Over half the Australian public have tried or currently enjoy the number two recreational drug in Australia. What right does the Government have to stop people from having fun?

Lowering Of Blood Pressure Achieved Through Use Of Hashish-like Drug.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/06/060620083025.htm

Marijuana was listed in the Pharmacopeia Brittanica as one of the most useful plants known to medical science right up until its prohibition by American politicians.

The reason it was suddenly banned? American timber mill owners were afraid that a new invention, the Decorticator, was going to bankrupt them by producing paper from hemp that was 10 times cheaper than timber pulp. Timber barons exerted enormous influence over the newspapers and politicians of the era.

They introduced the Marijuana Tax Act in 1937 under the pretense of stopping the narcotic. But really it was aimed at destroying the hemp industry. Then when war broke out they stopped fining farmers and started paying them to grow it. Until the war ended ofcourse. Then the fines came back.

Hemp fields were everywhere but even people living directly across the road from a Hemp field had never heard of 'Marijuana'. It began appearing in newspapers under such banners as "Teenager murders his family under the influence of Marijuana!"

All those headlines have since been proven false. Propaganda to develop public hatred towards this recreational drug. The word "Marijuana" actually comes from a small town somewhere in Mexico. Prior to the propaganda campaign led by FBI Agent Anslinger even, most Mexicans were unfamiliar with the word.

The original reason given for introducing the "Marijuana Tax Act"? Before voting on the legislation the members were told that the drug made people violent! Ten years later when the legislation came up for renewal with largely the same politicians voting on the issue? It was turning soldiers overseas into pacifists! A complete backflip on their original lie.

I don't deny that it can trigger Schitzophrenia in people prone to such mental illness. After 70 years and millions of dollars in Government research that's all they've found. Meanwhile the indisputably deadly tobacco and alcohol industries are thriving. Hypocrisy!

If they legalise pot how then will the cops make a bit of dosh on the side?...legalising pot only makes it easy for those who smoke..we have to think about the pockets of all those police etc struggling on their measly wages..

Its a great racket up here and only the non pot smokers are the ones who profit...police, business men etc all doing a roaring trade together.

I think the neighbors over the back of me are cooking up something weird and wonderful in their back shed too, but thats another story.

That's an excellent point. Cannabis is one of the easiest plants in the World to grow and also one of the fastest. It isn't called "Weed" for nothing. Close to a quarter of the Grass available on the market is popularly believed to be from Cops who have made raids and then returned the product to the streets. This organised crime couldn't exist without the prohibition to push up prices. If legalised it wouldn't be worth more than a few cents but currently a one gram bag sells for around $25 and an ounce for $350-400. About the same as Gold. No wonder the cops are tempted to steal the heads and then only burn the leaves and stems

Ditto Wayne...and the govermnets marginalisation of the poor and working class only makes the growing of 'green gold, even more attractive..
People are forced into crime because the society in which they live simply wont give them a break...centrelink etc playing hardball with them...Why Hell Wayne! Ive even given it a passing thought(not) or maybe that should have been ..not yet.

But to be completely serious economic motivators are the reason...and the rewards seems to negate the risk involved for some..

Up here it seems that the cops, local .drug dealers, 'clients 'all seem to have a healthy respect for realising the role they play in relation to the economic reality of the other......Am I missing something here?

Back in 1978 Gold prices were $30 an ounce , Interestingly so was marijuana. Today gold prices are $500 an ounce , interestingly so is marijuana.
mmmmmmmmmmmm interesting comparison ,don't you think

I could not agree more.

Prohibition is wrong on every single level. It is so intellectually void that I can not believe governments have managed to get away with inflicting such a failed policy upon us for so long. In fact not only have they managed to get away with it but the policy of doing more and more of the same still seems to hold massive support in Australia.

It truly amazes me that a policy which fails on every single one of its objectives, whilst tearing away our civil liberties, lining the pockets of drug cartels, ruining the health of citizens by handing quality control to criminals, making the price of the poor quality product so high that property crime rates sour, cost the tax payer billions of dollars a year and feed ignorance and fear into people for no reason... can still gain such unquestioning support.

