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.