It can make you paranoid and irrational, prone to making stupid decisions with bad consequences, and can ultimately cause serious harm. Yes, it’s the moral panic over drugs.  The latest burning issue is synthetic dope.

Guaranteed to cause a reaction. Photo: Liam Driver

Kronic (or Puff, or Voodoo, or Kaos) was happily crossing the counter of many a hippie herbal high store until the mining industry realised its employees were using it to rort their drug testing systems. Often sold as incense, it’s made from herbs sprayed with chemicals that mimic the effects of marijuana.

WA quickly moved to ban Kronic, so people in possession now face fines of up to $100,000 or 25 years in jail. Victoria is planning to follow suit. Then South Australian pollies, with a burst of speed so surprising it makes one suspect performance enhancement, managed to prohibit the drug the very day after The Advertiser published doctors’ calls to make it illegal.

So now we have a hodge podge of laws across the nation – a schizophrenic mess of jagged inconsistencies, untethered from any rational grounding.

Drugs are such an easy target for politicians. The getting tough approach fits seamlessly with their worship of working families, caring for the kiddies, and cracking down on all the nasty junkie types. Many of them and their constituents probably smoked an innocent summer spliff themselves, but the haze of time has washed away their sense of perspective.

Kronic, like marijuana, can have terrible effects. These include high heart rates, paranoia, anxiety, restlessness. People are ending up in hospital with nausea, vomiting. There is one case in NZ where Kronic may have been a factor in a fatal car crash. It’s possible that Kronic is more potent than much homegrown dope, which can also trigger psychosis.

So put it in plain packaging, restrict its sale to adults, stop advertising. Make people aware of the health threats. Don’t threaten to put people in jail.

Making another drug illegal is inconsistent, impractical, and downright stupid.

It’s inconsistent because of the number of legal substances that are more dangerous. Alcohol is always the most obvious example. Alcohol can kill people slowly and surely or devastatingly quickly. It tears at society’s fabric, can ruin families, leads to violence and car accidents and destroyed internal organs.

Yesterday’s Australian reported that thousands of children are suffering from foetal alcohol spectrum disorder; brain damage from their mothers’ drinking habits. Emergency rooms overflow on weekends and holidays as people hurt themselves and others.

Then there’s cigarettes, abuse of legal narcotics; a thousand ways people can make themselves ill.

But inconsistency is not the biggest problem with outlawing Kronic – putting drug offenders in jail is far more dangerous.

The number of young people incarcerated for illicit drug use is increasing; the latest statistics from South Australia show the number of juveniles locked up has more than doubled. And that means more people entering the revolving door of the justice system, graduating from low-level drug use to more serious crimes.

Jail does not help these people in most cases. In most cases it is the worst possible outcome.

The Global Commission on Drug Policy says the war on drugs has failed. The group, comprising 19 prominent commissioners, says the war has empowered organised crime gangs, and failed to help individuals or societies. Where one source of drugs is closed down, others pop up to immediately replace them.

In their major, recent report, they called on governments to “end the criminalisation, marginalisation and stigmatisation of people who use drugs but who do no harm to others”.

Our headstrong governments, high on their own tough-on-law-and-order resolve, are firmly striding in the other direction.

244 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Erick says:

      06:06am | 21/06/11

      Well said, Tory. Drug prohibition is one of the greatest social evils in the developed world. It directly harms those who it claims to be helping - young people - by putting them in jail. And it creates crime rather than preventing it.

      Furthermore, drug prohibition violates the fundamental right of people to have control over their own bodies, by dictating what they can or cannot ingest. It’s a terrible policy with no rational justification.

    • L. says:

      07:03am | 21/06/11

      “It’s a terrible policy with no rational justification”

      Ok, so your alternative to the current legal framework is?

    • Sven says:

      07:42am | 21/06/11

      L

      Don’t ask logical questions, Erick runs from intelligent debate or where you point his ONE link is able to be challenged empirically.

    • Sarah M says:

      07:50am | 21/06/11

      I believe Erick was suggesting that we legalise the drugs.
      It would then be regulated in the same way tobacco and alcohol are (not with Erick’s support undoubtedly).
      Hopefully regulated more like tobacco than alcohol, but still.
      It would also take black money and bring it in to our economy.
      Currently we pay for the medical, judicial and social issues associated will illegal drugs with our taxes, that could be recouped if drugs were legalised.

    • Sarah M says:

      07:52am | 21/06/11

      I believe Erick was suggesting that we legalise the drugs.
      It would then be regulated in the same way tobacco and alcohol are (not with Erick’s support undoubtedly).
      Hopefully regulated more like tobacco than alcohol, but still.
      It would also take black money and bring it in to our economy.
      Currently we pay for the medical, judicial and social issues associated will illegal drugs with our taxes, that could be recouped if drugs were legalised.

    • Kevin says:

      07:54am | 21/06/11

      Agree.  If the paternalism behind drug prohibition were applied consistently, it would be illegal to over eat, spend too much time playing computer games, sunbathe. etc..

    • Tim says:

      08:29am | 21/06/11

      Not too bright, L?

      End prohibition.

    • JoeJiudice says:

      08:57am | 21/06/11

      I think Erick was saying that women are the cause of all drug usage, and as such, women should be banned.

    • John A Neve says:

      08:59am | 21/06/11

      L,

      You ask what the “alternative” is?
      I’d suggest legalising drugs, thereby controlling the quality, price and outlets. Prohibition has never stopped any thing.

    • AJ Power says:

      09:00am | 21/06/11

      I think Tory already gave you the alternative. 
      Sorry to steal your worlds Tory, “... put it in plain packaging, restrict its sale to adults, stop advertising. Make people aware of the health threats. Don’t threaten to put people in jail”

      Pretty simple hey.

    • Eleanor says:

      09:10am | 21/06/11

      Credit where credit is due, Erick. You and I have crossed swords in the past, but today I am in total agreeance with you. Why am I allowed to go out and get so drunk I vomit and pass out each weekend, but if I smoke one joint, I’m suddenly a criminal? It doesn’t make sense to me at all.

    • CJ Morgan says:

      09:16am | 21/06/11

      I do believe I agree with everything Erick and Tory wrote here.

      O frabjous day!

    • Thomas Anderson says:

      10:11am | 21/06/11

      I don’t know about plain packaged heroin or cocaine, but I do believe marijuana should be decriminalised, at least. It clearly poses a much smaller health threat than alcohol, especially if it is consumed in food or inhaled using a vaporizer instead of smoking it.

      At least, if one smokes cannabis, one wakes up the next morning, and one’s alright to go to work, play sport, or do whatever else that one wants. These things would be impossible with an alcohol hangover. If one drives after one smokes, one usually goes a bit below the speed limit, one doesn’t overtake much and doesn’t make any dangerous manoeuvres. Good luck staying with the speed limit if you’ve had a few too many drinks. One can smoke at home, and the worst it will lead to is some greasy pizza, not a broken nose and a police cell.

    • Jay-ded says:

      10:22am | 21/06/11

      Couldn’t have put it better myself Erick.

    • Bob Stewart says:

      10:24am | 21/06/11

      @i Think for a moment what a profound difference, indeed a modicum of change for the better if my 10 year crusade to not ban the booze, tobacco or un prescribed drugs for reasons so clear that a blind man can see it but not thick headed politicians who merely resort to a big hammer.

      The mind boggles at the tens of millions spent on slogans, photos of unkissable young women and slimy black sludge exudate from a smokers lungs as the deterrent. instead of reducing the money supply for the user, then ultimately the dealer.

      The answer is to remove all the consequences of overuse of booze, drugs and tobacco from the Social and Free Health system. If legislation can be enacted so quickly for revenue, it is just as easy to recover revenue in a more effective deterrent by shifting the cost to the universal principle of User Pays. Indeed,@Eric “a terrible policy” that violates a personal freedom

      But why not the User Pay? The principle of User Pays is applied to everything else that Governments do for the community.. In SA alone over 20,000 calls to Drug Help :Line in one tear, 1 in 5 road deaths are drug related,1 in 3 related to booze. and the Court took 5 years to sentence a drug dealer out on bail who was caught in a “sting” that risked the life of a policewoman.

      The SA Parliament Report recognized that Families SA,, formed to protect families from the consequences of booze, drugs and smoking weed, had merely become a family pet power platform of the Minister Jennifer Rankine.

      I will never forget the death of that little 9 year old boy from neglect of drug addict parents while under the watch of FamiliesSA. R.I.P littler man, I will fight for you at every chance.

      Yet Mike Rann the Premier appointed a Catholic Priest as the Social Inclusion Commissioner who came under Hell Fire a day ago for spending over $100,000 of public money on trips to examine poverty and neglect overseas over the past 4 years.

      From my recollections of the not too distant past,the greatest need was to restore the moral integrity of the Church and a social evil it constantly hides to devote attention to the scourge of celibacy in the Priesthood right here at home.

      If you are reading this, I hope you are disturbed.

    • RyaN says:

      10:50am | 21/06/11

      @Erick: I agree on legalise, regulate and educate. At least it will free up our police to concentrate on actual crime and put the current crims and terrorists that make millions from drugs out of business.

    • Dave Sag says:

      10:53am | 21/06/11

      HFS I agree with Erick again! pinches self.

      But Eleanor please, there is no such word as ‘agreeance.’  You are not “in agreeance’ with something, you ‘agree’ with it.

    • Kassandra says:

      10:58am | 21/06/11

      Of course silly, legalising psychoactive drugs is obviously the answer, I mean look at the success story we have with the drugs we have already legalised - nicotine and alcohol for example. Oh, and I almost forgot the other great success story we have in legalising something that was addictive and illegal - gambling! Wow, legalising stuff sure does get rid of all the problems these things cause hey? Wonder why they were banned in the first place? Stupid idea.

    • Wayne Kerr says:

      11:06am | 21/06/11

      “But Eleanor please, there is no such word as ‘agreeance.’  You are not “in agreeance’ with something, you ‘agree’ with it”

      You can also be in “agreement” with something which is actually the correct term.

    • Erick says:

      01:45pm | 21/06/11

      @L - I would favour a legalisation model loosely based on what we have now for alcohol, with some variations for different drugs. But pretty much anything would be better than prohibition.

      @Bob Stewart - I read your comment, but I find it difficult to formulate a reply since I can’t understand it. I’m sure you have a sincere point to make, but your phrasing is very confusing.

      @Kassandra - Gay sex and sex outside marriage were illegal once. So were witchcraft, heresy, women’s votes, and many other things. The fact that something was banned in the past does not mean it was banned for a good reason.

    • Markus says:

      01:47pm | 21/06/11

      “I mean look at the success story we have with the drugs we have already legalised - nicotine and alcohol for example.”
      The same nicotine that provides $6billion in tax revenue for this country each year? And people would continue to smoke regardless of whether it was legal or not?

      “Wonder why they were banned in the first place?”
      How about looking it up for yourself. In the US, many of the original laws prohibiting marijuana came down to racial prejudice against Mexicans and Blacks.
      Then there was Randolph Hearst, who ran a prohibition campaign against marijuana, under the guise of ‘think of the children!’, because hemp plantations were running direct competition against his timber industry.

    • Eleanor says:

      02:20pm | 21/06/11

      Apologies, all. I went full derp with words n stuff before. This is what happens when I go on The Punch before I have a coffee in the morning.

    • Benzine says:

      02:24pm | 21/06/11

      I occasionally read articles on this site, and almost every time I see the same names pop up as the first or close to the first reply. Do the same people just hang out and wait for an article to pop up so they can start a discussion? How do you guys afford to do this?

    • Thomas Anderson says:

      02:39pm | 21/06/11

      “Then there was Randolph Hearst, who ran a prohibition campaign against marijuana, under the guise of ‘think of the children!’, because hemp plantations were running direct competition against his timber industry.”

      This is why it is illegal today.