Makes you realise how things like aparthied and Nazi sponsored genocide went unchecked for so long. Perhaps people are just not capable of rational though or reason.

I just learned yesterday how the price of Gold had soared in the last year or so in response to wars and such. Perhaps it is no longer such a good comparison pricewise.

Another argument against prohibition is the effect it has had on strains. The potency of Grass has increased more than tenfold in recent decades thanks to selective breeding by guerilla farmers and in particular hydroponic farmers. In attempting to get the greatest yield possible in a high risk industry they have naturally bred the best plants from each generation. Growers will proudly state that their product is fourth of fifth generation hydro for example. There has never been so many varieties of Cannabis. Varieties like Skunk have arisen from a plant which once grew wild and was comparatively mild.

I find it hilarious that the Government then uses the strength of Marijuana as an excuse for prohibiting it when the potency in question is a direct result of the prohibition.

if marijuana users formed a national religious group, allied to a political party, then they might have some political clout - and get tax benefits.

Certainly more popular than other religions, i would think.

It only needs one senator to make a difference(eg Family First)

I think it's inevitable that drug laws will change in this country. Besides, enough people seem to ignore them anyway.

I figure what someone wants to do to or with his or her body, so long as he or she is not affecting another, is his or her decision. There's a difference between all sorts of behaviour that is fun and harmless and such behaviour that gets out of control, yet generally, we don't seek to ban people from enjoying themselves. Sensibly, we deal with reckless behaviour and leave the rest alone.

Maybe I'm wrong here, but I tend to think a large part of the anti-drug moralising, much like anti-alcohol moralising, anti-sex moralising, or anything else, is in large part due to some sort of post-Judeo-Christian hangover that is anti-fun/anti-minding-one's-own-business that still affects society in general.

I don't smoke marijuana, and never have. I also don't drink alcohol anymore. However, much like some guy who wants to have a beer or two whilst watching the footy, I couldn't give a rodent's earlobe about some guy who wants to toke up on the weekend, or even some guy who wants to stick a needle in his arm, so long as they don't affect me.

WayneSmith,

You ask a valid question as to why tobacco smoking is allowed while Marijuana isn’t, but then there are many areas where the law is illogical. I think both should be banned, though I agree that prohibition never really works. Nonetheless, both tobacco smoke and marijuana smoke stink, pollute the air, damage health and unnecessarily contribute to increased atmospheric CO2. I strongly resent my right to clean air being fouled by smokers. Alcohol is potentially dangerous, but is evidently harmless in moderation (unlike tobacco and dope). I’ve never tried dope and I never will. I have met numerous dope smokers and in every case I observed a significant lack of mental agility. Sadly, Australia is truly a nation of “dopes”.

Robg,

I think you will find that the proportion of less desirable people who smoke 'dope', pop 'pills' or sniff powder is no more than in any other walk of life.

You take 100 non-drug takers and maybe 10 of them have problems in life. You take 100 pill popping clubbers and you will find 10 of them have problems in life as well. I have met many people who like a toke or a sniff and they no different to anyone else.

I am sure that 10 in every hundred cyclists has problems in life - we're not going to ban cycling are we?

Prohibition is simply the modern day equivalent of burning witches at the stake. Its not about preventing drug use or the harms associated with drugs. It is about the state justifying its own importance by creating an imaginary evil to do battle with. It is the mystical witchcraft upon which the state can blame all the ills of the world without actually having to deal with the truth.

Daniel,

You comparison with witchcraft is absurd. The illegal status of marijuana is because of the conclusive evidence that it harms human health. Not only is marijuana smoke substantially more carcinogenic than tobacco smoke, it is also implicated in irreversible memory loss and mental illness. Prohibition does not work because a certain proportion of people simply refuse to obey laws, which in this case are intended for the good our health. I find it almost laughable how many marijuana smokers dismiss the health concerns as nonsense – ignorance is bliss. In relation your suppositions about the percentage of people with problems, let’s first agree the before anyone ever tried a drug, 10% of the population had problems. It is far more likely that that 10% will try drugs to seek relief from their problems. Therefore the percentage of people with problems must be higher amongst drug users than non users.

