Only a dope would say cannabis is worse than grog

John A Neve says:

05:30am | 05/11/09

Tory’s article is so right.
However, she failed to mention the one very big point, MONEY, alcohol is a multimillion dollar business and it’s legal. Governments get huge tax revenue from alcohol. Should alcohol be banned, who would make up the tax shortfall?

WHR says:

05:43am | 05/11/09

Cannabis is immoral. It breeds hippies and other left wing anti business/productivity types.

As a result I think the prohibition on cannabis should be continued or even ramped up. Alcohol is less effective at breeding hippies but I still hate it.

dan says:

06:31am | 05/11/09

You’re not really comparing apples with apples, as loads more people use alcohol and tobacco compared to pot. Probably the main reason for this availability. I wouldn’t even know where to start looking if I wanted to buy pot, therefore I don’t use it, however alcohol and cigs are available on every street corner so I use them.

Paul says:

06:50am | 05/11/09

Good article. The British example of politics before science is the same here with Rudd and Mike Rann (SA) running a fake marketing campaign of so called ‘evidence-based-policy’. If you track the ‘evidence’ the alcohol industry donate$ heavily to Labor (& Libs) for them to look the other way. While the likes of Mike Rann goes into a Alpha-Male media frenzy, threatening civil liberties over a few dead or crim bikies. Meanwhile dozens of taxpayers died of alcohol. What gives? Labor only wants science and facts to fit its agenda.

Paul says:

06:51am | 05/11/09

Good article. The British example of politics before science is the same here with Rudd and Mike Rann (SA) running a fake marketing campaign of so called ‘evidence-based-policy’. If you track the ‘evidence’ the alcohol industry donate$ heavily to Labor (& Libs) for them to look the other way. While the likes of Mike Rann goes into a Alpha-Male media frenzy, threatening civil liberties over a few dead or crim bikies. Meanwhile dozens of taxpayers died of alcohol. What gives? Labor only wants science and facts to fit its agenda.

Stuart says:

06:50am | 05/11/09

If you visit a psychiatric ward in one of the states hospitals you will find it full of 17-25 year old kids. Most of them admitted after having their first severe psychiatric episode triggered from smoking dope.

If you go to a support group of parents whose children now have schizophrenia they will all tell you the same story of their children smoking a little dope.

Sure tobacco and alcohol are dangerous but writing an article like this is irresponsible. Only a dope smoking dope would publish something so stupid. Go and do some on the ground research and speak to kid in a psych ward and then write your article.

Ryan says:

07:14am | 05/11/09

Legal sanctions have done nothing to decrease drug use, they have caused immense suffering to millions of people. Prohibition benifits organized crime, police and detention facilities budgets, the media, terrorist organizations, and politicians who see tough on drugs as an easy crowd pleaser. Meanwhile billions of dollars are wasted, drug users become criminals, and our gaols are full, as we blindly follow the past agenda set by the U.S. The tragic irony is that much of Europe and now the U.S. are moving towards an end to prohibition, the failure of prohibition has never been more obvious. And good ole W.A. Continues to toe the party line set by the religious right and a dumbed down media.

With the state government planning to take cannabis laws back to stone ages (no pun intended) with the removal of the two plant decriminalization they will be forcing one third (33.6%) of West Australians who had used it in their lifetime and one in twenty (4.6%) had used it in the last week straight to drug dealers.

Our laws are supposed to protect us, not cause more harm than the ‘perceived threat’ The harm caused by alcohol consumption and cigarette addiction is so significantly greater than the adverse affects of cannabis use. It would be nice to hear some of the benefits of using cannabis, lets face it, why on earth would some states, like California in the United States of America be allowing this wonderful herb to be enjoyed as treatment for many ailments from Asthma to Anxiety, Cancer, Anorexia and Alzheimer’s to name a few.

Studies have shown cannabis to be useful in treating alcoholism, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD or AD/HD) amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, collagen-induced arthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, asthma, atherosclerosis autism, bipolar disorder, childhood mental disorders, colorectal cancer, depression, diabetic retinopathy, dystonia, epilepsy, digestive diseases, gliomas, hepatitis C, Huntington’s disease, hypertension, urinary incontinence, leukemia, skin tumors, morning sickness, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), Parkinson’s disease, pruritus, posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), sickle-cell disease, and sleep apnea.

I did use Organically grown Cannabis vaporized to eliminate the carcinogenic properties of smoking a substance to combat a Shift work sleep disorder (SWSD) (is a circadian rhythm sleep disorder which affects people who change their work or sleep schedules frequently).

Now it look’s like I have to go back to what the good old Dr has prescribed me & that is a cocktail of Dexamphetamines, Modafinal, Valium, various sleeping tabs & blood pressure medication. When I use organic cannabis I need none of the above! Also these prescription drugs come at a great cost (Modafinal is non PBS when also prescribbed Dexamphetamines and cost’s $200+ Aus for 60 tablets). A HUGE drain on a one income family!

You Mr Honourable Colin Barnett are KILLING me with you stupid little laws, I am a adult and it is disgusting that you can tell me what I can & cant medicate with! Find one Dr & refer them to me that can prove to me that taking “Dexamphetamines, Modafinal, Valium, various sleeping tabs & blood pressure medication” is less harmful to me that vaporized organically grown cannabis PLEASE!!! I ask this so that I can let my 3 children know who to blame for my premature death as it is proven beyond doubt that long term use of all the prescribed legal drugs I use for my Shift work sleep disorder (SWSD) - circadian rhythm sleep disorder will cause great damage to my liver, kidney’s & heart.

I am otherwise a law abiding citizen that supports 3 children & my partner and pays in excess of $28 000+ aus dollars in tax every year!

wattty says:

07:27am | 05/11/09

“All for a guy who just wanted science to take precedence over moralising; for reason to win out over populist scaremonger”

Sounds familiar? Perhaps similar to the experts who told us “the scienceis all in” concerning Global Warming?

“Everyone should know by now that alcohol on the whole causes more harm than drugs”

Could this be be due to the difference in the consumption rates of both?

I have a problem with some drugs as against alcohol.I appreciate your health warnings but I don’t remeber too many people dying after one or two drinks but had two very good friens who ended up basket cases after two doses of dodgy heroin.

Barbara Flowers says:

07:31am | 05/11/09

If cannabis were readily available, socially embedded and with the history of types, brands, strengths etc that are a natural part of our social interaction (beer? sherry? wine? port? liqueur? whiskey? rum? cognac? etc) would the damaging effects be less, more, or just different.?  I’m not an advocate of dope.  In fact it gives me hallucinations.  But alcohol is simply over-promoted and over-used and that’s where the problem lies.  Exchange it for a different drug and with the same level of use would the problems be less?  For the record alcoholism has been an immediate problem in relationships of mine so I’m not an apologist for it.

Pete from Sydney says:

07:31am | 05/11/09

Dude…...

Mr Hyde says:

07:41am | 05/11/09

Stuart 7:50am: my partner works as a registered nurse in a psychiatric ward that treats people with substance abuse problems, young and old. Alcohol is overwhelmingly the main problem substance in the patients my partner has dealt with over several decades.  Watty 8:27 - I know several people who have died from alcohol abuse, but none from marijuana. I’m sure your experience is the same.

Steve Smith says:

07:44am | 05/11/09

@Stuart: you seem to be stating the obvious… So here’s one for you.. “if you go to a A.A meeting it’s full of people who have a problem with alcohol”

Basically Government makes far too much money from Alcohol and Cigarettes. Cannibis on the other hand cannot be taxed as freely by the government, because everyone has the ability to grow a plant by themselves.

Zeta says:

08:07am | 05/11/09

I only read this article so I could listen to Black Flag. Rollins is God.

But seriously. The Cannabis / Schizophrenia claims are dubious at best. Keele University widened their sample to 600,000 patients, and failed to find a similar link. That Cannabis causes schizophrenia is a theory put forward by researchers at the University of Sydney while accepting truck loads of Government funding to investigate ‘the harm caused by cannabis’, they weren’t exactly going to come back with a paper on how ‘Cannabis enhances kebab enjoyment’ were they?