      I recommend a great old “educational” film called Reefer Madness. It’s a great laugh when you’re high with friends.

    • Erick says:

      03:22pm | 21/06/11

      @Benzine - It’s called “waking up early in order to go to work”.

    • Rocksteady says:

      04:15pm | 21/06/11

      Kassandra - All drugs were decriminalized in Portugal around 2001, as they just couldn’t afford to keep putting people through the expensive justice system for a simple possession charge and joining the EU required them to do something about the massive rate of HIV infection from illegal drug use.
      Instead of being thrown in prison people are given treatment and therapy, its considered a health problem not a legal problem. HIV infections dropped of 70%, many more people getting treatment for addiction, the social stigma of being an drug addict is long gone, billions of $$$ saved.

      http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.html

      Imagine throwing alcoholics in jail, would that fix the alcohol related problems we see today? What do you think would happen if we make alcohol illegal? Will everyone just stop drinking because its “bad”? Of course not, we’ll spend billions on prosecution and law enforcement, people will make dodgy booze in their garden shed, alco’s will be scared to get help for their problem.  It’ll all just go underground.

      Prohibition was tried once and it was a complete failure, people still drank, gangsters got rich, rival gangs shot each other up on a daily basis. I find it very hard to see how you make the distinction between alcohol and other drugs.
      Prohibition only benefits gangsters and a lot of decent hard working taxpayers are made criminals for wanting a drink on the weekend.
      The only people arguing for prohibition are the bikies, the moral religious police and the naive.

    • Replete with Elite says:

      04:26pm | 21/06/11

      Wow, the number of people agreeing with Erick must alarm and upset him.

      Given that he sees himself as a “lone dissenting voice” who is spreading an “important message”, all this validation must have deleterious effects on his mental health.

      Or perhaps, in order to gain some acceptance and love from the group, he’s stopped trying to “strike a nerve” with “one or two sentences” and also given up on his mission to “expose the cognitive dissonance behind so much of ‘progressive’ thought.” (http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/erick-i-am-just-one-voice/)

      This couldn’t be possible though as it would make Erick a hypocrite. It would also give the impression the only “progressive” thought he opposes is that to do with women and feminism.

      Which he surely couldn’t be because, as we know, opposing drug prohibition smashes the illusions of those nasty progressives.

      Keeping riding that horse, Lone Ranger.

    • Replete with Elite says:

      04:52pm | 21/06/11

      I fear I have done Erick a disservice.

      When I wrote “It would also give the impression the only “progressive” thought he opposes is that to do with women and feminism”, I was wrong.

      The other “progressive” thought he opposes is that to do with asylum seekers.

      Another oddly popular opinion to hold for one who prides himself on being a lone dissenting voice.

    • Fiona says:

      05:32pm | 21/06/11

      Agreed, both with erick and Sarah m. They’ve said it quite well enough for me.

    • Fiona says:

      05:36pm | 21/06/11

      Thomas Anderson, unfortunately marijuana can induce psychosis which may or may not lead to schizophrenia. I’ve seen it. This gives fuel to those that oppose it.

    • Bob says:

      07:59pm | 21/06/11

      Dave, stop casting dispersions on Eleanor’s spelling.

    • Matthew says:

      08:22pm | 21/06/11

      RyaN, I’d like to point out that (at this time at least) that using illegal drugs is “an actual crime”.  The same way murder, theft, assualt, rape, fraud etc are.

      Fraud’s not that bad either, maybe we should let them off so that we can “catch the real criminals”.

    • Graham B says:

      09:02pm | 21/06/11

      Don’t bogart that joint my friend,pass it on over to me.

    • RyaN says:

      01:42am | 22/06/11

      @Matthew: I never said it wasn’t however, murder, theft, assualt, rape, fraud etc all are crimes where you affect someone else life rather than being in a bad dream of 1984 where you are dictated to about what you can and cannot do with your body. MASSIVE difference.

    • Septimus says:

      08:50am | 22/06/11

      @Ryan

      Drug offenders commit crimes to order to fund their drug habits.

      That’s affecting someone else’s life.

    • Mark Gibbins says:

      09:10am | 22/06/11

      It’s all a bit like illegal gambling on cricket in India, which really just causes more problems than it solves. Legalising, decriminalising or in any way lessening the legal and criminal implications of drug use is no cure for the problem it’s just a better set of problems than keeping it illegal.

    • RyaN says:

      10:13am | 22/06/11

      @Septimus: yes but so do alcoholics and gamblers. What do we do with them, just lock them up and throw away the key?
      What is so crystal clear is the current approach is not working, has never worked and never will, time to try something else, if that doesn’t work try the next thing.

    • Kassandra says:

      01:09pm | 22/06/11

      @ erick:

      There is a branch of medicine these days that deals with disorders involving addiction. It covers psychoactive drugs including alcohol and gambling. None of the other things you mention are relevant to this topic. If you had read what I wrote before jumping to conclusions you would have realised this. Please engage brain before putting mouth into gear.

    • Kassandra says:

      02:06pm | 22/06/11

      @ markus, rocksteady and whoever else

      I know I’m not going to convince anyone but I’m gonna say some stuff anyway. God knows I try hard enough every day to try to help people to stop damaging themselves even more than they have already with this crap.

      First “the war on drugs” - isn’t a war on drugs it’s a war on drug trafficking, primarily international drug trafficking. You think the criminals can market their product on the black market. Pfft. If Big Pharma ever gets in on the action then you’ll see what effective marketing can do.

      Second the “harm” caused by these drugs being illegal. Pfft again. I invite all you guys to sit down with me and go through the health statistics for smoking and alcohol related morbidity and mortality. That’s for the drugs that are legal. Then you can spend the next Friday and Saturday nights with me in the emergency department at the hospital and see just a small sample of what alcohol abuse does to people. Next you can come down to the psychiatric unit and I’ll show you what cannabis and amphetamine abuse can do to young people. There are a lot of them btw. After that you can spend time with the community services trying to mop up the damage done to families and children by alcohol and drug abuse and gambling. Then you can tell me you still want to remove drug prohibition, or that you still believe you can “regulate” the harm done by the legal drugs of nicotine and alcohol. I’ll spare you the tour of the medical and surgical wards where the effects of smoking are obvious.

    • Brett says:

      03:12pm | 22/06/11

      What you all fail to realise is that it has the same effect as pot but doesn’t show up on drug screens, thus that guy driving the forklift near your son or husband is high as a kite yet just passed his urine test. THIS is the scary part. Legalising it only makes it worse. They effectively want it to be illegal to import then people will just go back to growing pot which can be tested for.

      This is a workplace safety issue, not a public health issue. If you want it to be legal, ask yourself, would you be happy if your son or husband or father (or female equivalent) was working in a team where the whole team was high and was getting away with it? Now imagine they have heavy plant, tools and forklifts to drive, often with limited visibility in tight spaces. Do you feel comfortable with that? Who are you going to blame when your love one doesn’t come home?

      This one was a very real threat.

    • Soames says:

      03:45pm | 22/06/11

      Only 7 minutes this time Erick

    • Austin 3:16 says:

      04:56pm | 22/06/11

      Yeah no crime or black-markets associated with legal drugs like alcohol or tobacco

    • cory says:

      12:18pm | 30/08/11

      anyone who sell cronic deserverse to be in jail,ive smoked for15 years(weed )and yesterday i nearly died smoking one cone of cronic ultra
      its poison and it will kill kids,its nothing like weed
      i will NEVER touch it agian

    • komet says:

      06:16am | 21/06/11

      Education, research, regulation and harm minimisation.

      The war is over, it has always been over: Drugs won. But we are bound by more UN conventions which would stop us from tackling the issue with any great meaning anyway. The UN is no doubt lobbied by the industrial prison complex in the US who are lining their pockets, traffickers and organised crime causing untold damage across the world.

      If the definition of insanity is continuing to make the same mistakes yet expecting different outcomes, then we are insane when it comes to drug policy.

      But we will still have nutters out there screaming to the heavens that is an epidemic and we “must get tough on drugs”. Prohibition and the War on Drugs has failed…epic failure. Anyone who thinks we should continue with current policy is clinically insane and deluded.

    • Septimus says:

      08:16am | 21/06/11

      Tin Foilers are out early today I see.

    • Ronique says:

      09:09am | 21/06/11

      @Septimus

      Condescending and tired memes instead of addressing the question? Very impressive!

      I think komet has a point. Prohibition is big business, goes way beyond ideological and public health issues.

    • HappyCynic says:

      09:30am | 21/06/11

      The “industrial prison complex”???

      WTF!  Is that a subset of the miltary industrial complex, run by the Iluminati who are made up of daywalking, reverse vampires and lizardmen?  Or am I getting my conspiracy theories mixed up?  I don’t disagree with your first line but that’s about the only rational thing you’ve said.

      Either way pass me some of what you’re smoking, that must be some bloody good sh*t smile

    • Septimus says:

      09:53am | 21/06/11

      @Ronique

      You’re right!  Tell us more about ‘The UN is no doubt lobbied by the industrial prison complex in the US who are lining their pockets, traffickers and organised crime causing untold damage across the world.’

      I would be interested to hear more from you on the issue Ronique.

    • InformedCynic says:

      09:57am | 21/06/11

      For people whose google is apparently broken and whose worldly awareness is close to that of a gnat :

      Prison Industrial Complex : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prison–industrial_complex

      It talks about the burgeoning growth of the privatised prison industry in the US (where 1% of its population is incarcerated) and its aggressive lobbying to ensure that certain misdemeanours become felony charges to increase ‘customers’ which they then charge the federal government per head for.

      But, you know, continue to vilify pot-smokers, because you obviously know more than us.

    • fml says:

      10:08am | 21/06/11

      What has this got to do with the UN?

    • komet says:

      12:14pm | 21/06/11

      @Septimus. You are a troll from what I can see. Not taking the bait.

      @HappyCynic. InformedCynic provided you with a good definition of the ‘industrial prison complex’. Basically, putting people in prison and lobbying for harsher terms is good business for the corporations that run US prisons.

      @fml Australia is a signatory to the ‘United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances’ which underlines our legal framework. We go against the UN at our own peril.

      Sorry for another “tin foil” rant. I will go back in my corner now *rolls eyes*.

    • Fiddler says:

      02:05pm | 21/06/11

      Trotting out the old “war on drugs has failed” chestnut. I have news for you, it was never fought. People do not go to gaol for possessing drugs in Australia. Less than 1% of persons charged with possession go to gaol, most end up with a small fine or no action. If you read Saturdays paper you would see in NSW only 29% of convicted suppliers end up there.
      I do agree there needs to be an intelligent consideration to possibly legalising some drugs on a case by case basis (I would argue ecstasy has a better case than cannabis) but don’t wheel out this war has been lost crap. Drugs cause a massive drain on society, legalising it would make it far worse. As for saying it hasn’t worked, murder, rape and theft are illegal, but they still happen every day don’t they?

    • Septimus says:

      02:19pm | 21/06/11

      Yes and obviously the prison system has far more power and control than we thought as it ‘lobby’s’ the UN of all places to ‘line their pockets’.

      I question what else this evil empire is doing?  How else is it affecting our daily lives?

      Why didn’t we all see this before?

    • Mahhrat says:

      06:17am | 21/06/11

      Proof positive that tobacco would never be legalised were it discovered today.

      Like all things we consume - drug, alcohol, food, electronics - a little bit is good, too much is bad.

      Why don’t we simply help people learn what is good and bad, and then help those too sick to help themselves???

    • fml says:

      10:10am | 21/06/11

      No proof at all, Tobacco doesnt have the same properties as marijuana.

    • Days says:

      01:19pm | 21/06/11

      @fml.  You’re right!  It’s far more addictive and harmful.

    • Stoner says:

      02:19pm | 21/06/11

      @Days: Actually marijuana has a higer level of tar than tobacco, still going to give you cancer….. I can vouch for that

    • fml says:

      02:24pm | 21/06/11

      Days,

      Try smoking a pack of kronic every day for twenty years.

