Australia next to legalise weed?

[Foreigner]

Cannabis doesn't cause psychosis it is merely a trigger, like many other things. The link between cancer and cannabis remains unproven due to lack of proper controls eliminating tobacco. All smoking causes lung damage in some form or another and can lead to COPD, emphysema, and more seriously respiratory infections.

If putting warning labels on weed is the price for having it legalized, then I could live with it. It's a mind-altering substance and despite access to information there are some pretty ignorant people out there. When I was 16 and first tried weed I didn't know much about it.

 

[kushrolledup]

Prohibition will never be the answer to any of the worlds drug problems. Right on Australia, fire up the herb you ain't hurting no one.

 

[Portillo]

I have never seen The Daily Telegraph ever publish any anti-abortion articles, so that puts your "moral panic" argument squarely to rest.

The telegraph supports abortion. Drug decriminalisation however is very easy to scare parents and the public.

 

[Crankinit]

If cannabis use becomes problematic, often people quit and return to happy, normal lives. I have talked to many ex-stoners who are perfectly happy and well adjusted not using anymore.

I just don't think it's realistic to expect marijuana to have a warning label on it.

From my perspective, I went through DARE class long before I ever signed up to go to a medical marijuana dispensary. If blatantly over-stated, possibly over-cautious warnings aren't going to inform you of the risks, what would? A warning label? I think not.

How many people actually read the Surgeon General's warning on a pack of cigarettes, and went "oh shit, I don't want lung cancer!" and didn't smoke because of it? How many people read the Surgeon General's warning on a bottle/can of liquor/wine/beer, and said "oh shit, I don't want to harm my unborn child!" and chose not to drink because of it?

I doubt the number is very large.

I know people who smoked tobacco through their entire pregnancy despite the Surgeon General's warnings. It's not that they were illiterate, or too fucked up to read, it's just that they didn't fucking care.

The point is to spread awareness, unless you're claiming that weed has absolutely zero negative effects, then a warning label is perfectly justified. You seem to be of the opinion that the average citizen is thoughtful and well informed about which drugs they use and what effects they will have, but that's just not true.

As for the smoking/alcohol warning label, they might not stop a lot of people directly, but even a few people is enough, and they make sure other people who use them are more aware of the risks they face, maintaining a constant awareness instead of allowing them to be ignored.

And what's lost by putting a warning label on the packaging? Nothing, unless you're financially invested in the sales of the drug and profit from ignorance and the harm it causes. There's no reason to not do it, and plenty of reason for it.

I don't see how you can argue for people to be allowed to use whatever drugs they want, but argue against doing everything you can to make sure they're informed about the risks and benefits. If we want our drugs to be legalized then we need to show that we can be responsible about them. I get that you're attached to weed and want to defend it, but come on.

 

[Doctor_Ew420]

If cannabis use becomes problematic, often people quit and return to happy, normal lives. I have talked to many ex-stoners who are perfectly happy and well adjusted not using anymore.

I just don't think it's realistic to expect marijuana to have a warning label on it.

From my perspective, I went through DARE class long before I ever signed up to go to a medical marijuana dispensary. If blatantly over-stated, possibly over-cautious warnings aren't going to inform you of the risks, what would? A warning label? I think not.

How many people actually read the Surgeon General's warning on a pack of cigarettes, and went "oh shit, I don't want lung cancer!" and didn't smoke because of it? How many people read the Surgeon General's warning on a bottle/can of liquor/wine/beer, and said "oh shit, I don't want to harm my unborn child!" and chose not to drink because of it?

I doubt the number is very large.

I know people who smoked tobacco through their entire pregnancy despite the Surgeon General's warnings. It's not that they were illiterate, or too fucked up to read, it's just that they didn't fucking care.

Crankinit is spot on.

I will be a little more forceful though.

I am sorry to hear that you know completely scummy assholes who smoke all the way through pregnancy. Of course it will happen but ignorance to the issues that cannabis can cause helps no one.

Since you clearly know some stupid fucks, could you imagine the amount of kids out there that believe driving while stoned is perfectly fine? How many of them think it is simply a healthy thing to smoke day in and day out? That there is NO addiction potential?

Not everyone has been dragged into a DARE class or any kind of drug education class for that matter. Consider all the absolute bullshit myths and half-truths we all heard about various drugs while growing up (I grew up when everyone had access to google, people still think MDMA drains spinal fluid... Are we to imagine these people have the facts about cannabis?... NO!)

I have seen inexperienced smokers black out while standing and fall backwards as flat as a board MANY TIMES! Not even first time smokers. Could you consider how bad that could go if people were given no warning of its effect? Decided to smoke for the first time on their 6th story balcony? Decided to smoke and then get on the highway?

How about all the 'bathsalt' RC's in fancy packages with bob marleys face on the pack? They don't have warnings and people are brainwashed into thinking that this fancy pack sold at the store could not possibly cause them a health problem. Kids see pressed ecstasy pills with mickey mouse imprinted, smells like mint and is bright pink. How could that cause a problem? pressed pills are just pure MDMA right?... Right.

As someone who spends so much time on a harm reduction site, Cap. Heroin you surprise me by using the surgeon general warnings/ratios of people who find it unappealing and quit. Addiction is a funny thing as you know, I am sure you did some harm with heroin (that you knew you were doing) before you called it quits.

