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.

Someone I know had a son who was murdered by his girlfriend in 2006.

She (the girlfriend) turned schizophrenic after smoking quantities of cannabis some 10 years ago and has been on regular medication and injections to stabilize her volatile and deluded condition. She stabbed and slashed up her victim inflicting hideous wounds across his face and arms before he died.

I knbow of someone else who also imbibes regularly in cannabis and displays similar delusional, psychotic and irrational behaviour, which has lead him to threaten suicide as he goes around in illogical and irrational circles of ever decreasing reasoning.

I have never seen a tobacco smoker attempt to murder someone else due to the effects of taking tobacco, regardless of what damage he may be doing to himself.

The amount of alcohol someone needs to ingest is, with effect, non-cumulative within the body and whilst many long term physical side-effects may be likely from extreme use, rarely do they involve someone else’s death, unless accompanied by some other action, like driving a motor vehicle.

The evidence of my eyes suggests anyone can rationalize and justify anything, cannabis, speed, ecstasy, heroin, crystal-meth, tobacco or alcohol.

I am a reformed smoker and occasional light drinker. I tried cannabis about 35 years ago when at college and found the only time it had any effect was a very unpleasant delusional experience which I never wanted to experience again.

I get a greater buzz out of being in control of myself than in surrendering my self to the delusions of an alien substance.

The legalization of cannabis would represent a significant abdication of collective responsibility by offering dealers in such substances greater and unfettered opportunity to corrupt and exploit those people who are more easily lead

My question is why does it need to be legalised, it's not hard to find and if you've got half a brain you won't be caught.
What drives the fervour of the pro-cannabis brigade? Why the need to promote?

Col Blimp there are countless lives destroyed by violence induced by alcohol abuse in Australia each year yet alcohol is legal. There are countless lives destroyed through drink drive car accidents, and alcohol is still legal.

Tobacco which has been proven to induce cancer, blindness, limb amputation etc, etc is still legal.

Canabis is a remarkable crop that has been used to manufacture paper, rope, cotton like cloth, oh and yep you can get high.

Australia would do more to care for its environment by growing hemp for paper and cloth than growing rice and timber plantations. Oh hemp has been a commercial crop in coastal NSW in the past that old timers knew as Egyptian cotton. Its medical use to increase appetite, stop diahorrea are well known folk remedies.

'...in control of myself than in surrendering my self to the delusions of an alien substance.'

Nothin alien about it, Col. It's been used by humans much longer than alcohol has existed. In fact it's been found that there are certain recepters in the brain that are only activated by the use of naturally occuring drugs, such as cannibus and psylocibin mushrooms (something else that is illegal for no rational reason). Almost as if we adapted to their consumption a long time ago.

I'm sorry to hear about your friends son. I'd rather not use it too much as a major discussion point, as it seems a little insensitive to invoke this kind of tragedy to further a point of view. But one thing I will say is that it seems to me, while cannibus certainly wouldn't have helped this womans condition, it would not have been the only factor. Someone like that has problems bigger than THC. And I'd like to point out that its mostly the additional chemicals added to the product that are responsible for the triggering of psycosis in a tiny minority of users. As I wrote earlier, legality ensures a much more pure product, and would surely vastly reduce this reaction.

And I would remind you (contrary to your statement of alcohol being relatively safe) that alcohol is responsible for 1000 times as many deaths, and yet remains not only tolerated, but celebrated. The cause of every broken home, every beaten child and wife...it's the number two killer drug in our society, and they have the gaul to advertise it on your television, with your children watching. Drink up! It's ok to drink your drug!

This isn't some wacky theory that hasn't been tried before. Marijuana has been legal in the Netherlands for a very long time, and they have no higher rates of any sort of problem you could care to imagine may happen. It is a perfectly well functioning society (not to mention the tourism it rakes in, for those of you who may care to consider the economics of legalisation).

I think that we should pathologies rather than criminalise the use of marijuana. If you feel that you need it for stress release then what the hell is wrong with you? It is an extreme form of pain management not a recreational devise. Put them in hospital not prison. Drug users are ill.

'Drug users are ill'

Do you drink, vivy? Because that would make you a drug user.

It is drug abusers that are ill, not drug users. It’s a very important distinction that many forget to make - drug abusers are those who give sensible users a bad name. And almost every single Australian is a drug user, be it alcohol, caffeine, paracetamol, whatever.

It's not like you would be forced to have it or be around it if it were legalised. If you don't like it - don't smoke it, but what I'm asking is how can anyone defend a law that so irrationally criminalises an individual’s personal choice? As adults living in a supposedly free country, should we not be able to make our own informed decisions? To those branding me 'leftist', isn't individual liberty a fundamental part of right-wing ideology?

Put it this way: how would you react if alcohol was made illegal? Would you say: “well, it makes sense, it is very bad for you”, or would you be very, very pissed off? People wouldn't stand for it, and people would stand up, and they would fight until they got their beer back. Yet, here we have a drug which is indisputably less dangerous in every way, short term and long term, but illegal from laws dating way back to before a proper understanding of the substance was gained. Today, the idea the pot = evil is so ingrained into societies collective unconsciousness that no amount of evidence to the contrary seems to have any impact. I struggle to think of any other example of law that even comes close to this level of nonsense (apart from the law against psilocybin mushrooms, a drug which is even less harmful than weed).

Ever notice how the drugs that open your natural receptors, expand your perspective and invoke deep philosophical musings are the ones that are against the law? And the ones that are legal are the ones that keep you stupid and do absolutely nothing positive at all? Does that not strike anyone else as slightly odd?

Interestingly it is legal in the Netherlands to sell cannabis in the cafes but it is not legal to grow it nor technically to deliver it to said cafes.
The arguement that because alcohol causes x amount of harm and is a legal drug does little to convince me to add another serious drug to the legal list. Smoking is legal but you're not too clever if you keep up that habit. At least these days with all the laws governing smoke free zones you only affect yourself and close family.
In the US more people are in rehab for cannabis than all other serious drugs combined(I suspect this does not include alcohol)

Indulge if you must but don't expect the community at large to condone or approve.

Billie “Col Blimp”

If you want to play games with my non-de-plume billie, try being original. Using corrupted epithets is not original, it is infantile. If I wished, I could do wonders with double entendre applied to you, like “little willie” but I will save us all on condition you agree to lift your game.

Now “There are countless lives destroyed through drink drive car accidents, and alcohol is still legal.” I think I alluded to that when I said of alcohol “accompanied by some other action, like driving a motor vehicle.”

Regarding “proven to induce cancer, blindness, limb amputation etc”
I further suggested of smoking “I have never seen a tobacco smoker attempt to murder someone else due to the effects of taking tobacco, regardless of what damage he may be doing to himself.”
“Cancer, blindness amputation” being some of the “damage he may be doing to himself”

So repeating my posts and arguing against me is a little “paradoxical” to say the least.

Now “Cannabis is a remarkable crop that has been used to manufacture paper,” a remarkable crop with the capacity to turn people into mentally dysfunctional cripples.

In my post, I never ignored the down-side of tobacco or alcohol. You, in contrast, have acclaimed cannabis almost as the wonder drug of the modern era, ignoring the fact that its use can turn people murderous and suicidal psychotics and schizophrenics

Spendocrat “it would not have been the only factor.” I am relying on the statements relayed by her parents to the investigating police officers who then uttered then in my presence.

Re “alcohol is responsible for 1000 times as many deaths,” largely because of its historic regulated production and consumption and acceptability across a wider section of the community (per capita indulgence).