When confronted with the contrary data, Professor Joseph Rey of the Faculty of Medicine at the University of Sydney said, and this is hilarious:

“Not showing that there is a link does not mean there is no link,” he says.

That’s really scientific isn’t it? The more likely scenario, that no one really wants to talk about, is that maybe schizophrenics self-medicate using marijuana as a calmative. The rate of smoking tobacco amongst schizophrenics is as high as 80 per cent, with participants in one study saying they found nicotine helped relieve some of their symptoms. If someone had tried cannabis before developing schizophrenia, it stands to reason they might return to cannabis because it makes them feel better.

Legalise it. We waste millions of dollars enforcing drug laws every year. Build bridges with the money, and get over it.

God I wish Bill Hicks was still alive.

Neo says:

08:20am | 05/11/09

I would go further and say not only is cannabis safer then alcohol but most psychadelic drugs are safer then alcohol LSD , mushrooms, MDMA all by far safer and cause less social breakdown do comparative scale calculations you will still find alcohol to be far worse then cannabis and all these others in every way.For to long our laws have been based on moralistic propaganda instead of real scientific fact , people seem to be so brain washed these days its really sad that they would even attempt to argue that alcohol is safer then any of the substances i mentioneds on any level. For starters get your head around usgae statistics millions of doses of mdma and lsd are consumed each week around the world problems reported are on a fairly minimal scale . MDMA has killed very few people directly usually substitute chemicals or poly drug use which are both direct results of lack of education and knowledfge caused by prohibition .

Back to the cannbis issue their are far more mental health issues linked with overuse of alcohol then cannabis , Far more people suffering addiction issues , yes pot can cause the odd violnt episode in some people IMO people who have this reaction are best to avoid it but far more violence and social destruction are caused by alcohol take a trip to you local hospitals emergency ward on a friday or saturday night what is the direct or indirect cause of the vast majority of people who waiting their injured its certainly not pot or any other illegal drug its alcohol as I said earlier work the figures out using comparative based statistical anlysis pot and mos6t psychadelics are far safer then alcohol

Jayse says:

08:44am | 05/11/09

I actually don’t know where I stand with this one. I personally do not smoke, or drink, nor do I take illicit drugs. But I am also not prepared to moralise and force my views onto others. If someone wants to enagage in these activities, then thats their right.

However, I will say that I am against any of these substances (legal or illegal), when the behaviours of those using them impact negatively on others for no good reason. The associated health issues, abuse, or criminal behaviours that can present themselves are concerning. 

How do we fix it??? That I don’t know, I’m not smart enough to figure that out. But I think the point is valid that we should have a well reasoned debate.

Wayne H says:

08:47am | 05/11/09

Spot on Ryan! 8.14am You don’t sound like a hippie either. Funny but that’s what people like WHR and Stuart would have us all believe. Probably never had a billy in their lives but they all know of someone who had a joint and is now in a mental institution for life. Give me a break you clowns and do some non government sponsored research. Lock me in a room with ten pot smokers over ten piss heads any day. If only you really new just how many people partake in the sacred weed. Judges, lawyers, fireman, policemen. And they are just some of the professionals I know of personally. All prohibition does is turn everyday normal people into criminals and make the wrong type of people rich.
I can see one day the headlines will read “Government declares end to WAR ON DRUGS” Imagine for just a moment that instead of the trillions of dollars wasted on the war on drugs every year world wide we just decide to re divert our funds into harm minimization and education. 
No more drug cartels! No more funding for terrorists! No more bikie gangs! No more break and enters! No more deaths because some desperate kid brought his party drugs from some snotty nosed crim who made it up in the shed at home! Alcohol is up there with heroin in it’s ability to wreck lives but it is legal. Make it all legal, tax it, regulate it and control it. The age of the internet means a loss of control now anyway. There are so many natural substances that are proven beneficial to man kind but they are illegal. Its this foolishness that makes no sense to me. Too much money in big pharmaceuticals who make big bucks pumping you up with their drugs. Same thing but most people just can’t see it for looking. Nice to see some debate on this subject but, so thanks for the article.

DG says:

09:01am | 05/11/09

“causes more than one in ten suicides”? What the? Isn’t this mistaking causation for correlation? “causing child abuse”? How does it cause child abuse? Ditto for motor vehicle accidents.

Now I have no doubt that alcohol is used in each of those things, but to suggest it is causal ignores the fact that alcohol doesn’t ‘react’ in a way that causes any of those things. It’s a logical fallacy - it hurts the argument more than it helps. You are accusing every drinker of being capable of those things because the booze will make them do it. It’s, quite simply, wrong.

Alcohol causes brain damage, causes a decrease in reaction times and relaxes inhibitions. It doesn’t “make” you DO anything, it doesn’t cause any of the above things. People that have no respect for others (but are capable of hiding it) are the ones that do these things after consuming alcohol because the alcohol brings down their capacity to think about consequences. That’s hardly an excuse for the behaviour that one participates in while under the influence of the drug.

Alcohol doesn’t cause people to go around sexually assaulting people, committing suicide or drink driving. It doesn’t make them do anything. disregard for consequences causes those effects. Really no different to marijuana.

Also the points that you raise as ‘effects’ are related to over consumption - not for ‘safe consumption’. You then compare that to the ‘safe consumption’ of marijuana. Nice work there. While I agree that they are about the same on the harm scale - comparing high usage of A with safe usage of B is dishonest at best. Safe use of both - you end up a bit chatty, take risky behaviour and generally have a good time.  Dangerous use of both - harmful consequences, after all that’s the definition of dangerous usage.

You do make a good point:
“If public perception says that cannabis is so bad it should remain illegal, but also claims that it is rational, then for sheer consistency it should criminalise alcohol.”

However, you seem to forget that legislation is, above all things, political.

In history alcohol has been banned in various countries at various times and, with the exception of certain theocracies, the people rebelled. The people wanted alcohol. Summarily, it would be political suicide to reintroduce prohibition in Australia.

There is nothing similar in respect of other substances - not even close. There are more votes lost in legalising the drug than are lost by retaining the prohibition. For change to occur you need to win the the court of public opinion and I just don’t see it happeneing.

If you want support for your proposition you don’t go around saying “X is no more harmful than what you are doing”. It’s is counter productive. It accuses them of harming themselves and demands the right to do the same - instead of saying “You drink socially, have a few, chat with you mates at the local or a nice drink after a meal. We just want to have a smoke with it. It doesn’t make us violent or rowdy, just a little more mellow and relaxed. The same enjoyment you are getting from your drink.”.

Ryan (@8:14am | 05/11/09) makes a good argument. It’s not saying you are doing something dangerous, it’s saying this stuff is better for me than the alternatives. I should be allowed to take the safest option. That, will win much more support than “Alcohol is the devil”.

Personally, I don’t care if it is illegal or legal. I don’t want it to be legalised, I don’t want it to be criminalised. I simply don’t care whether marijuana users are sent to Long Bay for the choice of herbs they inhale. Having said that I am completely OK with criminals being thrown in prison. Currently, marijuana is illegal - break the law, do the time. Even if the law is unfair.

How about this novel approach - obey the law. If you want change, lobby for that change then, when you have been successful, participate in the activity that you wanted to participate in. Alternately find a country in which it is legal and move there.

@.Steve Smith (08:44am | 05/11/09)
“Cannibis on the other hand cannot be taxed as freely by the government, because everyone has the ability to grow a plant by themselves.”

Why can’t brew their own beer or grow their own tobacco?

Helen says:

09:07am | 05/11/09

I don’t believe Marajuana is addictive, my son had a drinking problem which he is still fighting and also can’t quit cigarettes, yet he also smoked marajuana for many years and quit overnight without any problems what so ever. He always says he wishes alcohol and cigs were as easy to forget. And believe me I have seen him after drinking too much and he is a far more reasonable and nicer person after smoking marajuana than drinking booze.

hoofman says:

09:21am | 05/11/09

DG, you make the point that alcohol ‘doesn’t make people do anything’ like drink drive, committ violence etc. But you are wrong. Alcohol is a proven disinhibitor, causing intoxicated people to do and say things that lead to damage and hurt, things they wouldn’t do or say if not intoxicated. I thought everyone knew this. Another point you make is ‘just obey the law’. I’m certain you’re being hypocritical here. Are you telling us you have never knowingly broken any law? Don’t bother claiming that, it’s unbelievable.

