The Law Marijuana Legalisation

[Ghossein]

What are the boards thoughts and opinions on Marijuana legalization?

 

[fishardansin]

Seriously, does anyone not see that no body has the right to tell you what you can do regards substances you take?

As long as you do not do it in such a manner that it will effect anyone else, ie act like a tool, force others to breathe in your smoke or operate heavy machinery.

 

[Quokka]

Does it really matter much either way? Pot completely destroys some people and the vast majority use or try it with bugger all harm done, sound like anything else?

Legalise it, make some $ with tax and then give it all back with government programs and enforcing or leave it as it is and basically ignore it. Legalising it wont stop people growing, selling and buying as they do now and its not going to be a significantly safer product, so maybe it shifts the harm around a little, imo it wont do much else to change things for better or worse.

 

[Ghossein]

imo it wont do much else to change things for better or worse.

think about the medical uses and the amount of people who's lives would be made much less painful

of all the tax payers money used to fight a substance that is less harmful than some of our legal substances

all of the people who struggle to find jobs due to a criminal record which came as a result from marijuana

 

[rayven]

There's a few threads on or around this. Not sure about the poll though? Maybe you could add an organic option? You also left out an option for hemp to replace cotton. It's a far superior product, in every way. price, versatility, longevity, wear-ability, adaptability..Cotton is wooden wheeled carriage trying to cross the Fitzroy river, Hemps the hovercraft. You also left out an option for hemp to replace paper. If trees are the bridges that cross the firzroy, hemp is the c130 Hercules.

So if you've cottoned on, Hemps going to put alot of people out of business, save alot of water, cause a heap of carbon to be captured as well as not burned. Save us money as we'll replace clothes less frequently as well as being cheaper. All those clothing companies will love that. In fact you'll find them funding pollies who oppose the use of hemp.

 

[Slax]

The by products from hemp are amazing and indeed it would a number of world shortages. Henry Ford designed his cars to be run on hemp oil not deisel oil. As rayven pointed out the stength and quality of the product would dramatically reduce the reliance on cotton, yet requires twice the land and twice the water to produce the same quantity of product.

Just think we can either double production on the same land or be able to rotate the land more regularly to avoid over use (leads to salinity problems in irrigated areas) and then put the water back into the river systems. This would automatically solve the debate about where the water for the Murray-Darling basin will come from to maintain proper flows.

 

[Hard_to_Beat]

Clearly, regulated availability is the way to go.

Reforming the Old and Refining the New: A Critical Overview of Australian Approaches to Cannabis

Targeting of Harm

Total prohibitionism

• It was argued earlier that total prohibitionism, in aiming to reduce all cannabis use and all modes of acquisition and supply, over-targets for harm. Only some forms of use, acquisition and supply hold a significant risk of harm. (It was conceded that civil penalties for minor use and supply were more appropriate in their targeting. But they still, strictly speaking seek to deter or reduce activities that, viewed overall, are not significantly harmful.) Clearly, seeking to reduce or deter nonharmful activities will be a source of great inefficiency. But it is also undesirable in that it amounts to coercively interfering in individual activities that are typically not within the domain of the law. As practised in Australia, the activities that are typically the concern of the law are those that harm others (warranting criminal sanctions) or inconvenience others (warranting at most civil sanctions).(170)

Partial prohibitionism

• Removing penalties for possession, use and cultivation of small amounts would be an improvement to the extent that it would no longer target activities that generally hold a low risk of harm. Supplementary measures that are nonpunitive (such as highly targeted education, information and treatment programs) may be better placed to identify and deal with individuals whose patterns of use are harmful, or those groups that are at high risk of harm.
• Maintaining prohibition of larger-scale production and distribution of cannabis does, strictly speaking, aim at activities that potentially involve serious harm. But there is significant question as to whether prohibition is an effective way of aiming to address those harms. (See the discussion below.)

