Out-of-date drug laws are hurting people

[planthelper]

The law regarding marijihuana is based on solid scientific research that says that marijihuana is bad for you.. which it is! Those who advised the government on this issue know more about it than you, are more qualified than you and will be taken far more seriously than you!

you obviously are very biased, as far as i know (and i can't give you a ref.) there are aswell modern studies saying that mj actually helps shizoprhenics. i personally know shizoprenics who selfmedicate with cannabis, and i can't blame them because negative side effect are very rare. mj is not bad for you, it can trigger in a very few cases shizo episodes, so what, chances are, they would have experienced those episodes without ganja aswell, at some time.

sure some people would have been better off never having had cannabis, but the damage caused by cannabis, is far less than the damage caused by anti psychotic drugs. and, the damage and side effects caused by anti psychotic drugs is not a rare occurence, like shizo from cannabis, it f***ing affects every person taking them.

and thank god that some other goverments lissen to other scientists, and have as a result different laws.

[planthelper]

people, some name calling has started in this thread and i will just go and edit those posts and use the warn button...

no name calling, and please don't let a very good thread like this go down hill, just because of your differences of opinon.

gentlemen and ladies, please play it fair!

Edited September 19, 2008 by planthelper

[baphomet]

Well I wouldn't say I'm all that biased really, I will almost certainly use it heavily in future but I know through personal experience that it does severely effect peoples memory & concentration and can bring on pretty serious paranoia in some people, and possibly other mental illness. These studies are only echoing something I already knew and I think it's safe to say that there are a lot of people here that know that too.

Edited September 19, 2008 by baphomet

[Teotzlcoatl]

Ya know what I know? A bottle of Vodka can kill you, really easily, but I will give you 15 pounds of Cannabis and I DARE YOU to try to kill me with it, extract it, concentrate it, put it in a needle and shoot it in my neck! I bet you can't kill me with cannabis!

That right there should be the end of the alcohol vs. cannabis arguement.

Alcohol = death

Cannabis = not dead

See how it works? (please feel free to speak your mind Baphomet, I know you know of my situation, but I assure you I won't get offended no matter what you say)

Are you gonna give a response to my "make commerical tobacco illegal" and "make distilled alcohol illegal" thing? I think my plan is a good compromise.

-Teotzlcoatl

Edited September 20, 2008 by Teotz'

[notguilty]

Cannabis laws are NOT based on facts

http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/PARL...y/LC19941027038

MARIJUANA EFFECTS

The Hon. ANN SYMONDS [6.29]: The validity of a much-quoted article by United States anti-drugs campaigners Dr Gabriel Nahas and Dr Collete Latour has been challenged by two Australian pharmacologists, Dr Greg Chesher and Dr Mac Christie, in the latest edition of Drug & Alcohol Review, Volume 13 No. 2. In 1992, the MJA published an article by Nahas and Latour, The Human Toxicity of Marijuana, claiming that marijuana was much more dangerous than was generally acknowledged. These claims were challenged in the prestigious Drug & Alcohol Review by Dr Greg Chesher and Dr Mac Christie in their article, The Human Toxicity of Marijuana: a Critique of a Review by Nahas and Latour.

Dr Nahas seems to have been misrepresenting evidence on the effects of marijuana on humans. Dr Nahas' article contained no new research. It was a review of other people's work with gross errors of omission and commission. Dr Nahas misrepresented the findings of several important studies of the effects of marijuana on health. Claims about the health impacts of marijuana on foetal development, the aero digestive tract, disease states and mental processes were not supported by the original evidence. He omitted references in these studies to other factors such as tobacco smoking and drinking, which the researchers indicated may have had an adverse effect on the subjects.

It must be noted that the smoking of any plant material is likely to deliver carcinogens. Smoke condensates from marijuana were shown by a researcher to effect chromosomal DNA in cell cultures. On the basis of this research Nahas claimed that tetrahydrocannabinol and other cannabinoids also impair DNA. This is not a valid conclusion from examining the effect of smoke condensates, with their multiplicity of compounds. The likely carcinogens in tobacco and marijuana smoke include nitrosamines, benzopyrine and vinyl chloride. Lung cancer among smokers is not caused by the nicotine in tobacco or the cannabinoids in marijuana but by those products previously mentioned.