Ben says:

09:22am | 05/11/09

I can accept that you people really want your drugs. You’ve done an admirable job boning up on the academic studies which have that drugs are not only cool but harmless and on those alleged flaws in the studies with contrary findings.
Are you intellectually honest enough to look hard at the findings of those which do find links between drugs and harmful outcomes? Hope so because it would be utterly obsene if you put your own habits ahead of the mental and physical wellbeing of individuals and the community.
Tory, as a ‘Health Reporter’ I assume you’ve met people with schizophrenia and their families and made an effort to understand what these people and their families go through before you flippantly dismiss the cost benefits of reducing marijuana use by young people and the risk of mental illness?
Psychiatrists working in our mental system will tell you of the link between those hospitalised with mental illness and marijuana use. It may not always be the cause but many people self medicate with the drug and it exaxcerbate their condition.
The pot v grog arguement is so passe anyway, why bother trotting it out? Of course there are alcohol related problems for individuals and the public.
It may not be a scientific arguement but it is true nonetheless Tory - alcohol for most of society is a socially consumed substance - I’ve never had a joint over a family dinner and people wouldn’t do it even if it was legal.

F says:

09:36am | 05/11/09

My step father was addicted to pot and as a result would fly off the handle if he couldnt have a cone or couldnt get his hands on any pot which meant that both myself and my mother were phycologicly and physicly abused for many years untill she was brave enough to leave him, he still has his addiction and now beats his new wife and is starting on his own daughter as well.  I would say pot is just as bad as alcohole.

Also to the people who think pot isnt readily available, ask a random on the street and i am sure they either smoke it or know someone who does, it is extreamly common in our society.

NEO says:

09:36am | 05/11/09

@ DG

Well lets consider high doses of alcohol verus highdose cannabis high dose cannbis people generally sit in a conner and fall asleep what do people who drink do at high dose well i think its already been covered in a myriad of previous posts

“Alcohol doesn’t cause people to go around sexually assaulting people, committing suicide or drink driving. It doesn’t make them do anything. disregard for consequences causes those effects. Really no different to marijuana.” that shows your knowledge of the topic truely would the person have committed the sexual assault had the alcohol not lowered their inhibitions the answer is no so there is an obvious link between the assault occuring and alcohol , Marijuana is known to make people laugh a lot but if anything they are general less inclined to commit anti-socail behaviour while on the drug to say it is no different to alcohol shows your lack of experience and knowledge of the effects of cannabis

Cannabis can be taxed just as esaily as any other drug its knowing and researching effective methods to put this in place for example i say you can pay the government $100 tax and grow four plants don’t pay the fee get fined under tax evasion legislation amnd end up in jail if you keep breaching the law , set up methods for effective legal distribution that is also taxable its not really rocket science.

WHR says:

09:40am | 05/11/09

Clearly all the people here defending a dangerous mind destroying drug are addicted themselves. Truly an insidious thing cannabis is, not only does it destroy people but it makes them delusional as well!

SM says:

09:45am | 05/11/09

The majority of you miss the point entirely.  It’s not about which is worse.  The simple fact is that prohibition of cannabis does absolutely nothing to limit its use.  A fortune is spent by governments to fight a battle that cannot be won.  In some form, it should be legally available and government controlled.  They bang on about wanting to “lead” on things like climatre change.  They’ll never have the balls to “lead” on this issue though

Micko says:

09:49am | 05/11/09

Alcohol induces psychosis—I know, I have experienced it first hand in a person close to me.  I suspect this is an inevitable consequence of over indulgence in any mind altering substance.

No surprises really, but it probably has as much to do with the level of consumption and the predilections of the person involved than the poison per se.

Paul says:

09:54am | 05/11/09

I agree with many of the posters above about the health issues etc but isn’t it really about the christian /factions/lobbyists /ultra right wingers having the final say? Politically this isn’t about facts or science. Bill Hicks would tear Labor a new one!

Zeta says:

10:01am | 05/11/09

@ Ben - But it’s not just the flaws in those findings, it’s that any study on drugs is prejudiced by the agenda of the Government sanctioned ‘War on Drugs’. That’s where the money for drug studies comes from, and that’s the distinct slant that is placed on all drug research.

Since the likes of Timothy Leary and Terrence McKenna were kicked out of the academic establishment in the mid-1960s, there have been no advocates for research into the positive side effects of psychotropic substances. In the 21st Century, there are groups of scientists who beleive Climate Change doesn’t exist, still allowed to teach classes on environmental science, but for some 50 years, we’ve built a body of study on drugs that has precluded the notion that some drugs could ever be helpful.

This is contrary to the research from before the blanket ban that suggested cannabis helps the chronically ill and MDMA treats post traumatic stress disorder to give just two examples.

And if the anti-cannabis / psychadelic drug crowd really were so accurate in their findings, why don’t doctors stop giving out morphine and synthetic opiods, which those same University of Sydney Professors found to be just as harmful in small doses as they would be through continued, illict habitual use? Why do we still give out amphetamines to children, even though they metabolise identically to illegally manufactured speed and meth?

There is a double standard that calls all the research into question.

I don’t know what’s more ridiculous, that cannabis, that grows naturally in the ground is illegal but speed, which is made inorganically is not; or the fact that there is a War on Drugs going on, and people on Drugs are winning it by virtue that they can’t be stopped.

According to the Australian Crime Commission, Australia will blow $400 million this year on enforcing the anti-drug regime. $5 billion this decade. And in that time, there has been only one statistical decrease in drug use, caused by an unseasonal cold snap across the poppy fields of Burma, the cornerstone of the Golden Triangle of heroin production. The so called ‘Heroin Drought’.

One random snow storm forced more people to quit heroin than $5 billion dollars.

Your tax dollars at work.

NEO says:

10:02am | 05/11/09

WHR you are the dellusional one my friend , keep on dribbling that spoonfed mind numbing propaganda it demonstrates such a high level of intelligence I use cannabis I also work as a senior accountant , and am currently undertaking a Masters degree I have used cannabis and other psychadelics for more then 10 years without any problems in fact i have found cannabis to be a good study aide as it claers the mind and allows me to focus better I can go several weeks without it no real hassle at all. On the other hand my father has been addicted to alcohol for well on 30 years now and it has basically destroyed his whole life . I know which i will always choose without question.

@SM good point the war on drugs is a futile waste of tax payer funds , it could be better spent on our public health system and police resources better aimed at organised crime not to mention the income potential for organised crime would be cut drastically

IMHO says:

10:04am | 05/11/09

Tory I don’t think you should downplay the risks of cannabis…perhaps you didn’t. All drugs have side effects. There is no doubt in my mind, and this is the thrust of your argument i think, that it’s inconsistent to have cannibis outlawed but alcohol legal. The question then is should we legalise both or outlaw both.

I’m more in favour of legalising both since I don;t believe prohibition really works, and besides, as adults, people should have the option and the responsibilty to make their own choices. With the caveat that those choices don’t harm other people.

And before everyone raves on…yes choosing to drink alcohol can cause harm to other people, and often does. However, having one or two drinks rarely causes harm to anyone, whilst choosing to get blotto often does.

Steve says:

10:07am | 05/11/09

On MDMA.

I always find it amusing that police only catch 20-30 people at the music festivles when thousands of people bring the drug in. I guess the police know that as long as they catch enough punters to justify the dog-squad’s funding they would rather not deal with 20,000 voilent drunks.

DG says:

10:08am | 05/11/09

hoofman says (10:21am | 05/11/09)

“Alcohol is a proven disinhibitor, causing intoxicated people to do and say things that lead to damage and hurt, things they wouldn’t do or say if not intoxicated.”