Around 100 years ago many things were legal, cocaine, opiates, cannabis etc. Before you demand the laws which were invoked to make their trade illegal be revoked, I suggest you read a little about the prevailing social conditions which created the impetus to declare these substances illegal, excepting for tobacco and alcohol.

Nothing you have said mitigates against the fact that the use of drugs of any kind, especially those which directly interfere with a persons cognitive and reasoning skills, are dangerous and potentially lethal. I do drink in moderation but I have not bothered to get “drunk” in decades, I have a better time sober than I would looking at the world through a haze of alcohol, cannabis or any other media used to induce oblivion.

I don't like marijuana. It is not my cup of tea at all.

I don't like what it does to people. It is more harmful to smoke than tobacco. I am aware of hash cookies. I know there are some medical uses for some people. I like to have my awareness in its natural form.

I am, however, a stickler for researching policy. Goku, you have not done your homework and the Green's latest policy on Marijuana. None of their policies encourage lawlessness, Goku.

The Greens policy on this drug is to "regulate" the drug, and allow the government to control and regulate. In so doing, this is a health issue that needs to be taken seriously, especially if the "war on drugs" is one of those wars that will never end.

Civilization demands us to take responsibility for any degenerate behaviour that threatens our chances to survive. To drive something underground and therefore out of reach for government to manage defeats the purpose. Surely we want solutions and less drug related dementia cases.

This is one bull that needs to be taken by the horns.

For those with terminal illnesses like Cancer or HIV, then regulated prescription under medical supervision should be made possible.

As for customs and international drug trafficking, the Greens policy strongly confirms the current practice of stopping all drug trafficking into the country.

I just thought that some of you might need some myths to be dispelled.

It is not as free and easy as some may think. It is, however, a responsible policy that health experts have endorsed.

I studied the policies from the other political parties too. They are in need of development: they wouldn't have a clue what they are talking about.

Col said: ‘…especially those which directly interfere with a persons cognitive and reasoning skills, are dangerous and potentially lethal.’

Right. I’m not claiming otherwise. What’s your point? Because my point is that some of these drugs are legal and some aren’t, which = double standard! And that the illegality of marijuana does absolutely nothing to help people who may be suffering from it, and in fact can make the problem worse. You’re just saying it’s bad for you. Trust me, I get it. But what I’m saying is: that’s not the issue.

The Netherlands has a much lower ratio of pot smokers (something like 5% compared to Australias 15-20%. The US is on about 35% I think), most of the café’s get by on tourism. They’ve established that one of the reasons for this is because youth often smoke not despite the law, but because of the law. For the Dutch youth, smoking weed is not a rebellious act, and they are not so attracted to the idea.

See? Sensible laws = less smokers.

And you’ve said twice now that you like being sober: good for you! You’re talking as if you would be forced to smoke it or something. Changing a law so I’m no longer considered a criminal would have absolutely zero effect on your life.

cont..

‘…ignoring the fact that its use can turn people murderous and suicidal psychotics and schizophrenics’

Any objective person who knew the facts of the substance would agree with me that you are blowing these cases waaay out of proportion. There have been cases where marijuana has triggered psychosis. These cases are in the tiny minority within the ‘abusers’ category, not ‘users’ (much smaller minority than the proportion of drinkers who suffer from a whole range of health problems in the long term). Within that tiny minority, there is an even tinier proportion of cases where that psychosis has stuck around long enough to cause serious problems, like the incident you described. It does not change the fact that in terms of health risks, marijuana is a much lower risk than alcohol. In fact, psychosis is about the only established risk with weed, as opposed to alcohol that causes a huge range of health problems, to your skin, liver, brain, heart, kidneys, colon, stomach, on and on.

‘yeah-but-weed-is-bad-for-you’ aarrrgrhhhh…..

Spendocrat, I think you need to make a few more enquiries. You are wrong about pot. In some people it can cause psychosis on the first consumption. And in some this first consumption can have permanent damaging effect. I think it is far more dangerous than alcohol, both for users and abusers. It is one thing to let down your inhibitions amongst friends, by way of a social drink; and another thing all together to sit around staring at each other with a joint. Marijuana is dangerous precisely because the people who use it claim that it is not.

'You are wrong about pot.'

Sorry, I actually think you are wrong. And I don't feel the burden of proof lies with me. Show me the evidence that it causes all this psychosis everywhere, then we'll have something to discuss. Because I don't jump into these things unresearched. I've looked around, and the only things I've established to be undeniable about the link between marijuana and psychosis is as follows:

Only people predisposed to the condition are at risk.
Even then, psychosis typically only occurs after long term heavy use (or 'abuse' as I've been calling it).
Aside from the fact that the smoke is a carcinogen, and there's tar in it (so it obviously aint gonna be recommended by the health foundation), there are zero significant health problems associated with marijuana.

And I'm actually very sociable with a joint, thankyou very much. I don't just stare. I talk and joke and laugh. And I don't wake up the next morning feeling like a car ran over my head.

'Marijuana is dangerous precisely because the people who use it claim that it is not.'

Madness. You're essentially saying that anything considered safe is in fact dangerous, because it is the lack of awareness of any danger that creates danger.

And you're ignoring the fact AGAIN that I agree with you that Marijuana can be dangerous! I'm not trying to say it isn't. What I'm saying is:

So what?

I'm a long time member of the Greens and I'm comfortable with the Greens' policies on currently illegal drugs. I'm also generally a "freedom of choice" person, where personal choice does not seriously adversely affect others and the choice [where appropriate] is exercised by consenting adults. Having got that out of the way, I am somewhat bemused at what some obviously intelligent people choose to do to themselves and encourage others to do likewise.

I tried a [tobacco] cigarette in 1944, when I was 10. I didn't like it, couldn't finish it and never tried another. I was offered marijuana by a friend when I was 20. I didn't make a big deal of it, I simply declined on the grounds that I didn't smoke [anything].

I like a couple of glasses of wine, particularly with my evening meal. I don't like the taste of beer and never got in the habit of needing alcohol to have a good time socially. When I was 16, I learned the basics of Ballroom and Latin dancing. My mother had told me that was the best way to meet girls. How true, at any age. A man who can dance [and we're not talking about World Championship standard!], is of moderate habits and is otherwise presentable, can always get female company. As a teenager, when many of my friends went to the pub to get some Dutch courage before going to the dance, I didn't need that.

I've been "merry" at times, but only well over the top three times in my life, once each at 17, 18 and 19. Each time something happened [nothing too serious] which I could have done without. I learned something from that.

cont

I have a theory on the widespread use of various drugs by young people who go to nightclubs etc. About a year ago, we were invited by a good friend to a rock-n-roll night. We prefer general dancing, with a variety of rhythms and styles, but like to jive and certainly appreciate seeing some of the rock-n-roll styles danced by some of the enthousiasts. The venue was good and the DJ had some great music. Out of maybe 200 people, there were a handful of couples who could jive etc, but the floor quickly filled with people who aimlessly jumped about and made it impossible for anyone to do anything constructive. So the dancers sat down again and, if they were anything like us, got bored out of their minds.

I'm not suggesting that there was any, or at least much illegal drug use on that occasion, it wasn't that kind of a crowd, but what do people do if they're bored, they look for something to relieve the boredom, don't they? And, to my mind, what's intellectually stimulating about leaping around aimlessly to overloud, mind numbing music, as is perhaps customary at many of the functions attended by many young people? So much easier to pop a pill, isn't it?