There were 35 papers cited in the Nahas article and 28 of them were cited inaccurately, or lacking the authors' caveats and cautions, all tending to amplify the adverse effects of marijuana. The probability of all the inaccuracies being in the adverse direction and not in both directions is over 10,0000 to 1. One inference to be drawn from these inaccuracies, which all served to demonstrate adverse effects of marijuana, is that Nahas has deliberately misstated the facts to further his own political agenda. United States anti-marijuana crusader, Dr Gabriel Nahas, has been to Australia on several occasions to argue against relaxing the laws relating to marijuana. He has been widely used in parliamentary inquiries and legal debates against drug law reform.

At inquiries into drug use all over Australia, Gabriel Nahas' utterings are used to oppose drug law reform. His work is widely quoted by prohibitionists. The Queensland Criminal Justice Commission noted at page 61 of its "Report on Cannabis and the Law in Queensland" that submissions such as the submission from the Campaign Against the Legalisation of Marijuana - CALM - "relied substantially on research conducted by an American academic, Professor Nahas". Dr Nahas has also been widely quoted in submissions made to parliamentary inquiries in South Australia and the Australian Capital Territory.

In New South Wales, a coroner accepted this article as evidence of the toxicity of marijuana and in his findings cited marijuana use as a factor in the suicide of a young man. This conclusion has amazed pharmacologists and doctors. Dr Nahas is no stranger to misrepresentation in scientific articles. In a review of one his books, the Journal of the United States Medical Association said, "Examples of biased selection and . . . omissions abound in every chapter". Contemporary Drug Problems described his work as, "Meretricious trash". There were misrepresentations about him when he last came to Australia. A press release announcing his coming to Australia claimed he was an adviser to the United Nations Commission on Narcotics. A check with the United Nations office revealed this was not true. The commission has no advisers. The United Nations International Drug Control program denied he had ever had a consultancy contract.

Dr Nahas and numerous other people have presented papers to the Drug Control Group but Nahas has no particular status. The Nahas-Latour article should not be relied on by those formulating policy on marijuana use. Those opposed to marijuana use are not assisted by a fundamentally flawed article like his and Collette Latour's. Anyone seeking accurate scientific opinion on the effects of marijuana use should use the recently published document "The Health and Psychological Consequences of Cannabis Use" prepared for the National Taskforce on Cannabis by the National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre. There are concerns about the long-term effects of heavy, chronic use of marijuana, but for occasional recreational users of cannabis, the health risk appears to be fairly low, and certainly lower than tobacco. We are grateful for this work done by Dr Greg

Page 4802

Chesher and Dr Mac Christie because it is important that we argue from a basis of fact if we wish to discuss policies in the important matter of drug reform. Clearly Dr Nahas and Dr Collette Latour have been totally discredited by the work done by this research.

[baphomet]

That article was pretty lame IMO and really wasn't saying much, that politician found that some scientists were misrepresenting their findings and practicing bad science, so what? Happens all the time and that's only two scientists out of many who have conducted research on the effects of marijuana, do you honestly think that there would be no one out there saying that marijuana is good for you who isn't a quack? It still mentions that "There are concerns about the long-term effects of heavy, chronic use of marijuana". I can post countless articles here about the effects of marijuana on memory & concentration as well as the links between marijuana and mental illness and you can post some to the contrary and we could go on like that for ever but please, spare me the bullshit, I know that it fucked my memory and made me paranoid and did the same thing to many other people and I think most members here whether they would like to admit it or not know this to be true. Like I said I will most likely smoke it in future and I'm not sure that it should be a criminal offense to possess but lets no pretend that its harmless.

Can you please explain the legal aid thing for me? I mean you did write to the Prime Minister about it and were eager to rant and rave about it before so why not explain it now? Are you not eligible? Why not??

"Ya know what I know? A bottle of Vodka can kill you, really easily, but I will give you 15 pounds of Cannabis and I DARE YOU to try to kill me with it, extract it, concentrate it, put it in a needle and shoot it in my neck! I bet you can't kill me with cannabis!