A disinhibitor does not MAKE any one do anything - it allows them to do things that they wouldn’t ordinarily do, but It still only allow them to do things that they are willing to do. The person still has to decide to do the things that they do - even if they don’t remember the next day. The inhibition factor is the main reason that I don’t drink.

“I’m certain you’re being hypocritical here. Are you telling us you have never knowingly broken any law? Don’t bother claiming that, it’s unbelievable.”

It may well be unbelievable but it’s true. I’ve never exceeded the speed limit (a pet hate), never assaulted any one and never caught a train without a ticket. I didn’t consume alcohol until I was 18 and I wont even taste-test grapes at the supermarket. People doing the ‘wrong thing’ annoys me no end. Very little gets me worked up, but people doing the wrong thing….it’s so infuriating that a person would show such little regard for the rules.

Why is it so hard to believe that someone would do the right thing? I even make sure that I am more than 50m from a pedestrian crossing if I wish to cross the road otherwise than at a crossing (I realise that the law only requires 20m, but I like to be on the safe side).

Why? I have no idea. I’ve just always been like that, even as a kid. I’ve had a life long obsession with doing the right thing and following the rules. I suppose it is some form of mental illness.

Unlike Slartibartfast, I’d much rather be right than happy.

Sir Lolsworthy says:

10:15am | 05/11/09

If cannabis really caused as much psychological harm as researchers with vested interests would have you believe, there’d be a hell of a lot more people in the psych ward, I can tell you that right now. Those of you who think its consumption is limited to a small group of young adult males are very mistaken and would probably be shocked if you knew how widespread its usage, without harm, actually is. Ditto with MDMA. It’s true that there are some people who do not handle it well and should not be using it - but I fail to see how that makes it different to any other substance. Many people can’t handle their drink but we’re happy for them to keep doing it.
Alcohol is a socially acceptable drug because it’s legal. Witness the revulsion at GHB, which is extremely similar to alcohol in its action and effect, although far more potent. Blowing out on G is a horrific event yet drinking until you vomit on yourself and pass out is somehow different?
Polite society would rather I load myself up on valium and opiates to deal with chronic pain and insomnia - neither of those are addicitive and harmful right guys?

Voxpop says:

10:18am | 05/11/09

I’m in total agreement with Tory and the others supporting her argument.

Chiral says:

10:21am | 05/11/09

When discussing illegal drugs you need to take into consideration for their ability to be abused through addiction. Many Phenylethylamines & Tryptamines have a steep tolerance curve, this means they usually won’t work again on the individual until approximately 3-7 days later. I’ll point out that this applies to most not all, methamphetamines a Phenylethylamine is highly addictive and the user can dose everyday, DMT is the only Triptamine that does not show a tolerance curve, it also one of the most non toxic natural compounds known to man, it’s believed that DMT is produced by our bodies naturally everyday during the dream state. Getting back to addiction, I think it’s very important that a large percentage of recreational drugs are simply that, meaning that people can only use them once a week, as they don’t work again for some days thus limiting the individuals intake and allowing for any bodily recovery. Cigarettes and alcohol are heavily abusable and addictive, one destroying the lungs and throat and the other attacking the liver and kidneys. It’s unfortunate that all you smokers and drinkers out there are deluded about your vices and continue to be misinformed about any other drugs or natural compounds. Just because booze and fags are legal does not mean they are safe, likewise just because something is illegal doesn’t mean it’s unsafe. I urge people to show some maturity and at least do your research instead of shooting blanks from your hip flasks.

DG says:

10:26am | 05/11/09

@NEO (10:36am | 05/11/09)

I didn’t’ say that there wasn’t a link. I said that it wasn’t causal. I agree that it reduces inhibitions. But your suggestion that it is causal detracts from the responsibility of these criminals. You are setting up the “I couldn’t help it. the alcohol made me do it” defence. It’s a load of non-sense. They chose to do that act, they had the thoughts that made them behave in the way that they did. The fact that they had exceeded their capacity for self-control is no different to the criminal who commits assault or road rage when they have reached their snapping point. A drunk can exercise self control if they choose to, I’ve seen it done plenty of times - drunks that square up and then regain control and go on their way. It comes down to personal responsibility.

Nick says:

10:26am | 05/11/09

I don’t condone dope use for one minute, but if people want to waste there life being stoned rather than productive, that’s there choice. I would be much more interested in a study between high range usage of alcohol (which is what this article implies per medical effects) and high range usage of dope. My bet is that dope “consumed” at an equal rate of alcohol would raise a whole new set of medical issues to deal with. Unfortunately the consumption of alcohol in society is significantly higher than dope; and correlation of any data between the two would be difficult and unreliable at best.

Steve Smith says:

10:33am | 05/11/09

@DG says:10:01am | 05/11/09: You can provide yourself with a personal stash of Cannibis more easily, with less effort and with a high quality end product. The same cannot be said about personal brews or tobacco.

Why on Earth would the government legalise a drug, that people can keep themselves happy without continually paying taxes for every puff!

Sir Lolsworthy says:

11:01am | 05/11/09

‘My bet is that dope “consumed” at an equal rate of alcohol would raise a whole new set of medical issues to deal with.’

It’s quite possible to get stoned every day for weeks at a time and then cease with little ill effect. I shudder to think of the consequences of trying to do the same with alcohol - death from delerium tremens would be a very real possibility.
It’s funny really, that the substances that can and do kill people through physical addiction and withdrawal (benzodiazepines and alcohol), are readily obtainable legally and widely consumed. Where’s the logic in that?

Wayne H says:

11:18am | 05/11/09

What ZETA Said!!!! Spot on and wish I could articulate it as well. For too long dope smokers have been looked on as hippies who are nothing more than a drain on society.  We are not! Think of any industry and their will be a percentage of pot smokers. I worked hard all my working life and paid my taxes. If I want to relax at the end of the day with a quiet bong then why shouldn’t I? Who are you to tell me that I can’t? I ran off the rails once. Couldn’t handle the Bundy rum, too much sugar I think. Made a complete goose out of myself and embarrassed my family greatly. I’m no saint and have partaken in a few of life’s secret pleasures but I have never been so out of control as when I was blind drunk on Bundy. (sorry Bundy Bear)  Don’t remember most of it but unfortunately there were plenty of friends around at the time that remind me.

BT says:

11:23am | 05/11/09

Why does it have to be an “either/or” argument? Anything in prolonged excess is bad for you, regardless of what it is.

Chiral says:

11:34am | 05/11/09

I think it’s incredibly important to consider that illegal street drugs are never pharmaceutically pure, herein lies the dangers. the adulterants used by questionable backyard chemists would not be found in a pure product that was manufactured in an FDA approved lab. Ecstasy, the street name for any pill sold on the street can be a mixture of many drugs, sometimes not even containing any MDMA. You take the manufacture of these compounds out of the hands of criminals and produce them legitimately and they for the best part are quite safe. Surely we have enough understanding and the stats show us that most recreational drugs have pro’s and cons, you would be a fool to think otherwise. There millions of people world wide who take illicit substances everyday, live ordinary lives with a job and family, it’s a shame that they have to put money into the pockets of criminals to source impure products. Drug wars and drug laws make criminals out of more than half the worlds population.

hoofman says:

11:39am | 05/11/09

DG - no causal link between alcohol and criminal/antisocial/foolish behaviour? Rubbish -although I agree intoxication is no defence. You’ve never broken any law no matter how inconsequential? Rubbish again.

DG says:

11:56am | 05/11/09

BT - that’s my point.

This prohibition is not about health it’s about votes. Legalising pot is “soft on crime” and, as such, political suicide. It certainly wouldn’t win as many votes as it would cost (because while people may support the legalisation of drugs, they have issues that they consider to be more important and will vote on the basis of those policies whether it be education, health, police, etc etc)

To effect change you have to change the public opinion. Public opinion will not be swayed by pointing out that drinking is dangerous too.

For those above that seem to think that I am against the legalisation of Marijuana, I’m not. I really don’t care either way. My comments are simply intended to be advice on winning public opinion which will be necessary to effect change.

