit drugs. The advantage of the South Australian expiation notice system is that it effectively decriminalises the cultivation of cannabis for personal use, thereby going some way towards undercutting the black market which has developed around the recreational use of cannabis. Further mention is made in this context of the separation of small-scale dealing and use of cannabis from large-scale trafficking and the associated criminal activity, especially in the heroin market. The danger therefore is that the current policy may expose users to `hard' drugs and more serious criminal activity.

Cont...

Research suggests that de facto decriminalisation does not result in increased rates of usage, or, alternatively, that any increase may only be modest. The floodgates argument is empirically false. The 1992 survey of cannabis use among high school students in New South Wales certainly does not support the contrary proposition that criminal sanctions reduce the rate of use for this group.

Legal changes in South Australia and the ACT, admittedly controversial at the time they were introduced, have not in fact excited public outrage or disquiet.

It is often submitted that the profits to be made from illicit trade in cannabis promote corruption within law enforcement agencies.

Legal

The dominant `prohibition' model of legislation in this field has failed in its goal of preventing widespread cannabis use, especially amongst the young. Criminal sanctions have not proved to be an effective deterrent. It is almost certainly the case that actual apprehension rates are insignificant compared with the total number of cannabis users in the community.

Conviction for the possession of even a small quantity of cannabis leaves the person with a criminal record, a measure which is said to be out of proportion to the seriousness of the offence, carrying as it does the stigma of criminality and leaving quite large numbers of people with a criminal record who might never otherwise have trouble with the law.

The Queensland Advisory Committee found that `apprehended offenders are overwhelmingly young, single, unemployed or unskilled males'. More privileged groups are markedly under-represented, therefore, to that extent it can be said that cannabis laws are not equitably enforced. A report by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the National Crime Authority (1989) said, `it is argued that the law has been brought into disrepute because the private nature of much drug-taking behaviour means that it is only the young and poor drug offenders who take drugs in public places who are likely to be prosecuted. The rich who indulge their vice in private homes escape detection'.

W3rd

Sorry, should have added a reference. Full article (including the argument against, which, lets face it, is wrong) is here:

www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/publications.nsf/0/890A119BC3E65DDACA256ECF000A9386

Hmm.

Actually, I'm more in favour of having Marijuana illegal, but not really bothering to enforce it, except for some of the large scale operations.
Similar to what we have now, but p'raps without having any criminal records for users.

The reason being is that the two legal recreational drugs - alcohol and cigarettes - do infinitely more damage than all the illegal ones combined, which is a pretty compelling argument against legalising more.

On the personal note, I have a lot of friends who are pretty heavily into it, and they just don't seem to get off their backsides all that much. One of em passed up the opportunity to waterski last weekend for no apparent reason. Gah.

Those that use it on an infrequent basis are fine, those that don't... well, they're kind of like alcoholics I guess.

So... bascially I'm in favour of having it legal in everything but name. And nabbing a big time distributor now and then.

I am really suspicious of the intensity and the bias of the negative propaganda around marijuana, particularly they way it has been linked to mental illness – and I have a son who has psychotic episodes triggered by marijuana.

I have no doubt that many people have an adverse reaction to marijuana but that in itself is not a reason to ban it. Consider this: A child actually died not long ago when they ate peanut butter.

Just because a substance has a bad, even fatal, effect on some people is not a reason to prohibit it to everyone otherwise we should fine everyone who enjoys a peanut butter sandwich and imprison anyone who prepares a satay for others.

It just means that people who are allergic to peanut butter should avoid it and likewise for people with whom marijuana does not agree should abstain from it. I know 2 blokes who have adverse effects to cannabis and you know what they do? They dont smoke it.

It is precisely the ‘illegality’ of it that makes it cool and mandatory for young rebels – if it was legal there would not be so much peer pressure to indulge to prove that you are ‘not scared’ to do illegal things.

Marijuana is a drug and like any other drug it can be abused however I have seen the bad-effects of marijuana abuse and they are trivial compared to the bad-effects of alcohol abuse.

I think that people, particularly young people, should have the right to an alternative social drug to alcohol, not only to relieve the pressure from the biggest drug problem in our culture (alcohol is the biggest drug problem in this culture according to everyone – even the police) but because there are people with whom alcohol does not agree.

No wonder why you try to stay outside of the mainstream, spendocrat.

And I guess you vote for the Greens…a party advocating lawlessness in a number of areas.

It is amazing how many people are still disputing the harmful effects of taking drugs such as cannibis. Drugs like that has detrimentally affected many young people’s future and life, and personal as well as society resources has been spent/wasted on completely unnecessary areas, putting personal relationships and medical resources at risk. There are so many other recreations that people can take, positive things that either promotes personal development or social/economic growth.

Good luck with trying to advance your selfish view that is socially, legally and medically unacceptable. And thanks for letting everyone know of your far left views.