    • Smokin' says:

      02:44pm | 21/06/11

      Days @ 1.19pm
      Any person struggling with a reliance on cannabis is fighting their addiction to the tobacco they have to mix with it when smoking.

      This is a another issue, due to the high price of pot many people mix it with tobacco and end up addicted.

      Cannabis itself is not addictive whereas nicotine is supposed to be worse than heroin to give up.

      Please spend a few minutes on research before you make silly statements.

    • What the? says:

      03:52pm | 21/06/11

      Cannabis isn’t addictive? What a load of BS. I recently divorced my partner because of an addiction to the stuff. He was only nice when he was stoned, the rest of the time he was a nasty turd (no it wasn’t a personality thing, I knew him before he took up the dope and he was the nicest person you could wish to meet). I know other people who ended up exactly the same way as him. In my experience, I couldn’t have seen what I have and still believe the “it’s not addictive” crap.

    • Lisa H. says:

      06:38pm | 21/06/11

      Yeah, I have to say that the evidence around me would show that mj is at least as addictive as alcohol. Turns fantastic men into vacant losers too, fairly efficiently, if they are heavy users over a period of a few years.

    • baal says:

      06:24am | 21/06/11

      This what happens when we elect ‘respectable’ people rather than decent people. We only elect a narrow range of people into office for the most part and due to the nature of media we no longer vote in brilliant people who may have other ‘issues’. Some of our best leaders throughout history have been drunks, cripples and sex addicts. However now we only vote in middle of the road boring people and wonder why we have such a stagnant leadership. Sheep are electing other sheep lead by corporate and criminal shepherds. What we need are better shepherds.

    • John S says:

      11:05am | 21/06/11

      “However now we only vote in middle of the road boring people and wonder why we have such a stagnant leadership. Sheep are electing other sheep lead by corporate and criminal shepherds. What we need are better shepherds.”

      Very well said.  Our media insist politicians need to be angels.  But angels are not often the best to deal with society’s devils.  From experiences comes experience, strength of character and all those other attributes we seek in our politicians – and then we vilify them for how its gained!

    • Rossco says:

      06:46am | 21/06/11

      I still never get the hoopla about Marijuana…just legalise it and have law enforcement concentrate on the hard drugs. We can collect the taxes in the mean time.

    • fml says:

      10:12am | 21/06/11

      Exactly, just like in the netherlands.

      But then you will have the religious types saying its the down fall of humanity.

    • Chris says:

      10:51am | 21/06/11

      Too right. You don’t see potheads out in the street beating each other up like drunks do on a Saturday night. As long as it is not impacting on others (driving, working etc while under the influence should still be strictly prohibited like it is with alcohol) then what does it matter?

      Governments in this country are so broke at the moment, yet could be saving law enforcements dollars and collecting tax revenue from marijuana. Instead they ban some other stuff that will only increase demand for marijuana (particularly now that it carries a lesser penalty) putting more money into the hands of organised crime.

    • Thomas Anderson says:

      11:33am | 21/06/11

      You can do some work a lot better if you’re high, particularly work that requires creativity. Computer programming is especially good when high because you get so many ideas how to achieve what you want.

      Probably wouldn’t want to do accounting high though.

    • d says:

      07:15am | 21/06/11

      Leagalise it if you want as long as you allow employers to fire people for using. do you really want to go to work and see stoned people driving cars next to you or what about the police?

      If you are for leagelising surely you couldnt be against a cop having a hit before he walks the streets with a gun straped to his leg?

      How about that fireman who is comming to put your house out, do you mind if he just kicks back and watches, maby light another one off the burning building?

    • marley says:

      07:28am | 21/06/11

      If you legalize pot and place the same restrictions on it as on alcohol, do you really think there’ll be that much of a problem? People are no more likely to show up for work stoned than drunk - some will abuse it, as some abuse alcohol now, but most will simply enjoy a few tokes on a weekend.  (Not so sure about other drugs, though - don’t think I’d want to legalize crystal meth, for example).

    • Boob Marley says:

      07:39am | 21/06/11

      HURRRR DURRR.

      It’s exactly this kind of myopic idiocy that holds back legalisation. It conveniently ignores the fact that we ALREADY have a framework for managing altered states of being.

      We don’t allow people to drive after consuming a certain amount of alcohol, the same would apply for marijuana. We already don’t allow people to work under the influence of alcohol, the same would apply for marijuana. We don’t allow police or firefighters to consume alcohol while they are on the job, the same would apply for alcohol.

      Are you seeing a pattern here, you disingenuous tool? We can apply the same type of framework that we already have in place for alcohol to marjiuana.

      Did you know that one of the major opponents of legalisation is the alcohol industry? Because it’s a direct competitor and would see a drastic cut in their profits and marketshare.

      Get your head out of your arse and try reading up on marijuana before mindlessly scaremongering with ill thought out talking points that you don’t seem to understand.

    • komet says:

      07:40am | 21/06/11

      Using on the job - of course.

      Using in the privacy of their own home is a person’s own business. Testing employees and firing them for ‘drug’ use but not firing them for alcohol use is hypocrisy in the extreme.

      Alcohol does far more damage than marijuana or any of it’s analogs/synthetics. I would rather work with a stoner than an alcoholic any day.

    • Sarah M says:

      07:45am | 21/06/11

      So, are you allowed to go to work drunk? Are you allowed to drive a car drunk…
      The point is there are better ways to manage the situation than criminalising drugs, this is something which has been repeatedly reported on.

    • Les says:

      07:54am | 21/06/11

      Typical “They’ll all get stoned once it’s legal” rubbish. Being high should be placed alongside being pissed as unlawful when driving a vehicle on the roads, at work, etc etc. Where did it say in the article that decriminalisation meant legal use outside the home or in an environment where sobriety was required? Can you honestly say that all that you work with are sober right now, regardless of the law?

    • Your name:Roger D says:

      07:54am | 21/06/11

      “D” I don’t that would happen any more than folk being drunk at work, pot has a distintive smell so if someone is a user at work it would be difficult to hide and the drug testing at work would not stop, and the drug testing operating vehicle or machines would not stop so your argument is invalid and if legalised to industry would be known where as at present there is no idea of the extent of usage,

    • kelsey says:

      08:12am | 21/06/11

      Are you serious right now? Do you see cops getting drunk before work just because alcohol is there? Do you see chauffeurs smelling like breweries because alcohol is legal? The majority of society are NOT retarded contrary to your beliefs, and know when to toe the line in terms of drugs in the workplace. How will having marijuana legalised make that any different?

    • CH says:

      08:14am | 21/06/11

      Properly regulated, this would not be an issue. Would you expect to keep your job if you rocked up to work drunk? What about a fireman who is out of his mind on valium?

    • g says:

      08:17am | 21/06/11

      wtf… i hope your just playing around with this bs cos im sure professionals who serve the public are not this dumb… i could be wrong though. And trust me, everyday there are people driving next to you stoned off their tits and you don’t know about it.

    • Huey, says:

      08:18am | 21/06/11

      @ d Mate! thanks for that. Great post.

    • Septimus says:

      08:21am | 21/06/11

      Oh no!

      There would be outrage and demands for job loss.  Don’t you know emergency services workers are a vilified minority in this country?

    • Al says:

      08:24am | 21/06/11

      Your arguments against legalisation are realy pathetic.
      Just because something ilegalised does not mean it is free reign to use it as you will.

      As an example take alcohol, we have laws regarding what people can and can’t do legaly while under the influence of alcohol (including driving, carrying a licenced firearm, being on duty as a fireman etc) which can just as easily be adjusted to marijuana.
      “do you really want to go to work and see stoned people driving cars next to you?” - No, but I don’t see drunk people driving cars next to me either.
      “surely you couldnt be against a cop having a hit before he walks the streets with a gun?” - Sure I can, the same as I am against a cop drinking a tripple scotch and then walking around with their gun.
      “How about that fireman….?” - So you mean the fireman who will be fired for neglecting their duties AT LEAST. Ever heard of criminal negligence. And how about arson.
      Your arguments are that the only reason people don’t engage in dangerous and life threatening behaviour while under the influence of drugs is because the drugs are illegal.
      Please try to understand the difference between a legalised substance and a substance that you have unrestricted access too that removes legal liabilities for your own actions.

    • ando says:

      08:25am | 21/06/11

      D,
      Are people allowed to do the things you say with alcohol?

    • Smokin' says:

      08:28am | 21/06/11

      d @ 7.15 The same could apply with alcohol.


      Pretty dumb argument when we have people caught drink driving every day and yes employers can sack people for showing up at work drunk!

      Police are not allowed to work under the influence of any substance that may affect their ability so I doubt we would see Police or Fireman showing up for work stoned!

      Puerile argument.

    • Matt says:

      08:31am | 21/06/11

      hehe that was funny, thanks for a morning giggle..

    • rb says:

      08:32am | 21/06/11

      It should be the same as alcohol. If you can’t drink on the job you shouldn’t smoke weed on the job either.

    • Sheedy's Left Foot says:

      08:34am | 21/06/11

      What a ridiculous argument.

      It can be legal and have strict rules governing use in the workplace or other high risk areas. Clearly any legislation would state that people can not be under the influence of the drugs and undertake tasks that could harm others due to their condition.

      That is kind of how it already works with alcohol.

    • mike j says:

      08:54am | 21/06/11

      Bullseye, d.

      Legalising pot will only add to the massive public safety issue we already have with all those drunk police officers and firefighters.

    • Phil says:

      09:34am | 21/06/11

      @Bob Marley
      “Are you seeing a pattern here, you disingenuous tool? We can apply the same type of framework that we already have in place for alcohol to marijuana.”

      Yes because clearly that is working so well we’ve never had a problem with deaths on our roads because of drunk drivers have we?

    • James1 says:

      09:46am | 21/06/11

      d makes a good point.  Because alcohol is currently legal, I am drunk all the time, and so is everyone else most likely - especially police and firemen.  Legalising marijuana would undoubtedly result in the complete collapse of society immediately due to the entire population being stoned all the time.

    • bella starkey says:

      10:02am | 21/06/11

      People are far more willing to drive stoned than drunk. This could be because there is less random roadside tests for drugs than booze or because it has less of an effect on driving ability than alcohol (I can’t speak from experience, I don’t know how to drive). decriminalisation/legalisation probably would go some way towards stigmatising stoned drivers as drunk drivers are. That can’t really be a bad thing can it?

    • Bob Stewart says:

      10:40am | 21/06/11

      I see no problem. Go for it.  Be free to be free. Just pay for all the consequences, Social and medical…....ALL of them.

    • Trent says:

      11:01am | 21/06/11

      I don’t think you would see stoned people driving any more than drunk people driving. Why do people think this? What’s to stop the fireman pouring himself a glass of Port and kicking back. That’s quite legal, but he doesn’t.

    • Legalise it Already says:

      07:26am | 21/06/11

      I’m sure that the manufacturers of Kronic are happy with the brand recognition media reports are giving it, especially as there are a number of competing brands on the market.

      Anyone actually tried it? For what it’s worth, it’s ~almost~ as good as natural marijuana, but it smells and tastes like smoking 10 Winnie blues.

      Would much rather be able to buy the natural product, rather than something cooked up in a lab by Pfizer, Unilever, GlaxoSmithKline and others in the big pharma corner. But that won’t happen as there is too much money to be made from synthesizing an illegal product that people could grow themselves for free, and we couldn’t have all that money not going to enormous corporations now, could we?

    • Smokin' says:

      10:03am | 21/06/11

      Keep Big Pharma out of the cannabis trade PLEASE!!