Cameron Price-Austin says:

12:02pm | 05/11/09

@Stuart

Got anything more than a hypothetical anecdote to support your argument?

It’s a bit rich to suggest Tory ‘Go and do some on (sic) the ground research’ when you haven’t done your own.

the REAL question says:

12:05pm | 05/11/09

At the root of this issue should really be the question: What business does the government have limiting my personal freedoms when, in exercising those freedoms, I do not infringe on the rights of other?
The most frustrating this (especially with the Liberal Party) is the focus on individual financial/economic responsibility, but the fact that they want to control every other part of your life and impose their own values. It’s unnecessary and hypocritical.
I should also note that I only drink occasionally (usually only a couple of beers) and have never taken an illegal drug. Despite that, I believe that if I wanted to I should be able to make that choice without automatically becoming a “criminal”.

NEO says:

12:29pm | 05/11/09

@DG

Legalising pot is not soft on crime despite what all the relgious/ moralistic lobbyists would have us think it would free up police resources and allow a focus on real crime problems it would also undermine a massive source of income for organised crime lets face it many of the small growers do not have the funds to fill an entire house with a cannabis crop organised crime are the ones who fund such activities which means it is obviously a good income source would they be spending $10’000 + on some of these setups if it wasn’t profitable for 5them.

Nowe what would happen if it was legalised and done properly is that those millions of dollars going into the black market each year with no benefit to our economy would become one of the largest economic benefits our country has ever seen if done in the correct way you are talking an economic boost worth millions if not billions of dollars each year . I’ve done some economic modelling on these kind of ideas on numerous occasion and every time i do i am at a further loss to explain why any government does not legalise it solely on the grounds of economic benefit

Nick says:

12:32pm | 05/11/09

Sir Lolsworthy: I was drawing conclusion to the consumption of alcohol v marijuana as a population percentage. Not that being stoned is better than being drunk. When you have the percentage of dope smokers directly proportionate to the percentage of alcohol drinkers in our society, only then can you extrapolate meaningful results from analysis.

Pushing the “marijuana is risk free” band wagon is an ignorant and irresponsible claim. How can you know what will happen until its widely used and socially accepted like alcohol?

It’s a tough call, once you let the genie out of the bottle, its damn hard to stuff him back in. However the only way I can see to end this ongoing debate is to fully legalise (not just decriminalise) it in a single state and see what happens. ACT is part way there with its decriminalised stance, and being a small state (territory for the anal), easier to keep tabs on and reverse if the policy fails.

Boo-urns says:

12:38pm | 05/11/09

I am tired of people like “Nick” telling me that I am wasting my life being unproductive being stoned all the time. I worked my ass off to be a Systems adminstrator for a good company, while plenty of non tokers have deferred uni for their own ends, but that is their choice. While weed isn’t harmless people have their own minds to make up with substances and can stop when thy want to. It takes admitting the problem. I will give up weed when the government makes tobacco illegal, as it being on shelves is hypocritical when they wage war on weed.
Boo-urns

Zeta says:

12:39pm | 05/11/09

Of course, it’s all well and good to speculate about what a great, happy, loved up world we’d live in if psychoactive substances were legal, I do it all the time. Imagine, a world where MDMA was not only legal, but compulsory. ‘I’m feeling a bit down today, Peter Lewis is on the Punch again’, I’d say to my girlfriend, who’d reply ‘It’s fine, I’ve got a new E script filled out’, 30 minutes later, ‘You know, I don’t need to get angry about The Essential Report darling, because we’re all just really points of light floating in a vast, vibrating universe and when we slow our thoughts down to a barely perceptable hum, polling becomes irrelevant and we realise numbers are just the shackles we place on human perception. Can you get me a lolipop? And a hug please?’

But the elephant in the drug debating room remains organised crime.

If you went up to an 18 year old girl at a dance party and suggested, through her Esctatic haze, that she should only buy goods from those companies that cause the most environmental damage, pay their sweat shop workers the least possible ammount of money, and aren’t afraid of killing people to get their own way, she’d laugh in your face.

Yet those same young people, who baulk at the notion of unethical corporate culture happily fork over $50 a pop for drugs that are produced and distributed by those very same kinds of organisations.

Assume at least six degrees of separation from the average drug consumer, to the point of manufacture. The average drug user buys their drugs from a friend, that friend, is probably no more a Scarface-like drug lord than they are, and probably also bought their drugs from a friend, only in a slightly higher quantity. At that point, we’re still not in Tony Montana territory. The middle men in the Australian drug trade tend to be bikies, in the case of canabis, amphetamines, and MDMA; but except for a few isolated meth labs, they themselves are in the import / export buisness.

According to the United Nations, 500 tonnes of ecstacy and amphetamine type drugs are produced each year, and roughly a, damn I wish the Punch had italics a…. MEGATONNE of marijuana each year. Australia’s biggest haul was in 2001, when NSW Police seized 1.6 tonnes of ecstacy, and in 2002, another tonne of marijuana. Truly a drop in the ocean.

The Oceanic Market (us) sources their drugs from two competing streams - Northern Europe and South East Asia. By competing, I mean that the outfits responsible greatly enjoy murdering each other, thankfully, not in this country.

These guys are not the kinds of people you’d want to party with at a night club. Like all good buisness people they’ve vertically integrated to become one stop shops for investment in child prostitution and pornography, cyber-crime, arms dealing, illegal gambling, racketeering, and other assorted nastiness.

Every time you buy drugs in Australia, you’re directly supporting the buisnesses of global criminal networks based in Russia and South East Asia. The worst of the worst. Cutting off their ability to make money from drugs isn’t about being a downer on our good times, it’s about making sure they can’t put any more women and children into slavery and sell any more guns to terrorists.

So sure, it’s nice to dream sometimes that one day, drugs will be legal, and we’ll all ride around on segways, fistbumping and hugging each other on the free ways while thousands of Domino’s scooters race to deliver us Pizza… but first, we need to shut down the global illicit drug trade.

And they won’t go down without a fight.

Terry Wright says:

12:48pm | 05/11/09

WHR says: “Cannabis is immoral. It breeds hippies and other left wing anti business/productivity types.” and “Clearly all the people here defending a dangerous mind destroying drug are addicted themselves”.

Immoral? Addicted themselves? Breeds hippies? Doesn’t this give some insight into the current laws and drug policies?

One side want to leave it to science, reality, facts and our rights. The other side wants to control people doing something they disagree with based on ideology, misguided opinions, political point scoring and right wing/ conservative/religious moral values. What’s missing though is how far one side will go for their beliefs - exaggerating the harms, lying, bullying academics, producing junk science, misleading the public, lying, cherry picking data, public deception, lying, ignoring questions that will expose their lies, attacking others for being “soft on drugs”, lying, making false claims about the risks, propaganda, slander, libel, lying, claiming their opposition are drug addicts, playing on the public’s ignorance, discrediting experts, down playing the harms of alcohol ... and lying.

Stuart says: “If you visit a psychiatric ward in one of the states hospitals you will find it full of 17-25 year old kids. Most of them admitted after having their first severe psychiatric episode triggered from smoking dope”.

If you visit a swimming pool, you will find lots of swimmers too. Most of them will admit that they had once taken a bath in their youth prior to wanting to swim. Ironically, this year, Keele University in the UK showed that while cannabis use increased 400% since the 1980s, mental health disorders decreased slightly. If cannabis caused as many health problems as claimed, we would need about 5,000 hospitals to cater for the 2-4 million pot smokers in Australia.

Stuart says: “Only a dope smoking dope would publish something so stupid. Go and do some on the ground research and speak to kid in a psych ward and then write your article”.

Yes, Tory must be a drug addict to write about the facts. Makes perfect sense?! I’m sure she did “some on the ground research” by asking some fellow successful professionals, her friends/family, her co-workers etc. who don’t have a cannabis problem.