Ignorance to the harm of alcohol, tobacco, cocaine or marijuana are all negative things. The more you know about the possibilities, the better, of course there will be some people that put other people at risk or don't heed warnings (I am one of these people) but it is ridiculous to hint that people wouldn't benefit from knowing that we aren't sure if cannabis can cause cancers on its own. Short of nicotine, a package of cannabis should have the same basic listing of harmful emissions that a pack of cigarettes has.

 

[Flynnal]

The telegraph supports abortion. Drug decriminalisation however is very easy to scare parents and the public.

As I said, it has nothing to do with morals whatsoever. The telegraph thinks abortion is a-ok, but wants to turn against someone using cannabis.

And mentioning parents and the public...the same people who support abortion, then turn around and stab someone using cannabis in the back.

We are a society of hypocrites. That's all I can say, and it's fair game too, so I don't want any arguments with that.

 

[pofacedhoe]

Unfortunately the Daily Telegraph will start a massive moral panic, the goverment will be accused of looking soft on drugs, and it will most likely not happen. The war on drugs is based on moral panics, not evidence.

pretty sure newpapers are almost solely responsible for the "war on drugs"

 

[Crankinit]

Newspapers, racism and multinational corporations.

 

[slimvictor]

I don't think anyone here - including Capt'n Heroin - believes that cannabis is completely benign.
I understand, though, that many people tend to downplay the risks and health problems associated with cannabis. This is likely because they were taught many lies about drugs, particularly cannabis, via the government propaganda programs, and once they discovered that it was full of lies, they discard any worries about the drug at all. A potentially dangerous ignorance, I would say.
However, cannabis is clearly far less dangerous than tobacco or alcohol. It would be unfair and alarmist to put warnings on cannabis that make it appear to be more dangerous than alcohol.
One solution: put bigger warnings on alcohol. I am not opposed to this, but it brings up the question of how dangerous cannabis is compared to other drugs, such as caffeine.
I have argued elsewhere that caffeine is at least as dangerous as cannabis. The LD50 of caffeine is easily attainable by someone who is snorting pure powder (and people die from caffeine overdose in this way regularly, though infrequently).
But there are no warnings on caffeine, and to put them on coffee and tea seems impractical and ridiculous. Pure caffeine crystals, on the other hand, should have warnings, imo.
Putting them on cannabis seems like it could be beneficial, but it would be important not to use that as a chance to scare people, which many people in power seem intent on doing. Also, the scientific evidence is still quite lacking, so it is not 100% certain what would need to be conveyed. From what I know (and without looking up anything now), I would say that the basic and essential information would or could be
1) Do no drive or operate heavy machinery when under the influence.
2) Individuals with pre-existing psychosis may find that cannabis increases / brings out their psychosis.

You might think that (1) is debatable, since some evidence says that people drive better when high. Mostly, however, the
evidence says that people don't drive (much) worse when high. It really depends on exactly HOW high the person is, and what they are used to, etc., as well as the individual in question. While nobody drives better drunk, there are many people that drive just fine while high, or they are only slightly negatively affected and make up for it by driving more slowly. Overall, since the message is going out to the general public, and some people will get really high and drive and be out of it and crash and kill others, I would vote for (1).

(2) seems important for people to know.

There is absolutely NO evidence whatsoever, to my knowledge, that cannabis has ever been shown to cause cancer (despite what one poster seemed to say above). Cannabis smoke, on the other hand, may cause cancer, but so may the smoke of cloves, mint, or calea zacatekichi (sp? the "dream herb"), but we don't label these things as carcinogenic. Cannabis consumed via vaporizer or eating/drinking is not a carcinogen. If anything, it is anti-cancer - there is evidence that it causes cancer cells to die. Shouldn't that be mentioned on the package as well?

 

[Crankinit]

^ I mostly agree, including more extensive labeling on alcohol. The fact that a highly toxic, addictive hard drug is sold with no warning labels is absurd. And we wonder why so many people die from alcohol abuse.

I don't see why they couldn't include a sentence stating that smoking cannabis can be harmful to the lungs, and possibly carcinogenic. While it's technically not a property of the drug itself, it is a side effect of the most common ROA. I've known multiple daily smokers who've ended up with collapsed lungs in their 20's. on top of that, I'd like to see an effort to shift people towards safer ROA's like eating or vaporization.

 

[Portillo]

As I said, it has nothing to do with morals whatsoever.

Unfortunately, morals are involved.

The principal arguments used against changing current policy
settings tend to be moral rather than scientific. In 1997 the
Prime Minister said that a trial of heroin for heroin dependent
people “sent the wrong message”. Linked to this is a concern
that alternative approaches could cause an inevitable
increase in the prevalence of drug use with the assumption,
sometimes made explicit, that this would also increase the
extent of drug-related harms. But there are many examples
from Australia and other countries where liberalisation of
approaches has neither increased consumption nor harms.

http://www.australia21.org.au/publications/press_releases/Australia21_Illicit_Drug_Policy_Report.pdf

 

[Flynnal]

Unfortunately, morals are involved.

Only when it applies to drugs or voluntary euthanasia.

But not when it comes to abortion...

BTW some people claim homosexuality is in the same vein as abortion, but sorry to say I have to disagree with that.
On the other hand, drugs and voluntary euthanasia CERTAINLY are in the same vein. Reason is nobody gets harmed by homosexual acts. People DO get seriously harmed by drugs, abortion, and yes, even voluntary euthanasia.

Out of these three issues: abortion, drugs, and voluntary euthanasia, abortion is perhaps the most controversial. Yet this has been legalised for what...40 years+???