Really, however, prohibition is not working because there are so many marijuana smokers out there. I think it’s a very disappointing sad aspect of Australian society, which does not bode well for our physical or mental health. Perhaps if it was legalised it would eventually go out of fashion, like tobacco. In the end I don't really care, I just want to breathe fresh air.

Robg,

You are right Marijuana does harm the health of its users. I don't think anyone can deny the facts.

However you have to look at any such facts in a proper context.

The health risks associated with MJ (and drugs like e) when compared to legal drugs such as alcohol are actually not that bad. The studies vary depending on weather you use hospital grade drugs or their illicit street varieties however the following table was recently released on the newscience website http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/archive/2563/25633101.jpg

As you can see many commonly used drugs such as Marijuana and Ecstacy are actually a lot safer than Alcohol. Robg I'll believe the medical experts over you, sorry.

And that is the whole point Robg - people should not be locked up for taking drugs that are safer than drugs like alcohol which are actively encouraged and accepted in Aussie society despite the risks. It is just pure hypocricy.

I might have even miniscule respect for the law if it actually had some consistency and covered booze as well. But in the current state I think it is a modern day witch hunt and nothing more.

There is an ex brother in law of mine who has been a very heavy 'dope' user all his life..hes now 47 and still he smokes...
He somehow believed that the smoking of dope and witch craft were integral to each other..

He found a human skull somewhere..he called it 'Yorak'..it looked real anyway..he used to mount it on a black velevt covered box..burn a lot of incense and sit inside some kind of circle..the circle was some kind of witch craft symbol and when he sat in there he smoked weed.
He thought at that point he was a white witch...now he thinks hes a warlock...Spooky.

At the same time he gazed into and chanted over a crystal ball...just gets better.

OZGIRL,

I know someone who is morbidly obese. She continues to eat burgers and fast food despite being 180kgs. She has heart problems, back problems, skin problems and is totally depressed. In all likelyhood she will die 20-30 years premature of some horrible illness or a heart attack. Her weight has made her sterile also.

Now society does not respond to people like this by locking them up, prohibiting fast food and spending billions of dollars chasing down burger eaters the world over regardless of weather they have a problem or not.

We rightly look at it as a health issue. What possible benefit would society get out of prohibiting burgers from the rest of us who can have them on the odd occasion and persecuting those who have eating problems?

The drug issue is exactly the same.

Most people have eaten a burger or 2 - most of them are totally healthy.

Many people have tried MJ and E - most of them are totally healthy.

Some people eat burgers regularly - Still most are reasonably OK, but a few have health issues.

Some people take drugs (and alcohol) regularly - Again most are still reasonably OK, but a few have health issues.

Just because you know someone who has a drug problem that hardly justifies the fact that hundreds of people are locked up in Australia every year for simply being in possession of small amounts of drugs.

"The illegal status of marijuana is because of the conclusive evidence that it harms human health."

Actually Marijuana became illegal long before the Government found anything to prove it was harmful. This didn't stop them making stuff up though. I'm referring to the American Government here. The Australian Government merely caved in to American pressure and copied their laws.

I remember the Rhesus monkey experiments used by US Law Enforcement agencies in their propaganda campaigns. They claimed that tests on Rhesus monkeys proved that Marijuana caused brain damage. This was peddled around schools and universities for years.

NORML (Pro-Marijuana Lobby Group) waited 6 years to get a copy of the research data after a formal request. When it finally came through they handed it to serious scientists who took one look and laughed. They described the Governments tests as "Gutter Science". This was how it worked.

A bunch of poor monkeys had masks fitted to their faces and were forced to inhale the equivalent of hundreds of reefers(marijuana cigarettes) a day. Then they were killed, their heads cut open and dead brain cells counted. There was a definite increase in dead brain cells and this became their long awaited smoking gun to legitimise
the prohibition.

