Macgregor weed bust

devils_advocate said :

Also,(off topic) while it is pretty easy and legal to make beer oneself, relatively few seem to master making *good* beer at home.

It’s really not hard, the main thing is the home brewer will tend to produce for their own pallette, which may not accord with their visitors.

johnboy said :

Well beer’s pretty easy and legal to make oneself. But that doesn’t mean we’re not better off having legal beer sales.

Sure, I was purely responding to the statement that hardly anyone buys black market tobacco, when apparently it’s a multi-million dollar industry.

Also,(off topic) while it is pretty easy and legal to make beer oneself, relatively few seem to master making *good* beer at home.

devils_advocate said :

Also cannabis is far easier to cultivate than tobacco. So more likely for individuals to cultivate it.

Well beer’s pretty easy and legal to make oneself. But that doesn’t mean we’re not better off having legal beer sales.

HenryBG said :

Either way, again, where are your facts?

This is based on your contention that the illegal tobacco trade is equivalent to between 1 and 10 per cent of the legal trade. Given the legal trade is in the billions, the illegal trade is significant in absolute terms, and in percentage terms.

Also cannabis is far easier to cultivate than tobacco. So more likely for individuals to cultivate it.

devils_advocate said :

1) So now the amount of illegal tobacco represented by $100 million – $500 million of revenue foregone is “hardly anyone”?

Yes, I call that “hardly anyone”, when the total market is worth somewhere between 5.5 and 6 billion $$.
You could call it something else, “very minor”, perhaps, I don’t really care because either way, the facts I have provided totally refute the non-factual contention by the poster claiming the government would fail to raise revenue from legalised sale of cannabis.

devils_advocate said :

Right. Someone is making shit up here, but it aint me.

I notice you’re struggling to bring any facts to the party.

devils_advocate said :

2) For bonus points, see research on statistical estimation of hidden populations.

Is that just a complete non-sequitur, or are you accusing ATO modelling of being unprofessional and defective?
Either way, again, where are your facts?

HenryBG said :

devils_advocate said :

HenryBG said :

Weirdly, hardly anybody buys black market alcohol or tobacco – funny how reality flies in the face of your piss-poor argument, eh?

Black market tobacco is called chop-chop. The ATO would disagree with your “analysis” that hardly anybody buys it. Similarly, illegal imports (possibly referred to as grey market, depending on who you speak to) are also a problem.

The ATO knows that it collects about $5.5 billion per annum on tobacco. It estimates it loses somewhere between $0.1 billion and $0.5 billion on chop-chop.
As I said – hardly anybody smokes chop-chop.

See what you can do when you use facts instead of just making shit up to support your worthless preconceived notions?

1) So now the amount of illegal tobacco represented by $100 million – $500 million of revenue foregone is “hardly anyone”? Right. Someone is making shit up here, but it aint me.

2) For bonus points, see research on statistical estimation of hidden populations.

As someone who enjoys a regular doob after work with friends I’m not all to fussed about it being legal or not, I would prefer to be giving my cash to some enterprising young fellow who makes the world a magical place rather than give it to the government. The war on drugs is a silly war, so it should be treated by all as silly, but please remember that it makes the police feel like they are doing their bit when they get to flex their muscle and brag about their insignificant achievements, because that’s what they are – insignificant, it doesn’t hurt supply, it doesn’t hurt demand and it doesn’t deter.

Education is key, I know that is a hard concept to grasp for prohibition supporters but actually teaching kids facts instead of over killing them with reefer madness propaganda is the only way to create free thinking adults who make decisions based on their own risk assessment and judgment, because they have been given the facts and it is then up to the individual to do with them what they will. Always remember though, it isn’t the drug that is the problem it is the individual.

Most importantly though I think people need to realise that smoking a joint doesn’t make you a “druggie” or an unproductive member of society, in fact in my own experiences it makes me more productive and I don’t have to rely on man made drugs to improve my concentration levels, I don’t sit around on the couch playing video games or watching TV, I take care of business.

devils_advocate said :

HenryBG said :

Weirdly, hardly anybody buys black market alcohol or tobacco – funny how reality flies in the face of your piss-poor argument, eh?

Black market tobacco is called chop-chop. The ATO would disagree with your “analysis” that hardly anybody buys it. Similarly, illegal imports (possibly referred to as grey market, depending on who you speak to) are also a problem.

The ATO knows that it collects about $5.5 billion per annum on tobacco. It estimates it loses somewhere between $0.1 billion and $0.5 billion on chop-chop.
As I said – hardly anybody smokes chop-chop.

See what you can do when you use facts instead of just making shit up to support your worthless preconceived notions?

devils_advocate said :

HenryBG said :

Weirdly, hardly anybody buys black market alcohol or tobacco – funny how reality flies in the face of your piss-poor argument, eh?

Black market tobacco is called chop-chop. The ATO would disagree with your “analysis” that hardly anybody buys it. Similarly, illegal imports (possibly referred to as grey market, depending on who you speak to) are also a problem.

And I know of a few people who sell home-brew beers and spirits without a licence and for much cheaper due to no taxes. And some of thier homebrews are better than any beer in most bottlos too, funnily enough. There is also an older gent who makes quite a nice red wine in Quangers that does it all under the table. Cheap and tasty.

And it’s not like chop-chop and home brew sell in small quantities either. I have seen milk crates of home brew spirits being bought from one of these guys and the above mentioned wine sells by the barrel.

johnboy said :

HenryBG said :

The prohibition on cannabis was essentially a racist attack on black americans back in the day. Why it is still prohibited 80 years later is a complete mystery.