    • Good lookin says:

      07:26am | 21/06/11

      You first sentence would seem to relate to Labor policy making

    • Kebabpete says:

      08:08am | 21/06/11

      Even though most people would agree that it should be legalized, I think we can also all agree that we know it wont. Governments are more interested in doing just enough to stay in office and to line their own pockets rather than making any real change. And it doesn’t matter which party it is in power, they are all as conservative as each other for fear of being voted out.

    • Jay-ded says:

      12:26pm | 21/06/11

      Then we should be using a capitalist system - where:

      1.  We “juice” all the goodness out of the marijuana.
      2.  Package it in off green cardboard
      3.  Then tax the crap out of it.
      4.  Then sell it for a huge amount

      I think I’d rather decriminalise it rather than legalise it.

    • Lucius says:

      08:22am | 21/06/11

      I always laugh when people think dope smokers are lazy, unemployed losers. I have been smoking for over 20 years and I work, have a nice home and am active and social. If anything dope has improved my life dramatically. I used to be a shy guy with major anxiety and depression. I tried anti-depressants but they made things much worse, so then I tried dope and I found it relaxes me to the point where it takes away my anxiety and my depression no longer exists. I don’t smoke weed during weekdays when I work, and I dont drive so there are no problems with my brain dozing fof and crashing into people. I think alcohol is a much major problem than smoking dope. Drink drivers and over-consumption of alcohol are the things killing people, not pot smokers.

    • Septimus says:

      08:58am | 21/06/11

      I love it when the potheads rattle the pitchfork and light the torch.  It’s good to see The Punch keep them active and try and slow the decline in brain cells and other health damage.  Every second dragged away from the bong top helps!

    • Smokin' says:

      09:34am | 21/06/11

      Lucius keep laughing because you are spot on.

      I too suffer anxiety which leads to depression if it gets out of hand, I am over 55 years of age and tried half a dozen different anti depressants over decades with no relief.

      Cannabis calms me down and helps me when I am anxious, being stoned gives my brain time to slow down, think things through and stop the panic which often accompanies the anxiety.

      I would recommend you purchase a vaporizer as it will counter the negative affect of smoking at high temperatures.

      Alcohol is a nasty drug and while this substance is still legal the hypocrisy of banning cannabis undermines most of the “moral” arguments thrown around by mainly drinkers who still fear “the evil weed”, ha ha!

    • mike j says:

      09:37am | 21/06/11

      Septimus: so what’s your excuse?

    • BL says:

      09:42am | 21/06/11

      @Septimus
      Troll Fail. (you should be used to it by now).

    • Ben says:

      02:06pm | 22/06/11

      Yea, the stereotype of a regular is very unappealing. Just like other stereotypes they are untrue.

      I have friends who are lawyers, doctors, nurses, engineers…who consume cannabis. I’m a law graduate and I use cannabis for my chronic back pain and anxiety episodes from an accident. I don’t smoke it, I vaporize. I can take pain killers but it is damaging to my kidneys, liver and stomach.

    • Matt says:

      08:25am | 21/06/11

      The ‘war’ on drugs will never be won.  It’s main use is revenue raising, fining and confiscating property and cash, that’s all it will ever be.  Kronic itself is a joke, a clever joke but is not like marijuanha, which can be used for medical and relaxation purposes as well as the other benefits eg. hemp.  Kronic is for kids - rich kids at that ($30/g) or mine workers apparantely..

    • Septimus says:

      08:55am | 21/06/11

      These sort of blogs should have each contributor declare whether they are a junkie.

    • Christina Pyne says:

      09:31am | 21/06/11

      As opposed to having each contributor declare if they’re a pathetic troll, desperate for attention?

      Drugs are fun, people like them. Get over it.

    • Septimus says:

      09:55am | 21/06/11

      Take another hit Christina, you will make more sense.

    • Smokin' says:

      10:05am | 21/06/11

      Or an alcoholic?

    • Matt says:

      10:28am | 21/06/11

      Why?  What could that possibly achieve except to provide you with some crappy one-liners to put people down with? eg. ‘Take another hit Christina, you will make more sense.’  What an odd request…

    • Davo says:

      10:51am | 21/06/11

      Don’t mind Septimus, Christina, he prefers meth. wink

    • Kevin says:

      12:23pm | 21/06/11

      The contributors should also declare whether or not they have a clue what they’re talking about.

    • Septimus says:

      02:23pm | 21/06/11

      Aww, all the stoners out hatin today.  So cute!  Brekky Bong I presume?

    • Kevin says:

      03:14pm | 21/06/11

      @Septimus
      “all the stoners out hatin today”
      Whereas you are out hating everyday.

    • Ian1 says:

      08:56am | 21/06/11

      HEMP farming could grow industry in the outback.  Make sure the plants have negligible THC content (benign), then go about turning plenty of welfare recipients into happy hemp farmers - and green the arid lands.  Oil, protein, fibres for rope, clothing, etc, the list of benefits goes on.  Strange to think such a versatile weed is outlawed when so much could be done with it.  There is a vast gap between legalizing HEMP farming, and legalizing POT.  I would happily back the first.

    • Fiona says:

      05:56pm | 21/06/11

      I believe that the dupont family pulled a few strings in the 1940s to get hemp outlawed because it directly competed against their synthetic fibres. Then reefer madness was made to help sell the idea of how evil marijuana was. It spread from there.

    • NSW says:

      09:27am | 21/06/11

      “It’s okay to drink your drug. We meant those other drugs. Those untaxed drugs. Those are the ones that are bad for you.”

    • Justin says:

      11:07am | 21/06/11

      Bill is my hero!

    • Annonymous says:

      09:31am | 21/06/11

      I am not trying to argue one way of another whether weed should or should not be legalised. However, being in a young age group (3 years out from leaving school) I am aware of the effects it is having on young people, particularly boys. Almost every single boy I knew from school turned to weed purely for social reasons. 3 years later, many of them are only just beginning to get their smoking under control - in fact most of them are against the legalisation of marijuana because they are fully aware first hand how easily it can be abused, particularly by young people.

      I don’t understand the argument that if we have legalised alcohol (which is “worse than weed”) why not legalise marijuana. Firstly, that argument impliedly accepts that weed is bad. Secondly, regulation of alcohol is not perfect - people DO drink and drive, people DO drink and cause domestic violence, drinking does cause death etc - why would weed not have the same effects, only now there would be another substance to fuel these adverse consequences.

      It is all well and good for older adults to say that they would be able to control their use, but perhaps consider that young people (even over the age of 18) might be adversely affected, even if there was tight regulation.

    • pat says:

      09:59am | 21/06/11

      But its illegal now and they did it anyway…..are you saying if it was more illegal they wouldn’t have?  The only drug I had any trouble getting in high school was alcohol, don’t ever recall being ‘carded’ buying pot.

    • Annonymous says:

      10:12am | 21/06/11

      No I’m saying perhaps if it was legalised it would become more of a problem because it would appear more socially acceptable

    • M says:

      10:15am | 21/06/11

      Annonymous above:
      However if we actually educated our students properly about the use of marijuana rather than just flat out saying it causes psychosis and bad stuff then a lot of the kids in high school wouldn’t be drawn to it as much as they are now while it’s illegal, but widely accepted (if not wrongly accepted) as socially acceptable and safe. I mean they hear about it being used in America for medicine. How are they supposed to believe their parents and teachers when they say it’s a nasty thing? When the rest of the world is questioning why it’s not legal?

      Now imagine if when you were growing up you saw your Mum and Dad laughing their heads off and making really embarrassing stupid jokes while they were smoking weed. That alone was enough to keep me away from alcohol for the first 15 years of my life. Imagine if you could sit down and talk to your parents about smoking weed, for real, not just the drugs are bad spiel. But actually talk to them about it.

      Imagine if the people that at the moment as you described, are starting young and getting into trouble. I’m not going to lie I started drinking early, I lived in the country and that’s just what you do on a weekend. You have a couple of beers and party with your friends. But my parents always knew about me drinking. They would buy me a beer every now and then. They could see the amounts I was drinking and how I acted the morning after I drank.

      Imagine if people that were smoking didn’t have to lie to their friends and family? Then they wouldn’t have to do it in secrecy and their friends an family would be in a better position to see what was happening and help them before it got to 3 years down the track.

      What we need is real education. For everybody.

      Btw, smoking and drinking in low social levels. Can be perfectly safe.
      I was DUX of my school got a 95 TER and am now studying engineering, and I still happily enjoy a drink or toke with my mates every now and then.

    • fml says:

      10:20am | 21/06/11

      They were probably bored, you ladies not giving them enough “attention”?

    • mike j says:

      10:25am | 21/06/11

      “why would weed not have the same effects”

      Why does BBQ sauce taste different to mayonnaise?

    • LC says:

      10:36am | 21/06/11

      Marijuana is illegal, and somehow they still managed to get a hold of it and smoke it until they saw purple elephants.

      Funny about that.

      Because marijuana is grown hydroponically nowadays, it’s several times stronger than it was when it was first banned. One of the big pluses of government legalization, aside from the tax revenue raised can go straight into helping people overcome these addictions, is that the strength of it can be controlled.

    • KayFabe says:

      11:00am | 21/06/11

      I agree cannabis can be particularly harmful for teens and young adults when misused, however, the experience of the Netherlands points to legalisation helping curb youth drug abuse. Rates of cannabis consumption there are at the lower end of the scale for Western countries, while their rate of drug-related deaths is among the lowest in the EU. (Source: http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/stats07/drdtab05a)

    • Owen says:

      12:01pm | 21/06/11

      This is an immensely sensible post from ‘Annonymous’.
      I too have seen how dope has negatively affected the lives of several of my friends, who started smoking heavily in their teens.
      The problem with all ‘legalise it’ arguments is that they always assume the best of people. You know, the old ‘I’ve been smoking for 20 years and I’m fine’ argument. Well, for every person like that there are others who are not fine. And then you get the ‘we’ll educate the kids about the consequences’ argument. This is pure idealism.  Education is not a panacea that can solve all social ills.  Just think about standing in front of a class of 15 year old boys and imagine the response to telling them that ‘marijuana can be bad for you if you use it too much’. You get laughed at and they have to learn the lesson for themselves the hard way.
      I really sit on the fence in terms of the drug legalisaiton issue. I’ve used in the past so I have some interest in legalisation. I understand the economic case in terms of additional tax revenue and I understand the case for regulating quality and destroying the black market/drug cartels.  But I’ve seen a large number of people waste or damage their lives through drug use and this significantly reduces my enthusiasm for legalisation - which will increase usage throughout the community (and any suggestion that it won’t is ludicrous).
      Also, ask yourself why the Dutch are now tightening their drug laws? They’ve seen the sleazy, ugly culture created by legalised drugs and they’ve become sick and tired of it.

    • Ando says:

      01:03pm | 21/06/11

      Owen,
      Of all the people I know who have tried pot the vast majority have either given up or smoke occasionally.This is not “assuming the best of people” it just doesn’t assume everyone will become an unmotivated addict. Of course some become addicted (many with other underlying issues) but should our freedom be violated for the minority . And besides this minority would smoke it (start smoking it ) whether it was legal or not.

    • KayFabe says:

      01:57pm | 21/06/11

      Owen, the Dutch are only tightening their drug laws insofar as restricting access to foreign visitors, to curtail drug tourism. Aside from that, there has been no notable shift away from the policy of harm minimization for their own citizens, which has been shown to be very effective.

    • Joe says:

      02:06pm | 21/06/11

      So if your friends had been arrested for smoking and sent to court where they got a criminal conviction, would they be better off?
      Legalisation is about recognising that you are not going to stop drug use, but you can limit it and you can remove some of the other dangers associated with it, such as having to deal with organised crime in order to access the drugs. It is about recognising that perhaps the cure (legal punishment) is worse than the disease (drug use). Legalisation is about controlling the use of drugs through methods other than punishing users.