A fact they deliberately left out is the masks fitted so tightly to the primates faces that they weren't getting much oxygen. Lack of oxygen causes dead brain cells(brain damage).

We now know that smoking dope does not cause brain damage.

When the majority oppose a law then that law is wrong. Marijuana smoking is a victimless crime.

Daniel06, I’ve never heard of anyone getting locked up just for possession of small amounts of drugs in Victoria – perhaps it’s different in other states. Having said that, possession charges are sometimes used to pad out charge sheets for more serious offences, and convictions and fines are often applied: I think it’s a really valid question whether criminal penalties for possession or use are an appropriate way of tackling the harm associated with substance use. I don’t have a firm view on that one.

As far as the addictive potential of cannabis, I’d rate it above alcohol but below heroin and amphetamines. Addiction, we are increasingly realizing, is more of a monolithic entity than we previously thought. The target drug (whether cannabis or alcohol or heroin) is less important than the overall clinical syndrome. Ten or fifteen years ago I would have dismissed the “gateway theory” of cannabis potentially leading to harder drugs as alarmist poppycock. I’m not so sure nowadays.

As to “the damage done” by cannabis in terms of health and social functioning I’d probably rate it well below alcohol, but of course it depends very much on the user and the way each drug is used. Drug dependency tends to dramatically increase the risk of other drug related harms, as does a predisposition to psychosis or other mental health problems – notably that grab bag of emotional and mood problems we call “depression”.

I was puzzled by the New Scientist “Danger list” rating of different substances, particularly their rating of inhalant abuse less dangerous or harmful overall than cannabis and roughly on a par with Ritalin. This certainly doesn’t gel with my experience. I’d love to know how they came up with this chart.

Daniel 06...what was I trying to justify again?..my post was merely my relating something I thought very amusing, and it was...it was weird.

Im not into 'justification'...I dont give a rats arse if everyone on here smokes dope or not...but do not take my words or intent out of context...

Actually.. I think it should be illegal because all u pro smokers can justify it as much as want(its called denial)it still as damaging and more carcenogenic than tobacco..like it or not.

And as for the arguement that 'then so should tobacco be banned' yes I agree and I dont smoke cigs either..but 2 wrongs dont make a right..and one less toxin in the envroment is a good thing.
Dope will always be around, and I suspect never be legalised anytime soon...big business and racketeers make a tidy profit with things just the way things are right now..

Youll get no joy from me Daniel.

OZGIRL,

Fair enough. My bad.

PS I am not 'pro' Marijuana (or any other drug). Personally I can't stand pot.

I am pro civil liberties and pro evidence based policies. A policy that massively curbs my 'non-pot smoking' civil liberties that is based on very little or no evidence is wrong in my eyes.

daniel06
thanks for the link to new scientist.

its interesting that, according to the chart, pot is assessed as less harmfull than alcohol and tobaccco.

I imagine that when used in a brownie, it would be near the botttom score(least harmful), because there is no inhalation risk

Shame there is not a bit more info on the basis of the research.

Its amazing that pot users, given their numbers, have less political influence/power than a tin pot religious group.

Lastword,

If you take a look at the following link you will see the full report "Drug classification: making a hash of it?" (commissioned and published by the United Kingdom Parliament), including the criteria used to assess the danger of various drugs (point 7):
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmsctech/1031/103102.htm

There are infact many studies that put the various drugs in slightly different orders, however there is one resounding clear message in every single scientific study on the matter.

Ecstacy and Marijuana (even the illegal varieties), despite their inherant risks, are on all accounts safer than alcohol and tobacco. There is not a single credible medical report to the contrary. Some studies say that if cocaine and heroine were legally available, cheap and pure they too would be safer, but that is slightly less unamimous.

Therefore in my view at the very least MJ and E (and probably a few more) should be legally available to "adults" in a (supposedly) free democratic society.