Banning things that others like gives people with largely worthless lives a sense of value.

Like all the worthless mad cat women of Canberra united to get fireworks banned.

HenryBG said :

Weirdly, hardly anybody buys black market alcohol or tobacco – funny how reality flies in the face of your piss-poor argument, eh?

Black market tobacco is called chop-chop. The ATO would disagree with your “analysis” that hardly anybody buys it. Similarly, illegal imports (possibly referred to as grey market, depending on who you speak to) are also a problem.

Aren’t there some serious drugs around to find?

Potheads don’t make trouble, they make brownies.

fgzk said :

Don’t get confused with under the influence and detectable levels in a blood test. The presence of drugs is the only thing the “stats” show. Much like the road side drug testing scheme, there is no measure of influence with cannabis, just a presence.

Thanks, I don’t get confused, I am well aware of the difference. Valid point though, I concede.

It is not just the stats, there is the behaviours that go with the stats and other evidence (given as witness testimony), that go with the circumstances in that death ie, observations of impairment, evidence of chronic use, mental health issues relevant to its use etc, etc. As with anything, you need to look past “stats” and look for the full story.

If I could see the positives of cannabis use to far outweigh the negatives, rest assured I WOULD support it, but I don’t. The negatives are just far too great in my opinion. Supposed legalising and regulation – sale by government etc will not stop illegal sale and the black market will still operate with same social problems we have now. Look at tobacco, there is a huge black market there and it’s legal ……. Anyways, Im not going to get too involved in this discussion, because we tend to go around in circles 😉

HenryBG said :

The prohibition on cannabis was essentially a racist attack on black americans back in the day. Why it is still prohibited 80 years later is a complete mystery.

Banning things that others like gives people with largely worthless lives a sense of value.

buzz819 said :

Apparently vic roads has come out and said that 4.3% of road fatalities involve cannabis, I couldn’t find the article,

And how many involve alcohol? But alcohol’s legal, because prohibition failed.

In fact, how many road fatalities involve combustion engines? 100%? Ban them!

buzz819 said :

What will the cost be in legalizing cannabis? Will legalizing it reduce cannabis related crime and raise revenue? I’m going to say no, the government would have to tax it to make a revenue, but would have to price it to under cut the black market, or people would still just buy it on the black market, so that really does not get rid of illegal sales or raise the revenue. Will people still be dependant on it? Yes, thus burglaries etc will still occur to get the money to buy the drug.

Absolute garbage.

Let us know when you have an economist’s modelling that shows a black market in cannabis will persist beyond the lifting of the prohibition of cannabis.

Weirdly, hardly anybody buys black market alcohol or tobacco – funny how reality flies in the face of your piss-poor argument, eh?

buzz819 said :

Cannabis toxicity et al. Yes it is bad for you, like tobacco, like alcohol, like heroin, caffeine etc. .

No it isn’t.
15,000 people are killed every year by tobacco. None by cannabis.

The prohibition on cannabis was essentially a racist attack on black americans back in the day. Why it is still prohibited 80 years later is a complete mystery.

Spideydog “Go to the coroners court champ and you will find more than enough “names” with deaths associated with cannabis use and were under the influence at the time of death.”

Don’t get confused with under the influence and detectable levels in a blood test. The presence of drugs is the only thing the “stats” show. Much like the road side drug testing scheme, there is no measure of influence with cannabis, just a presence.

Spideydog said :

HenryBG said :

So you can’t name a single person, ever, in the history of the world, who has died from cannabis? I didn’t think you could.

Go to the coroners court champ and you will find more than enough “names” with deaths associated with cannabis use and were under the influence at the time of death. I cannot believe you were serious peddling that argument !!!!!

And yet you still don’t have any names, just more unevidenced anecdotal assumptions.

I might be tending to Jims view. Leave it as it is and everyone wins. Drug users can still get cheap drugs and share good times with their mates. Gunmen can still get guns and share good times with their mates. The community can still go mental and blame druggies for everything. Win Win Win. Why would you change such a long serving and tested formula?

The Governments should stay out of the business. They will only F#$% it up for the rest of us.

HenryBG said :

So you can’t name a single person, ever, in the history of the world, who has died from cannabis? I didn’t think you could.

Go to the coroners court champ and you will find more than enough “names” with deaths associated with cannabis use and were under the influence at the time of death. I cannot believe you were serious peddling that argument !!!!!

HenryBG said :

HenryBG said :

It’s a failed policy, supported by ignorance and illogic.

Incidentally, seeing as there’s a lot of conflict of interest on this issue, I should point out that I don’t like cannabis myself.

My drugs of choice include one cup of coffee in the morning, one pack of of cigarettes per week, a bottle of wine twice a week and an esky full of beer when I go camping.
If those drugs (which are toxic and regularly kill people, unlike cannabis) were prohibited, then I would be a criminal and I would help fund organised crime by buying them on the black market the way the market in cannabis currently functions.

Ending prohibition on marijuana would probably see prices rise pretty dramatically and probably limit the strength of whatever you could buy.

Based on this, I think that prohibition is probably a good thing.

For the record, I’m also a massive fan of alcohol (primarily beer and good scotch) and Cuban cigars.

I’ve just had a cruise around the web, looking at different articles, both for and against prohibition of Cannabis.

While I understand both sides of the story, which is basically “We want it because other stuff is more harmful” to the “We don’t want it, because it is clearly bad” arguments.

I am in fact more swayed by the “It is bad” argument, but that is probably just my social up bringing, but I also think that cigarettes should be outlawed as well, my old man smoked my whole life until only recently.

Apparently vic roads has come out and said that 4.3% of road fatalities involve cannabis, I couldn’t find the article, but found a lot of linking articles, they may have just copied each other, so who knows?

What will the cost be in legalizing cannabis? Will legalizing it reduce cannabis related crime and raise revenue? I’m going to say no, the government would have to tax it to make a revenue, but would have to price it to under cut the black market, or people would still just buy it on the black market, so that really does not get rid of illegal sales or raise the revenue. Will people still be dependant on it? Yes, thus burglaries etc will still occur to get the money to buy the drug.

The good old “Let’s look at Amsterdam vs USA” argument of drug facts should not really be looked at, Amsterdam has a health system a lot like our own, America has, well nothing, so people will be effected a lot worse by drugs in places with an enormous poverty rate and low yield health care system.

20-30% of college age kids smoke cigarettes, even though it is illegal for them to do so, while cannabis is easy to get, making it even easier to get would see the increase of younger people using it (maybe only for a short time), then comes the problems with potential of increased mental health problems, again many studies saying it does increase the chances, many that says it doesn’t. (I have been stabbed by more people effected by cannabis, because of cannabis related mental health problems, then I have by people effected by tobacco or alcohol, again personal experience)

It is also shown in numerous studies that it decreased mental acuity, decreases short term memory, motor skill reflexes etc. I know, so does alcohol, most places you can’t drink at work, so if the government relaxes the legal status of cannabis, what about work place policy’s that would have to be enacted for it’s use?

There are a lot of people that don’t agree with the “gateway drug” stigma, I believe that as it is currently illegal, people are figuring they may as well try something harder as it’s illegal as well.

Cannabis toxicity et al. Yes it is bad for you, like tobacco, like alcohol, like heroin, caffeine etc. Will legalizing it stop that? No. LSD is apparently not that toxic for your body, but I can’t see that being legalized.

HenryBG said :

It’s a failed policy, supported by ignorance and illogic.

Incidentally, seeing as there’s a lot of conflict of interest on this issue, I should point out that I don’t like cannabis myself.

My drugs of choice include one cup of coffee in the morning, one pack of of cigarettes per week, a bottle of wine twice a week and an esky full of beer when I go camping.
If those drugs (which are toxic and regularly kill people, unlike cannabis) were prohibited, then I would be a criminal and I would help fund organised crime by buying them on the black market the way the market in cannabis currently functions.

reality_check said :

Show you one person that has died as a result of cannabis? How about the numerous suicides that occur in Canberra every week as a result of mental health issues? And the prevalence of cannabis smoking amongst the mentally ill that further impacts on their illness?

So you can’t name a single person, ever, in the history of the world, who has died from cannabis? I didn’t think you could.
Instead, you are reduced to an illogical argument (mistaking correlation for causation) notable for an absence of any actual facts.

Meanwhile, 15,000 Australians are killed every year by tobacco.

reality_check said :

And if you look closely, you’ll see that those persons currently before the Court (and previously before the Court in recent years) for murder – yes, taking a life – were heavy cannabis users and allege to be under the influence of said drugs at the time of the offence/s.

Ah, yes – the famous old “Reefer Madness”. Are you serious?
Do we read of stoners randomly assaulting anybody (let alone killing them) with anything like the same frequency as we hear of yet another grievous bodily harm or death caused by a drunk deciding to “king-hit” somebody for fun?
Thousands of assaults are committed every week in Australia by people who are drunk. And drink is legal, because prohibition did not work.

reality_check said :

In fact – look at just how many persons currently before the criminal justice system were under the influence of this “harmless drug” when they committed unrelated offences, both violent and property-related….

Got any actual facts/figures for this? Sounds like complete rubbish to me.

reality_check said :

Again – don’t detract from your own argument by raising other legally available drugs as being “harmless”, that’s not what this argument is about.

It is precisely what this argument is about.
Dangerous substances are *regulated*, and alcohol, tobacco and caffeine send plenty more people to hospital or to their graves every year than cannabis ever possibly could.
Cannabis – which is not dangerous – is prohibited, thus causing all the crime-related issues and mafia-friendly conditions that the failed prohibition of alocohol also caused 85 years ago.
It’s a failed policy, supported by ignorance and illogic.

buzz819 said :

Jethro, just wondering, what research have you done, besides anecdotal evidence, into the long time use of cannabis? Not trolling, asking a genuine question.

In saying that, I would also like to know the toxicity of cannabis, ie. the harms of smoking, what it does compared to say a cigarette, is it more toxic then tobacco, does it contain more tar and over a long period of time will it cause more stress on the health system than cigarettes, which are all but illegal these days.

When users of a younger age start smoking cannabis, does it contribute more towards mental health issues, ie. schizophrenia, anxiety, depression or any other psychosis, compared to those that consume less of it or none at all. Obviously legalising it will not stop young people smoking it, it does not stop them smoking cigarettes.

Finally you have stated that there are no Cannabis only deaths, how about cannabis related deaths, ie. road fatalities, suicides, accidental etc. and how many more deaths would there be if the drug were legal?

A fair bit. Here is some evidence:

A longitudinal study was just released this week comparing the effects of long term exposure of tobacco smoke and cannabis smoke to lung function. Cannabis smoke was shown not to effect lung function, except in the most chronic users, and even these users had only small negative impacts. http://healthland.time.com/2012/01/10/study-smoking-marijuana-not-linked-with-lung-damage/

Evidence is also beginning to emerge that some of the active ingredients actually have positive health effects in terms of limiting cancer cell growth and protecting/improving brain damage caused by alcohol abuse and stroke. I’m not saying that we should get alcoholics or cancer patients to smoke bongs, but the current hysteria around the drug limits our ability to develop proper pharmaceuticals that could actually help people with illnesses.
http://www.420magazine.com/forums/cannabis-facts-information/47969-cannabis-brain-users-guide.html (A stoner magazine I know, but it does cite academic journals)

In terms of other types of harm caused by it’s use. In the UK about 1000 people per year are hospitalised as a result of their cannabis use. This is from a population of 2 million users. (ie. 1 in 2000 users [or 0.05%] will be hospitalised for the drug’s use in a single year). It is estimated that schizophrenia caused by smoking cannabis will occur in about 1 in 5000 male users and 1 in 7000 female users (many of whom were predisposed to this mental illness in the first place) – certainly not the demon drug that is apparently causing an explosion in schizophrenia and other health problems.
http://profdavidnutt.wordpress.com/ – This guy is a professor who used to be the head of one of the major drug policy advisory committees in the UK until he was sacked for arguing that the evidence against cannabis doesn’t warrant the current policy of prohibition.

Young people using are definitely most at risk of mental health impacts from its use. It is hard to make the causal link between things like depression and cannabis (or alcohol/tobacco/fatty food) use, as there is the chicken and egg question. Does using one of these substances make you depressed, or are depressed people more likely to gravitate towards harmful behaviours? However, there is definitely a higher rate of mental health issues amongst teenage users than adult users or teenage/adult non-users. That being said, there is no evidence that prohibition stops teenagers using the drug, so a better policy would be to have a regulated system that legalises the sale for adults and provides seriously harsh penalties for supply to minors. This isn’t going to stop young people using the drug, but would provide a better framework for managing its use and harmful effects. http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar_url?hl=en&q=http://www.bris.ac.uk/psychiatry/staff/zammit/documents/paper.pdf&sa=X&scisig=AAGBfm1wMbkOG3oHqRm25oI4uFZjwJYB4A&oi=scholarr

Again, the premise of my argument isn’t that cannabis is a harmless drug and should therefore be legal. It is that prohibition is not the proper framework to deal with the harms caused by the drug.

The major problems facing the drug reform movement are:
– too often the spokespeople for drug reform are stoner-types who fit the stereotype of a stupid lazy stoner and who pretend (or actually believe) that the drug is some type of super product that the world is missing out on – it’s not.
– there is so much misinformed public hysteria about the drug that all proponents of the current model have to do is put their fingers in their ears and scream ‘but it’s bad’! at the top of their lungs, and they win the argument. Anyone who argues against them is automatically labelled a stupid stoner and told (like reality-check did to me) to ‘go smoke another joint hurf durf’.

Jethro, just wondering, what research have you done, besides anecdotal evidence, into the long time use of cannabis? Not trolling, asking a genuine question.

In saying that, I would also like to know the toxicity of cannabis, ie. the harms of smoking, what it does compared to say a cigarette, is it more toxic then tobacco, does it contain more tar and over a long period of time will it cause more stress on the health system than cigarettes, which are all but illegal these days.

When users of a younger age start smoking cannabis, does it contribute more towards mental health issues, ie. schizophrenia, anxiety, depression or any other psychosis, compared to those that consume less of it or none at all. Obviously legalising it will not stop young people smoking it, it does not stop them smoking cigarettes.

Finally you have stated that there are no Cannabis only deaths, how about cannabis related deaths, ie. road fatalities, suicides, accidental etc. and how many more deaths would there be if the drug were legal?

reality_check said :

Are you seriously trying to say that legalising cannabis will stop the illegal drug trade and all associated crime? The junkies still have no money – legal or not to purchase – and still need to fund their “habit”. Making drugs legally available will not shut down the drug market or stop the crimes committed to support their drug habits! Are you really that naive?

Cannabis doesn’t make people into junkies, it doesn’t have the same physically addictive effects as H or cocaine or meth. I think you’ll find most cannabis users, at least in the ACT, are gainfully employed and have families. You need some street smarts if you’re going to be arguing the intricacies of the drug-trade.

The junkies still have no money – legal or not to purchase – and still need to fund their “habit”. Making drugs legally available will not shut down the drug market or stop the crimes committed to support their drug habits! Are you really that naive?

There was a report commissioed in the UK a few years ago now that concluded it would cost less than a (British) pound a day to keep a herion addict in pure heroin. Hell they could even purchase legit drugs from the taxes with which I provide them. And presto, no overdoses into the bargin.

Don’t come that old chestnut reality_check. I can see you are hurting from your experiences. But don’t you go thinking you are the only person ever to have had your life touched by drugs. It’s not an experience reserved exclusively for you you know. You really aren’t that special.

As I said, ‘I’ve seen the needle and the damage done’. No doubt I am guilty of many many things, but I can assure you naivety is certainly not one of them. Objectivity really is your friend you know. You should try it some time!

Alderney said :

HenryBG said :

More proof that prohibition,

a/ doesn’t work
&
b/ gobbles up police resources

Just imagine this entrepreneur was allowed to get on with his business, legally:
a/ the government would generate revenue by being able to tax his earnings
&
b/ the government would save money by not having to waste police & court resources hopelessly trying to enforce prohibition

Totally agree with this position. Also with the Jethro thesis.

Problem with this argument Henry is that vested interest i.e. chummy relationships between politicians and their lawyer mates, not to mention the insurence companies loosing a valuable revenue stream wouldn’t stand for it. (e.g. legel dope, yes even heroin and cocaine, means little or no chance of house break-ins so less need to insure).

‘I’ve seen the needle and the damage done’ and don’t really understand why people do it, but each to their own, as long as they aren’t using up all the police resources and adding to my taxes by clogging up the courts all the while expecting me to fund their gaol lifestyle choice. Also, legal drugs mean pure drugs so less over-doses and less resources occupying the health system; another financial win for the taxpayer.

Any argument that is premised on more people using because it is legal is pure bollocks and based on fear not fact. I’m no more likely to use if it was legal than I am when it’s not.

Are you seriously trying to say that legalising cannabis will stop the illegal drug trade and all associated crime? The junkies still have no money – legal or not to purchase – and still need to fund their “habit”. Making drugs legally available will not shut down the drug market or stop the crimes committed to support their drug habits! Are you really that naive?

HenryBG said :

reality_check said :

Obviously you haven’t dealt very much with people who have been deeply affected by cannabis, both short-term and long-term users. You make mention very briefly of the effect cannabis can have on mental health issues – perhaps you should spend some more time researching that angle of the argument – and then the links to criminal activity…

The links to criminal activity are entirely caused by the dopey prohibition laws which don’t work.

The talk of mental health issues is entirely speculative and there is nothing causative documented. Even if there were, this goes just as much for alcohol and that is regulated and taxed, not prohibited.

And then there is tobacco – a drug which kills 15,000 Australians EVERY YEAR. And *that* is regulated and taxed, not prohibited.

Perhaps you could name *one* (just one, go on…) person who has been killed by cannabis.

And today’s paper reported the thousands of people who are presenting at hospital with caffeine poisoning.

Support for the prohibition of cannabis is one of the most amazingly irrational things on display in today’s society – up there with all those people who want us to take them seriously and then admit they believe in a sky-fairy who will come down and take them up to heaven when they die.

Clearly, cannabis is far less harmful than the legal drugs

Show you one person that has died as a result of cannabis? How about the numerous suicides that occur in Canberra every week as a result of mental health issues? And the prevalence of cannabis smoking amongst the mentally ill that further impacts on their illness? And if you look closely, you’ll see that those persons currently before the Court (and previously before the Court in recent years) for murder – yes, taking a life – were heavy cannabis users and allege to be under the influence of said drugs at the time of the offence/s.

In fact – look at just how many persons currently before the criminal justice system were under the influence of this “harmless drug” when they committed unrelated offences, both violent and property-related…

Again – don’t detract from your own argument by raising other legally available drugs as being “harmless”, that’s not what this argument is about.

HenryBG said :

More proof that prohibition,

a/ doesn’t work
&
b/ gobbles up police resources

Just imagine this entrepreneur was allowed to get on with his business, legally:
a/ the government would generate revenue by being able to tax his earnings
&
b/ the government would save money by not having to waste police & court resources hopelessly trying to enforce prohibition

Totally agree with this position. Also with the Jethro thesis.

Problem with this argument Henry is that vested interest i.e. chummy relationships between politicians and their lawyer mates, not to mention the insurence companies loosing a valuable revenue stream wouldn’t stand for it. (e.g. legel dope, yes even heroin and cocaine, means little or no chance of house break-ins so less need to insure).

‘I’ve seen the needle and the damage done’ and don’t really understand why people do it, but each to their own, as long as they aren’t using up all the police resources and adding to my taxes by clogging up the courts all the while expecting me to fund their gaol lifestyle choice. Also, legal drugs mean pure drugs so less over-doses and less resources occupying the health system; another financial win for the taxpayer.

Any argument that is premised on more people using because it is legal is pure bollocks and based on fear not fact. I’m no more likely to use if it was legal than I am when it’s not.

reality_check said :

Drawing attention to other substances and their current legal standing does not assist your argument, it just distracts people from it. Obviously you haven’t dealt very much with people who have been deeply affected by cannabis, both short-term and long-term users. You make mention very briefly of the effect cannabis can have on mental health issues – perhaps you should spend some more time researching that angle of the argument – and then the links to criminal activity…

And every time someone draws attention to the people who have been affected by cannabis they are drawing attention to the fact that people are affected by cannabis despite the current system of prohibition. The people who have been harmed by cannabis would be better off having access to well-funded support services that could be funded by the tax revenue. (In the same way that the massive health costs of tobacco are at least partly funded by the tax revenue generated by their sale).

Indeed, I would argue that under a tightly regulated system similar to our current approach to tobacco (with tight limits on the sale to minors, well funded advertising campaigns highlighting the dangers of the drug, regulation and control over the type of cannabis available on the market), we could probably actually start reducing the use of cannabis in society (just as we have reduced the use of tobacco over the last 10 years). As it stands, there is little to no proper education about the drug, so too many people use the drug with the misconception that it is totally safe. Furthermore, its ready availability to children (95% of Australian high school students rate cannabis as ‘easy’ or ‘very easy’ to obtain) means that the people most at risk of its harmful effects have very little stopping their access to this drug. Finally, the fact that usage rates haven’t dropped in any real way in the 40 years we have been fighting this ‘war’ clearly highlights the fact that the aim of stopping or limiting cannabis use has not been achieved.

As I noted in my original post, Portugal and the Netherlands both have lower usage rates than Australia. Portugal is particularly interesting as its move away from prohibition has been quite recent and has resulted in a noticeable decline in the use of the drug over the past few years.

Simply saying, ‘but it has bad effects’ isn’t reason enough to support a system that leads to so many other problems. You aren’t proving that prohibition is the best model to deal with the negative effects of the drug. This is something that proponents of the prohibition model never do. They simply say, ‘but it’s bad’ and expect that to stand as reason enough alone. Well, I’m also saying it’s bad, but that a tightly regulated system is a better way to deal with the harm it causes.

Similarly, it is reasonable to highlight the fact that we have an inconsistent approach to things that cause harm. If your argument is that the effects of cannabis are so bad that it justifies having a total ban in place despite the harm caused by this ban, it is reasonable for me to point out that this argument should apply consistently to everything in society that causes harm, whether it is the caffeinated drinks that hospitalise a couple of dozen kids a year and occasional kill one, or the high fat and high sugar foods that so many people stuff into their faces and end up dying from while they’re still in their 40s or 50s, or the online role player games that lead to serious addictions in some people (including people who have died as a result of their addiction to these games). Most importantly, this ban should apply to alcohol, which has catastrophic results for individuals and society as a whole. Yet, as I said in my earlier post, we have seen the results of a total ban on alcohol – it didn’t work and caused more harm than it stopped.

So again, why is the prohibition model the best to deal with the negative effects of this drug?

reality_check said :

Obviously you haven’t dealt very much with people who have been deeply affected by cannabis, both short-term and long-term users. You make mention very briefly of the effect cannabis can have on mental health issues – perhaps you should spend some more time researching that angle of the argument – and then the links to criminal activity…

The links to criminal activity are entirely caused by the dopey prohibition laws which don’t work.

The talk of mental health issues is entirely speculative and there is nothing causative documented. Even if there were, this goes just as much for alcohol and that is regulated and taxed, not prohibited.

And then there is tobacco – a drug which kills 15,000 Australians EVERY YEAR. And *that* is regulated and taxed, not prohibited.

Perhaps you could name *one* (just one, go on…) person who has been killed by cannabis.

And today’s paper reported the thousands of people who are presenting at hospital with caffeine poisoning.

Support for the prohibition of cannabis is one of the most amazingly irrational things on display in today’s society – up there with all those people who want us to take them seriously and then admit they believe in a sky-fairy who will come down and take them up to heaven when they die.

Clearly, cannabis is far less harmful than the legal drugs

More proof that prohibition,

a/ doesn’t work
&
b/ gobbles up police resources

Just imagine this entrepreneur was allowed to get on with his business, legally:
a/ the government would generate revenue by being able to tax his earnings
&
b/ the government would save money by not having to waste police & court resources hopelessly trying to enforce prohibition

Jethro said :

reality_check said :

Jethro said :

I see this as more evidence that the sale and consumption of cannabis should be legalised and regulated.

Clearly prohibition doesn’t stop the sale and consumption of a drug that something like 20% of the population regularly uses. All it does is puts the sale of it in the hands of criminals in the suburbs where it doesn’t belong. I would rather a well regulated business in Fyshwick or Mitchell was selling it, instead of some suburban dope dealer attracting unwanted elements into suburban areas.

So you’re saying it should be legal coz everyone does it – but you don’t want the “unwanted elements” in your suburban area? Isn’t that precisely why it’s not legal? Because of the issues it brings with it? Go smoke another joint…

Read comment 10. If you can explain to me why the failed prohibition model is better, please do so.

As an aside, it was interesting to read the article in the Canberra Times today regarding caffeine overdoses. It appears odd to me that adults cannot access a drug that has never caused a single overdose, whereas children can access a drug that is being sold in increasing concentrations and is linked to overdose deaths and hospitalisations.

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/national/national/general/energy-hit-leaves-more-hospitalised/2420460.aspx

Drawing attention to other substances and their current legal standing does not assist your argument, it just distracts people from it. Obviously you haven’t dealt very much with people who have been deeply affected by cannabis, both short-term and long-term users. You make mention very briefly of the effect cannabis can have on mental health issues – perhaps you should spend some more time researching that angle of the argument – and then the links to criminal activity…

reality_check said :

Jethro said :

I see this as more evidence that the sale and consumption of cannabis should be legalised and regulated.

Clearly prohibition doesn’t stop the sale and consumption of a drug that something like 20% of the population regularly uses. All it does is puts the sale of it in the hands of criminals in the suburbs where it doesn’t belong. I would rather a well regulated business in Fyshwick or Mitchell was selling it, instead of some suburban dope dealer attracting unwanted elements into suburban areas.

So you’re saying it should be legal coz everyone does it – but you don’t want the “unwanted elements” in your suburban area? Isn’t that precisely why it’s not legal? Because of the issues it brings with it? Go smoke another joint…

Read comment 10. If you can explain to me why the failed prohibition model is better, please do so.

As an aside, it was interesting to read the article in the Canberra Times today regarding caffeine overdoses. It appears odd to me that adults cannot access a drug that has never caused a single overdose, whereas children can access a drug that is being sold in increasing concentrations and is linked to overdose deaths and hospitalisations.

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/national/national/general/energy-hit-leaves-more-hospitalised/2420460.aspx

LSWCHP said :

I’m with Jethro on this. That was very well written.

I tried dope when I was young, and didn’t like it much. It was expensive, and I didn’t like giving money to the slimy scumbags who supplied it. I also didn’t like the fear of apprehension associated with owning and using the stuff.

Prohibition of marijuana simply results in bad people accumulating money and influence to the great detriment of our society.

Because clearly if dope was legal, said “bad people” would stop dealing drugs and become model citizens… Maybe they should dabble in a bit of meth or heroin to boost their sales?

Jethro said :

I see this as more evidence that the sale and consumption of cannabis should be legalised and regulated.

Clearly prohibition doesn’t stop the sale and consumption of a drug that something like 20% of the population regularly uses. All it does is puts the sale of it in the hands of criminals in the suburbs where it doesn’t belong. I would rather a well regulated business in Fyshwick or Mitchell was selling it, instead of some suburban dope dealer attracting unwanted elements into suburban areas.

So you’re saying it should be legal coz everyone does it – but you don’t want the “unwanted elements” in your suburban area? Isn’t that precisely why it’s not legal? Because of the issues it brings with it? Go smoke another joint…

LSWCHP said :

I’m with Jethro on this. That was very well written.

I tried dope when I was young, and didn’t like it much. It was expensive, and I didn’t like giving money to the slimy scumbags who supplied it. I also didn’t like the fear of apprehension associated with owning and using the stuff.

Prohibition of marijuana simply results in bad people accumulating money and influence to the great detriment of our society.

Not to mention the accumulation of gunmen from both sides of the track.

I’m with Jethro on this. That was very well written.

I tried dope when I was young, and didn’t like it much. It was expensive, and I didn’t like giving money to the slimy scumbags who supplied it. I also didn’t like the fear of apprehension associated with owning and using the stuff.

Prohibition of marijuana simply results in bad people accumulating money and influence to the great detriment of our society.

*Portugal not Spain

@dungfungus

Being a proponent of drug law reform does not make one a drug user. I tried a bit of weed in my university days – it was ok, but not for me; as a man in his thirties juggling kids, a mortgage and part-time work I would have to say that a drug that’s main effect is laziness is not for me. Yet, it is also certainly not something that deserves the current policy of prohibition. As a pragmatic citizen I want laws that lead to the least possible harm to society.

At the end of the day prohibition laws boil down to the idea that cannabis consumption is so harmful (to the user and society) that it must therefore be dealt with by a total ban, even if that ban leads to harmful consequences in itself.

Yet the actual harm caused by cannabis (to the user and society) is fairly low (although certainly not non-existent) – decades of scientific research have proved little more than the fact that long-term cannabis use may help bring forward mental health issues of those predisposed to such things. In terms of harm, the evidence seems to suggest that cannabis falls below alcohol and tobacco, two drugs that we have been smart enough to realise are better off as regulated drugs than illegal drugs.

I would argue that because the harm (to the user and society) caused by cannabis consumption is lower than the harm caused by cannabis prohibition the logical conclusion is to legalise and regulate cannabis, not outlaw it. In other words, the harm caused by cannabis cannot be seen as a justification for the harm caused by prohibition.

As I am unwilling to write a thesis on the subject I will break down the arguments regarding prohibition into a simple for and against list.

Arguments for prohibition:

Prohibition realises that cannabis use is not healthy and aims to dissuade people from using cannabis by making it clear that society disapproves of its use.

Prohibition makes it slightly harder for users to access cannabis.

Arguments against prohibition:

Prohibition has not been proven to reduce cannabis use by any degree – indeed countries where cannabis use is (virtually) legal (such as the Netherlands and Spain) have lower usage rates, whereas Australia has one of the highest usage rates in the world. In countries where cannabis is legal users who have dependence issues are more able to access support services, which are better funded because of the taxation system that brings in tax dollars from cannabis users.

Prohibition empowers organised crime: tens of thousands of people have been killed in Mexico by crime gangs fighting over cannabis distribution routes into America. Cannabis in Australia is a multi-billion dollar industry, yet the only people to see the profits of this industry are organised criminals.

Prohibition means that children have easier access to cannabis than alcohol… it is easier to buy cannabis off a drug dealer operating in the black market than it is to buy alcohol from a bottle shop that must operate within the law.

Prohibition forces cannabis users (who make up about 20% of the population) to deal with organised criminals even though the users are otherwise law abiding people. This is where the ‘gateway drug’ argument falls apart. If cannabis users didn’t have to deal with criminals they would be less likely to be offered more serious drugs such as meth or heroin.

Prohibition means that the type/quality of cannabis on the market is not regulated. Studies have shown that the most harmful type of cannabis is the super-hydro stuff that is sold in the current system (hydro packs more for its punch and is therefore cheaper to transport and more profitable for its size). A regulated market would not have this problem and could in fact reduce the amount of harmful hydro in the market.

Prohibition criminalises 1 in 5 otherwise law-abiding adult Australians, many of whom contribute to society in very real ways – yet a conviction for possession (obviously not in Canberra where we have been smart enough to decriminalise low level possession) is enough to make these people lose their jobs.

Prohibition costs the community multi-million dollars in enforcement and costs the community multi-million dollars in tax revenue from what could be an otherwise well-regulate industry. The tax revenue from cannabis sales could and should be used to fund the cost of cannabis harm (remember that prohibition has done nothing to reduce cannabis harm).

