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