As for schizophrenia, only 0.013% of UK cannabis users have this disorder from their cannabis use alone. My friends who work in various medical positions tell me that alcohol is by far the biggest problem and most people in for cannabis issues are either poly-drug users or forced there by an intervention from the courts, family or school. They know of virtually no one who goes to voluntary rehab for cannabis only. As the science tells us; only those with a predisposition to mental health disorders will develop a problem from moderate use of cannabis. As for teens, we already know that using cannabis may be harmful to a maturing brain and this debate is not about letting kids light up. BTW, they would probably listen more if we had rational, truthful education campaigns and commercials that didn’t exaggerate harms at every mention of drugs. Exactly like you are doing now, Stuart and WHR.

NEO says:

12:48pm | 05/11/09

@ Nick

Refer to the portugese reports released recently they have not gone full scale legalisation but a very resonable method of decriminalisation all reports are positive I think this would apply with legalisation also but you also get the inherent econiomic benefit , portugals results are proabbaly the best arguement for further legalisation/decriminalisation I have read to date and anyone with an intrest in this topic should make an effort to have a reda of them

Sir Lolsworthy says:

12:54pm | 05/11/09

‘Pushing the “marijuana is risk free” band wagon is an ignorant and irresponsible claim. How can you know what will happen until its widely used and socially accepted like alcohol? ‘

I never said it was harmless, only the potential harm is less than that of alcohol and benzodiazepines - this is something that is true of a lot of illegal drugs. And it already is widely used.

Jayne says:

12:55pm | 05/11/09

It just so happens that I have conducted a significant amount of research into both alcohol and cannabis, and I agree with Professor Nutt.  Whilst with cannabis one does run the risk of laughing oneself to death or perhaps ingesting a lethal amount of chocolate, that is far preferable to a messy car accident of the kind so often brought about after a few hours of consuming alcohol. I shall continue to do my research, entirely at my own expense, for the betterment of mankind.

Neo says:

12:56pm | 05/11/09

@ Zeta

Do you not think legalisation will instantly strip the power away from these organisations prohibition and the war on drugs is the whoole reason criminal organisations are in the drug trade ... i know of people that these days risk there own arse importing small amounts of RCs for personal use in order to not be contributing to the Global black market the issue is they have to do this at the risk of being prosecuted even more thenm when they buy drugs through normal black market channels this makes no sense, the government has the facilities at their disposal to destroy organised crime in the drug trade but they sit their like a bunch of scared children worrying about the outcry from the moral minorities

stephen says:

01:18pm | 05/11/09

It won’t be the grog OR pot. Itt’l be AND.

DG says:

01:32pm | 05/11/09

@NEO (01:29pm | 05/11/09)

Fair enough I should have said “seen as soft on crime”. I don’t think that there is any doubt that, in the court of public opinion, it would cost votes. Common sense (or even economic sense) doesn’t come into it, It’s exclusively about votes.

Personally, I don’t see this as an issue that is going to win my vote (nor will it cost my vote), but it is easy for one party to paint the others as “soft on crime” if they run with a platform on the legalisation of marijuana. Unless the use of marijuana is the most important thing on a person’s personal ideology it’s not going to with their vote, but if the other party can paint it as “soft-on-crime” it’ll cost thousands of votes. The nett effect is a loss of votes.

It’s easy to sell the image that the government wants to legalise drugs and It’ll make it so much easier for kids to sell weed to your little Johnny at school. The truth doesn’t come into it, they only have to sell a story. 

@Terry Wright (01:48pm | 05/11/09)

How does the science line up with rights? They are not the same thing - I dare say they are substantially unrelated (but not mutually exclusive).  If you assume that you have a right to ingest whatever you want then doesn’t the science become redundant? Or are you proposing that you only have the right to ingest things that are safe (hence the science coming into it)?

“The other side wants to control people doing something they disagree with based on ideology”. Welcome to democracy - where the majority decide what is and is not allowed to be done based on their individual ideology. Every issue in a democracy is determined that way (at least in theory). The State has hundreds of pages of rules that are “A person must not:....”. That’s how law works. You can’t build your house here, you can’t have a pool, you can’t chop down trees, you can’t smoke this, you can’t drink that etc etc…

The reality is that not enough people are willing to fight for this change. Maybe it is an image thing - can you imagine the media reporting on a protest with 1000 people on the steps of parliament demanding the right to smoke dope? Is it going to be favourable to the protesters ?

Tony says:

01:34pm | 05/11/09

Can’t believe how many druggies have raised their filthy heads to have a moan and bitch here on this topic. me and my mates regularly whilst having a beer or two after work see these filthy long haired junkies on the streets outside, probably wandering around looking for stuff to steal so they can get their next fix of acid to shoot up. None of them ever work or anything, why can’t they get a job and a haircut, pay taxes, support a footy team and have drink like normal people, instead of breaking the law everyday. Every time we see these scum we just wanna beat their heads in, I reckon we’d be doing a public service and people would thank us for cleaning the streets up. I’ve dobbed heaps of these pricks in and will continue to do so until the streets are safe again. All you druggies here should be shit scared of us because you are all criminals and need to beaten or locked up.

Liz says:

01:47pm | 05/11/09

If you’re going to write an article like this you need to get your facts right.Your remarks about the effects of cannabis are outdated and may have been true 30 years ago but not know.Hydroponics has made the difference and the use of pesticides on the plants has altered the chemical balance.Cannabis is now a dangerous substance causing substantial mental health problems to frequent users.Heard only this morning of someone who is agrophobic,so paranoid he won’t leave the house.He is not unusual for a heavy user.Combine drugs and booze as many do and you have a lethal combination.Your article falls far short of presenting the real risks.

Macca says:

01:50pm | 05/11/09

So we can all smoke Pot legally now?

Zeta says:

02:08pm | 05/11/09

@ neo - no, I don’t think legalisation will strip the power from organised crime, for two reasons.

Firstly, when the heroin drought hit Burma, and the industry’s back up supply from Afghanistan was shut down by the Taliban (we don’t give those crazy guys enough credit for that btw), the South East Asian gangs shifted from Heroin production and supply to Amphetamine production and supply. The Australian Crime Commission, in their inquiry into the Heroin Drought, expresses shock at just how quickly they were able to make the switch. For some of the largest poppy plantations, we’re talking an overhaul the equivalent of Kerry Stokes waking up one day and deciding that instead of being a media company, Fairfax will start producing cotton jocks and within a few months, is as big as Bonds. The production methods are that different.

So whatever drug gets legalised, the organised criminals will be able to switch quickly, and efficently to a drug that isn’t legal, and fill a vacuum.

The next reason drug legalisation won’t work until there are no organised crime gangs, is drug users them selves. NSW Police, to their credit, aren’t just jackboot wearing party poopers, they’ve actually conducted some of the most far reaching drug research in conjunction with the Bureau of Crime Statistics and the Australian Institutie of Criminology. They found that drug users rarely use their drug of choice. Ice users who were surveyed said their drug of choice would be Cocaine, but due to shortages in supply, they used speed, but if they had the money, would buy heroin. Ecstacy users said pure MDMA powder was their drug of choice, but due to unavailability, they’d buy ketamine, GHB, or speed depending on price, and given the option, would rarely resort to buying drugs in night clubs, preferring known dealers with high quality products. In every survey, every drug user ranked canabis as the easiest drug to acquire, but the one they would use habitually if no others were available, and in the case of habitual heroin users, it was the drug of choice for trying to quit other drugs.

Since drug users deliniate between their drugs; legalising one or the other will not remove the market for all.

The exceptions are LSD, psylocibin mushrooms, and DMT derivatives. They’re fringe drugs, that could be legalised easily because they have little to know involvement from organised crime already.

Canabis could be legalised, but again, it’s not going to dent organised crime in the slightest.

In the short term though, law enforcement agencies don’t want to shut down the drug trade. This is both the biggest problem, and the biggest asset in terms of smashing criminal enterprise.

Imagine the world’s biggest criminal cartels are like Macquarie Bank (not hard), now Macquarie Bank offers consumer products, like personal share investments, and things like that. But they also offer top tier services that are only available to their most trusted clients. If you want to access Macquarie Bank’s services, as a pleb, that’s where we’d start.