It's pretty hard to kill someone with LSD or psilocybin too but they both have very powerful effects on the human brain!

Edited September 19, 2008 by baphomet

[MindExpansion]

That article certainly doesn't say that there are no negative effects of pot, it says that some research conducted by a particular scientist should not be completely trusted.

In my mind, there is no doubt that MJ, like any other psychoactive, can have negative effects on the mental health of a user. That isn't to say it will give every user schizophrenia etc... or the world would be in an interesting place.

Peace

[notguilty]

Your opinion of cannabis is similar to mine regarding the mushrooms that grow so freely in the northern rivers area of NSW, I have personally seen lives destroyed because people thought they were doing something completely safe.

Each to their own, personal opinion makes for fruitful discussion.

Legal Aid Qld will not give a grant of Aid for Drug matters where there is no likely chance of a prison term being imposed.

My rant was about being disadvantaged in that I have prepared a defense relying on points of law and legislation but I won't be able to present it as per practice directions that are required in the Magistrates court. If you don't like me messaging the pm tough titties, I followed the chain of command as per normal government requirements.

The Hansard was to demonstrate that mis-information has been relied upon by Governments, I agree it was lame, I think all Hansards are lame.

And I agree there is no need to post countless articles

http://www.ukcia.org/research/researchsearch.php

just this link

SPAM SPAM SPAM

What has been lame is the direction of this thread, I don't care if your a cop, narc, gay, racist whatever and the end of the day "out of date drug laws are hurting people" even gay, racist, disabled, catholic police officers who are addicted to herion. Some people should note their own rantings and inconsistant ravings before calling other people fucking parrots.

Edited September 20, 2008 by entheofarm

[Teotzlcoatl]

It's pretty hard to kill someone with LSD or psilocybin too but they both have very powerful effects on the human brain!

That wasn't my point, my point is that a dangerous drug like alcohol is legal, while a much safer drug, cannabis is illegal.

but lets no pretend that its harmless.

Compared to alcohol, I consider it harmless. Paranoia and not being able to remember shit is better than being dead.

Edited September 20, 2008 by Teotz'

[MindExpansion]

Man, mood set and setting, really, and also cannabis isn't necessarily safer than alcohol.

Peace

[Re-Grifter]

Ecstasy (true MDMA, anyway) is safer (both in a social and pharmacological sense) than alcohol.

And that is an irrefutable fact.

Yeah people who abuse the shit can develop problems, just like with beer, or butter, or pizza, or anything else that can be shoved, eaten, chewed, snorted, smoked, toked, drunk......bla....bla....

[baphomet]

Ecstasy (true MDMA, anyway) is safer (both in a social and pharmacological sense) than alcohol.

And that is an irrefutable fact.

Please show me the irrefutable evidence?

[MindExpansion]

BAPHO, check out the report from the UK where a bunch of experts assessed drugs for physical risk, damage to society, and addictivity.

I think that most people now will agree that MDMA is safer than alcohol when used responsibly and not abused.

Peace

[baphomet]

I've got that documentary man (is that what you're referring too?), 'Is Alcohol Worse Than Ecstasy?'

That is not irrefutable evidence, in fact it is FAR from it! I am not really much of a drinker but I am no stranger to MDMA and I for one think that dose for dose it has a detrimental effect on the human brain that is far worse than alcohol.

Yes liquor may kill you but it wont fuck with your brain chemistry the way MDMA does in each use. I'm scared to think what would happen If people used MDMA every day the way some people do with alcohol, I'm not sure they would last very long before being committed.

[MindExpansion]

If people used MDMA every day the way some people do with alcohol, I'm not sure they would last very long before being committed.

That's abuse, we're talking use.

[baphomet]

Since when? I read Re Gifters statement again and it does not specify dose or frequency of use, it just states that ecstasy is pharmacologicaly safer than alcohol. Therefore I assumed we were talking about a dose per dose scenario.

If we start talking about use as opposed to abuse then the whole issue will get blured because every ones opinion on what constitutes "safe" use will differ.

