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".