Organised crime is much like that. There are no mafioso loitering around Kings Cross selling guns and premium distributed denial of service software; but their most rank soliders are selling drugs. For Police to access these criminal networks, that’s the consumer point they have to start at, before becoming trusted enough to access their other services.

As it stands, we’re just never going to get the global co-operation needed to break these gangs up, and put ourselves in a position where we can even consider legalising any of these drugs. Even cannabis, which still has peripheral involvement from domestic crime gangs.

Classic example is the South Australian bikie influx - South Australia made it legal to grow 2 marijuana plants for personal use… So the Bikie’s moved all their members to South Australia to multiply the ammount of pot they could grow.

Then they started killing each other over membership defections, that were suddenly worth 2 pot plants each.

So if one State legalises and the others don’t, we get that scenario. It’s lose / lose.

Steve Smith says:

02:09pm | 05/11/09

@Tony: apart from the obvious i.e. confusing Cannibis users with Heroin addicts.. your unique generalisations put you in the same category as the scum you speak about.

Carl Palmer says:

02:21pm | 05/11/09

Tory, great article.

@ John A Neve – I recon you are on the right tram.
Alcohol   growing and expanding market – very very big bucks
Cigarettes   stagnant market (in developed and emerging markets) – still big bucks
Cannabis   who cares – no money here

I can just see PM Brown’s telephone exploding with phone calls from the big hitters. Get rid of this Nut!!! So he did it wasn’t that difficult.  Next years donations preserved and will probably increase even with the GFC.

I wonder if Professor David Nutt realised that stating the truth would cost him his job.

Neo says:

02:25pm | 05/11/09

Crawl into a hole you ignorant red neck Tony I’m sure I have a better job then you and probably earn more in a day then you do in a fortnight, your whole opinion is the perfect example of sheer ignorance most of the drug users i know are doctors , nurses , lawyers , company excutives all of which i’m sure are more productive members of society then some who dribbles such utter junk like yourself. People like you don’t scare me Tony they make me laugh that we still have such ignorant people in an evolved civilised society its like you are some left over unevolved monkey who can’t comprehend scientific fact . Most humans have got past the point of thinking that we can beat others up too get their own way God if I thought like that i would be beating every drunk i saw senseless with a metal bar , and as for Cops yeah I have a few good mates who are cops to they are good blokes to sit down and have a few pipes with onthe odd occasions although to me it proves the laws regarding drugs are futile if even those who are ment to enforce them are happy to break them

Chiral says:

02:36pm | 05/11/09

LOL @Liz Hydroponics growers don’t use pesticides, they cross breed for potency and taste. There are mild strains and potent strong strains, much like strong or lite booze. You need to get your facts right. Right now there are hundreds of thousands of cannabis users in Australia, do you feel any negative impact on society from all these people..? no, do you see gangs of potheads beating each other up in bars or sporting every weekend..? no, the impact on society of your average pot smoker is negligible. Legalizing cannabis won’t alter that too much, but what it will do is take away the huge amount of stress these people face everyday by feeling like they are criminals for smoking a herb that is very natural. Drinkers who drink responsibly and don’t overstep their limits are no different to pot smokers who use cannabis responsibly, people are always going to overstep their limits no matter weather it’s drinking, smoking pot, munching pills or picking a wave that is way to big and dangerous to surf. If the government were really serious about saving lives we wouldn’t be allowed to do any of these dangerous activities, yet I am able to walk into any chemist and purchase powerful opiate painkillers and get as a high as a kite, dangerously so actually. Why all this hysteria about saving lives, the world needs to have a certain amount of cues for death to help slow down the ever increasing world population. Let people make their own choices and stop letting the soccer mums build up walls of cotton for the rest of us.

wolf says:

02:59pm | 05/11/09

For those who think Tony is serious I suggest you google the word ‘troll’...

Carl Palmer says:

03:00pm | 05/11/09

@Tony says: 02:34pm | 05/11/09
“….see these filthy long haired junkies on the streets outside, probably wandering around looking for stuff to steal so they can get their next fix of acid to shoot up”.

Be careful what you wish for - I hope you don’t have a son or daughter that ends up like that and your definition of “normal people” is also very very myopic.

Tony says:

03:04pm | 05/11/09

Hah, you think you earn more than me, yeah lets see what sorta car you drive, I bet it’s some shitbox that couldn’t beat my grandma’s zimmerframe off at the lights hahah. Smoking pipes with the cops, wow you are cool, probably gay cops anyways just trying to get into your little tiny undies. Stupid potheads and gay coppers, yeah we really need more of those around. You will never beat us because we don’t break the law, we can drink as much as we want and own the streets and our local bars, you guys will never be law abiding citizens because the gov’t looks after citizens who obey the law not break it everyday. All you drug addicts are useless, weak non working bludgers, your full of shit if you say that doctors and lawyers are drug users, you’re so full of your self and deluded. Jesus drank wine, he didn’t smoke some skanky shit or shoot up some cracked stuff he scored from some illegal immigrant. I laugh at all you who are think that deadly lethal drugs will be legalised in your lifetime, my brothers will be out making sure it never happens. Piece you fools.

toker says:

03:15pm | 05/11/09

I am a regular pot smoker and i know someone whos son was hospitalised after using herion and he will never be the same…why was it the way the chemical recacts to everyone or was it just bad gear made in a bad stile in unhygenic conditions…

Im Holland they have dereglized all drugs. Why? they believe that to make it safer for people then the goverment needs to be involved (how forward thinking of them- plus they can then get taxes or revinue for these things too) Take out the back door dealer and things become safer. They even have facilities where you can take your drug to be tested to see how good it is so you dont overdose or put pure rats bait in you. How sensible and if for some reason the Australian goverment did this then i could guarntee that a whole lot less will have to be hospitialise for over doses or mental reasons.

I have taken all sorts of drugs and the worst one i have taken by far is alcohol. What it does to me ...well lets say i gave up grogg yrs ago over a toke once a day.

When you hear the statics that in 1991 368 children under the age of 18 were hospitalised with server injuries related to alcohol and not one in relation to pot…well that has to make you think and think hard

Nat says:

03:28pm | 05/11/09

@Tony…are you for real or are you simply trying to stir things up a bit?

PEACE you fool!

Redboy says:

03:34pm | 05/11/09

Tony, you need to have some cones and chill out mate! You seem just a little stressed dude!

Chase Stevens says:

04:18pm | 05/11/09

Tony: Troll or Really angry middle class guy? Find out next week.

Terry Wright says:

04:47pm | 05/11/09

Damn it. Why do I continually expect more of people than they are capable of?

@DG (02:32pm | 05/11/09):
“If you assume that you have a right to ingest whatever you want then doesn’t the science become redundant? ...”
People’s rights - the right not to be criminalised for breaking laws based on deception and lies. The right to seek happiness if it doesn’t affect others. The right to walk the streets without being searched for no reason. And the right to ingest what I want ... whether it’s safe or not. Why does that make science redundant?

“Welcome to democracy - where the majority decide what is and is not allowed to be done based on their individual ideology. Every issue in a democracy is determined that way (at least in theory) ...”
What about when the ideology is repugnant, corrupt and based on religion? Anyway, that’s my whole point. They are arguing against science using a flawed ideology as the basis. My vision of democracy is that we elect a government to give us the facts, not their distorted view. Maybe you’re happy to have a rulebook that determines what you can eat or drink and other personal preferences based on someone else’s misguided opinion, personal agenda or self serving position but not me.

@Tony (02:34pm | 05/11/09).  I think you’re confusing many of the druggies with drunken bogans. They’re the ones I usually see roaming the streets, unemployed with long hair. I think you may have watched too much A Current Affair and Today. Anyway, you were probably sitting in the bar at the local footy and were too pissed to tell the difference. Sitting around, drinking gallons of bear with your feral mates wanting to bash people is not normal ... well for most people anyway.