Regulated availability

• If the distribution of cannabis is either undertaken by government agencies, or by non-government agencies under government regulation, then there would be opportunity to have greater control over which individuals or groups receive what amount of cannabis of what strength and for how much. As with alcohol and tobacco, governments will never have complete control over who gets to use cannabis, but it would probably have more control over this than if distribution remains within the control of completely unregulated, and often unscrupulously profit driven criminal groups.

Free availability

• Though allowing anyone to use, produce and distribute cannabis may act to weaken the role of the criminal black market, it would leave untargeted those forms of use that are high-risk (particularly, childhood or early adolescent use).

http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliam...s/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp0102/02RP06

 

[Cap]

Seriously, does anyone not see that no body has the right to tell you what you can do regards substances you take?

As long as you do not do it in such a manner that it will effect anyone else, ie act like a tool, force others to breathe in your smoke or operate heavy machinery.

so don't smoke it in a public place? or in the vicinity of children ? or that matter anyone.

 

[Cap]

The by products from hemp are amazing and indeed it would a number of world shortages. Henry Ford designed his cars to be run on hemp oil not deisel oil. As rayven pointed out the stength and quality of the product would dramatically reduce the reliance on cotton, yet requires twice the land and twice the water to produce the same quantity of product.

Just think we can either double production on the same land or be able to rotate the land more regularly to avoid over use (leads to salinity problems in irrigated areas) and then put the water back into the river systems. This would automatically solve the debate about where the water for the Murray-Darling basin will come from to maintain proper flows .

I love this one, it is the same as stoners who tell you it cures glaucoma.

I am all for the production of hemp where the tetrahydrocannabinol element has been removed, because yes, it does have some great uses.

but there is no reason to have cannabis (or hemp with high tetrahydrocannabinol element) available.

 

[Hard_to_Beat]

but there is no reason to have cannabis (or hemp with high tetrahydrocannabinol element) available.

Even the most radical, sane prohibitionist would disagree with that.

 

[Cap]

Even the most radical, sane prohibitionist would disagree with that.

you are right, they would ban hemp as well

 

[Sydney Bloods]

I love this one, it is the same as stoners who tell you it cures glaucoma.

I am all for the production of hemp where the tetrahydrocannabinol element has been removed, because yes, it does have some great uses.

but there is no reason to have cannabis (or hemp with high tetrahydrocannabinol element) available.

Unless you know, you don't have a problem with people wanting to get high.

Fact is when it comes to cannabis you fall into 1 of 4 stances
1 your don't really care (myself)
2 your a hypocrite (not opposed to other vices)
3 your in favour of it being legalised
4 your a wowser.

 

[Ghossein]

but there is no reason to have cannabis (or hemp with high tetrahydrocannabinol element) available.

other than the fact it's enjoyable,

A pair of scientists at California Pacific Medical Center in San Francisco has found that a compound derived from marijuana could stop metastasis in many kinds of aggressive cancer, potentially altering the fatality of the disease forever.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/19/marijuana-and-cancer_n_1898208.html

 

[Cap]

Unless you know, you don't have a problem with people wanting to get high.

Fact is when it comes to cannabis you fall into 1 of 4 stances
1 your don't really care (myself)
2 your a hypocrite (not opposed to other vices)
3 your in favour of it being legalised
4 your a wowser.

I don't understand 2 - on what basis are you suggesting someone is a hypocrite?

why isn't there a 5?

Are you suggesting that there is no medical or scientific basis for Cannabis be outlawed?

I find it quite funny that anyone against the legalisation of cannabis, in your books has a negative connotation, says a lot about your ability to argue.

 

[Cap]

other than the fact it's enjoyable,



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/19/marijuana-and-cancer_n_1898208.html

no really, you are quoting the huffington post

even so, rather than get people into the habit of smoking (something we are trying to stamp out) why not simply remove the element and utilise it in other ways?

 

[Hard_to_Beat]

An interesting recent paper that deals with the economic aspects of the legalization of cannabis:

...we estimate that the maximum revenue from taxing marijuana in Australia is about
$A105 per capita...

http://www.is.uwa.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/99963/05_28_Clements.pdf

22,000,000*$105 = $2,310,000,000

Then there's hundreds of millions, or dare I say, billions, in law enforcement costs that could be saved and better utilized elsewhere.

