War on drugs? Now that's reefer madness

[Chiral]

LINK

Reefer madness is alive, and flourishing in Australia. The latest Illicit Drug Data Report from the Australian Crime Commission shows two-thirds of all drugs arrests in the financial year of 2008-09 have been for cannabis-related offences. Yes, all around Australia, despite the scare campaigns governments and police run on substances such as heroin, and methamphetamines, it is cannabis, a naturally growing product, which results in the most police attention.

And it gets worse. Figures from the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics show that the number of charges filed by police in that state, for simple drug use, or possession, outweigh charges related to serious drug offences by almost seven to one.

This at a time when the citizens of California — the US state where the original reefer madness took hold – have decided to hold a ballot in November to legalise both the recreational use and sale of marijuana to adults over the age of 21. One would suspect that one of those citizens, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger is himself on the side of legalisation. There was, of course, that appearance, lying on a couch, smoking a joint, in the 1970s gym and muscles documentary, Pumping Iron. Schwarzenegger has, however, recently come out on the side of continuing prohibition. We do live in strange and hypocritical times indeed. And, sadly, nowhere is this more on display than in the humble state of NSW. At least the good people of California will get a vote on it.

The NSW Government and local police forces regularly profess a determination to be harsh on drug dealing, and organised crime. A cursory look at the website of NSW Police reveals the tough stance the law enforcement agency has against commercial dealers, manufacturers, importers, and exporters of illicit drugs. According to the National Drug Strategy, the NSW Police Force should:

• disrupt the manufacture and supply of illicit drugs;

• enhance efforts to control the inappropriate supply and diversion of pharmaceutical drugs and pre-cursor chemicals; and

• dismantle organised crime

For these high-minded aims, NSW Police and other state and federal law enforcement agencies are given more than $2 billion annually to conduct their operations, according to a 2008 article in the Drug Alcohol Review by the US economist Timothy Moore.

And how, exactly, is all this money spent? On breaking transnational drug networks? On getting violent drug dealers off the streets? On making sure pseudoephedrine is used only by those with a runny nose, not ice runners? One would think so, but official statistics show otherwise.

The NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics has collated information that demonstrates that between 2000-08, up to 75 per cent of all annual police charges in that state for cannabis-related offences were simply for its use, or possession. Simply put, police in Australia are spending the great majority of a multibillion-dollar "war on drugs" budget on arresting a bunch of stoners with the munchies.

Does not such a seeming waste of resources err with the greater community? Particularly when all scientific and medical evidence suggests cannabis is no more, if less, dangerous than alcohol, and that its active ingredient of THC has clear therapeutic benefits? What's more, a list compiled for The Lancet in 2007 by Britain's most eminent drugs researcher, Professor David Nutt (the former chairman of the UK Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs who in late 2009 resigned after the UK Government increased the level of prohibition on cannabis) shows weed to be the 11th most dangerous substance studied. Nutt's report shows that widely available drugs, such as alcohol, tobacco, and your humble anxiety and sleeping pill (benzodiazepines) outweigh cannabis on the level of danger involved in their continued use.

Already in the US, 14 states, including California, have legalised the medicinal use of marijuana. Patients with a wide range of symptoms and ailments, including cancer, post traumatic stress disorder, and wasting illnesses, are eligible. The continuing illegality of cannabis at all levels in Australia is incredibly puzzling when governments are aware of its medical and therapeutic benefits. The findings of a 2003 NSW Government inquiry, first established by former premier Bob Carr in 2001, suggested the substance at least be legalised for medicinal use, and a trial conducted on its effectiveness. Proponents and politicians in California involved in the legalisation of cannabis for its recreational use, say it will add up to $3 billion to the state's annual economy, which has a $20 billion deficit in funds.

Here, in NSW, there is great potential for a legal cannabis industry, with some of the best conditions in the world to grow the plant. The tiny north coast town of Nimbin is already world famous. Moreover, the state of NSW is struggling with a cash flow problem, and is continually looking to sell off public assets for short-term breathing space on debts and financing. Additionally, information from the National Cannabis Prevention and Information Centre shows that more than 600,000 Australians smoke, or consume, cannabis either daily, or weekly, despite its current illegality; while half of those aged between 18-29 have had a toke at some point in their life. Needless to say, there is an established market and a taste for a plant, which historical and cultural evidence proposes has been with humans for at least the past 4000, or so, years.

[niggles]

I cant remember if i got the link from these forums or not - but its still very relevant.

http://www.viennadeclaration.com

[∂an]

good to see some pro-legalisation commentary in the australian media. we really are lagging behind the rest of the developed world in this debate.

[Magicdirt]

The cops would have a lot free time if they did legalise pot.

Maybe we wouldn't need as many cops or prisons if it were legalised.

It must cost thousands to bust someone just to let them go home, so it's money down the gurgler too.

There are problems with legalisation though, you can bet it if is legalised you still won't be able to grow your own (except maybe 2 or 3 plants)

It would most likely be controlled like alcohol and tobacco and big companies would want to control it. The government would prefer it that way so they could tax it and cash in.

[occidentalis]

There are problems with legalisation though, you can bet it if is legalised you still won't be able to grow your own (except maybe 2 or 3 plants)

It would most likely be controlled like alcohol and tobacco and big companies would want to control it. The government would prefer it that way so they could tax it and cash in.

 

This is something that concerns me also and personally I can't decide which I prefer - drugs being legally available but illegal to grow yourself, or drugs being illegal but still fairly easy to grow yourself. I guess the first would still be better, because people who grow their own now would probably still grow their own then.

Considering the fact that although the alcoholic beverages industry is very powerful, it is still legal to make your own homebrew beer (as long as you don't try and sell it), I don't see any reason why cannabis legalisation could not be undertaken in a similar way. ie, it is legal to grow your own and share it with friends but not to sell it. Personally I can't see why any would-be growers would be unhappy with that outcome.

[Magicdirt]

This is something that concerns me also and personally I can't decide which I prefer - drugs being legally available but illegal to grow yourself, or drugs being illegal but still fairly easy to grow yourself. I guess the first would still be better, because people who grow their own now would probably still grow their own then.

Considering the fact that although the alcoholic beverages industry is very powerful, it is still legal to make your own homebrew beer (as long as you don't try and sell it), I don't see any reason why cannabis legalisation could not be undertaken in a similar way. ie, it is legal to grow your own and share it with friends but not to sell it. Personally I can't see why any would-be growers would be unhappy with that outcome.

 

Let's hope if it does happen there's a bit of community consultation first. It's an important decision that will affect a lot of people.

You've hit the nail on the head as far as I'm concerned ie as long as you don't try and sell it.

That way it can still be sold and taxed, and people inclined to grow a few at home still could do so.

The tax revenue lost as a result of black market sales combined with the cost of policing the illicit trade of cannabis could well be the difference between balanced state budgets and deficits.

[ref1ect1ons]

Is anyone concerned about GM, I think if legislation was introduced they would source specific strains. Although i ahve read that the wealthy grower supporting California's legislations has heirloom seeds (untainted, non GM).

[Chiral]

I don't see any reason why cannabis legalisation could not be undertaken in a similar way. ie, it is legal to grow your own and share it with friends but not to sell it. Personally I can't see why any would-be growers would be unhappy with that outcome.

 

The crux of all legalizing arguments is that home growers or home chemists are not under any authority that provides strict guidelines for cultivation/manufacture, therefore lawsuits and serious health risks to the general public are an extreme risk. You can't have people sharing their homemade drugs with anyone, it's incredibly risky and fraught with danger.

This is why we can't make beer at home and sell it to people...we have so many cotton wool laws it's just not going to happen. in many countries around the world people cook and sell their food on the streets to anyone who will buy it, but here and other so called advanced civilizations are germo-phobes, and place laws against this sort of trade, which as we all know is a load of bollocks. Story came out of texas recently where a woman who had been selling her home made Mexican cooking on the roadside for 20 odd years was shut down because where her stand was where she did the cooking, was on dirt...yes she was shut down and told she can't sell food that has been cooked over dirt, even though her family had served food like this for many years without issue.

So you see it's either the Govt's way, or no way.. with anything that is to be for human consumption the laws and guidelines are just bureaucratic bullshit,it's got a lot to do with preventing insurance companies and sueing...govt's have had a hard on for keeping the lawyers and insurance companies from making huge sums now for years...just look what Carr did to the workers compensation claims system...he tore that system a new asshole bigtime.

[botanika]

The cops would have a lot free time if they did legalise pot.

Maybe we wouldn't need as many cops or prisons if it were legalised.

It must cost thousands to bust someone just to let them go home, so it's money down the gurgler too.

 

I suspect this is a big part of the equation. 1) australia is a lot safer than the police would have you believe 2) Without drug crime and its long term enforcement budget a lot of police, legal and security professionals would be unemployed, particularly as technology has made traffic enforcement virtual 3) Crime is rather dull in australia so small time cannabis drug busts are still reported and ramped up often in the media - it's usually because there's just not much else happening. Ive travelled the world a lot in the last decade and I never see small time cannabis crimes reported as frequently as I do in australia. The fact it's reported at all reveals just how safe australia is.

Edited July 5, 2010 by botanika

[ThunderIdeal]

or how shit our cops are at busting the real bad guys compared to overseas cops.

[devance]

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2010/0710/Could-a-1.50-marijuana-joint-doom-Prop.-19-in-California

Sorry, no more expensive pot for you as business..

[High-powered marijuana that now costs $300 an ounce could drop in price by as much as 80 percent if Californians legalize recreational use by passing Prop. 19 in November, meaning Golden Staters could purchase the recreational drug for as little as $1.50 per joint.]

[That finding by the RAND Corporation, a California think-tank, is likely to perk up the ears of some 15 million Americans estimated to be regular marijuana users, 13 percent of whom live in California.]

Rand corp is whore thats says anything the political wind says so.

So a U.S. political change on pot, with Rand whores trying to get on the new political horse for funding.

[SunChaser]

Both the NSW and Queensland police specifically target drug 'users' and I don't care what anyone says, I know they do it.

Lived in Victoria my whole life and never been harrassed by the Vic police in my entire life or even questioned by them unless I was doing something wrong. But in both NSW and Queensland if your on the streets after mid night and look like you might be a drug user, in my experience there's a huge chance the cops will harass ya, want to know your whole life story and then demand a reason for you upholding your personal right to freedom and being where ever you want at what ever fucking time you choose.

You know your not living in a free society when a cop tells you that your acting suspicious and deserve to be harrassed for 20 minutes, because you dared to wake up at 5am and walk to the petrol station for a iced coffee. They wouldn't like being harrassed on there morning walk! Oh, but because I don't look like a typical drunken Aussie hick, I'm just meant to bend over and take it. ALL YOU INTERSTATE COPPERS ARE ALL DOGS and I hope all your daughters end up marrying crack heads! ARSE HOLES

The cold weather is almost bearable in Vic once you realize that it's probably the only state that has police that actually harrass criminals and not just harmless drug users!

BTW, they need to legalize cannabis! People just sound like idiots when they say there's no point making it legal because you wouldn't be allowed to grow it. I mean I'm not allowed to grow it now, but I still do.

Also who are going to be the big commercial growers in Cali? The answer is the people who have already set up shop and have been doing illegally for years. Something to ponder.

[dworx]

Jabez hows the trek going. Good to see you back here.

Mate don't incriminate yourself you make it too easy for the police, quote "BTW, they need to legalize cannabis! People just sound like idiots when they say there's no point making it legal because you wouldn't be allowed to grow it. I mean I'm not allowed to grow it now, but I still do. "

Edited July 13, 2010 by dworx

[SunChaser]

Jabez hows the trek going. Good to see you back here.

Mate don't incriminate yourself you make it too easy for the police, quote "BTW, they need to legalize cannabis! People just sound like idiots when they say there's no point making it legal because you wouldn't be allowed to grow it. I mean I'm not allowed to grow it now, but I still do. "

 

I'm the jolly swagman! They'll never catch me alive, lol. Seriously though, everything i say is with the full knowledge that the police will document it.

BTW, awesome just got back into town from spending over 2 weeks on the river and now heading to townsville.

Peace

[bℓσωηG]

 

 

Is anyone concerned about GM, I think if legislation was introduced they would source specific strains. Although i ahve read that the wealthy grower supporting California's legislations has heirloom seeds (untainted, non GM).

yeah , there is very little disscussion on GM weed but it must be out there, prolly the shit thats causing all the psychosis . If i were a connoisseur of da 'erb... i'd be making damn sure the seed stock was from a trustworthy source. Crossed and developed over the decades by a tight knit group of freedom loving hippies..

 

[Magicdirt]

yeah , there is very little disscussion on GM weed but it must be out there, prolly the shit thats causing all the psychosis . If i were a connoisseur of da 'erb... i'd be making damn sure the seed stock was from a trustworthy source. Crossed and developed over the decades by a tight knit group of freedom loving hippies..

 

I seem to remember an article in High Times magazine about taking them into the lab, It was all about genetic modification being done college students to increase potency.

Strangely enough it was around the same time as Skunk No1 hit the streets, coincidently all the psychosis seemed to follow soon after that.

They say Skunk is just a hybrid strain but I have always had my doubts.

People never had that sort of psychosis on Thai sticks and some of that shit made skunk seem tame.

[SunChaser]

Skunk is just a colombian (sativa), Mexican (sativa) and afghani (indica). It's not even all that potent. It just has a sativa like high with indica growing traits and is very easy to grow, which makes it very popular with indoor growers. I think it's like drinking cheap beer personally. It only ever becomes quality herb when crossed, otherwise it's just generic boring average crap.

BTW, cannabis didn't start giving people psychosis, when skunk came, what a silly thing to say!

The US government has been claiming it gives psychosis since the 1930's, yet there still to this day is no scientific data to back the claim.

So slow down people before making stupid claims!

Peace

Edited July 14, 2010 by jabez

[Bread Filter]

The one to look out for these days is the Kafiristanica or Diesel strains. Super high THC content with super low CBD that creates soaring panic inducing psychedelic highs. It was meant for use by cancer patients who don't want to get the munchies.

[Chiral]

The US government has been claiming it gives psychosis since the 1930's, yet there still to this day is no scientific data to back the claim.

So slow down people before making stupid claims!

Peace

 

Some people can take stimulants over a short period of time and suffer psychosis, whilst some can take them all their lives and never suffer from psychosis...there is no scientific data to back up this claim.

[Distracted]

Some people can take stimulants over a short period of time and suffer psychosis, whilst some can take them all their lives and never suffer from psychosis...there is no scientific data to back up this claim.

 

There may be no scientific evidence for that claim, but I got some anecdotal evidence to back it up right here

The former, not the latter