Paul,

That's a cunning little artifice of yours: someone says something you don't like, and you pronounce that they haven't read or understood the 'truth' of the matter. I suppose that that works on some people.

I thought that someone might benefit from my first hand experience of what marijuana can do, but you of course don't need to learn anything, and I can't see why you would even comment. Your reference to alcohol has no bearing whatsoever on the subject.

As I understand it Mr Di Natale is for the legalisation
of marijuana predominantly because he wants to take it
out of the hands of criminal syndicates and gangs so
that they don't control the market - and have it in a
tightly controlled health market.

It is a debate worth having.

Having said that, however, I'm not sure where I stand on
this issue. I've read all the pros and cons of legalisation.
But I'm not fully convinced that carte blanche legalisation
is the answer because the drug does have different effects
on different people. That's why we have certain drugs that
are available by prescription only - under the guidance of
a doctor. The side effects of any drug can have serious
repercussions for some people. Allowing the drug to be used
for medicinal purposes is a different issue - especially
if it can help people such as cancer patients to cope.

As far as Yassmin not being allowed entry into the
US? The lady in question should not have risked
trying to get into the country on a tourist visa
if she was serious about keeping her speaking engagement.
She should not have chanced it, even though she's done
this previously. All new American President's desire
a fresh start, regarding both domestic policies and
foreign diplomacy. That's part of the reason that
people elect new leaders, they want change. Therefore
either the lady herself, or her advisers should have
been warned about checking her visa before attempting to
enter the country. Mr di Natale would have been wise not
to comment.

Paul,

It's a her on the Cross. my memory just kicked in.

Hi Foxy, thanks for joining the conversation, the Greens are not proposing that marijuana should be available from the lolly counter at the corner store.
What we have is a large section of the community, probably several million people, from a cross section, that use marijuana for recreational purposes. They do not perceive themselves as doing anything wrong. There are laws in place that prohibit the drugs supply and use. Laws that require lots of resources to enforce, in my lifetime with 60 years of prohibition, law enforcement has not been effective in curtailing either the supply or the use of marijuana. All that prohibition has succeeded in doing is bring the criminal element into the equation, and we know what that does. Criminals do not limit themselves to the marijuana market, they have used profits from that area to finance the supply of hard drugs and other criminal activity. The criminals like the present arrangement, it works in their favour.
If we are willing to admit our failure, then we can look at the alternatives, and unfortunate the reality is the only alternative is the legal control of the supply and use of the drug. That's what The Greens are on about. If I had a magic wand, alcohol would disappear, tobacco would disappear, and all those illegal drugs including marijuana would also disappear, I would be a real wowser, but unfortunately there is no magic wand, and what we have to do is pull our heads out of the sand, and make the best of a bad situation.

Hi paul,

Interesting logic: does it apply to domestic violence e as well ? After all, domestic violence has been with us (or more usually with women) forever, so why all the effort trying to stamp it out - why not just legalise it ? Anyway, marijuana just makes you a bit more relaxed and dopey, a bit like quaaludes, you know, the date-rape drug.

But as you suggest, if a crime is impossible to eradicate, why not just let it go ? Rape, murder and bank corruption seem to be ineradicable, so why not just run with them ? All that would save expenditure on police, jails, rehabilitation programs (which rarely work anyway) and the courts.

Don't you love progressive legal philosophy ?

Cheers,

Joe