      The way tobacco is being regulated in Australia at the moment is the model that should be used for drugs like cannabis. Legalise it, strictly regulate it’s sale, have severe punishments for those who supply minors, ban all forms of advertising, tax the crap out of it and use those tax dollars for funding health care and information campaigns.

      Personally, I would rather drugs were sold by a legitimate business in a designated commerical zone than by the dodgy neighbours across the road who have had a number of violent confrontations in our neighbourhood over unpaid drug debts, etc.

      Criminalisation has failed. Legalisation is not about saying ‘all drugs are great, use them at will.’ It is simply a recognition that the current model hasn’t worked and that a regulated industry is a better way forward.

    • Skuter says:

      09:56am | 21/06/11

      Does anybody else see the connection between the development of Kronic and the prohibition of marijuana in it’s natural, unprocessed state?  No marijuana prohibition, no Kronic.  If Kronic is banned, something else (most likely more harmful) will be developed to take its place.

    • Tchom says:

      09:58am | 21/06/11

      To me, marijuana is like zumba. I can see why people would want to do zumba, and I don’t have a problem with people doing zumba… but zumba really isn’t my thing and it seems like a waste of time

    • Sean says:

      10:00am | 21/06/11

      In your face you government fascist losers, I use myristicin! Let’s see you try and ban that! You can’t, because it’s nutmeg!

    • Sean says:

      02:23pm | 21/06/11

      Unfortunately, that’s entirely believable; our govt is exactly that dumb.

    • AItch says:

      10:18am | 21/06/11

      In the war on drugs, the people on drug are winning - and always will be.

    • Pork says:

      10:20am | 21/06/11

      Septimus,
      I’m sincerely hoping that one day you actually offer something that is not cynical, negative, patronising and rude.
      There are many, many stirrers who comment on this site but your brand of superior bile just makes me pity you because I’ve never seen you put forward your point of view/a positive point of view - you just put down others.  It speaks to me of someone who lacks the courage to stand for or believe in something.  I hope you find that courage.  Being a constant cynic is such a half life.  Good luck.

    • Septimus says:

      04:05pm | 21/06/11

      Maybe you should read the bicycle article Pork, where I encourage Mahrat who seems to be wanting to do something constructive with his life not laze around in a stoned haze demanding his crimes be made legal.

    • Pork says:

      09:36am | 22/06/11

      Not really what I’m talking about.  But any attempt at positivity is on the right path!

    • Ben says:

      01:53pm | 22/06/11

      He relies on a few of the logical fallacies to argue The joke’s already oh him.

    • Septimus says:

      03:32pm | 22/06/11

      You are too good at this Ben.  I bet Mum’s proud!

    • Govt@FauxCitizen says:

      10:23am | 21/06/11

      Who the hell is making this stuff anyway? Is it a tobbaco company a pharmaceutical company, or a smartarsed drug gang exploiting loopholes in lagging laws?  Synthetic drugs are no different to the real deal in their end result, mind altering, stupifying, soul destroying and socially destructive.
      Cynic alert: Maybe I’ll try my luck and slip 4kg into a boogey board case to see if I can get it into Indonesia, Thailand or Saudi Arabia.
      The message we send to dealers here is very soft indeed, while the death penalty may seem abhorrent to some in this country, I beleive we should have it for repeat offender drug dealers/murderers and the Mr.Bigs whose business is misery and drug slavery and ultimately mass murder, and while we are at it for the heinous murderers who denied life to Anita Cobby, Sian Kingie, 35 Port Arthur victims and so many many more,,,,,,,, It sickens me to the core that I and other hard working decent law abiding peaceful citizens have to breathe the same air as these oxygen theives and pay for their incarseration in the revolving door hotel for bludgers and misfits, the battle on drugs so needs to be fought with an iron fist instead of oven mits if we are to have even the remotest chance of winning the war on drugs. If you think legalising “soft” drugs is an option, then you are blowing your own self indulgent trumpet or a misguided fool using the same softly softly logic that has failed us in the past as it will in the future.

    • pat says:

      11:14am | 21/06/11

      yes, it’s so simple - why didn’t anyone think of it before.  We too can make this country drug free like the drug free utopias of thailand and indonesia just by executing non-violent drug offenders and dealers of the addictive and dangerous drugs that are illegal (while continung to advetise and sell the addictive and dangerous drugs that are legal).  Thank you Govt for helping us see the solution.  Lets mobilise the army and have them go house to house shooting anyone they find with drugs on the spot - the army after all is completely drug free.

    • Govt@FauxCitizen says:

      01:57pm | 21/06/11

      @ Pat,,,,,If that’s what it takes! Find the Mr. Bigs and corrupt officials that allow the trade to flourish.  I for one am over the fallout and intrusion into my family’s life and personal freedom that the drug trade has bestowed apon us directly and indirectly, and where are you hiding exactly when gang wars erupt in cafes’ and many other public places, Police are brutalised and murdered or when drug addicts and their familes are threatened, tortured, or murdered over “territory disputes” and drug debts. If you are honestly happy with the way things are and willing to accept worse then just keep sitting on your hands. As for capital punishment for addicts like what happens in SOME countries, read my post again! I’ve not suggested that drug addicts are the problem more to the point they are the symptom, aren’t you sick and tired of locking yourself up and living in a state of virtual purgatory because the drug trade fallout legal or illegal. Or were you born at a time after the 70s when drug acceptance became widespread and the norm and you became conditioned to locking yourself up along with your valuables, have you no empathy even for a 90 year old granny bashed to death for a few miserable dollars so some fucked up junkie can make a dealer richer. Get a grip, there’s probably only a few thousand like carl williams and tony mockbel running the drug trade in Australia and I for one won’t miss any of them one bit. If you are suggesting that I’m looking for Utopia then you are sadly mistaken, naeivety is not my speciality, I’m a realist and I do want to see the drug trade controlled at least before we end up like Mexico or Columbia.

    • fml says:

      03:09pm | 21/06/11

      “f you think legalising “soft” drugs is an option, then you are blowing your own self indulgent trumpet or a misguided fool using the same softly softly logic that has failed us in the past as it will in the future.”

      When has the death penalty been successful as a deterrent?

    • Govt@FauxCitizen says:

      10:25pm | 21/06/11

      @ fml, you just don’t get it do you, so I’ll type real slow, now for example, if a dealer gets caught the first time and a softcock judge gives him/her 5 years then he/she gets out after 2 or 3 yrs as per usual then he/she gets busted a second time doing the same shit and they get 10 years for example and they get out in 4 or 5 as per usual, and get busted a third time then it’s three strikes and lights out. Now lets see, is that a deterrent or not?  I’d say it is, unless they can sell drugs in hell. Read my post, I did say “repeat offenders”. The vile drug trade denies life to thousands of it’s victims every year indirectly and directly, so why should dealers be priveleged to life.

    • fml says:

      09:15am | 22/06/11

      Govt@FauxCitizen,

      Thanks for implying i am retarded. I understand that YOU think it will stop people. BUT, in America, or any country with the death penalty, has it stopped crime? NO.

      Condescending D!ckhead.

    • Jay-ded says:

      10:25am | 21/06/11

      They don’t call it “dope’ for nothing.

    • Steve says:

      11:27am | 21/06/11

      Why do they call alcohol piss?

    • Jay-ded says:

      12:28pm | 21/06/11

      @ Steve - because that’s how it ends up.  smile

    • Logic says:

      10:34am | 21/06/11

      Oh. My. Freaking. God on a pogostick.. I agree with Erick.

      Has someone perhaps spiked one of our drinks with Kronic?

      HERE’s an idea for a plebiscite - Should we legalise and tax recreational drugs? Currently the only people making money off them are crooks, and the people paying for the consequences are taxpayers who dont get to offset the expense by excise/income/sales taxes.

    • Jimmy says:

      10:44am | 21/06/11

      The first line of this article could be applied to alcohol. Just replace ‘paronoid’ with ‘aggressive’.

    • Thomas Anderson says:

      11:12am | 21/06/11

      Boooo! Why is fake bud more expensive than the real thing?

    • The Badger says:

      01:32pm | 21/06/11

      Currently, if you smoke the “real thing”, a urinalysis test which is the primary method of screening for drugs (mine sites for example) would show Cannabis metabolites from a smoke you had last week. Obviously the psychoactive components of cannabis are long gone out of your system and you are not impaired.

      The reason that “fake bud” is more expensive is because the presence of “fake bud” can’t be detected through drug screening kits that are currently available. Fake bud can only be detected through mass spectrometry systems of the kind that are found in pathology labs.

      This means that in theory, you could for example smoke “fake bud” after your shift and it wouldn’t be detected the next morning when you report for work.

    • Thomas Anderson says:

      02:11pm | 21/06/11

      Ah, interesting. I will have to obtain some of this “Kronic” and see for myself how it fares against Mary Jane.

    • Thomas Anderson says:

      02:13pm | 21/06/11

      The reason I was so surprised is that normally I know these “legal bud"s are very cheap, as they should be.

      Wonder if Kronic really is that much superior to the other legal highs.

    • bob says:

      11:16am | 21/06/11

      And at a political level who is doing anything about this nonsense situation? Well as far as I can see the Eros Association which is behind the Sex Party are the only ones who are doing anything about this. There are about 20 nationally registered political parties and the Greens and the Sex Party are the only two who have drug law reform policies front and centre and even then the Greens have stood on the sidelines and watched as state governments fall over themselves to ban these substances. Its disappointing that the Greens started out all gung ho on drug law reform but since getting into bed with Labor in government they have hauled back on these policies. If the Sex Party continues to be the only party calling for honest reform they will win a seat at the next Senate election.

    • pat says:

      11:35am | 21/06/11

      Absolutely, it’s incredibly dissapointing that the greens have retreated on this issue when it clearly has wide support within the community.  Sex party has my vote and will continue to have my vote while the other parties support this and other nanny state bullshit.

    • Ben says:

      01:58pm | 22/06/11

      Yea, their stance on it is good but their representation on the matter needs a lot of refining as seen on Sunrise. The Greens have disappointed me on this matter, they’ve sold out when they became no. 3.

    • stockinbingal roo says:

      11:17am | 21/06/11

      Lets have a plebiscite on it…

    • Trevor says:

      11:36am | 21/06/11

      Wankers like Septimus won’t be happy until we have an all-out civil war over this issue, mush like is happening in Mexico. Then they can point to the violence that they attribute to drug use! The drug war has failed, failed FAILED! The US are spraying agent-orange like cheimcals all over the developing world in a futile attempt to stamp out this trade (which has flourished and sustained these civilisations for millenia) with the result being that even more virgin rainforset is needing to be cut down for cultivation, and the impoverishment of these nations. The American prison system is full to bursting with non-violent offenders and the rhetoric is continually ramped up as if this can be turned around!! It is very true that the prison-industrial-complex, whcih is creeping into Australia, have a very vested interest in leaving pot illegal, for the slave labour and subsidies that they receive from co-opted governments.

      Speaking of wars, it won’t be long before police engaged in ‘the war on drugs’ are being openly gunned down. I mean, if there is a war, then aren’t combatants justified in killing their oppornents? And then demanding treatment as a POW rather than a criminal? Food for thought and a bit specious, but I’m surprised that this hasn’t happened already.

      We have all seen the footage of SWAT teams pouring into lower class US houses and indiscriminantly openning fire on dogs and small children and genarally inciting terror, there have been many cases of this happening. Is this what we want for Australia?

      I have never underrstood the sado-masochistic philiosphy that underpins the ‘war on drugs’. If we get a headache, there are drugs for that. If we get any sort of mood we can take drugs to help. Why is it verboten to take drugs simply to enhance our experiences? I suspect that we haven’t left our catholic-guilty-for-living complex as far in the past as we would like to believe.

      In the 1930s, Henry Ford (I know about his failing points) built an entire model T out of hemp. Even powered it wil help oil! Hemp could be the miracle that addresses the world’s food shortage, energy supply crunch, and a host of other problems. It would provide Australia an entire new industry! The first country to adopt this approach would be in a great position.  Hemp would grow almost anywhere in Australia with a minimum of fertiliser and 1/4 of the water needed to grow cotton.