Edit: Sorry, just noticed that you mentioned it at the end of your last post. Last time I checked the supposedly safe amount of alcohol was no more than two drinks a day, I'm not sure we would be better off if we used ecstasy every day and I'm still waiting for the irrefutable evidence.

Edited September 21, 2008 by baphomet

[Teotzlcoatl]

Baphomet what drugs should be legal? You seem to believe that the state has the power to tell people what they can and cannot put into their own bodys.

[Re-Grifter]

I'm not sure we would be better off if we used ecstasy every day and I'm still waiting for the irrefutable evidence.

Nobody is saying we should use E every day, hell i don't use coffee every day, but you know as well as i do that the incidents of violence when alcohol is the main psychoactive in use are MASSIVE....and E's?....well, i personally have never met anyone under the influence of MDMA who bashed or raped anyone....hell, i'm pretty sure i have never heard of any incident of that kind connected with MDMA.

Yes, there is some evidence to support the fact that personality changes occur with the abuse of MDMA, but how in hell would anyone know they where ingesting pure MDMA?....i'm sure you know the kind of crap street level "E's" are adulterated with, the research just isn't there yet (or i can't find it)

And it wouldn't matter what "evidence" or study results i posted here, you would pick holes through it like you do with all the other members here trying to knock some sense into you.

Btw, how in HELL you can go out and pick, and i assume, consume psychoactive mushies and then rant about how "evil" everything else is, i'll never know.....the hypocrisy is mind numbing....

[notguilty]

Please show me the irrefutable evidence?

whoa, hang on you want evidence now? coming from the person who claims "The law regarding marijihuana is based on solid scientific research that says that marijihuana is bad for you.. which it is! Those who advised the government on this issue know more about it than you, are more qualified than you and will be taken far more seriously than you!"

You were supplied facts that proved The law regarding cannabis was based on false research and your response was "that article is lame". Lame because it proved you wrong.

why would anybody make the effort to provide anything for you BAPHO, you have obviously made up your mind and good for you, but you have failed to support any of your own claims with evidence and your rebuttles are based on IMHO. Well IMHO you tube is not a reliable reference.

I probably posted this lame article twice as well

The Drugs Menace and its Solution

Elizabeth Krantz

http://www.australian-news.com.au/drugs.htm

Many people have an illogical attitude to the issue of drugs. They accept with equanimity the incessant TV advertising of alcohol and the enormous consequential damage related to the abuse of this legal drug, but react in horror at the thought of easing prohibition on other drugs, even though such action would drastically reduce crime in the community.

This is not about promoting the benefits of legal or illegal drugs or even minimising the harmful effects of such drugs. Rather it is about the long-term effects on society of prohibiting some drugs while openly promoting others.

The Current Situation with Various Drugs

Tobacco.

Smoking kills more than 18,000 Australians a year. One in two lifetime smokers will die from their habit.*

* Smoking is responsible for 30% of all cancers and 25% of heart disease and costs Australia $12.7 billion a year in health care and other related costs.*

* Tobacco smoke contains over 4000 chemicals, at least 43 of which are known to cause cancer of the mouth, pharynx, larynx, oesophagus, lung, pancreas, stomach, kidney, cervix, vulva, penis, bladder and anus.*

*More info at: http://www.quitnow.info.au/gen_fact.html

Alcohol

Alcohol is responsible for every sixth hospital bed and around 3,200 Australian deaths per year from car crashes, assaults, suicides and medical problems such as strokes and cirrhosis. It is also responsible for family breakdowns, bashings, violence and sexual assaults.

Notwithstanding the enormous carnage created by excessive alcohol consumption, weak and morally corrupt Australian governments, bowing to the lobbying muscle of the legal-drug corporations, allow blatant saturation advertising of alcohol in all media, while raking off billions in taxes to finance their re-election campaigns.

The marketing blitz has created a culture of binge drinking amongst Australian youth (see side-panels)

Heroin.

Heroin is a prohibited drug, responsible for around 1,000 deaths per year mainly because of quality control problems. However, its prohibition causes enormous secondary damage to the community.