To get back to marijuana, or tobacco either for that matter, why does anyone want to drag potentially harmful pollution into their body anyway? We accept that tobacco is extremely addictive, but we're often told that marijuana isn't. So what's the big attraction?

And, after lived through an extended time when non-smokers couldn't do almost anything without having tobacco smoke inflicted on them, I'm so pleased that we didn't also have to put up with what is to me the extremely unpleasant smell of marijuana.

‘Indulge if you must but don't expect the community at large to condone or approve.’

Noticed this from earlier, and I thought I’d point out that the community does not need to condone or approve usage in order to decriminalise. No one condones or approves of smoking cigarettes, but they’re still legal.

You can’t make everything that’s potentially unsafe against the law, that’s just crazy.

I appreciate Rex’s approach, he has no interest in weed, or even understanding why people do it, but he still acknowledges the individuals rights and personal choice. And that’s really what it comes down to – we can argue over exactly how dangerous marijuana is as much as we like, but it still should be the individuals own personal choice and freedom to make their own decision, something which current law does not allow for.

I imagine your dancing skillz must have served you well with the ladies, Rex, personally, my line is: ‘I have weed at my house’. Seems to work pretty well for me! Underlying message: Each To Their Own!

While I'm not in favour of legalising it, I don't see it as the incredibly harmful drug it is made out to be, except in the rarest cases - as is the case with alcohol.
I'm opposed simply on the grounds the legalising leads to proliferation, which leads to bigger problems. Alcohol and Tobacco attest to that.

I rather suspect that the 15-20 per cent here v the 5 per cent in the netherlands doesn't take into account the levels of use. I'd say around 2 per cent of Australians use it on a regular basis, the rest of them would be merely the odd joint now and then.

The Netherlands 5 per cent is probably more along the lines of frequent users.

And I'll add that most of the hysterically opposed people are those with little or no experience in the matter, who go by what they have been told.

Not all of course, some have been seriously affected and know their stuff... others, well, they seem to think it's some kind of zombie plant that must be stopped at all costs.
This is just stupid.

I only have my own observations as to the effects of marijuana use. I know people who have watched their children become schizophrenic and go through the trauma of trying to find them some sort of appropriate accommodation, being unable to ensure they are taking their medication then dealing with escalating violent episodes.

I have also seen those who are occasional users and do not manifest those behaviours. However, these users do display memory loss, anxiety, loss of ambition and drive, a sense of hopelessness and apathy that I have not seen in non-users to anywhere close to the same extent. The people I have seen are Gen X/Y, more predominantly male than female. Some... and I mean only some, have moved past some of this... but too many still sit on their butts in a smoke filled haze with the XBox running.

Isn't this significant slice of a whole generation a price too high?

I am astounded by the way people feel able to comment with such authority on a drug they've never tried or didnt like. Many people seem to be simply regurgitating the propaganda that has been pumped into them by the media for the last few decades.

As I said before I have a son who has psychotic episodes if he smokes - I throw up if I eat cheesecake - you know how I handle it? I dont eat cheesecake. However I dont go around telling other people who enjoy it that it should be banned because I dont like the effect on me and I've seen a lot of fat people eating it and you know how dangerous obesity is!

Most herb smokers are invisible because they are perfectly normal functioning individuals - people only notice the extreme cases and they may well be extreme for a whole gamut of reasons - dont mistake a symptom of dysfunction for its cause - and drug abuse (any drug abuse) is a symptom of dysfunction.

All the people I have seen who developed marijuana related psychoses - have taken large quantities of other much more powerful drugs like LSD - all of them took huge quantities of marijuana over a long period of time and all of them had dysfunctional and abusive childhoods. Maybe there were other reasons for their psychoses?

Blaming marijuana has been handed to youth as an excuse for their aberrant behaviour. Of course they will take any excuse they are offered because if they are allowed to blame the drug, it shifts the blame away from them personally and who could blame them for that?

And as for 'first time psychosis' I am very sceptical about that, especially without a reference, although I do not think it is impossible I think it would be much more rare than peanut allergy. I suspect someone had a psychotic episode after smoking a huge quantity of herb and when the police asked them if it was their 'first time' they said 'Yes.'

Spendocrat “Changing a law so I’m no longer considered a criminal would have absolutely zero effect on your life.”
- Until some drug crazed looney attacks me or breaks into my house to burgle me to fund their habit which followed on from experiments with cannabis.

“Any objective person who knew the facts of the substance would agree with me that you are blowing these cases waaay out of proportion.”

Someone who I knew and cared about is dead, murdered by a schizophrenic, a condition induced by use of cannabis Sure he could have died by a drunk driver but he was not. We have lqws for illegal use of a motor vehicle whilst intoxicated. He is not the only one. When I was 23 I heard of a guy I was at school with who I liked as a person was already dead from drug which started with cannabis.

Of course you can deny all the studies and history of how the use of cannabis leads to dependency and escalation into even more insidious drugs. You might even claim the whole issue is a beef-up to do with hemps competition to rayon or other manmade fibers but reality is, it has everything to do with the insidious consequences of its habitual use and the patterns of behaviour which lead to participation in more debilitating pursuits

Hmmm! I've always believed that the difference between dope being illegal and alcohol being legal was simply down to the fact that one can be grown and processed by a six year old, the other requiring an elaborate brewing and/or distillation process. Government can easily tax alcohol, but you can grow dope anywhere making Government intervention by way of tax very difficult, hence legal verses illegal.

And on damage control, I have a strong association with nurses at an adult psych ward. They claim that up to 70% of their charges are there because of using dope (sorry can't spell the "M" word). Maybe it's only a small percentage of users that end up psychotic, but records in that same psych unit show that most of those they see that become psychotic whilst using dope never fully recover and not all of them come from a traumatised background either. It's been well observed that many dope users go on to other and more deadly drugs. I never thought it was too dangerous myself until I began work in the field of mental health. It's also interesting to note that alcoholics are no longer treated in psych units, whereas the staff of these units see many dope users on a Friday and Saturday night. I've spoken to several psych nurses who used to smoke dope on a regular basis until they did a stint at a psych unit. Try and get then to start now! If they're so scared of what they've seen, than something sure isn't right and yet I agree that it should be legalised for those suffering from certin illnesses.

Aime,
What goes on in a psych ward, is scary.

But exactly what is the attraction of smoking marijuana? We're often told that marijuana, unlike tobacco, is not addictive. In Western Australia, tobacco use is now at about 20%, with about 80% of smokers having [so far unsuccessfully] tried to quit. It's probably true that most tobacco addicts got hooked before they were old enough to adequately rationalise the situation. But what about pot smokers? Why are they still doing it?

Yes, naughty little boys and girls often go against authority, but we're not talking here about rebellious kids and teenagers. My understanding is that many pot smokers are generally responsible adults, often people who are doing quite well for themselves in various ways. So what really is the attraction? Or, despite what is often said to the contrary, are most of the regular pot smokers simply addicted? Or do they fall back on what I regard as a generally pathetic excuse, at least for adults, peer pressure?

The National US Drug Intelligence Centre states "In some cases, people suffering from serious mental disorders (often undiagnosed ones) take drugs to alleviate their symptoms--a practice known as self-medicating. According to the American Psychiatric Association, individuals with schizophrenia sometimes use substances such as marijuana to mitigate the disorder's negative symptoms (depression, apathy, and social withdrawal), to combat auditory hallucinations and paranoid delusions, or to lessen the adverse effects of their medication, which can include depression and restlessness." In a New York psychiatric study almost 80-90% of diagnosed schizophrenics took illicit drugs to self medicate.