If the government legalised both of these drugs then you would find 95% of drug users would be taken out of the legal system and by all accounts the general health of the nation would be no worse off. How can that be a bad thing?

Govt doesnt have the right.

It has the power.

People also have the power... to ignore State's dictates.

Civil disobedience is a powerful means of change, tho it takes a loooong time to re-write the laws.

Its interesting, the idea of legalising stuff. Cant legalise anything. Can only make things illegal. Legal, is the default position of behaviour that hasnt been touched by the long arm of State. Just a bit of semantics that aludes to the crafty slight-of-hand at play .

The govt isnt really serious about enforcing these laws. Penalties are widely written, not agressively enforced. Its too big and too expensive. You read in the paper about some punter apprehended with a commercial quantity, but you never hear how he got a 2 yr bond conditional upon clean urine samples, a 10k word essay on the evils of, and 100hrs community service (only if they've been very naughty). They get 6mths warning of the urine tests with the occassional result going astray, the essay gets forgotten, 100hrs of planting trees, lol.

Ever woundered how the multi billion dollar pa illegal trade exists, after 70 yrs of a 'war on?' Its regarded as being in the top 2-3 industries in the world. Something that big cannot exist without corruption, massive corruption. Bureaucratic malfeasance is rife, ingrained. It takes myriad forms, from the overt (cash) to the subtle (preferential treatment, stacked policies and procedures). Nature of the beast.

Alchohol prohibtion didnt stop booze being drunk. It did set the framework for organised crime and civil corruption. It opened the State's eyes to the inherent by-product... expansion of power and control. Or maybe this was the intended goal, with prohibtn being the States favourite backdoor route.

Put in place an unwinnable political war that relies on curtailing a seemingly inconsequential personal liberty by emotive mass manipulation and you have just invented an unasailable instrument of self-validation, into perpetuiity.

Anyway, its fryday and l'm off to engage the triangular tetrahydrated fatty acid (no, its not omega-3 fish oil) of cerebral distraction. Yeah. l know. :)

peace.

Last 12mths gold has been between A$700-950 an ounce.

People forced into popping a few seeds because society wont give 'em a break? A break? You gotta be kidding. The dole, a cash day here or there, a bunch of welfare concessions, a baby bonus or two, a few in the corner (slap on the wrist territory)... who needs to work for a living. It works out very well for these folks. They're not rolling in it, just living in modest comfort, no pressure. Plus all that free time on their hands.

It amazes me these people can maintain such entitlement attitudes. The one's who augment cashflows are in a postion of priveledge. Some of them can keep it up, on and off, for decades.

The fact that something is damaging is no reason for prohibiting it, in and of istself. Who is damaging who? Yeah l know the spin about knock on effect, but thats just spin. If someome wants to drink graino... its their choice. Yeah, l'll have to bury the body and all... so. Better ban cars, they're damaging. And so is everything else that is er, uhm, thats right, damaging.

People are responsible for their self-flagelation. Some of it can be enjoyable. Oh the shock, the horror. Protecting others from themselves, from they're own rationalised behaviours, is pretty arrogant (you know better than them, about themselves no less), condascending (they cant look after themselves) and patronising (you are looking after them). Thats quite a personal characterisation, l understand, but thats how its perceived.

l like to practice my own little denial and think people can be independently responsible . YOU endulge your own DENIAL of a person's capacity for rationally independent conduct?

peace

I remember when Neville Wran was promising to decriminalize marijuana if he got into office – the moral of this story is don’t hold your breath for civil disobedience to work.

I am really concerned about the zealots who push negative propaganda around marijuana and mental illness – I have a son who has psychotic episodes triggered by marijuana but that is not reason to ban it. A child died not long ago when they ate peanut butter – this does not mean that we have to fine everyone who enjoys a peanut butter sandwich or imprison anyone who prepares a satay for others. It just means that people who are allergic to peanut butter should avoid it and likewise people with whom marijuana does not agree should abstain from it.