Secondary costs of prohibited drugs

* Massive amount of crime associated with addicts desperate attempts to get funds to pay extraordinarily high prices for the product due to the supply and demand situation.

* Jails filled with ordinary people turned into petty criminals.

* Addicts sink to a life of despair and degradation, mainly associated with committing crime or resorting to prostitution.

* Huge sums of money flows to organised criminal gangs, who use some of these funds to subvert or murder law enforcement officers. International drug trade estimated at US$400 billion per annum.

The war on drugs is lost. Criminals have won.

We must ask why is there a “war on drugs” when the Americans learned they could not prohibit alcohol?

Half a century ago, the Americans committed to a war on drugs and coerced the rest of the world to follow suit.

Think this through – you are probably willing to tolerate the idea of hordes of drunken, aggressive people (maybe your sons and daughters) tumbling out of night clubs in the early hours of every morning, brawling, urinating on footpaths and risking lives by driving cars and yet you react in horror at the thought of a person injecting an hallucinatory substance into their arm which sends them into a state of euphoria or somnolence. Heroin certainly is addictive but so is alcohol.

Why is this?

Because you (and the rest of the population) have been conditioned over the past half-century to react in that way.

A brief history of prohibition

Prohibition in Australia has its origins in the 1920’s when the temperance movement was gathering pace. Regulations restricting the use of heroin, morphine and cocaine were introduced during the 1920’s and 1930’s in accordance with international treaties, predominantly led by the US.

In 1953, despite opposition by the Australian medical profession, the Menzies government, under pressure from the US and its captive UN agencies, passed a law banning the importation and manufacture of heroin.

Then in 1961 came the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, so called because it combined a number of international provisions dating back to 1912. Read the full text of the Convention.

This convention conferred a trade monopoly upon the some of the most dangerous and evil people on the planet; the drug lords. The business empires of these evil tycoons have an annual turnover of US$ 400 billion, about 8 per cent of global trade.

Before the 1953 law, a heroin addict could get a prescription from his or her local doctor and collect a dose of pharmaceutical-grade heroin, in the form of heroin linctus, from the nearest pharmacy. In 1953, users suffered few indirect side effects from heroin. Property crime linked to narcotics was non-existent and although trafficking in heroin was a criminal offence, there were no prisoners in any Australian jail in relation to drug dealing.

Now under prohibition, heroin will kill about 20 people this week, mainly because of the uncontrolled dosage. Australia ’s 150,000 addicts and regular users, will need, at an estimated $1,000 per head, a massive $150 million this week to feed their habit. This will result in a monstrous amount of muggings, burglaries, armed hold-ups, home invasions, stolen cars and traumatised victims.

The bulk of the $150 million will go the drug lords and their army of enforcers, crooked cops and marketers. According to a 1997 report by Access Economics, farmers get 6 per cent of the end price, processors and wholesale traders share 4 per cent, and drug traffickers collect 90 per cent.

The US is the world’s chief enforcer of prohibition. It does so with a religious fervour. The Bush administration will spend more than $US18 billion this year fighting the so-called drug war. In its war on drugs, the US uses its economic power to coerce recalcitrant countries into submission. Its actions are backed up by the UN International Narcotics Control Board, which uses treaty agreements to ensure co-operation.

As most US foreign policy is directed towards protecting the interests of powerful US lobby groups, one wonders which US interests benefit from the huge efforts in maintaining drug prohibition.

Where has this led us?

We are now at the point where drug-related crime is out of control. How many times have you or a family member or associate been robbed, mugged or defrauded? In nearly every case the crime was perpetrated by a desperate addict needing cash to pay the outrageously high price for a fix. That cash then finds it way to the “Mr Bigs” of crime.

Every country has seen its law enforcement system subverted to a greater or lesser degree by the drug lords. Murder of judges and law enforcement officers is routine in countries like Colombia, Mexico, Thailand and even Italy .