      It really is a no-brainer, and the fact that it remains illegal due to the likes of DuPont, Anslinger et al is the real conspracy theory.

      Oh, and I like a smoke when I get home to my family from my well paid job in a respectabel profession. No ill effects at all.

    • Septimus says:

      02:21pm | 21/06/11

      With thoughts as irrational as this you need to re-evaluate who the wanker is, you got it wrong the first time.

    • Fiddler says:

      02:22pm | 21/06/11

      Wow, nothing like a bit of hyper-bowl there. As for the “aren’t combatants justified in killing their opponents” comment, I’m sure you meant ppl shooting police, but I think a few more druggos will be shot than police, they have the guns and numbers. As for the POW comment, no worries, detention without charge until the “war” is over is the norm for POW’s. Life imprisonment for all suspected drug users without any form of review, since the “war” will never be over. You are an idiot sir.

    • Trevor says:

      03:18pm | 21/06/11

      Yes Fiddler, I admit that was a bit of a long bow to draw, and I admitted as such in my post. But it is no worse than the hyperbole that governments and other vested interests has added to this debate since the weed was criminalised! How did the prohibition of alcohol end up? Oh, that’s right…

    • Ben says:

      11:53am | 21/06/11

      Only the people who have been living under a rock for the past couple of decades are in support of prohibition. Unfortunately a lot of them are politicians.

    • Debbie says:

      12:06pm | 21/06/11

      I have no time for people who take drugs ... you know the ones ... police .. customs ..

    • Thomas Anderson says:

      12:32pm | 21/06/11

      Hahahaha. Post of the day.

    • Don says:

      04:21pm | 21/06/11

      awsome

    • wft says:

      12:14pm | 21/06/11

      yeah make it legal and we can have the streets full of stoned dipshits.But i think cigarettes are the real problem"but Prime Monster and her cohorts make too much money on misery”

    • Thomas Anderson says:

      01:15pm | 21/06/11

      That is wrong, the government truly wants people to quit smoking. Tobacco eats up a lot of tax money through Medicare, that is why so much money is spent on the anti-smoking campaign.

      And we will not have “streets full of stoned dipshits”, we will have some, mainly tourists. The local stoners will be sure to chill at home.

      BTW, funny fact! I smoke weed and I am a lot more intelligent than you. Go figure.

    • Majority View says:

      01:18pm | 21/06/11

      I’d take a stoned “dipshit” over a drunk “dipshit” any day of the week.

    • Tchom says:

      04:49pm | 21/06/11

      Yeah, a stoned dipshit is way less likely to glass you or take a swing at you while you’re in the taxi rank

    • Thomas Anderson says:

      05:26pm | 21/06/11

      Last week I went out with friends, and ended up getting too high, so I started spending money off my Visa to shout joints for everyone at the bar.

      I then proceeded to the dance floor and slapped a hottie on the bum because I was high and careless, then her boyfriend pushed me, and because I was so high, I threw my bong at his face.

      The bouncers tried to kick me out, so I started swinging at them, because you see, I was so high I did not know right from wrong. Anyway, woke up the next morning, hungover and bruised.

      Oh wait, no, that’s not what happened, I think I just went over to my mate’s and we smoked some joints, played MK on the PS3 and had some pizza. Woke up next morning fresh as a daisy, with a pocket full of cash.

    • Markus says:

      06:24pm | 21/06/11

      “Tobacco eats up a lot of tax money through Medicare, that is why so much money is spent on the anti-smoking campaign.”
      This has been covered repeatedly over the last three days. Total medical costs of smokers, including hospital, nursing homes and pharmaceuticals, totals about $320million a year, well short of the $6billion in tax revenue made from tobacco sales.

    • Anthony says:

      01:06pm | 21/06/11

      End result is that instead of making a legal purchase at a shop where the profits are taxed I now have to consort with criminals & run the risk of losing my job. The solution is for marijuana to be legalised & job drug testing to be saliva based not urine or blood - that is more consistent with ensuring drug affected people are not in the workplace while also allowing people to make personal decisions about what they do in their own time. Urine testing can show marijuana use for weeks afterwards with no correlation to a persons physical or mental behaviours….

    • PlanetHigh says:

      02:16pm | 21/06/11

      Anthony, most job drug testing for pot these days IS saliva based. I believe it started with the mines because a few went to court saying that at the time they were tested they were not under the influence.

      Prohibition doesn’t work. Some would say legalisation doesn’t work either, look at how many people are killed and hurt from the effects of alcohol. However, we wouldn’t even be talking about this if some of the dopes using Kronic didn’t choose to light up at work, just because it was legal. It’s still not safe to work while under the influence so why draw attention to yourself by thumbing your nose authority. Idiots.

      Anyway, I’m looking forward to my first delivery of legal weed today (not Kronic) and will think of you all while I’m chilling out at home tonight. If all goes well I won’t shoot the dog, beat the wife and child, or be hungover tomorrow morning.

    • medstudent says:

      01:14pm | 21/06/11

      I am a medical student and I fully support the banning of Kronic, along with any other psychoactive substances that have a potential for harm. Smoking is the leading preventable risk factor for disease, and alcohol is a significant problem as well. All drugs, licit or not, have the potential for abuse and dependence. Drug abuse causes harm not only to the user, but also to their friends and families, and to society. Drugs should only be used to treat or prevent a medical condition, when the drugs are prescribed by a doctor and taken as directed.

      If the war against drugs is not working, then the fight needs to be intensified. Drug dealers and traffickers need to be targeted, with harsher penalties. There needs to be more education in schools, and more advertisements on TV warning about the dangers of drugs. Tobacco and alcohol also need to be banned.

    • Al says:

      01:52pm | 21/06/11

      How about we simply ban any substances ‘that have a potential for harm’.

      Oh, wait, that means we would have to ban EVERYTHING.

      ‘Drugs should only be used to treat or prevent a medical condition’ OK, but what about when the most effective treatment for a condition is an ILLICIT DRUG. And don’t spout the BS about ‘that doesn’t happen’ as it does and continues to occur.

      So instead of taking a natural depressant to control my condition I am forced to fork out money for synthetic chemicals that have the same (or very similar) effects but with massive side effects that don’t occur with marijuna. Including dizziness, nausea, balance problems, concentration issues, headaches, blurred vision and more.

    • Fiddler says:

      02:27pm | 21/06/11

      How boring would life be then? In the words of Homer Simpson to Ned Flanders “You’re sixty years old and haven’t lived a day”

    • Intercept says:

      03:28pm | 21/06/11

      Yup just ban life in general. Just it case it kills me.

      And I am sorry. Goverments is not my mummy. Certain things they just need to back away because ITS MY LIFE.

    • Kevin says:

      04:23pm | 21/06/11

      @medstudent
      What arrogance.  So, you think just because you’re “a medical student” that you’re somehow better qualified to comment on this issue than anyone else?
      There are a whole range of social, legal and philosophical issues underlying the question on whether or not dope should be legalised/decriminalised which you won’t find in your medical text books.
      Maybe when you’ve had more life experiences you may come to a more informed view on the subject.

    • medstudent says:

      05:42pm | 21/06/11

      @Kevin
      I certainly am qualified to comment on the well-documented harm that long term drug use can cause to the body.

      Marijuana use is linked to development of psychotic disorders. There is considerable evidence that acute and chronic marijuana use affects cognitive function, particularly in parts of the brain important for attention, verbal learning, and memory. These deficits are not completely reversible upon cessation of marijuana use.

      Marijuana is not a drug that should be widely available. Unfortunately, its use is rampant in Australia, and the government should crack down on all forms of its recreational use. There may be a place for marijuana or its active substances in the treatment of chronic pain, but recreational use should be discouraged and law enforcement should be provided with more funding to reduce illicit drug manufacture, trafficking, and sales.

      Nonetheless, alcohol and tobacco cause far greater burden of disease than marijuana, and more should be done to reduce their use. Banning them would achieve this. Many smokers in fact would like for smoking to be banned, so they would not be able to simply stroll down to the corner store to pick up another pack.

    • Ben81 says:

      07:18pm | 21/06/11

      medstudent - I’m aware that it can be linked to causing trouble in people with pre existing disorders and certainly isn’t “safe” in the same way that almost nothing is safe.

      The argument is whether prohibition is causing more harm than good, and I can’t for the life of me see how it’s doing more good.  It’s also about peoples right to make their own choices, I don’t think your arguments are a compelling enough reason to take that choice away by a long shot.

    • Your name:Charlie X says:

      07:35pm | 21/06/11

      All good points Med Student, but you are stigmatising marijuana smokers and more to the point, everything you’ve said has been common knowledge for years. Abuse of any substance will cause all the things you mentioned, marijuana much less than alchohol and hard drugs. Prohibition has changed nothing, in fact I would argue it has only increased the potential earning benefits of a successful drug dealer. The economic and social benefits of legalising and taxing marijuana production/sale/consumption far outway intensifying prohibition. Hemp has many other benefits and it concerns me that as a future doctor your mind is not open enough to acknowledge this. It would also free up money and resources to concentrate on the hard drug trade, not to mention the benefit of increased tourism. Of course you would get the “stoned dipshits” but they would still cause less harm than raging drunks.
      I would reccommend you take a trip to Amsterdam in the summer…the most wonderful place on Earth. The Netherlands is years ahead of Australia in terms of social progression (gay marriage, marijuana use). It saddens me deeply that the ultra-conservatists in power continually block the progression of this great country and ignore the will of the people, too scared to make any real change.

    • Septimus says:

      08:24pm | 21/06/11

      @Kevin

      What are your qualifications, since you are the one calling people out?

    • Ben says:

      01:28pm | 22/06/11

      It has been intensified and failed miserably in the past 40 years. Read the Global Commission’s report. Read some books on drug laws and they’ll all tell you that drug prohibition doesn’t work. Type up “the war on drugs”.

      You’ve obviously been living under a rock or brainwashed by the government (I know I was). Go read some more and come back to us with some proper support for your opinion.

    • pat says:

      03:06pm | 22/06/11

      a med student would know the importance of evidence based practice.  Are you first year first semester?  the current strategy is not working, so you think we should do it more, and harder?

    • Roberto says:

      01:26pm | 21/06/11

      If marijuana affected only those who take it, then I’d be happy for them to fry their brains and destroy their lives. If they want to be sad losers, then so be it. Sadly though, the rest of are also affected by these idiots’ behaviour.

    • Thomas Anderson says:

      02:17pm | 21/06/11

      Yes, of course, the local pizza shops are very much affected by all the orders they get from stoner idiots who take ages to make up their mind on what pizzas they want. The nerve!

    • Chico says:

      01:26pm | 21/06/11

      Marijuana is such a placid drug in comparison to what people can buy in a liquor store.  I’m 25, smoke weed once a day, have a mortgage, a girlfriend, and a fantastic job.  I don’t put on weight, I don’t have liver problems, nor do I have breathing problems: I use a vaporizer, which means I am not really smoking, but rather inhaling harmless vapour that contains THC, the element in marijuana that makes you high.  Marijuana prohibition is ridiculous in this day and age.  At the very least, decriminlize and tax it—any money the government will need to spend on rehabilitation will be covered in tax—with plenty left over.  I can assure you that a majority of heavy marijuana smokers lead healthy, normal lives.  I cannot say the same for alcoholics.  I’m sober within 1-3 hours of smoking good weed.  Alcohol makes me feel miserable for 12+ hours with a crippling hang over.

    • Thomas Anderson says:

      02:21pm | 21/06/11

      He-eh-eh-eh-ey, smoke weed everyday!

      If the government truly was concerned with the health of weed smokers, they would subsidise vaporizers. At $600 for a good Volcano, the price is a bit steep for the average blunt.