@Liz (02:47pm | 05/11/09):
“If you’re going to write an article like this you need to get your facts right.Your remarks about the effects of cannabis are outdated and may have been true 30 years ago but not know [...] Cannabis is now a dangerous substance causing substantial mental health problems to frequent users ...”
LOL! If you’re going to write a comment like this you need to get YOUR facts right. Your remarks about the effects of cannabis are outdated and may have been true 30 years ago but not know.

“Hydroponics has made the difference ...”
The potency issue. mmm, OK, so moderate users are in the clear. That’s most of them. If the very small group of frequent users were drinking, and the bottle shop didn’t have a dozen bottles of beer, I suppose they would simply buy a dozen bottles of whisky and drink those instead. Those silly pot smokers, they have no idea on how to moderate their intake. At least they can count and their memory is good - “12 bottles of anything please, I always have 12” or “4 pipes please. I don’t care if 2 will do the job, I always have 4”.

SteveB says:

05:17pm | 05/11/09

@Liz
Hydroponics will certainly increase yield but cannot increase potency, which is determined by genetic factors the same as smell, size and colour of the flowers.

That being said, the THC content of a bag of cannabis purchased today is likely to be greater than a bag of the same weight purchased 30 years ago. How much greater is debatable, but it certainly isn’t the 30x greater that some agencies would have you believe because 70’s cannabis was about 4-5% THC and 30x that is simply impossible.

This increase is down to two reasons, firstly, 30 years ago, the bag would have contained much greater amounts of leaves, stems and seeds which are the parts of the plant with the least THC. A bag today is more likely to contain only flowers (heads) which is the highest potency part of the plant. Second, breeders of the plants have selectively bred for more THC content, both of these reasons are directly related to prohibition of the drug. When someone is caught with a quantity of cannabis (or any other illicit drug for that matter) the police weigh it and the weight of the drug will determine the charge and therefore the sanction that will be applied to the drug posessor. The consequence of this is that it is in the best interest of the user (yes, the BEST interest would be not to use ANY drugs) to posess smallest weight of drug possible, both to make it easier to conceal and to lessen the charge/sanction if caught, now, how to do that? Increase potency and discard all but the most potent parts of the plant.

Whilst there is ample evidence that suggests that THC is an antagonist for psychosis in those who are predisposed to the condition, that is, it can’t actually cause the disease, but it will certainly make it worse, especially in teenagers who chronically abuse the drug. The earlier and heavier the use, the worse the result.

What is almost universally unknown/ignored is the fact that another ingredient in cannabis, Cannabidiol (CBD), is actually an ANTI-psychotic, which is why many people are actually able to control their psychosis through cannabis use, it’s more a matter of using the right kind of cannabis, that is a variety that has a higher CBD to THC ratio. Unfortunately, this remains almost impossible to achieve under prohibition as most users are unable to choose between different varieties because the dealers they buy from have whatever happens to be available and that tends to be THC heavy ‘Indica’ varieties which are shorter plants which flower faster, again as a result of growers attempts to avoid detection.

John says:

07:20pm | 05/11/09

Terry Wright and SteveB great posts, re-education will eventually get through to the brainwashed.

james says:

08:42am | 06/11/09

if cannibus is as bad as alcohol but no worse, can we really afford to have twice the amount of problems we do now with alcohol addiction, and related deaths??

DG says:

09:02am | 06/11/09

Terry Wright (05:47pm | 05/11/09)

“And the right to ingest what I want ... whether it’s safe or not. “

That’s my point exactly - if you are claiming the right to consumer whatever you want, regardless of whether it is safe what does science have to do with it?

Even if the science days it is deadly, you propose to maintain the right consume it. In that sense the science of the effects of the drug is redundant in so far as it goes to the policy for the prohibition of drugs. That doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t research the effects of drugs to inform the public about the consequences of the products that they consume, but that it shouldn’t be part of the consideration as to whether people can consume it.

“My vision of democracy is that we elect a government to give us the facts, not their distorted view.”

In an ideal world that would be true. But for that to happen the government must not have a vested interest in the result. The reality is that they do have a vested interest. They will be seeking re-election 3-4 years later, the Opposition (regardless of which party it is) will play politics with the potentially unpopular decision (just as the government plays politics with the popular decisions). .

Look at it this way. The Indonesia issue at the moment - the opposition know that there is no real option but to bring the occupants of the boat to Christmas island - you can’t leave people to drown at sea, you can’t throw them overboard after you rescue them and you can’t put them in Indonesia if Indonesia says “no”. So what’s the alternative? Do you think that the Opposition will say that the government “did the only thing it could” or will they say “Rudd has saved the people smugglers the cost of petrol - they no longer need to make it to Australia we’ll go and get them if it doesn’t look like they’ll make it”.

Now whether the opposition is telling the truth or not doesn’t come into it - it’s politics/marketing. They will never acknowledge that there is no palatable choice at this stage, just claim that the other Party is making the wrong decision without proposing an alternative solution.

Unless you have some cunning way of ensuring that telling the truth is going to be rewarded at the polling booth it’s never going to happen.

What interest does a politician have in telling the truth? What interest does the politician have in playing on the fears of the population or telling them what they want to hear? There is every chance that the politician would be punished at the next election for telling the truth.

Therein you find the problem with democracy - but it’s still better than the alternatives.

SteveB says:

10:34am | 06/11/09

james says:09:42am | 06/11/09

if cannibus is as bad as alcohol but no worse, can we really afford to have twice the amount of problems we do now with alcohol addiction, and related deaths??

I’m not sure where the extra problems would come from, I’m assuming you believe that if cannabis was legalised the number of users would double? Even if that were true (which is possible, but hasn’t happened in 30 years of “official tolerance” in The Netherlands) the problems would still be far less, as alcohol causes more harm to users as a percentage of users in terms of addiction rates, mental health rates and disease rates. There’s still no overdose deaths from cannabis as opposed to about 3 per week for alcohol in Australia.

Wayne H says:

12:05pm | 06/11/09

Momma always told me not to look into the eye of the sun…....
But Momma…......... thats where the fun is…........

Rowdy says:

01:34pm | 06/11/09

Cannibus…...an intelligent, mass transportation vehicle…..

carl palmer says:

03:00pm | 06/11/09

ha ha ha - Very good Wayne H

German says:

08:48am | 07/11/09

@Stuart: “Only a dope smoking dope would publish something so stupid. Go and do some on the ground research and speak to kid in a psych ward and then write your article.”

That is maybe one of the stupidest stuff I have read in my whole life… I have people in my family that, actually, work in wards and there is not a SINGLE case of a schizophrenia caused directly by casual ‘dope’ usage.. that type of comments are totally ‘Inquisition-esque’ Mr.Torquemada… have a nice life burning witches and stuff like that.

The Voice of Reason says:

10:09pm | 18/11/09

What I don’t understand is that we are all supposed to be free and drug taking has been part of our society since the dawn of time.
Drugs did not just pop into existence 70 years ago and most people when talking of drugs its always drugs AND alcohol, attempting to distance a legal drug from the rest and creating a class and social distinction based on people’s high of choice.
Those that keep claiming Cannabis causes schizophrenia are about 15 years behind in the studies as they have proven there is no casual link to cannabis and it is more likely to be caused in the womb from tobacco use but of course you won’t believe that but Google will let the truth be known so start clicking and prove me wrong.
Prohibition is only part of the problem though we live in a society that wants nothing to do with facts only what their fears lead them into believing and it has not changed much really in the last however many years we have breathed on this earth.
Those that are sitting on their morale high horse spewing the evils of drug use are no doubt the same that would have been screaming to have witches burned at the stake, probably in line to light the prier.
This war on drugs is a failed health action plan and when the leaders of the field like Peter Applegarth (current Queensland high court judge) Dr Alex Wodak (Salvation army) and Peter Baume (former Minister) have attempted to change this failed approach and have been almost mobbed by fanatics and religious zealots arguing religious theories and worst case scenario’s when forgetting that 1 in 5 tax paying Australians use Cannabis on a regular basis.
Recently the pure farce of these laws are coming more back into light as those of us that live under the tyranny and oppression of slavery are breaking our chains.
As for Cannabis and hippies?
It’s funny but I know a lot of Cannabis users….. Not too many hippies.