Rio de Janeiro is a pointer to the future for other large cities. Rio ’s large sprawling favelas (slum areas) are no-go areas for the police. These areas are controlled by three drug lords who hire thousands of young men, and boys as young as twelve, and arm them with military-style weapons. These armies are recruited to hunt down and murder informers and rival gang members. Thousands are murdered each year. Law and order is breaking down in the rest of Rio .

The governor’s mansion was recently sprayed with bullets as a message from the drug lords. The more wealthy people move around the city in helicopters, utilising the numerous helipads atop buildings, and retreat at night to fortified compounds, hardly ever setting foot on the streets.

Australia is heading in the same direction (see side panel Big Circle Gang).

What can be done?

Looking logically rather than emotionally at the issues, the inevitable conclusion is that prohibition is doing more harm than good. Can prohibition be removed without the world falling into a moral morass?

I believe it can.

How?

* Take the distribution of drugs out of the hands of criminals and put it under government control (at least we get to vote for these crooks). Governments have no qualms about raking in billions of dollars as their take from the distribution of the killer drugs, alcohol and tobacco.

* Remove penalties for possessing small amount of “soft” drugs, such as cannabis and for drugs supplied under prescription.

* Make hard drugs such as heroin, cocaine and amphetamines available by prescription from pharmacies and doctors at a price that does not force addicts and users into crime.

* The government to tax all drugs and to put all revenue back into drug rehabilitation and anti-drug advertising.

* Legislate for harsh penalties in relation to:

Operating any machinery while under the influence of any drug.

Exporting drugs

Trafficking in drugs outside the government-controlled distribution network.

* Prohibit the advertising of all non-medicinal drugs, including alcohol.

What would the result be?

* Most addicts, freed from the degradation of mugging, prostitution and stealing to feed their habit could lead a more or less normal life.

* Addicts could be more clearly identified and coerced into rehabilitation programs.

* Overdose deaths would drop dramatically as the quantity and purity of drugs would be controlled.

* The massive flow of money to criminal empires would dry up.

* Strong, continuing anti-drug campaigns should reduce the amount of drug-taking in society. The modest anti-smoking campaigns of the past 20 years has turned smokers from cool people into social pariahs, while considerably reducing the level of smoking.

* Jail populations would decrease by around 70 per cent.

* The police could concentrate on other law enforcement areas.

* The level of muggings, home invasions, bank hold-ups and violence would dramatically decrease.

* The savings to law enforcement, health, legal and correctional institutions would amount to billions.

* Replacing alcohol advertising with anti-alcohol messages would save thousands of young people from a life of misery.

Is there any proof this system would work?

In a five-year trial in Switzerland, prescription-grade heroin was supplied to hard-core addicts from a series of clinics. Each addict was injected under supervision. The results were:

* There were no overdose deaths for the five years of the trial.

* The crime rate amongst addicts was down 75 per cent.

* Homeless participants fell from 12 per cent to one per cent.

* Participants with jobs rose from 14 per cent to 32 per cent.

Naturally there will be howls of protest at such an idea. Some of the howls will come from people conditioned to howl. But many protests will have more sinister origins. The billionaire drug lords and the drug kings of each city will not give up their lucrative businesses and lavish lifestyle without a fight. However, they will fight through their paid politicians and crooked officials.

Many government and law enforcement agencies thrive on the ongoing drug problem. A sudden decrease in crime would reduce the career prospects of police officers. Many health officials and social workers depend on drug-related problems for their livelihood.

A degree of international cooperation is needed to ensure a number of countries moved down the road of removing prohibition. A single country promising prohibition repeal would incur the wrath of the powerful United Nations bureaucrats.

There will be many vested interests to overcome.

But why wouldn’t every sane, sensible person not support such a proposal?

In the long run, do we have any other choice?