    • Smokin' says:

      02:56pm | 21/06/11

      Thomas you can get personal vaporisers for $200 on the net at :http://www.my-iolite.com/newarrivals.asp

    • Thomas Anderson says:

      04:09pm | 21/06/11

      Yeah, I know, there is a QLD website called Australian Vaporizers that sells all sorts of them. For $200 you get one from a questionable manufacturer, with a hose and stuff. The $600 Volcano ones have been the market leaders for years in USA and Canada, you get quality, and you smoke out of the plastic balloons, so your vapour cools down. I have not tried any, so I’m really no expert, but if I was to get one, I would definitely go for the Volcano.

    • Rowdy says:

      01:36pm | 21/06/11

      By all means decriminalise/legalise pot….but PLEASE make chocolate illegal and make pizzerias close at 5pm….    grin

    • Thomas Anderson says:

      03:03pm | 21/06/11

      I conquered “the munchies” during my first trip to Amsterdam in 2005. We smoked so much, if we ate to keep up, we would burst.

      It does still make food taste better though smile

    • Ben81 says:

      02:04pm | 21/06/11

      I thought the ban was such a dumb knee-jerk move I wrote to the SA Attorney General straight away asking about the justification and hypocrisy of it when it was announced here.  It’s been passed on to the Health minister to reply apparently, i’m sure it will be a very generic one.

    • Michael Monk says:

      03:08pm | 21/06/11

      Remove the criminal element from pot. Let people groww their own under a licensing system such as
      *You must be over 21
      *you grow it at your place of residence only
      *you obtain an anual license from the cop shop like you do for a firearm now.By doing so you are giving the police permision to come and inspect your plants at your house at any time.
      * You pay say $100 for each plant you are allowed to have, up to a maximum of ten plants ( a plant been over a foot high seedlings under this dont count)
      This would stop crims making money, raise revenue for the government and allow people to smopke if they want

    • Ren says:

      03:23pm | 21/06/11

      Let’s face it, humans like getting trashed and as far as I can tell marijuana is the only drug around that is basically 100% natural. You grow it, dry it, and consume it.  People been using it since the dawn of time.

      I partake now and then, goes really well with Xbox. I hate it that the government tells me its ok to drink fermented liquids that have real proven health risks and endless social impacts but I can’t toss a little extra herbs into my brownie mixture.

      I am a law abiding citizen that is made to feel like I am doing something terrible by munching down a brownie or other home baked delight and loosing myself on the xbox. I know for a fact my wife prefers that to me going down the pub all the time.

      It’s all about moderation. You would be surprised how many people out there have a smoke or a brownie now and then but are not potheads. Just like there are plenty of people that like a glass of wine here and there but are not alcho’s.

      I do also think it’s important to be regulated somewhat. Anyone on here that uses marijuana would have to admit some of the overly strong hydro stuff on the market is a different kettle of fish all together. I firmly believe that some of the side effects that you hear of due to marijuana use is due to these overly potent plants. There should be restrictions on how potent it is allowed to be.

      And lastly I think that smoking it is stupid. But because it’s illegal the mixture of increased price and the general lack of and industry means most people will choose to smoke it.
      Putting it in food products does the same thing and doesn’t harm lungs and that is something that should be considered more by people.

    • Fiona says:

      06:15pm | 21/06/11

      Correct me if I’m wrong, but opium is 100% natural too…..

    • sir ronald bradnam says:

      03:37pm | 21/06/11

      Governments War on terrorism, War on obesity, War on Carbon, War on Weapons and many more including the War on Drugs they have yet to win one and it is all a waste of the money they legally steal of you and I.

    • Rebecca says:

      03:39pm | 21/06/11

      A significantly high proportion of extremely brutal murders have been carried out by people under the influence of marijuana.
      Just because other harmful substances are legal does not mean that we should legalise other harmful substances.
      I don’t know what the answer is, but this isn’t it. Perhaps we could start by making people responsible for their own actions?

    • Mike says:

      03:57pm | 21/06/11

      Can you please present any evidence of said murders to back up your claim?
      Even a link to a scientific study would suffice.

      Thanks in advance.

    • Thomas Anderson says:

      04:04pm | 21/06/11

      “A significantly high proportion of extremely brutal murders have been carried out by people under the influence of marijuana.”

      But what do you get from that? That marijuana instigates brutal murders? Or, rather, that murderers and criminals are more likely to use illegal drugs because of their disregard for the law? Is marijuana use causing criminal behaviour, or is criminal behaviour causing marijuana use?

      What you said is a fallacy. I’ll give you another one, while we’re on the subject. Various researchers found that marijuana use and schizophrenia are tied somehow. You could jump the gun and say that marijuana causes schizophrenia. But to do so, would be to ignore the fact that people with a predisposition to schizophrenia are more likely to use marijuana and other drugs.

      Think people, think before you express your opinion.

    • LC says:

      05:54pm | 21/06/11

      “A significantly high proportion of extremely brutal murders have been carried out by people under the influence of marijuana “

      Please present your evidence that it can turn average, ordinary people (ie. NOT those with underlying mental issues) into serious violent offenders.

      I eagerly await your reply smile

    • Fiona says:

      07:14pm | 21/06/11

      Thomas Anderson, saying that schizophrenics are more likely to use marijuana than others, I’d like to see that. My brother in law got psychosis from it and in no way appeared to have “future psychotic” tattooed on his forehead when I met him. He was just an ordinary guy. I think because of marijuanas tendency to stay in the body for a long time leads to build up of THC levels. In those predisposed to it, it reaches a tipping point. My memory of the studies I’ve read are hazy, it’s been s while and I’m happy to stand corrected.

    • Jade says:

      03:51pm | 21/06/11

      I don’t really have an issue with people who choose to smoke weed.  I am not a fan though as I have seen the mental issues it causes, people may be fine when they are high… but what happens when they are hanging for a bong with no weed left or money to buy any.

    • Thomas Anderson says:

      04:15pm | 21/06/11

      Hanging for a joint is a pain, sort of like hanging for the first Friday night beer. But the waiting makes the first taste so sweet smile

      This reminds me as well…

      “I used to suck dick for coke. Have you ever sucked dick for marijuana?”

      “No, no, I can’t say I have.”

      :D

    • Jade says:

      04:46pm | 21/06/11

      The person I am talking about didn’t think it was just a pain.  He was that f**ked in the head that he would go mental and bash both myself and my mother until he could have another cone.  Not a fun way to grow up, hence the reason I am not a fan of weed. 

      Of course it is more than likely he already had a chemical imbalance in his brain and the weed only messed that up more so which in turn led to the violent outbursts the moment he could not get high.

    • Thomas Anderson says:

      05:28pm | 21/06/11

      That’s no good at all, and I feel sorry for the way you and yours have been treated. But if marijuana did not exist, do you really think the person you speak of would behave much better?

    • Jade says:

      10:32am | 22/06/11

      No, I think it would have been replaced with alcohol.  Some people just shouldn’t do anything.  But really people can smoke away for all I care, I just have a particular aversion to it, and I think people should know what can happen, worst case scenario sort of thing.

    • fml says:

      04:02pm | 21/06/11

      Has anybody thought of the pizza delivery industry?

      Thousands of jobs will be lost.

    • Tara says:

      04:35pm | 21/06/11

      I still am yet to see where people/journalists get their information about the “side-effects” of drug use. Someone please set me straight, where are the copious amounts of studies and research that conclusively shows that smoking pot causes these problems - such as Schizophrenia. It’s a campaign that has been taken from the cotton growers of America way back when Hemp was considered as a viable alternative as a crop. Hemp - the crop that is actually used to produce material - is NOT the same as pot, but the public didn’t know that, and the propaganda that the cotton growers used to support their campaign was what got Pot the reputation is has now.
      SHOW ME THE RESEARCH AND CONCLUSIVE FINDINGS…..

    • Septimus says:

      05:02pm | 21/06/11

      www. schizophrenia. com/ prevention/ streetdrugs. html#can

      (Delete the spaces - The Punch ‘blacklists’ the site for some reason)

    • Tara says:

      06:10pm | 21/06/11

      No conclusive results, as I thought, have you any more “Studies” to show me, or is that the only one you can find?

    • Markus says:

      06:34pm | 21/06/11

      It’s amazing the range of links that get blacklisted by this sites moderator.

      With all the tobacco related articles in the last couple of days, I was shocked to find links to research articles on the Federal Health website, of all places, were blacklisted.

    • Septimus says:

      06:49pm | 21/06/11

      Perhaps you need to learn how to comprehend studies.

      Perhaps you missed the 30 independent studies listed on that page.

      Perhaps you should search your lazy arse self, instead of expecting others to do your work for you.

    • David says:

      09:36pm | 21/06/11

      it’s a rare person who spends much effort researching to prove a point they don’t want proven.

    • Josie says:

      04:36pm | 21/06/11

      Prohibition Does not Work and police are dying for peoples greed and need. Illicit drug consumption attracts judgment yet sugar is the most dangerous universal drug that kills. What is needed is a health and education approach to this issue. There exists a distinct connection between mental health impairment, drug use which affects the low socio economic most. Why? Because poor people do not have adequate nutrition to counteract the effects of narcotics on their brains. Fish is a staple for the wealthy who generally do not get mentally ill from their partying. So could the educated and positioned please investigate this and from the findings implement a health care approach. If you party, protect your brain. And then maybe our drug enjoying pollies will take notice and SAVE money through an education approach to health care. Please consider my suggestion as it will save lives. People take anything to feel alive and to feel love so cut the judgement and start acting. I am a social work undergraduate and our current approach,created by well meaning tee totalers does not work and a new method is needed. I would love to hear a response from Professor Wodak who is a living legend in the area of drug and mental health issues, so could someone pass this onto him.

    • Ekidna says:

      07:07pm | 21/06/11

      Thanks for the heads up. I live in NSW so just rushed out and bought a heap before its banned here as well. The real problem - ALCOHOL!!!!! Worst drug in the world.

    • Pass me the b says:

      07:34pm | 21/06/11

      With a personality that is just a smidgen of being aspergus, there is no way I would have made it all the way to the end of these comments if it wasnt for a couple of cones before I started.  A few cones a night and I can relax, no longer frustrated over nothing, i can put aside the ideas that run circles in my head, I can sleep more than 3 hours a night. Allowing me to turn up to work each day where high concentration levels are required to earn my 6 figure salary. My income means I can afford to live in the CBD. I dont drive anywhere as everything I need is in walking distance, including work. Married long term. The only danger I have seen personally with the use of marijuana is that being less angry on a day to day basis some people might be missing out on a few head slaps that are deserved.

    • Leopard says:

      09:04pm | 21/06/11

      A whole lot of people commenting here are part of the drug scene.  Cool.  If and when they execute Andrew Chan, remember who the drug smuggler brings in his goods for.
      Big demand.

    • David says:

      09:34pm | 21/06/11

      there is an advantage to having marijuana stay illegel, it gives people something naughty to do that’s only as harmful as the combined harm of cigarettes or alcohol otherwise to get the thrill of being naughty they would have to move onto harder stuff

    • Greg Kasarik says:

      10:18pm | 21/06/11

      There is no reason to keep marijuana illegal. It is impossible to overdose on it and while it can be habit forming, it is far less addictive than alcohol, which is so poisonous that it is a disinfectant. Unlike alcohol, marijuana use does not result in violent, aggressive and antisocial behaviours.

      At the end of the day, prohibition helps nobody and merely ensures that those who engage in manufacture and trafficking are enriched at the expense of the person on the street.

      And it isn’t just marijuana that should be legalised. Transcendent Compounds are non-addictive, non-toxic and psychologically safe to use in appropriate dose, set and setting. Not only that, but they are an integral part of the religious practice of many thousands of Australians.

      I use these for this purpose and thankfully their use in this manner is protected under the Victorian Human Rights and Responsibilities Act.