Disorders with increased risk of drug abuse are listed as follows:

Antisocial personality disorder 15.5%
Manic episode 14.5%
Schizophrenia 10.1%
Panic disorder 04. 3%
Major depressive episode 04.1%
Obsessive-compulsive disorder 03.4%
Phobias 02.1%

It also states: "In other cases mental disorders are caused by drug abuse. For example, MDMA (commonly known as ecstasy), produces long-term deficits in serotonin function in the brain, leading to mental disorders such as depression and anxiety."

In particular, ecstasy and meth amphetamine (speed) have been proven to induce psychotic effects in both chronic and light users and are highly dangerous.

My husband has suffered from chronic bipolar disorder for almost 13 years and has been hospitalised 4 times during that period - twice for attempted suicide. After many years of using traditional medication he found small doses of marijuana to be the most highly effective in curbing his symptoms. Over the years and since his diagnosis, he has been prescribed by his psychiatrist, every medication known in the treatment of bi-polar disorder with very disappointing and heart-wrenching results. A daily, medicinal dose of marijuana has proven to be the most highly sucessful treatment for his illness. With marijuana he is able to live a normal life. Marijuana is also 'recommended' by medical practicioners in the treatment of HIV and cancer. Why then should it be illegal?

I have not lived a sheltered life and have seen the devastating effects of alcohol, cocaine and speed addiction/abuse. However, in my own observations I have never seen adverse effects from the use of marijuana.

The most important point is that alcohol and tobacco use will always far exceed that of stronger drugs. And I am surprised that no-one has yet mentioned the despicable situation of drug companies marketing highly addictive antidepressants to people who arguably do not need them. Addiction is the enemy of the common man, and the golden goose for those profiting from legal and illegal drugs, alcohol, tobacco, caffeinated and sweetened beverages, and fatty foods.

There is hope on the horizon, with a recent observation suggesting that a small and defined area of the brain is responsible for addiction.

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2007/01/27/2003346507

Hopefully this will lead to remarkable treatments for addiction, and at once end the addiction economy and expose the wickedness of “treating” addicts by throwing them in jail.

Rex: “But exactly what is the attraction of smoking marijuana?”
Unlike tobacco marijuana is psychoactive – it changes your mind in an extremely pleasant way.

“I'm so pleased that we didn't also have to put up with what is to me the extremely unpleasant smell of marijuana.”
I couldn’t agree more however one thing that often seems to be overlooked in this debate is that marijuana does not have to be smoked. It could be made available in a drinkable form and served at pubs and clubs with exactly the same restrictions as drinkable alcohol.

Aime: “I've always believed that the difference between dope being illegal and alcohol being legal was simply down to the fact that one can be grown and processed by a six year old, the other requiring an elaborate brewing and/or distillation process.”
People can legally brew their own beer, make their own wine and even distil their own spirits – it is not that difficult – many, many people do it, however most people choose to go to a pub or club and imbibe there because it is part of a social activity. I suspect the same thing would happen if marijuana was made legal – sure people could grow it but most won't bother they will simply buy the commercially available product of consistent and known quality.

Serenity Now: “A daily, medicinal dose of marijuana has proven to be the most highly successful treatment for his illness.”
I am in a similar position – marijuana is the only effective medication I have found. For whatever reason, a small dose 2-3 puffs, 2-3 times a day, keeps the thoughts of suicide away.
(cont.)

(cont. from previous)
Col Rouge: “Someone who I knew and cared about is dead, murdered by a schizophrenic, a condition induced by use of cannabis.”
I think the key word here is ‘schizophrenic’. People with allergies can go into anaphylactic shock and die if, for example, they eat strawberries, it is not the strawberries that are the problem, it is the allergy. Likewise it is not the marijuana that is the problem in the case you cite it is the schizophrenia.

“When I was 23 I heard of a guy I was at school with who I liked as a person was already dead from drug which started with cannabis.”
And he probably ‘started with breast milk’ too. The only links between marijuana and the use of harder drugs is that because this usually benign, extremely pleasant and often beneficial drug is illegal it damages the credibility of claims that other drugs are dangerous. Secondly, because it is illegal it acquaints users with illegal drug-dealers who usually sell other drugs as well. Both of these are actually arguments in favor of legalization not against it.

There also seems to be little differentiation between people who use marijuana in moderation and people who take huge quantities – all drugs have an optimum dosage and all drugs can be abused. To not make this differentiation is like not differentiating between people who have a few glasses of wine with dinner and derelict alcoholics who sleep on the street, piss in their pants and rant at the world – to not make that distinction is either dishonest or naïve.

Thanks for the rational answers. I had a friend some years ago who's only effective relief from constant pain from an incurable [and apparently untreatable condition] was marijuana cookies, so I have an understanding of this use.

The way things are now in regard to passive smoking, in WA and many other parts of the world, the chances of marijuana smokers being able to become part of the social scene are probable virtually nil. And as a regular socialiser, I'm certainly very pleased about that. But I wouldn't have a problem being in the close vicinity of people who were consuming marijuana drinks or cookies.

Perhaps it would be appropriate to have the equivalent of booze buses, to catch out those who had consumed marijuana to the extent that it seriously affected their driving. Is this possible, BTW?

How easy is it for police to "drug-test" drivers for pot? Perhaps the difficulties in doing this is why the drug has remained illegal. Alcohol is pretty easy to test for. I know more drug testing kits are being rolled out, but they are certainly not everywhere. Maybe when we can make sure that people arent driving under the influence, then we wont be so worried about its use.

Also, bear in mind that it is a reasonably big leap of faith to decriminalise a substance.

My understanding of the cannabis test is that it picks up usage for at least several months afterward so they would not be accurate to test for competency which is only impaired at high doses and for a short while. I doubt that the relative difficulty of testing is much of an issue though as the authorities were heavily against cannabis even before the alcohol test was devised.

I suspect the problem the powers-that-be have with cannabis is a philosophical one. I think they associate cannabis with draft dodging hippies and other left-wing low-lifes. All the hype and propaganda about its dangers that we have been subject to, particularly over the last 2-3 years, is just a modern version of 'Reefer Madness'* drummed up because the government is afraid that if the general populous uses marijuana it may find better things to do with its time than fight and die in wars to protect the privilege of the rich.
*Reefer Madness is an anti-marijuana propaganda film from the 20's or 30's which became a cult hit because its claims about marijuana were so far-fetched that it was hysterically funny - especially if...

Cool, the works been done for me. That's always good news to a stoner. Cheers Rob!

Rob513264
“to not make that distinction is either dishonest or naïve.”

finding excuses to minimize or deflect the outcomes of cannabis use is not a productive strategy.

As I said in my original post “anyone can rationalize and justify anything, cannabis, speed, ecstasy, heroin, crystal-meth, tobacco or alcohol.”

I could find a justification for mass murder, if pushed to it.

I did use cannabis many years ago and once, a few years ago when I inadvertently ate some laced “cookies” a business colleague had prepared.

My most recent observations, first hand, are the idea that someone is a “social user” is rare and often reflects a pattern at the beginning of a path to chronic / habitual use and dependency, at least emotional if not physical.

Having spent some of my misspent youth “Talking to God on the bathroom telephone” I gave up heavy use of alcohol and, like many others, remain a social drinker with a home cabinet in which the vodka and scotch etc collect dust more than slake my thirst.

I can assure you I am neither dishonest or naïve, that you care to believe me is your choice but nothing you have presented would stand thorough testing and has the rattle of expedient excuses.

Rex “the equivalent of booze buses, to catch out those who had consumed marijuana to the extent that it seriously affected their driving.”

Come to Victoria, they are here.

'Come to Victoria, they are here.'

More technology needed...first guy they busted hadn't smoked in months, that's just the nature of THC.

You say Robs claims wouldn't stand up to testing, Col, but medical and social aspects of marijuana have been thoroughly tested for many years now, all over the world, and the points he's asserting are pretty much accepted as the reality of the situation.

You say you can justify any drug (and strangely try to connect mass murder). Well I put it to you that it is in fact *you* who can justify any ludicrous law on the basis of potential danger. If you applied the same logic for the illegality of weed to all other substances, you would find yourself with a lot more shelf space in the kitchen.

I think you're letting your personal experience cloud your judgement, and again I ask anyone who believes marijuana is a seriously dangerous drug to provide the statistical evidence of such.

Plus, as I've already said, history has clearly demonstrated that legalisation does NOT lead to proliferation. Changing the law doesn't mean there'll be more smokers. It's just means there will be less people who currently have the undeserved title of 'criminal'.

Another question: marijuana grows naturally, unaided. How can you make a part of nature against the law? And by that logic, wouldn't you have to make illegal any part of nature that was potentially dangerous? Poisonous flowers? Lions? Magpies swoop. Some people are allergic to bees and can die. How can potential *deadly* bees be legal, when marijuana is illegal simply because of its potential?

In response to Col Rouge:
'...anyone can rationalize and justify anything, cannabis, speed, ecstasy, heroin, crystal-meth, tobacco or alcohol.'
Yeah, I know, someone I am communicating with via forum is, at this very moment, rationalizing keeping cannabis illegal.

'Having spent some of my misspent youth “Talking to God on the bathroom telephone” I gave up heavy use of alcohol and, like many others, remain a social drinker with a home cabinet in which the vodka and scotch etc collect dust more than slake my thirst.'
It is odd how you use yourself as an example of the huge difference between drinking in moderation and alcohol abuse but then do not allow the same difference to be acknowledged between people who use cannabis in moderation and those who abuse it. This displays a double standard by someone who likes alcohol but with whom cannabis does not agree toward people who like cannabis but with whom alcohol does not agree - I am actually allergic to alcohol, it brings on radical rhinitis and acute asthma so is potentially life threatening to me, cannabis actually relieves my asthma and does not irritate the ciliated, pseudostratified, columnar epithelium of my rhino.

'My most recent observations, first hand, are the idea that someone is a “social user” is rare and often reflects a pattern at the beginning of a path to chronic / habitual use and dependency, at least emotional if not physical.'
Might I suggest that the anecdotal, subjective observations of a single, antagonistic non-user might be of absolutely no scientific value whatsoever and to suggest that they are is naive?

"I can assure you I am neither dishonest or naïve,"
How would anyone know if they were naive? Doesnt naivete necessarily include ignorance?

spendocrat "the community does not need to condone or approve usage in order to decriminalise. No one condones or approves of smoking cigarettes, but they’re still legal."

Very true but there still needs to be some political will behind any such decision to decriminilise. To achieve this will, some tangible benefit must be obtained, like winning more votes or a net gain to society.
I don't mind what you do in privacy. I would be supportive of supply on a medical basis by presciption. I just don't want my children to say "Dad, it is legal you know". I haven't come across as much advocation these days for tobacco as there is for dope.

To those who believe that many try dope just because it is illegal, isn't that a good reason not to decriminilise. Once it is decriminilised harder drugs fill the role of "lets do it because we're not supposed to".

Posted by rojo, Monday, 12 February 2007 9:39:45 PM
""To those who believe that many try dope just because it is illegal, isn't that a good reason not to decriminilise. Once it is decriminilised harder drugs fill the role of "lets do it because we're not supposed to".""

Good point rojo - maybe we should 'decriminalize all drugs' but that is another thread.

Does anyone have any research on why it was criminalised in the first place?

There is no published evidence that cannabis causes psychosis, there is plenty of evidence that psychosis is made worse by cannabis usage. But this evidence overwhelmingly says that anti-psychotic drugs can easily cope with this.

"It is more harmful to smoke than tobacco" is also factually incorrect, recent studies have shown the complete opposite.

Studies also indicate that cannabis use reduces alcohol abuse in young adults.

Evidence shows that several founding fore-fathers of the United States including George Washington grew hemp, sexed and separated his plants, keeping records of resin content and potency. This verifies that they were growing cannabis for its psychoactive purposes.

'...like winning more votes or a net gain to society.'

Maybe it's a bit naive of me, but I believe sensible laws based on science instead of irrational laws based on ignorance and fear is enough of a net gain to society in itself.

'..I just don't want my children to say "Dad, it is legal you know".'

I fail to see how this would be any different from your children saying: "Dad, it's less dangerous than alcohol you know." Personally if it were my kid, I'd say: "Damn right. Well done for seeing through the hypocrisy in our society. Have a gram. *whispering to myself*...thats my son...so proud I am...thinking for himself like that..." *tear rolling down cheek*

I’ve never used cannabis and never will. The smoke stinks and the people who used it, and I have met quite a number, I have found to be half witted and unreliable.

The classification based on statistics that cannabis is safe compared to alcohol is flawed because alcohol users substantially outnumber cannabis users. What really counts is the percentage of users in each category with drug induced health problems. Were the number of cannabis users equal to the number of alcohol users, I suggest there may be a similar number of problems. In any case, it is difficult to produce reliable statistics as many cannabis users also take alcohol and tobacco.

Alcohol is safe in small amounts, and indeed is said to be beneficial to our health. Cannabis even in small amounts, being 70% more carcinogenic than tobacco, cannot possibly be considered a safe substance. Despite the enormous amount of medical research proving the harmfulness of cannabis, and other drugs, people will keep taking them. Perhaps some people are genetically pre-disposed to take drugs to help them cope better emotionally.

You keep to your pot and fags spendo, and your ex mainstream life, while I enjoy fresh air and the occasional glass of wine.

TurnRightThenLeft, I was interested in one of your earlier comments

"Actually, I'm more in favour of having Marijuana illegal, but not really bothering to enforce it"

I tend to take the opposite approach to law enforcement. I think that having something illegal but not enforced weakens regard for the laws we do care about and it opens the door for police corruption and other abuses.

I'd prefer for the government to only regulate what is necessary and butt out on the rest. Do the regulation by holding people responsible for the consequences of their actions rather than stopping the actions in the first place.

In this case my concerns are
- drug driving (and other activities which might impact on my safety). Do we have a simple test to detect if someone's ability to perform tasks is impared?
- cost to the taxpayer of damage done by overuse. Is that a real issue?
- potential benefits to pain sufferers vs other pain killers.
- the issue Col raises regarding massive unexpected reactions in some people. It's to late to find out somebody has a problem once somebody else is dead.

I take the view that we should maximise the freedoms available to people but minimise the excuses that allow people to avoid the consequences of exercising those freedoms. Being stoned should never be an excuse for a bad choice that harms another.

R0bert

"being 70% more carcinogenic than tobacco" is just wrong.

Marijuana smoking does not increase a person's risk of developing lung cancer, according to the findings of a new study at the University of California Los Angeles that surprised even the researchers.