Edited September 21, 2008 by entheofarm

[planthelper]

there will never be irrefutable evidence, because those matters are very complex.

tabacco smoke might contain some chemicals which are good for you and others which are not.

a little bit of alcohol, is said to be very good for you, but i don't know anybody who just has one small glass of wine a day....

some scientific studies claimed cannabis causes cancer and other said cannabis contains anti cancer compounds.

quite frankly, i think we are still in the dark ages and don't know shit from clay, if one thinks a sientific aproach will yield irrefutable facts, than i can only laugh at that, and thats why the same research often gives total different results.

i think, we all are one sided, and the worst i have seen is with so called, drug fighters, zero tolerance people, which often don't understand at all that, there own alcoholism, makes them one of them who they are fighting, an "alcohol junkie".

no, they say, because (acohol) it's legal!

haha, as the word legal could make compounds less dangerous, haha.

let's pretend we live in a parallel universe with different views about drugs....

the new's report of a rave wher the good people just take e and are all loving and just have a good time dancing, the society and puplic voice, say's such nice people.

the next report is about, criminals taking, bad alcohol, mostly to give themselves the courage to do steal, bash, and hurt people. in this universe, some people would like to see alcohol made legal, but another scientific study has revealed, people who consume alcohol are 3 times as likely to be abusive and to have nonconsentual sex.

alcohol, contains aswell carciogenic compounds, and xxxx people die each year, suffocating on there own vomit, and accidents brought on by one of alcohols side effect, which is to cause inbalance and total loss of one's motion skils.

can you see what i try to point out?

it all has to do with our believe patterns and convictions, and nothing with facts.

i would go even further and call it material racism, the believe that one substance or material is superior to another.

Edited September 21, 2008 by planthelper

[notguilty]

Good point.

I would like to ask what would be the most socially acceptable drug if every drug was deemed "legal"?

Would alcohol, tobacco, sugar, coffee etc be so socially acceptable and prevalent without a dominating society and culture?

[baphomet]

"You were supplied facts that proved The law regarding cannabis was based on false research and your response was "that article is lame". Lame because it proved you wrong."

Politicians and law makers quote bad science from time to time but I highly doubt that these two were the only scientists that they relied upon for information about cannabis if in fact they relied upon them at all. There are plenty of other studies that show that marijuana effects your memory & concentration, can bring on paranoia, psychosis and other mental illness, etc and though I never said that the government was quoting irrefutable facts, (I said solid scientific research) I personally know that some of this research is accurate and I know that most members are aware of this too. Even the article you posted says that there are concerns about long term marijuana use.

Is there any proof this system would work? ...In a five-year trial in Switzerland, prescription-grade heroin was supplied to hard-core addicts from a series of clinics. Each addict was injected under supervision. The results were:

* There were no overdose deaths for the five years of the trial.

* The crime rate amongst addicts was down 75 per cent.

* Homeless participants fell from 12 per cent to one per cent.

* Participants with jobs rose from 14 per cent to 32 per cent.

"Over the past decade, drug policy in some foreign countries, particularly those in Europe, has gone through some dramatic changes toward greater liberalization with failed results. Consider the experience of the Netherlands, where the government reconsidered its legalization measures in light of that country's experience.

After marijuana use became legal, consumption nearly tripled among 18- to 20-year-olds. As awareness of the harm of marijuana grew, the number of cannabis coffeehouses in the Netherlands decreased 36 percent in six years.

Almost all Dutch towns have a cannabis policy, and 73 percent of them have a no-tolerance policy toward the coffeehouses.

In 1987 Swiss officials permitted drug use and sales in a Zurich park, which was soon dubbed Needle Park, and Switzerland became a magnet for drug users the world over. Within five years, the number of regular drug users at the park had reportedly swelled from a few hundred to 20,000.

The area around the park became crime-ridden to the point that the park had to be shut down and the experiment terminated.

Smoking Rates Increased Among Teens

Marijuana use by Canadian teenagers is at a 25-year peak in the wake of an aggressive decriminalization movement. At the very time a decriminalization bill was before the House of Commons, the Canadian government released a report showing that marijuana smoking among teens is "at levels that we haven't seen since the late '70s when rates reached their peak."

After a large decline in the 1980s, marijuana use among teens increased during the 1990s, as young people apparently became "confused about the state of federal pot laws."

http://alcoholism.about.com/od/pot/a/bldea050426_3.htm

Sorry will respond to other comments later.

Edited September 21, 2008 by baphomet

[notguilty]

Baphomet, The hansard is pointing out that legislation has relied on information that was not "solid scientific research". This was proved with "solid scientific research".