I have seen much of the effect of alcohol in this culture, my father was an alcoholic, I have seen the violence and destitution of it. I have also seen much of the effect of marijuana also and while any drug can be abused, including marijuana, the bad-effects of marijuana abuse 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 (ask any social worker) but because there are people with whom alcohol does not agree.

I have to wonder at the motives of some parties who push the propaganda against all medical advice. I feel their concerns may be linked more to the psychological effects of marijuana in that it tends to make people peaceful whereas alcohol tends to make people aggressive. Aggression is obviously a big problem on a Friday night but maybe peacefulness is a bigger problem for people whose methodology requires an army.

It has only recently occurred to me is that the alcohol industry may be concerned over the legalization of marijuana as an alternative social drug. This seems to fail to recognize the fact that THC could be made available in a ‘drink-only’ form – which would also get around both active and passive smoking concerns. This drink-form could be sold in pubs under exactly the same restrictions and with exactly the same capitalist incentives as drink-only forms of alcohol.

People can make their own beer and some do but most don’t bother – I expect exactly the same thing would happen with THC – yeah, some people could grow their own but most won't bother – they will go for a night out, like people do, and simply choose a different social drug.

May I start a campaign - if there isnt one already running - to up the allowed word count to 500 words.

Rob513264,

I am glad you mentioned the role of the alcohol industry in this debate. The alcohol industry is actually a huge player in perpetuating prohibition. This is something I find particularly sinister given that they are peddaling one of the most deadly and adictive toxins on the market. I guess they want to protect their racket.

In the 90's in the UK when Ecstacy exploded onto the scene the alcohol companies initially ran massive anti Ecstacy campaigns to regain some of the massive market share they lost by clubs brimming with thousands of ravers popping pills instead of pickling their livers on booze.

Problem was e (in the UK anyway) is cheaper, safer and a hell of lot more fun than booze and consequently somewhere around 2M people use it there every week! Eventually the booze companies caved in and now promote some of the biggest dance parties in europe with club oriented booze drinks.

Funnily enough Cocaine is the drug of the 00's (noughties). It mixes very well with booze compared to MJ or E as a social/pub drug and seems to transcend the clubbing scene with experimenting teens to business men to clubbers and after-dinner party champagne drinkers all dabbling these days. The booze companies have not run any such anti-cocaine campaigns. Why?

1. Cocaine makes you drink 5 times as much booze.
2. Cocaine is highly addictive and if people enjoy on a drug that makes them drink loads more then the alcohol industry wins
3. Cocaine appeals to pub goers and business men/women - not so much sweaty raving teens who cant buy as much booze.

I think, on the topic of drugs in here that if anyone has any info. on the drug called ' I C E '..

It is now I believe the new problem drug in society Ive heard..bad news..

So highly addictive its frightenening..

Anyone experienced it and if so are you addicted?

Hi all,

Apologies if a little off topic, but with random saliva testing occuring now in NSW, how long are you 'detectable' after use? I've heard that saliva tests only pick up useage within a few hours but urine (which i don't think they're using) can detect usage for up to a month.

While certainly not advocating driving under the influence of anything, my concern is being testing positive days/weeks after the usage when not under the influence at the time.

Any thoughts or advice on where this could be further clarified?

Cheers,

Mark

Mark you raise an excellent point.

Has the government even tested the level of impairment drugs like pot cause on driving? I think you will find the answer is a resounding NO. No surprises there.

I think it would be safe to assume that after necking a load of e's driving would not be the best decision, however I find it just so typical of the ignorance of the state to make a blanket rule that anyone with even a residual, tiny amount of any illegal drug in their system will be charged with driving under the influence.

This rule is made even more ridiculous given that many 'illicit' drugs cause less impairment than legal drugs.

The hypocricy is just so blatant it is laughable.

I would hazard a guess that many cough-type medicines impair drivers a lot more than say amphetamines (which in some cases may even sharpen the driver’s abilities).

I am not suggesting that driving under the influence of pot, e's or whatever is to be encouraged, however to simply say that anyone with any amount of THC or MDMA in their blood (no matter how minute) is a danger on the road in just plain ignorant.