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.