    • Noddy says:

      11:05pm | 21/06/11

      Pot cause schizophrenia as much as passive smoking causes lung cancer.

    • Ben says:

      02:20pm | 22/06/11

      No it doesn’t.

      It does however affect the development of brain cells in children/teenagers.

    • stephen says:

      11:09pm | 21/06/11

      We don’t need another substance to become obsessed with, legal or otherwise.
      When I read these stories and comments I think that as much as the causation of suicide to mental ilness is impromptu, I shudder and think that
      perhaps causation isn’t the key : maybe it is inevitable that some people will find a way to kill themselves and as much as it is tragic that the young directly take their own lives, we might consider that drug-taking is not only fun for some, but as fatal an ‘act’ as a gun.

    • why bother says:

      12:13am | 22/06/11

      http://www.google.com.au/search?q=david+nutt+site:guardian.co.uk

      In the UK: Dr. David Nutt published a report detailing the relative harmfulness of several drugs. His report ranked MDMA/ecstacy and marijuana below alcohol. He lost his job as government drugs advisor.

      We can’t have any of those facts and scientific methods poisoning our politics! No, Sir!

      Here’s our “evidence based policy”: have a puppet claim that Kronic is potentially harmful and start legislating within a week of discovering it. Why bother with long term clinical trials and rigorous testing! There’s no need!

    • Harquebus says:

      09:27am | 22/06/11

      Time to decriminalize pot. There will be an instant decrease in the number of criminals.

      Tory, what’s going on? The punch has stopped posting my comments when, all I want is to make you happy. Please, do me the courtesy of letting me know. ThePunch isn’t that great that I should be wasting my time on it. Peak oil mate, peak oil. Flash is crap and renewable energy doesn’t exist.
      Seeya and good luck.

    • stephen says:

      06:56pm | 22/06/11

      Your first paragraph is wrong.
      Most crimes, and nearly all premeditated ones, are commited whilst under the influence of an illegal substance.
      Most criminals are cowards, which is why such as argument as yours and others up top are self-fulfilling.

    • Harquebus says:

      10:58am | 23/06/11

      How many are committed under the influence of marijuana. Pot smokers are involved in less car accidents than the non pot smokers. That’s why they bundle them in with drink drivers. Prohibition only creates a black market.

    • Gomez12 says:

      02:55pm | 23/06/11

      @Stephen,

      “Most crimes, and nearly all premeditated ones, are commited whilst under the influence of an illegal substance”

      I call BS. That has exactly as much veracity as me saying “All violent sex crimes are committed by people who pray beforehand” i.e. it’s total and utter crap.

      Your position would have us believe that no crimes are committed under the influence of alcohol (legal substance) or by anyone who is “straight” which is such obvious tosh I am forced to wonder what you have imbibed before posting such ignorance?

    • Greg Kasarik says:

      03:59pm | 23/06/11

      Stephen, you are typically ignorant, in that you seem to think that “drugs” are “drugs” and that there is no difference between them. How can you expect to be taken seriously, when you can’t even demonstrate the most basic understanding of the issues.

      You are probably right that most crimes are committed under the influence of drugs, but the drug that they are committed under the influence of is actually alcohol. Alcohol is responsible for more than 60% of police call outs in Victoria, and recent research has linked it to more than 50% of homicides.

      On the other hand, there is no real link between violent and anti-social behaviour and cannabis use. So if you want to reduce crime, you really need to get people off alcohol and onto something more behaviourally safer, such as cannabis.

    • James says:

      09:37am | 22/06/11

      Can everyone please watch the documentary ‘The Union’ It is an award winning look into the reasons for and against cannabis prohibition. After watching it you will see that cannabis use ALONE (not mixed with tobacco) has very few negative side effects, and is safe for consumption just as many studies have proven.

      Cannabis should at the very least be decriminalized for personal use, and people should be able to grow a small number of plants in their own homes for their own use so that drug dealers would be put out of business. 

      This fake pot stuff is a joke, its actually worse for you then actual cannabis, doesn’t get you stoned, and tastes like crap.

      here is a link to an online version of the union: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9077214414651731007#

      i recommend you all take the time to do some research into the issue yourselves, rather then listening to what the media and government feed you.

      Thanks

    • Nick says:

      09:50am | 22/06/11

      I bought some of the Kronic “Pineapple Express” a while back online and only got around to trying it this week. I bought a 1/4 ounce back for $150.

      I smoked it last night and it was awful. My heart was beating like it was going to burst through my chest, my temples were throbbing, i was having muscle spasms, i was convinced I was going to die and I was very very stoned. It lasted for 4 hours and at one point I could not sit still and had to walk 3 kms to calm myself down. It is much more dangerous than weed in my opinion because you can get a bit that has much more synthetic additives that another. I must have got a bad batch.

      Not going to smoke it again, I was 1 second off calling an ambulance last night. I was ashen grey and could see my chest heaving through my shirt which scared me.

    • james says:

      12:34pm | 22/06/11

      why would you spend 150 on a 1/4 of fake weed when normal weed goes for around 80-100 for a 1/4 oz?

      this fake stuff is dangerous, unlike weed its never been studied for its effects on your body, god knows whats in it its just chemical crap.

    • SickOfSpin says:

      10:59am | 22/06/11

      Cannibus was used as an ailment for many years during the 19th and early part of the 20th century for people who suffered from pain, nausia and a fair number of other ailments.  During prohibition in the 20’s, it was a white racist politician who did not want blacks and hispanics, sponsored by pharmicutical companies, who called for the plant to be made illegal, the cotton industry, who was suffering badly at the time because of the more favourable use of hemp products, also lobbies against this.  By the time the 30’s came aroun and prohibition was in force, the plant was banned and has been illegal ever since.  Now because of UN Treaties, forced by the United States, this plant is still illegal in alot of countries around the world.
      Now we have pharmicutical countries around the wold condusting in medicinal recerch with this plant and are seeing a huge number of benifits this plant can bring, AIDS/HIV suffers, Cancer paitents, Epeliptic suffers, even schitzophrenic suffers receive a benefit from the CDC within the plan.  This is prooven time and time again with medical cases in countries like Canada, The Netherlands, Portugal and some US States where medicinal use is legal.  Further research has also found that this plant may have the potential to be a CURE for cancer.  The positive arguements are constantly shut down by organisations like the DEA in the US and the Drug and Alcohol group within other countries who only want to report on the one or two negative cases, and never look at the hundreds of positive cases.
      I will gladly fully support legalisation and taxation of this plant, and especially the medicinal legalisation I would give more support to, but unfortiunately we have way too much misinformation floating around and no one bothers to investigate the facts.  Why society supports alcohol and tobacco over marijuana is beyond me.  These are the substances that should be illegal, not marijuana,

    • Ben says:

      01:42pm | 22/06/11

      More like propaganda and outright lies. 

      No wonder why we have a divided society. People no longer trust the police nor they with the legal system and money is wasted patching up the problem because the law makers decided to sweep the issue under the rug and resort to an ignorant and irresponsible approach.

      Legal or not legal people are still going to consume it. The problem here is not the drugs but the dangerous assumption that by punishing people will deter them from use.  It’s time they started using conclusive evidence in making their decisions when it comes to drugs and not a bunch of ignorant and biased opinion in the guise or expert opinions.

    • Jed says:

      07:34pm | 22/06/11

      simple kronic as never given me and any of my 100+mates that have tryed it, we dont abuse the product and we are all safe and never had a bad exp, banning this product would push us underground to buy the real thing"weed” which is far more dangereos , keep it legal keep us safe,

    • Bob Stewart says:

      12:39pm | 28/06/11

      See Jed? You’re already irrational to even think that you are not responsible for keeping yourself safe and the people you love and who love you safe- you want the Government to make this stuff legal to keep you save? Safe from what? Go for it, I’m the first to fight for the freedoms that have been hard won for Australia - just User Pay for all the consequences of unprescribed drugs, booze and tobacco..
      More revenue saved for Government than million dollar slogans and pictures of unkissable women.

    • jonathan long says:

      07:48pm | 22/06/11

      the government just want to ban it cause it cant be taxed same as weed , ever heard anyone dying from being high its safer than ciggarettes and stoners dont start fights unlike alcoholics, its just stupid people smoke to reax and chill out , i dont smoke weed anymore but the government are just fun nazi’s what do you expect with an idiot like julia gillard holding the reigns

    • Hilarious says:

      09:39am | 24/06/11

      Haha, I can’t believe it.
      Put “Kronic” into the search field on the homepage of news.com. The first thing that pops up above the hits in articles is an advertising link for Kronic!!!
      Does this make Murdoch a drug dealer? The news.com guys are just lucky that I am not a greedy litigation lawyer, cause otherwise I would sue the sh*t out of them. Because providing a link to a Kronic dealer clearly makes them part of the deal, doesn’t it?

    • Bob Stewart says:

      10:03am | 28/06/11

      @Erik   I suppose it is just too simple a solution suggesting that all the consequences be paid by the user as the deterrent.

    • eric says:

      10:09am | 28/06/11

      Kassandra’s comments are typical of head in the sand misinformed pre conceived perceptions. Prohibition of alcohol caused MORE DEATHS that is what history has proved, you want prohibition on drugs but alcohol and drug prohibition cause MORE DEATHS, we want control, and that reduces deaths, you just dont get it. If you think prohibition really works put your money where your mouth is and make alcohol and tobacco illegal, see what that gets you.

    • andrew says:

      09:09am | 30/06/11

      OK legal or not does not bother me. An individuals choice, im not phased. The governments decision to protect peoples health, perhaps a good one..
      Now here it comes…..........In Australia since 2000 7 people are dead from a chemical banned in many countries. Yet our government allows it to be sprayed on the food , that I eat ... This herbicide contains Paraquat….  Paraquat, (undiluted) is proven to cause Parkinsons disease in as little as a few days if not death. just google “Barry Kidston”  its shocking… Its banned in sweeden, germany malaysia etc and even Kuwait syria and combodia to name a few….. And yet our government has banned a dried plant sprayed with chemicals, in which we could individually choose weather or not to indulge in… its got nothing to do with the concern for our health…its more about keeping the mining industries insurance premiums down and government revenue up…theres no money in taxing kronic

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

ToryShepherd

Cheeky beers with morning papers in unexpected sunshine http://t.co/MD7VPRne

Anthony Sharwood

http://t.co/Zq0nGxkf nice pic of Thredbo this morning

Paul Colgan

@seamus yeah it's now called Smooth or Soft or Douchey Dad FM or something

Paul Colgan

It's a Sydney thing, but 95.3FM... Why? It used to be all Bohemian Rhapsody and Walk this Way; now it's Father to Son and Country Road. Wah.

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

We don’t deserve this huge, exciting scientific project

We don’t deserve this huge, exciting scientific project

I’d like to be able to say that sharing the world’s largest radio telescope with South Africa…

Mining money talks the loudest in Australian politics

Mining money talks the loudest in Australian politics

When North Queensland Liberal MP George Christensen got the idea of launching a new political organisation…

Please enter your password

Please enter your password

Help! I’ve succumbed to a crippling modern illness that can strike at any moment. Symptoms include:…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

Michael S says:

"A teacher at Geelong Grammar had criticised her for using words that were too long, which had left her confused and had made her doubt her ability to write essays. She became ''quite distressed'' when her English marks began to fall." I can sympathise. My scholastic mentors conveyed to me a causal relationship… [read more]

From: Welfare for breeders is a bonus for everyone

Change Up! says:

I have no problem paying my taxes. As a single, childless person on a very decent income, I can afford it and not have my life severely altered. Plus I understand that my taxes paying for things like schools, childcare and infrastructure is ultimately a good thing. A better community is better for me… [read more]

Gentle jabs to the ribs

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

A private school girl’s family is sueing her elite, extremely expensive private school for not… Read more

243 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter