cannabis has not been shown to cause cancer. in fact, studies have shown that cannabinoids have anti-cancer properties. and there has never ever been a death from cannabis use. not one.

i can't tell if you're serious or not?

On the subject of smoking cigarettes / tobacco, I'm probably a typical case from my generation. I came from a household that was anti-tobacco. When I was in primary school Harold the Giraffe and the Life Education van came and told us all about the evils of tobacco and that intestines were very long. I promised I would never smoke. And then, despite my better judgement, as a teenager a peer offered me a cigarette and I smoked. I vowed never to do it again, but I did. Then I smoked for years and tried to quit again and again and again, and even managed to quit for two years. Stupidly, I picked up another cigarette at a time of high stress thinking I was strong enough, and have been smoking ever since. No matter how expensive it is, or how much they change the packaging, or how bad I know it is, or how much I learn about biology and how bad this stuff is, I smoke, and my sentiments are similar to other smokers.

You're not going to stop teenagers from doing dangerous things by making them forbidden fruits because I can assure you those are the things that in youth (and even in adulthood from time to time) taste better. You tell a teenager no no no and give them obstacles to what they can and can't do and it's not something to be obeyed, it's a challenge to be overcome, a way to assert independence, identity and craft one's own path. Punishment and exclusion doesn't work either. Ask any kid who got caught smoking behind the school dunnies - put them on detention, and instead, they'll wag school.

Prohibition is for idiots, and plain packaging / walled smoking cabinets aren't bad moves but they only stop advertising at the point of sale. The origins of cigarette smoking lay for many people, and continues to lie, in it's social benefits and later it's addictive qualities. But like with anything if you marginalise anyone or anything enough it doesn't disappear, it just goes underground and festers into something more noxious than how it began....so again, prohibition is for idiots and that includes raising the legal age for smoking which is currently where it should be - equal to legal adulthood.

I should also add that tobacco is more addictive than heroin and although people do get addicted to marijuana it's often when it's mixed with more addictive substances like tobacco (and even heroin in some cases).

Were marijuana cheaper, legal and available in pure forms, that is, unadulterated by other substances, it would not be a forbidden fruit and although some people would be addicted to it, many people wouldn't, and like others have said, they wouldn't have to turn to alcohol as often which does a shit load of damage in the community - probably more than the other drugs combined.

"You tell a teenager no no no and give them obstacles to what they can and can't do and it's not something to be obeyed, it's a challenge to be overcome, a way to assert independence, identity and craft one's own path."

I agree. This reminds me of an article by the former US Surgeon General who suggested a drop in cannabis usage when a medical marijuana law was passed.

"According to the official California Student Survey, teen marijuana use in California rose steadily from 1990 to 1996, but began falling immediately after the medical-marijuana law was passed. Among ninth graders, marijuana use in the last six months fell by more than 40 percent from 1995-96 to 2001-02 (the most recent available figures)."

I wondered if this was the opposite of no no no. If it's yes, they lose interest?

http://www.maps.org/media/pj032804.html

Emma

Cannabis has been demonised for so long, for reasons that were purely market driven to begin with (https://raoulduke1989.wordpress.com/2011/05/02/mini-thesis-the-smear-campaign-against-cannabis-u-s-a-1930s/) and now have resulted in the herb as being perceived as heinous as heroin.

Cannabis is a far safer drug than either the legal tobacco or alcohol. It does not even require smoking, can be used in cooking or inhaled using a vaporiser.

Emma

Your description of how you became addicted to tobacco resonated with me also. I come from a non-tobacco smoking family. Although my father was an alcoholic - so have had first hand witness as to how a legal drug could turn a delightful witty man into snarling creature his family were too afraid to approach. He was not physically violent, but verbally did much damage.

I got hooked on nicotine, because of the dumb, mostly Australian, habit of mixing cannabis with tobacco - to make it go further. While I smoked a pure joint, I had fun, could take or leave the drug. But over time of using the mix, found myself craving tobacco - and it is a boring drug, after the first initial inhale, it does not get any better, that's all folks! If it was criminalised, surely it would only have a very small market of those who are already addicted? Unless someone has been dealt some very unlucky genes, most users are unlikely to become addicted as swiftly as many people are with alcohol, tobacco, heroin and amphetamines, simply because tobacco tastes foul and whatever hit you get from it does not last very long.

I think if someone was to follow the money/paper trail, they would find links between tobacco corporations and the continued ban on cannabis.

"I read recently that marijuana use has now been linked to testicular cancer"
The sample size of the study you mentioned is too small (data could have been cherry-picked) and it is well known that cannabis has anti-cancer properties.

A hypothetical study investigating the ‘link’ between Panadol and headaches would conclude that those that use Panadol have more incidence of headaches than non-Panadol users.

The same study could be applied to any substance or procedure that can kill cancer – more people will be using treatments to treat their cancer. For anyone with cancer, they will use a search engine to find remedies – I can’t believe these “scientists” missed this.

"marijuana use over prolonged periods reduces IQ"
Only for adolescents - all the more reason for regulations. A famous study[1] double the size found that cannabis use in adults did not impair mental ability.

"With regards to a drop in road fatalities by 9% after US states legalised medicinal marijuana - is this coincidence, the introduction of better cars, more people wearing seatbelts?"

All variables were controlled for: they measured usage before and after legalisation.

"I have witnessed several people turn into near vegetables through prolonged cannabis use"
I have witnessed the same with alcohol, but I have no doubt that a regulated drug is safer than an unregulated drug. With regulations, we can have a minimum CBD[2] content which will reduce many of the existing problems.

"It would be appreciated that assertions about cannibis being safe for consumption be carefully researched first. It is an emotive issue, many people like to use drugs, but should societly ultimately be responsible for the additional medical costs that prolonged use causes?"

You're missing the point, and living in a fairy-tale land where drug taking does not exist. Adults will continue to consume cannabis no matter what, it is just a question of whether or not a regulation will reduce harm.

"The cost to families and society is too high."
I am keen to read the evidence of the cost of legalising cannabis being high. Legalisation will bring in tax revenue, problems will decrease due to safety regulations being introduced, and enforcement will be freed up to keep us safer in other areas.

1. http://healthland.time.com/2011/07/19/study-marijuana-not-linked-with-long-term-cognitive-impairment
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabidiol

Gavin,I've never been called for jury service due to occupational exemption.But I can assure you I would never go soft on a drug offence.I was born in the morning,so I've been told by the person who should know,but not this morning.I've seen the damage that drug abuse does to people.Everything from antisocial behaviour to death.The "they aren't my drugs" excuse is about as believable as a fairy tale.

We have more than enough problems with legal drugs without legalizing more of the garbage. This includes the obvious culprits,alcohol and tobacco,but also mind altering prescription drugs.The "shrink" fraternity as well as GPs are remarkably relaxed about doling this stuff out to everybody from toddlers up.

If you want a full on drug dependent society just legalize the bloody lot and see what happens.You are guilty of gutless and irresponsible attitude and behaviour.Not a chargeable offence,unfortunately.

I don't like this part though. And no mention of getting cannabis out of the "illegal" category.

"The Australian Greens believe that:

1. The Australian Greens do not support the legalisation of currently illegal drugs.

You are entitled to your opinion, Mr. Dawgs.

There is a difference between legalising and decriminalising, which is not specifically discussed in the Greens policies or the article above, but that is what we are talking about here, IMO.

It is rare to find any Party that has a policy platform entirely matching one's own position. Look at poor old M. Turnbull, for example!

@Mr Walker. Not supporting legalisation sounds pretty specific to me. I am aware of the difference. I want it legalised and taxed like many others and this is not so much a lone position. Decriminalising doesn't go far enough.

Pesticides don't kill plants. Herbicides do.
When not drugged, is it possible for you to produce a coherent sentence with perhaps the merest suggestion of logic included?

People traffic legal drugs e.g. ritalin
Please explain??

Legalization for sixteen year olds?
So high school teachers and university lecturers try to teach students who are off their faces. Such a progressive suggestion.
I will agree with this approach as soon as I can afford a tank to drive to work.

Wouldn't it be great if we could all drive tanks to work! No wait, probably not.

I think sixteen is too young, it should be either 18 or 21. The justification for the 21 limit: give young adults ample time for their brains to 'set', plus giving them an un-destracted chance at university.

Actually if you want the brain to set (which it doesn't exactly, you see it's got plasticity...so we'll go with the Finish Growing idea) 25 is probably a better age.

But in terms of the law, 18 year olds are adults who can do all the things other adults do. 16 year olds are given some rights but perhaps more responsbilities (we can be taxed and work before we can vote). When the law said 21 year olds could drink 16 to 20 year olds snuck it from their parent's cabinet or got an older person to buy it. The law now says 18 year olds can drink and 16 and 17 year olds continue to do the same thing...

The brain physiology presumably hasn't changed and neither has the reasoning behind it. Drinking is still "cool". It makes people do strange things and gives people altered perceptions. It's also a forbidden fruit. Remember when you were 16 and got excited when they didn't ask you for ID, but when you got to 30 and got excited when they did? Different ages don't just mean different brain chemistry but also different needs and responses to changes in the environment. A 16 year old needs to learn what they can and can't do as an independent adult and that is how they build the brain chemistry they have at 25 - what it 'sets' into. We tell the kids they can't do anything when their bodies are saying they're supposed to be trying, what do you think is going to happen?

Those who know that the law is wrong, and those who are aware that our law system is not static and changes on a weekly (daily?) basis, will continue traditions that have been existence since first recorded history - they will continue using useful drugs with a guilt-free conscience.

I'm sure there was much drug taking during the creation of this report, as coffee has many known benefits, and alcohol is a socially acceptable means of celebration.

Keith:
You ask why the war on drugs has failed. Prohibition never worked. Drugs find there way into prisons in significant quantities, the US government has had segments under its control transporting drugs, and otherwise heavily involved in the drug trade — always when it was in the ‘interests of the US’, of course!

Police corruption? Undoubtably there are, or have been instances, just as police used to be involved in prostitution, in Sydney at least, but in numbers enough to subvert the system? That I doubt!

Find a society where mind altering substances have not been used, if you can. Have you ever wondered why little kids so enthusiastically spin and spin and spin until they can no longer stand. That they lose normal control is obvious, that they immensely enjoy it is also obvious.

To your society without drugs being illegal. In part we have it with alcohol. Youngsters get their hands on it regularly, and yes, society suffers the consequences in violence and assaults, the gay bashing is an example, sexual assault and vandalism. However all of the above also occur with the legal aged drinkers.

Young women would not be forced or pressured into prostitution to pay for their habits, or young men into thievery of one sort or another.

There is no question that alcohol causes as least as many problems to society, as does, or would other drugs. How much of the ‘harm’ that illegal drugs are said to cause is in fact a result of the illegal status as opposed to effects of the actual drug itself?

I have friends who have used cannabis for sixty odd years, a least one of them who has used it heavily, yet I see no significant difference in their mental ability from their younger days. Certainly the heavy user can still beat me at chess and scrabble — he wins a few local competitions — has a better memory than I do, and I have no use for any mind altering substance as I have never got any pleasure/benefit when I have tried it.

I also worked with a mechanical engineer who was addicted to heroin. Except that he was somewhat ‘brittle’, intolerant of interruptions to his work, few would ever know of his addiction. He was as good as anybody else with whom I ever worked, and carried the specs for modifying motors — specs that everybody else looked up tables for — in his head.,

The illegal drugs regime has been a direct cause of criminality — assaults as in robberies, break-ins, corruption, generally antisocial life styles because of the price of illegal drugs, unnecessarily high because they are illegal, leaves control of drugs to the criminal element, as opposed to regulated and taxed supplies, makes drugs more attractive to the young — oldies don’t like it so it must be good!

Without illegal drugs we would have fewer people with criminal convictions, convictions that often create problems for them later in life when the passing of a few years has settled them down.

Peter, Thanks. I'm not fully convinced, but I would be prepared to give it a try - under enlightened governance arrangements and with open and un-prejudiced monitoring. After all, it's something we can always change if we need to.

Apart from arrests and convictions for drug offences, I don't think the reduction in criminality would be as large as some proponents of decriminalization suggest. Some people are just wired to be more susceptible than others for a quick fix, and to succumb to opportunities that enable them to 'feel good' in their own ways. Some of these people are less empathic and more psychopathic.

This is not the same as observing that humans, including children, enjoy experimenting with easily-available brain/mind altering experiences such as creating giddiness by spinning. Nor is it in the same league as enjoying the stimulants theophylline in tea, caffeine in coffee or theobromine in cocoa.

I am certainly attracted by the idea that under decriminalization people would no longer have to resort to crime or other harmful behaviours in order to get more money than they otherwise need in order to satisfy their addiction/enjoyment need.

From the discussion in other posts above, I seems to me that the argument about teenage rebelliousness is accepted too uncritically. I would like to see people like Hugh McKay and Richard Eckersley unpick that one before I decided.

I am still concerned about people under the influence of mind/brain altering substances behaving in ways that affect other people in ways those other people would prefer did not occur. Indulging in less inhibited sexual behaviour may be desired and genuinely enjoyed without regret by someone using alcohol, or it may be a cause of lifelong regret. I don't mind reducing the opportunities for the former if it reduces the incidence of the latter.

But, like you, I'm not holding out for a near-perfect solution, just the least worst.

You did not persuade me with your response on police corruption. Yes, "drugs find their way into prisons in significant quantities", but that statement sidesteps the issue of pinpointing the weaknesses that enable this to happen. However, corruption of police and prison officers and weakness in law enforcement arrangements are issues for another day and another forum.