 

[Cap]

An interesting recent paper that deals with the economic aspects of the legalization of cannabis:



22,000,000*$105 = $2,310,000,000

Then there's hundreds of millions, or dare I say, billions, in law enforcement costs that could be saved and better utilized elsewhere.

does that include the medical cost for treating addicts, victims of crime (I use that broadly, I even mean people hit by a stoned driver) and other drug dependancy costs?

And for those calling hypocrite on alcohol users, quite simply, if you are that concerned about alcohol use, why would you support the legalisation of another drug that is going to cause similar (if not worse) outcomes?

 

[Ghossein]

no really, you are quoting the huffington post

even so, rather than get people into the habit of smoking (something we are trying to stamp out) why not simply remove the element and utilise it in other ways?

quoting a study the huffington post references....

do you really believe that the government should have a say in whether people smoke or not? if people want to smoke they should be allowed to smoke. if two gay men want to get married, they should be allowed to get married. if a man wants to smoke marijuana he should be able to.

who are you to say i cant do something that has no affect on you, and should be prosecuted/given a criminal record just because you frown upon it?

 

[Ghossein]

does that include the medical cost for treating addicts,

there is absolutely no evidence that marijuana is an addictive drug, and even if it is only a small minority of marijuana users would fit the 'addicted' definition.

victims of crime (I use that broadly, I even mean people hit by a stoned driver) and other drug dependancy costs?

And for those calling hypocrite on alcohol users, quite simply, if you are that concerned about alcohol use, why would you support the legalisation of another drug that is going to cause similar (if not worse) outcomes?

people die due to ingesting panadol, shall we ban that too?

oh and all those innocent drown victims. guess water is out of the picture too.

yes, they both have positive uses in society and in medicine, but they also have negative consequences, and thus should be banned.

 

[Hard_to_Beat]

does that include the medical cost for treating addicts,

No, but you're paying for that already.

victims of crime

Who is supporting Cannabis use and driving?

The driving/Cannabis correlation is not based on conclusive evidence anyway.

and other drug dependancy costs?

What "other drug dependancy costs"?

And for those calling hypocrite on alcohol users, quite simply, if you are that concerned about alcohol use, why would you support the legalisation of another drug that is going to cause similar (if not worse) outcomes?

Your entire premise is flawed.

Cap, have you ever been a cannabis user or are you just another ill informed wowser with a high susceptibility to grief pr0n?

 

[Cap]

quoting a study the huffington post references....

do you really believe that the government should have a say in whether people smoke or not? if people want to smoke they should be allowed to smoke. if two gay men want to get married, they should be allowed to get married. if a man wants to smoke marijuana he should be able to.

who are you to say i cant do something that has no affect on you, and should be prosecuted/given a criminal record just because you frown upon it?

just checking, do you not live in an organised society with rules and regulations? I'm not allowed to steal either, but you don't see me jumping up and down about it.

 

[Hard_to_Beat]

just checking, do you not live in an organised society with rules and regulations? I'm not allowed to steal either, but you don't see me jumping up and down about it.

You're an idiot. Remove yourself from this discussion.

 

[Cap]

there is absolutely no evidence that marijuana is an addictive drug, and even if it is only a small minority of marijuana users would fit the 'addicted' definition.



people die due to ingesting panadol, shall we ban that too?

oh and all those innocent drown victims. guess water is out of the picture too.

yes, they both have positive uses in society and in medicine, but they also have negative consequences, and thus should be banned.

See, using extreme examples to support you arguement simply weakens it.

 

[Cap]

You're an idiot. Remove yourself from this discussion.

why because I hold an alternate view that you cannot comprehend?

 

[Ghossein]

just checking, do you not live in an organised society with rules and regulations? I'm not allowed to steal either, but you don't see me jumping up and down about it.

no, but stealing would directly affect someone else, would it not? it would cause unfair financial and economic loss to someone else.

if i smoke a joint in my house, how many people have been harmed?