You refuse to accept facts.

I look forward to researching the reference list for the claims you are making Bapho. if your goal is to educate me I need more than your opinion.

And don't miss quote me for your agenda Bapho, that quote belongs to E Krantz, reference supplied, thats just poor form.

Edited September 21, 2008 by entheofarm

[MindExpansion]

Bapho, I have some problems with what you're saying.

I would like to know where your figures come from.

I do not remember my source (right now, but I will eventually, think it might even be a link posted in the forums somewhere) but it stated that MJ use in the Netherlands was actually consistently slightly less than all the surrounding european countries.

Your example of Switzerland really isn't the same. From what you wrote, I assume drug dealers were just selling their products at their prices in a single location...that idea IS stupid. That does nothing for the prices, except maybe raise them because of price fixing and the nature of supply and demand for something addictive. It does not solve the purity issue at all. Due to the fact that it may raise prices you are likely to see an increase in crime (and even if prices were the same you just concentrate crime in one area where the users all are). The fact that purity is not improved, means OD's remain a huge problem. And as if this even needs stating, it is such common sense:

Within five years, the number of regular drug users at the park had reportedly swelled from a few hundred to 20,000.

It doesn't say the number of users increases, just the number using in the park, and like I said, that is so obvious when you legalise use in one place but no where else.

Now this one, which I do not give any credit at all:

Marijuana use by Canadian teenagers is at a 25-year peak in the wake of an aggressive decriminalization movement. At the very time a decriminalization bill was before the House of Commons, the Canadian government released a report showing that marijuana smoking among teens is "at levels that we haven't seen since the late '70s when rates reached their peak."

After a large decline in the 1980s, marijuana use among teens increased during the 1990s, as young people apparently became "confused about the state of federal pot laws."

IMO, they draw the very wrong conclusion here. They seem to think that the decriminalisation movement led to increased use, but is it not also likely to be the other way around?

As more people started to use the drug, and consequently the amount of people wanting decriminilisation increases, the movement to decriminilise grows also.

Entheo, that article is probably the best representation of my views on the issue, only one thing is that you also have to ensure penalties for drugged and disorderly, just like drunk and disorderly is now.

Oh and another thing Bapho, I don't think many people here are trying to argue that currently illicit drugs aren't capable of doing harm, I think it is more about the fact that the laws that deem them illegal actually makes them far more dangerous than they intrinsically are.

Peace

[baphomet]

"You refuse to accept facts."

I do not refuse to accept facts, I accept that our government has most likely been mislead by these two scientists, I am not debating that. You have proved that our government may be quoting bad science from time to time, I'm not trying to take that away from you. I am however saying that this is not the only research that the government would consider when debating the law on marijuana and I have seen some fairly convincing evidence in the past which I am sure they are aware of, please do not pretend that this is the only research ever conducted on cannabis.

From what I can see the article claims that a pair of australian scientists are disputing the work done by these two and accusing them of amplifying the harmful effects of marijuana (not fabricating them) and I don't think many people would debate the fact that it is potentially harmful, in fact the author of the article recommends people use other research on the effects of cannabis which did conclude that it is potentially harmful.

"And don't miss quote me for your agenda Bapho, that quote belongs to E Krantz, reference supplied, thats just poor form."

What Fkn agenda? I'm only trying to keep the thread balanced like I said, don't act like I am some deceitful little cunt on a crusade cause it's just not the case! If anything that's poor form man, perhaps I need to polish up on my forum etiquette but as far as I can see I have done nothing wrong, you posted that article here so I quoted it, what am I expected to change the quote name to Ed fkn Krantz or something?

"I look forward to researching the reference list for the claims you are making Bapho."..

"Bapho, I have some problems with what you're saying. I would like to know where your figures come from."

Sorry I should have made it more clear, that was from an article which I posted the link for at the bottom of the page. It is one of the rare occasions that I actually copy & paste articles here so please forgive me.

Here it is again: http://alcoholism.about.com/od/pot/a/bldea050426_3.htm

Edited September 21, 2008 by baphomet