They had expected to find that a history of heavy marijuana use, like cigarette smoking, would increase the risk of cancer.

Instead, the study, which compared the lifestyles of 611 Los Angeles County lung cancer patients and 601 patients with head and neck cancers with those of 1,040 people without cancer, found no elevated cancer risk for even the heaviest pot smokers.

It did find a 20-fold increased risk of lung cancer in people who smoked two or more packs of cigarettes a day.

Previous studies showed marijuana tar contained about 50 percent more of the chemicals linked to lung cancer, compared with tobacco tar, Tashkin said. In addition, smoking a marijuana joint deposits four times more tar in the lungs than smoking an equivalent amount of tobacco.

"Marijuana is packed more loosely than tobacco, so there's less filtration through the rod of the cigarette, so more particles will be inhaled," Tashkin said in a statement. "And marijuana smokers typically smoke differently than tobacco smokers -- they hold their breath about four times longer, allowing more time for extra fine particles to deposit in the lung."

He theorized that tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC, a chemical in marijuana smoke that produces its psychotropic effect, may encourage aging, damaged cells to die off before they become cancerous

Soft drugs like cannabis should be legalised mainly because there is no logical reason for not legalising it. Drug use will not increase by decriminalizing or legalising it.
In the Netherlands there has been no rise in usage of drugs like cannabis since it was decriminalised and in fact, the use of drugs there is lower than in surrounding European countries and especially lower than in the USA. Crime rates have not gone up either since it was decriminalized.

It is irrelevant whether tobacco or cannabis is more carcinogenic- because you don’t need to smoke cannabis, there are other ways to take it. It should be up to individuals but I must say that I think legalising soft drugs MUST go accompanied by realistic education about these drugs so people are aware exactly of what choices they are making.

I agree with RObert and others, that any drug, whether it's alcohol or softdrugs, should not ever be an excuse for criminal behaviour.

Also, legalising drugs means they can be sold with health warnings, with instructions of use and recommended dosage.

Drug-driving, good point- I believe in Holland they are developing reaction tests.
However, driving under influence of cannabis doesn't seem to be as big an issue as drunk-driving because your sense of 'awareness what you can and can't do' is not being taken away by cannabis, whereas alcohol often gives people false courage. Also, the effects of cannabis wear of much quicker than the effects of alcohol.

When soft drugs are legally available experimenting with hard drugs will be less likely as people will not need to come in contact with drug dealers. This will reduce the risk to be pushed by the dealer.

I do think that the use of cannabis/marijuana/shrooms, when in their natural state, and when use in moderation has no averse effect upon our communities.

I would be more worried if, one day, my kids came home drunk, started smoking or tell me they had joined a cult or religion than if they told me they ate some space cake.

spendocrat,"Dad, it's less dangerous than alcohol you know."

I notice you compare to alcohol and not tobacco. It too is legal but not paricularly beneficial to human health.

I have seen the results of too much dope. It is very sad. For that reason alone,legal or not, I would be concerned that my children would take up the habit. How do we know who is vulnerable to addiction and/or pre-disposed to mental disorder?

'How do we know who is vulnerable to addiction and/or pre-disposed to mental disorder?'

We don't, unfortunately. We also don't know if we're allergic to peanuts until we eat them. We also can't be sure if our cars breaks won't fail tomorrow. It is a fact of life that we must take educated risks and make responsible decisions about our actions. In the case of a child, it is obviously the parent who takes on this responsibility.

My comparison to alcohol was out of convenience. Exchange it with tobacco and the point remains unchanged. I've seen the affects of tobacco. My mum has been diagnosed with emphysema. It's a terrible thing, which is why we hope each individual makes the right decisions in their lives. Of course they won't always do that. An inevitable price of freedom is people being free to make mistakes. To try and prevent these mistakes by means of law and authority - without trying to sound overly dramatic, I believe that's called fascism.

I'm not encouraging people to smoke weed. I'm simply saying people should be free (key word) to make their own choices.

In regards to your childrens safety, remember while marijuana is illegal, the drug dealers thrive - and they're the real danger. Imagine if alcohol were illegal and the industry therefore driven underground - your children could potentially be exposed to unmonitored, low quality booze with all kinds of anti-freeze and whatever else in it. But because it's legal, they can only get it with ID (in theory, of course..it aint perfect), and the product they get is properly tested and monitored, and guaranteed to be of a certain standard.

And remember: in a void, alcohol is a far more dangerous substance regardless. That is a firmly established scientific fact.

If anyone here is trying to deal with a pot addiction, check out this brilliant forum: http://www.uncommonforum.com/viewforum.php?f=10

It's fascinating how we break laws in our society and then whinge when we're punished for it. By all means lobby your Member of Parliament for law changes. But to decriminalise something because a section of society refuses to obey it is not a sound argument.

In order to try marijuana you have to break the law (laced cookies aside). This kind of wilful rebellion should be punished. As I say, no point whinging about someone getting a criminal record for possessing a small amount - they were knowingly breaking a criminal law.

And if you argue that alcohol and tobacco are more serious than marijuana, then maybe you should argue that these substances also be made illegal, rather than that the standard should be lowered.

Finally, it seems hypocritical/disingenuous to argue for a law change when you are in breach of that law. At least have the integrity to obey the law whilst seeking the change.

Posted by rojo, Tuesday, 13 February 2007 2:12:14 PM
"I have seen the results of too much dope. It is very sad."

I have seen the effects of too much alcohol too - my father was an alcoholic. That doesnt mean that it is reasonable to take people who 'enjoy a glass or two of wine' and throw them in jail and give them a criminal record or do you believe it is reasonable?

"How do we know who is vulnerable to addiction and/or pre-disposed to mental disorder?"

As for the addiction - that does seem to be more in people's make-up if they do not properly address the issues they have they will simply move from one addiction to another anyway and cannabis is not addictive - it doesnt work the dopamine cycle or any of the 'addiction pathways' in the brain. It simply fills the anandamine receptors for a while.

As for mental disorders, it could be treated the same as with allergies - you could try a small amount in a controlled situation, ie with counter medications available (anti-psychotics in the case of schizophrenia). Although I would stress again that I know of no reliably tested case where onset of psychosis did not follow not only long and heavy abuse of cannabis and other drugs but also a history of abuse.

And as for Roy - it is only by breaking laws that they get changed. It was black people refusing to be segregated that brought an end to apartheid, it was women entering Public Bars that forced the changes that allowed them to be there - as long as everyone complies with a law there is no pressure on the government to change it.

'This kind of wilful rebellion should be punished.'

I shudder at the thought of the world this guy envisions.

Imagine there's no rebellion....it isn't hard to do...
A-perfect-pure-authoratitive-state-where-no-one-thinks-for-themselves....and no dreamers too..

Well said, Rob 513... and Spendocrate.

I think I would strongly rebel against a world without rebellion ;)

Since health has been brought up so many times in this discussion, health is not a good enough reason for refusing to decriminalising soft drugs.

Apart from smoking and alcohol abuse, we, including our children, are overwhelmed by ads that promote unhealthy lifestyles.

There are the transfats of our fast-food outlets, the snacks and deserts high in sugar, all being pushed on us by corporations and food giants who aim to supersize every kid into a burger junkie, even bribing them with toys and games.

We neither shouldn't fool ourselves that tobacco only does damage to smokers.

Both, consumers of diets that are high in fat and sugar, and smokers clog up the public hospital system, filling the waiting lists, which would indirectly affect the health of other patients.

Whether it's our diet, smoking habits or drug intake, or even extreme sports, they all carry risks not only for ourselves but also for other people. There are long lists of things we regularly do which risk lives.

My point is not to criticise people's life styles, but to say that there is no good reason to single out soft drugs as the only baddie out of all the possible baddies.
In fact, I believe that drugs like cannabis are one of the most innocent pleasures in life.

We all need to be able to take responsibility for whatever lifestyle we choose.
Otherwise people will...rebel!

'...clog up the public hospital system, filling the waiting lists, which would indirectly affect the health of other patients'

While I'm 100% with you in your overall sentiment, Celivia, I've always taken issue with this point about smokers supposedly clogging up hospitals. If I smoke I may end up in hospital at 60, spend 2 years there then die. If I don't smoke, I may end up in hospital at 75, spend 2 years there then die. Net gain to the public health system: zero. I may even survive longer in hospital without smoking.

So whether people go earlier or later, it would still be the same amount of people, yeah? Same cost to public health?

Nevermind. Back to the topic...

Spendocrate: "So whether people go earlier or later, it would still be the same amount of people, yeah? Same cost to public health?"

You are probably correct. I can now use "ageing" to add to my list of risks :)

Sorry for being off-topic, but I once read an article about some interesting research about this; wish I could find that link.

I am not sure how reliable or valid this research was, but
the article pointed out that it's a fallacy that smokers harm the economy by digging into Health Care funds more than others do.

It was stated that in their old age, (say 80+) people catch up on spending available funds with the smokers who pass away at an earlier age.
I'm neither an economist nor an accountant so I can only tell you what I've read but can't personally back up that claim, but it sounded plausible to me.

Elderly people receive aged pensions, make use of age care facilities and services, and often will suffer from age-related illnesses.

But back on topic- to use health reasons for being against decriminalising soft drugs doesn't make sense.

Smoking, drinking too much alcohol, extreme sport, too little exercise, eating diets rich in fat and sugar, having unprotected sex, and perhaps even ageing are a few examples from a myriad of things people do or don't do, and which involve risks for themselves and/or others.

Agreed. I actually believe that health problems are no reason to criminalise *any* substance, but thats another topic again I think..

When I was a young boy, my father was smoking 60 cigarettes [tobacco] a day. Our house stunk. Then my elder sister [7 years older than me] joined in and our house stunk even more. My mother hated it and so did I. When I was 16, my father died of lung cancer. By then my sister had married and moved out and our home environment was much more pleasant.

At work, in the Royal Navy during my National Service, whilst socialising, living in a work camp in the NW of WA and just about everywhere else I ever worked, or did business, the non-smokers were assailed by stinking, unhealthy tobacco smoke.

I know what marijuana smoke smells like and I'm so glad we didn't have to put up with that too.

I had a smoke-free office about 34 years ago. And I had a smoke-free home and car 29 years ago, as soon as I got out of my first marriage. My garden has been smoke free for the past several years.

But I have a number of very good friends who smoke [tobacco]. I've noticed that some of them smell very strongly after they've had a cigarette, whilst others nowhere near as noticeable. I've no idea why this is so. But I find the strong smell of some of them highly unpleasant and, having smelt marijuana, I know I would find this extremely unpleasant too.

cont

Back in the 1970s, I had a sticker on my car, "Kiss a Non-Smoker and Taste the Difference". I wish they were still available. Judging by frequently expressed comments, I would suggest that this would be a common sentiment amongst non-smokers, who incidentally now outnumber smokers in WA by about 4 to 1.

So, in regard to marijuana, why would anyone want to make their breath, hair and clothes have an unpleasant smell, when they could eat a marijuana cookie instead?

Also, maybe this is a conditioning I have, opposite to what Big Tobacco tried to do with the glamourous/macho advertising, but I see having a cigarette [of any kind] in one's mouth or hand as being extremely unattractive for both men and women. Is it possible that some of the smokers see it that way too? If so, isn't that an incentive to not smoke anything?

Posted by Rex, Wednesday, 14 February 2007 6:03:15 PM
"So, in regard to marijuana, why would anyone want to make their breath, hair and clothes have an unpleasant smell, when they could eat a marijuana cookie instead?"

It is a question of economics - it takes a lot more of the substance to get the effect through the gastrointestinal tract than through the lungs. I wish it was cheap enough to eat too. This is actually another argument in favour of legalization.

It's a matter of taste really...I like the smell.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2007/02/18/1171733612540.html?from=top5

Damn it, people are just getting stupider...

spendocrat,
I used to like the smell of tobacco smoke. Now it makes my nose itchy. It also makes me feel nauseas and irritable. For pure health reasons alone, I simply cannot be around a smoker for more than 10 minutes at a time. I wonder, could I learn to like the smell again one day? Or more importantly, would it be a good idea to try to force myself? This is a health issue not a matter of political interpretation!

vivy, what the hell makes you think you would ever be forced to endure smoke if you didnt want to?

I think it is a good sign that people raise issues like 'passive smoking' when we have already addressed that issue (by either ingestible forms or partaking in the privacy of your own home). It shows that people are 'grasping at straws' to look for reasons to keep it illegal.

It is precisely because the claimed rationales are so weak that I suspect there are other 'undisclosed' reasons for the massive authoritarian objection to this powerfully medicinal and hilariously recreational herb.

Hemp farming is legal in Canada, and has just been legalised in the US:

http://ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1171324708

Pot is no longer considered cool by young people, thanks mainly to education and advertising focussing on it's social rather than health effects:

http://ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1166067704

So there is a decline in the use of cannabis which is the most frequent used drug in Australia.

Don't forget that, at the same time, there is an increase in the use of Ice.

If there is a shift from plant-based drugs to chemical-based drugs, how can that be a good thing?

Rob513264, 12/2/07,

Yes thats right, and my point from a different perspective. Legalise one, you may as well do the lot. Or alternatively leave it as it is. I prefer the latter.

I did use the word "decriminilise" in my post when I should have said legalise. I'm undecided on the crime bit. I don't think users are criminal unless they endanger others or steal to support their habit. The problem is if there are no consequences at all decrim is as good as legalisation. I feel legalisation would legitimise drug dealing.

I find comparisons with food allergies surprising.

You discover you have a food allergy and you avoid the food. Discover that marijuana has triggered off a psychotic condition and you have the rest of your life to live with a dishability.

I have encountered 3 pot psychosis situations (one definitely a first timer) so I wonder just how rare it is. It is all very nice to want to indulge yourself with your chosen means of intoxication but if you succeed you with legalisation it will do horrible things to other people's lives.

Having said that I've never known any regular user who gives a toss about anything so I doubt if these comments will sway anyone.

mjbp, the question is not so much how unhealthy cannabis or other softdrugs are, but whether we should legalise it.

People will use soft drugs whether these are legal or not.

From research studies in the Netherlands, it has been shown that there has not been an increase in cannabis use since it has been legalised.

As discussed in previous posts, legalising it can have many advantages such as more safety and control (hygiene, dosage information etc).
Most importantly, people will not have to buy softdrugs from dealers who also deal in hard drugs, reducing the risk of dealers pushing hard drugs.

Posted by mjpb, Monday, 26 February 2007 11:26:10 AM

“I find comparisons with food allergies surprising. You discover you have a food allergy and you avoid the food. Discover that marijuana has triggered off a psychotic condition and you have the rest of your life to live with a dishability.”

I think that is a little dismissive – quite a few people have died from allergic reaction and many more, myself included, have come very close. As far as I know – no-one has died from cannabis.

With regard to your ‘definitely a first timer’ If this is true it is of major concern and if you know it to be true you must of course act in accordance with that, however I suspect the veracity of your report and for several reasons. Firstly, I have seen many psychotics who smoke cannabis – all of them have come from dysfunctional families, all of them have used many drugs which are many times more powerful than cannabis and all of them have been extremely heavy users. Secondly, since it is illegal, there are other motives for claiming ‘honest officer, this is the first time I ever went over the speed limit…’. Thirdly, I have seen no research to back this up – if you have some please post it. And lastly, your comment that you have never known a regular user who gives a toss about anything, while you simultaneously dialogue with several regular users who obviously care quite a lot, makes me question your judgement on a much more fundamental level. Perhaps it is not so much; the regular users you know as, the people you know?

Cevilia,

In arguing for legalising it someone above compared it with food allergies. Hence my comments.

"...advantages such as more safety and control (hygiene, dosage information etc)."

Are you thinking legalising with the government as pushers as opposed to removing any restrictions and anyone selling it?

"Most importantly, people will not have to buy softdrugs from dealers who also deal in hard drugs, reducing the risk of dealers pushing hard drugs."

I am not much into drugs and have limited experience but dope dealers don't necessarily push "hard" drugs. Do you find that most dope dealers sell "hard" drugs? I guess that would make it extremely important to have the government supply rather than make it easier for such dangerous established distributers to supply it.

Rob,

"I think that is a little dismissive..."

True. Point taken but you have about a one in 2 million chance of dieing from an allergy. From the number of people I have known to have psychiatric illness triggered by marijuana the odds of having a psychotic condition from marijuana usage seem much higher. The British Medical Journal discussed relevant studies: http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/325/7374/1183

I still don't think that the comparison is valid as we have to eat food but don't have to smoke and food doesn't leave people with life long psychiatric illnesses. I note that marijuana is often smoked so there must be some level of death from smoking related illnesses resulting. I wonder if the rate is higher than the food deaths. (http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/326/7396/942)

The first timer I'm thinking of was young and from a normal family with apparently no other drug experience. It was in South Australia and I think personal usage was not a criminal offence at the time.

Re: regular users: So you guys are regular users ... Good that you aren't just trying to create problems for others. Yes you don't fit my stereotype. Dope normally seems to demotivate regular users.

The Minister for Water says we should grow cotton in the Murray Darling Basin because its an annual crop, presumably instead of orchard crops like stone fruit and vines that take 7 years to come into production. Vines and orchards were established in the Murray Darling Basin in the 1890s and many now use drip irrigation to the roots of each plant.

Cotton and rice have been grown since the 1970s and use flood irrigation to water the crop. There have been many complaints about the levels of pesticides applied to cotton crops.

We can grow hemp for cloth instead of cotton and reduce our water consumption and need for heavy doses of pesticides. If we grow enough hemp we could use it to make paper ths reducing the demand for wood chip and saving our native forests.

Grass is the green alternative!

That might not be a bad idea, Billie!

MJPB,
Isn't it better to let the government regulate drugs than to have mafia-like groups regulate it?

You are right that dealers in cannabis do not necessarily push ‘hard’ drugs, but there are many who do sell a range of drugs.
A licensed drug dealer would not want to risk her/his reputation and license and time in jail by pushing hard drugs especially not to kids under 18.

What are the reasons for NOT legalising drugs? To make the country drug-free? This will never happen.

The USA’s crime bill (1986) stated that America would be drug-free in 1995. They seriously started the war on drugs. America is hardly drug free today despite large amounts of money spent on the war on drugs.

To not legalise drugs is more damaging than to legalise them. Prohibiting the use of drugs means there is no control on hygiene, causing bigger health risks. There’s no control on price, causing more crime. Not enough police, not enough time in the justice system to be serious about crimes without victims.

Drugs always have been and always will be part of some people’s life

Mjpb: "...about a one in 2 million chance of dieing from an allergy."

Now you are comparing ‘numbers of deaths’ with ‘numbers of severe ramifications’. The numbers of people with severe ramifications from allergies would be in the millions. My point was that just because a substance is potentially dangerous to some people does not mean that it should be banned.

"I still don't think that the comparison is valid as we have to eat food but don't have to smoke..." Yes, but we don’t have to eat 'everything' so there is no reason why certain foods could not be banned and indeed with Mad Cow contaminations, etc, food often is banned.

And as I have said many times before cannabis does not have to be smoked. My preferred option would be available as a drinkable liquid served at pubs and clubs and with the same restrictions that apply to alcohol sales.

"The first timer I'm thinking of was young and from a normal family with apparently no other drug experience."

This does not really satisfactorily address my concerns over this report however even if it is accurate that does still not constitute a reason to ban it. I would like to point out that a v brief purview of something like the Merck Index will show how few drugs actually have no serious side-effects or adverse reactions when taken in excess. It is part and parcel of dealing with all drugs and even with all foods. Prohibition has not solved the problem.

There may indeed be a need to establish some practice for its safe administration, eg perhaps people start with v small doses and work up, or whatever other practice is determined to be safe in assessing suitability. Again, if it was legal there could be more control and education about the dangers. The people I know who have adverse reactions to cannabis, usually paranoia, get the sense v early on that this drug is not for them. Again I think it is important to get it legalized so that its 'mystique' is removed.

billie,
Annual crops like cotton and rice are important because they are grown using water when it is available and after high security needs are met. That is why orchards and vineyards are still alive in one of the worst ever droughts. And why there is virtually no cotton or rice this year.

cottonseed came to Australia with the first fleet in 1788. The colonies first crop was 3 bales(600kg) and was expoted back to the motherland. So no, it didn't just start in the 1970's.

Don't worry hemp uses plenty of water too. And if hemp is so efficient for pulp why do they keep planting trees in stead of hemp. It is possible to legally grow low THC hemp.

Rob: you know of any recipes for a weed drink? I've heard of people attempting to make it, but all the reports were that its very difficult to make it taste good.

I be apologise for grammar bad

All I have heard of is a tea (an infusion): put some herb in cold water and place on the heat, as soon as it starts to boil its done. I havent heard anything about quantities necessary or flavour enhancers though I expect honey would be desirable. We used to eat 'honey slides' when I was a poppet. These are small amounts of herb dry fried till they just start to smoke then honey doused, the honey candies quickly and the mixture is removed from the heat. They tasted like small sticks with some candied honey on them - I cannot recall any effect.

JamesH,

Get your hand off it! Expert opinion said the fall could cause that damage but you say it can't. Care to volunteer to have a solidly built 200.66cm cop fall on top of you downstairs to prove your point?

Ludwig,

I know you hate cops but the cops were the ones upset that the normal course of legal procedure was not followed not trying to put themselves above the law. You need to read more than Courier Mail headlines. If the DPP had determined that there is not enough evidence for trial then in the normal course of events there would have been no trial. The government interference resulted in the trial.

"The fact that someone died in his presence and that he could not prove or very strongly indicate his innocence quickly should surely have been sufficient grounds for a trial."

In this country it is innocent until proven guilty. I know most posters on the subject advocate a lynch mob approach but legally you have it back to front.

David Jackmanson,

DPP biased. Paid ex-judge unbiased? Why would DPP be biased? That makes no sense.

TRTL

I agree that it is irrelevant to the issue of government interference in the judicial process but if you think that Hurley did it you really need to read the coroner's report.

sorry backspaced too far.

wrong thread