Prohibition forces the production and sale of cannabis into the suburbs – this is the big one. I used to live next door to a drug dealer. People coming and going at all hours. Fights on the street over ‘stolen drugs’. I remember the day I brought my first born kid home the dealer across the street had a carload of people rock up with baseball bats and start a fight. We hid in our bedroom with the doors locked. This wouldn’t have happened without prohibition. It was basically an all round intimidating position to be in. Why should we give the rights to production and distribution to criminals? Prohibition has not stopped the production and sale of cannabis. It has just shifted it to organised criminals who make life really difficult for the rest of us. Regulation makes far more sense.

At the end of the day the use of cannabis is nothing more than a vice. In Australia we have been smart enough to legalise and regulate most vices. Gambling and prostitution are far less harmful than they used to be when they were in the hands of the mafia (although there is clearly room for improving the regulations of these businesses; I would suggest the tobacco model is the best one to follow). Our inability to see past the prejudices regarding cannabis consumption has limited our ability to develop a useful policy regarding this drug.

The alcohol prohibition in America during the 20’s is rightly scoffed at as a failed policy. The prohibition of cannabis will one day be seen as the same. This is because the harm caused by prohibition is far worse than the harm caused by cannabis usage (which the evidence tells us has in no way actually been reduced by prohibition).

And as for your comment about me driving… if you are a regular reader of this site you would know I am one of the biggest proponents of safe roads. I have been driving for more than 15 years. I’ve never been booked for any road offence and doubt I ever will be. My ability to see a seriously flawed policy for what it is does not make me a bad driver.

Jethro said :

I see this as more evidence that the sale and consumption of cannabis should be legalised and regulated.

Clearly prohibition doesn’t stop the sale and consumption of a drug that something like 20% of the population regularly uses. All it does is puts the sale of it in the hands of criminals in the suburbs where it doesn’t belong. I would rather a well regulated business in Fyshwick or Mitchell was selling it, instead of some suburban dope dealer attracting unwanted elements into suburban areas.

It worries me that people like Jetrhro walk amongst us. It terrifies me that they also drive.

devils_advocate said :

Martlark said :

Dilandach said :

…buying flash cars and big TVs with little to no explanation of how they can afford it on the dole?

When was the last time any retail business asked you how you earned all the cash you just plonked down? You think they’ll report dole bludgers each time they cash splurge?

I *think* what was being referred to is the neighbours etc becoming suspicious of the flash car, other lifestyle accoutrements that have no sensible explanation. If nieghbours who didn’t like that element in their street, or were simply jealous, reported that to the cops, then conspicuous consumption combined with some other evidence it might be enough to raid.

Also I think it’s fair to assume that not all individuals involved in illicit drug trade are geniusii who have the abstract thinking skills to forsee future consequences based on current actions.

Nothing flash about a white Commodore.

Duffbowl said :

Depositing it in a bank is dodge, as financial institutions do track and report unusual transactions. So that might be one way to get it noticed.
.

Not if you are clever enough to have yourself registered as a sex worker , you can then say that the money being deposited is sexy money from sexing people who pay for sex and not dirty money from drugs. + how many sex workers give receipts to their tax agent?

Martlark said :

Dilandach said :

…buying flash cars and big TVs with little to no explanation of how they can afford it on the dole?

When was the last time any retail business asked you how you earned all the cash you just plonked down? You think they’ll report dole bludgers each time they cash splurge?

I *think* what was being referred to is the neighbours etc becoming suspicious of the flash car, other lifestyle accoutrements that have no sensible explanation. If nieghbours who didn’t like that element in their street, or were simply jealous, reported that to the cops, then conspicuous consumption combined with some other evidence it might be enough to raid.

Also I think it’s fair to assume that not all individuals involved in illicit drug trade are geniusii who have the abstract thinking skills to forsee future consequences based on current actions.

Dilandach said :

I’ve often wondered, do these relatively small time dealers/suppliers spend their money wisely and under the radar or do they generally do the stupid thing of slapping down deposits for houses, buying flash cars and big TVs with little to no explanation of how they can afford it on the dole?

Agree with Martlark on this; not too many salespeople are going to care where you got the money from, as long as you have the money.

Depositing it in a bank is dodge, as financial institutions do track and report unusual transactions. So that might be one way to get it noticed.

If anyone was to notice a bit of extravagance, it would be a neighbour. Do they report it? Well, that depends on the care and responsibility. I’d suggest that in Canberra, the neighbours might care, but won’t want to get too involved.

Dilandach said :

…buying flash cars and big TVs with little to no explanation of how they can afford it on the dole?

When was the last time any retail business asked you how you earned all the cash you just plonked down? You think they’ll report dole bludgers each time they cash splurge?

I see this as more evidence that the sale and consumption of cannabis should be legalised and regulated.

Clearly prohibition doesn’t stop the sale and consumption of a drug that something like 20% of the population regularly uses. All it does is puts the sale of it in the hands of criminals in the suburbs where it doesn’t belong. I would rather a well regulated business in Fyshwick or Mitchell was selling it, instead of some suburban dope dealer attracting unwanted elements into suburban areas.

80k cash … noice

I’ve often wondered, do these relatively small time dealers/suppliers spend their money wisely and under the radar or do they generally do the stupid thing of slapping down deposits for houses, buying flash cars and big TVs with little to no explanation of how they can afford it on the dole?