Australia next to legalise weed?

teological

Bluelighter
Joined
Nov 28, 2011
Messages
475
Location
Morefeindville
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v12/n450/a05.html
Newshawk: Herb
Votes: 0
Pubdate: Mon, 10 Sep 2012
Source: Age, The (Australia)
Copyright: 2012 The Age Company Ltd
Contact: [email protected]
Website: http://www.theage.com.au/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/5
Author: Bianca Hall


LICENSE GROWERS, SELLERS OF CANNABIS: REPORT

A REPORT has recommended the decriminalisation of cannabis and ecstasy in some circumstances, and the Victorian branch of the Australian Medical Association agrees a new approach is needed.

The report, by a group of prominent Australians including University of Melbourne's former dean of medicine David Penington, recommends that cannabis and ecstasy be decriminalised for people aged 16 and older who are willing to be recorded on a national confidential users' register.

Users would be able to buy drugs from an approved supplier, most likely a chemist.

The report, prepared by non-profit group Australia21, said prohibition had failed, leaving the manufacture and supply of illicit drugs in the hands of "criminal elements" and without proper safeguards and quality control.

Victorian AMA president Stephen Parnis said drugs policy should be based on evidence.

"We cannot allow prejudice to drive drugs policy in this country," he said. "It is really important that we keep looking at the evidence on this issue and don't allow ourselves to become closed-minded about the best way to deal with drug problems in our society."

One proposal in the report is that cannabis be controlled with taxation, with growers and sellers subject to "hard-to-get but easy-to-lose" licences for cultivation and wholesale and retail supply.

Cannabis packets would be required to be plain and have warning labels similar to cigarette packets, and people buying cannabis would be forced to show identification that proved their age.

Former Australian Federal Police commissioner Mick Palmer said criminalisation was failing to deter drug users.

"On any objective assessment, policing of the illicit drug market has had only marginal impact on the profitability of the drug trade or the availability of illicit drugs" Mr Palmer said.

"Whilst controlling and reducing drug-related criminal trafficking and related offences must remain an important part of any strategy, it should be complementary to the primary aim of providing health and social care and support for drug addicts and users. This should not be construed, however, as suggesting that any message that is given is not strongly negative to drug use."

The report calls on the government to consider international examples such as Portugal and Switzerland, which have used decriminalisation in combination with law enforcement measures. All the international examples produced positive health benefits to users without increasing the rate of drug use.

It also calls for a national drug summit to be held next year, including a broad group of stakeholders, including parliamentarians from all sections of the political spectrum.

Greens Senator Richard Di Natale, who contributed to the report, said the report offered politicians a chance to discuss drugs policy without fear of political repercussions.

"I have lost count of the number of politicians who privately say to me, 'we're on the wrong track', but stay silent publicly," he said.

"What we need to be doing is starting to treat this issue as a health issue, rather than a law enforcement issue."

The Victorian Alcohol and Drug Association and state and federal governments had demonstrated "a stubborn resistance" to discussing the benefits of reforming drugs policies.
 
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.
 
Yeah, because marijuana is just as dangerous as tobacco. 8(

Get real.

All drugs can be dangerous if used incorrectly, I certainly don't see why they shouldn't put warning labels alerting users of the potential side effects on the packaging.
 
Warning labels are fine as long as they are accurate. It shouldnt say 'marijuana may cause brain cancer and may cause you to rape white women.'
 
I just don't see the point. I'm glad I can get cannabis/extracts in packaging without warning labels.

Don't you think people with mental illness should be made aware that using smoking weed can induce an episode or worsen their symptoms? There's no such thing as a drug with no risks or side effects, and if we want drugs to be legal we have to accept that society needs to start being more responsible about using them. Warning labels do absolutely no harm and could quite potentially save people some grief in the long run, so there's no reason to not do it.
 
Coffee doesn't come with warning labels. Nor most teas. Nor fluoridated water. Nor tonic water. Nor black pepper.

Some things are so benign that sticking warning labels on them is silly. It's like a molecular form of racism. Chemism?
 
Coffee doesn't come with warning labels. Nor most teas. Nor fluoridated water. Nor tonic water. Nor black pepper.

Some things are so benign that sticking warning labels on them is silly. It's like a molecular form of racism. Chemism?

Seriously?
 
Seriously?

What health effect is cannabis causing that isn't overshadowed by the ravages of sugary foods?

I'm not saying it shouldn't have a drug label like you'd find on aspirin or toothpaste. I'm only saying that it shouldn't have a warning label like those on alcohol and cigarettes.
 
I'm not saying it shouldn't have a drug label like you'd find on aspirin or toothpaste. I'm only saying that it shouldn't have a warning label like those on alcohol and cigarettes.

^this

A+

Don't you think people with mental illness should be made aware that using smoking weed can induce an episode or worsen their symptoms? There's no such thing as a drug with no risks or side effects, and if we want drugs to be legal we have to accept that society needs to start being more responsible about using them. Warning labels do absolutely no harm and could quite potentially save people some grief in the long run, so there's no reason to not do it.

I think people should inform themselves, and shouldn't rely on warning labels.

I don't just read a warning label before taking a drug, I do extensive research first. This is something people have to learn to do for themselves. Not enough people do this kind of extensive research first.
 
I think people should inform themselves, and shouldn't rely on warning labels.

I don't just read a warning label before taking a drug, I do extensive research first. This is something people have to learn to do for themselves. Not enough people do this kind of extensive research first.

That's a nice idea and all, but people like that are a minority, most people can't even be bothered using pillreports or buying a testing kit before taking ecstasy, you think they're going to spend hours researching on the internet? You have to be realistic about these things.
 
All drugs can be dangerous if used incorrectly, I certainly don't see why they shouldn't put warning labels alerting users of the potential side effects on the packaging.

numbers dude said:
I'm only saying that it shouldn't have a warning label like those on alcohol and cigarettes.

agreed with you crankinit. it'd be something similar to our new no brand packaging with tobacco and coinciding warning. it's being treated as medicinal marijuana, all the more reason to have a warning like EVERY other medicine out there.

i don't see the point in glorifying it's use with all this hip packaging head stores use. i just want my weed in plain jar, thanks, without all the bells and whistles. as i do my morphine and valium.
 
Cannabis has been touted as a completely benign and safe drug for generations now. In high school, I knew many kids who called pot 'medicine' when all they did with it was get baked at lunch time and after school. Eat too many chips etc. That is not medicine and it is pretty sad that people think this drug is 100% AOK.

I smoke/vape pot daily, have for 10 years. This whole time I have known that I am breathing in smoke from a plant whos origin I cannot pinpoint. For the time being, this stuff is grown by anyone who can get the lights/seeds/space. It is dried to roughly 80% of it's original moisture content and then sealed in bags and shipped to other drug dealers who put their jerkoff hands all over it and seal it in other bags in shitty conditions. Most all cannabis has mould in it.
Beside the point... The properties of smoke are damaging. Captain Heroin mentioned the direct relation between cannabis and tobacco. All those warning labels of "cyanide, carbon monoxide, tar, formaldehyde, benzene" ... Usually when you make a cigarette smoker read the label and see that their tobacco smoke contains this they say something along the lines of "ugh, how dare the tobacco industry add these chemicals" then I have to tell them that these are simply properties of smoke, they are not 'added' by the company who makes the cigarettes.

It would be irresponsible and ignorant to legalize marijuana and allow it to be sold in the same fashion the LA clubs are selling it. As I said, people seem to think that this drug is perfectly fine to use all day, everyday. Smoking it is carcinogenic, why don't people know more about this? Because all the 'activists' are brutally one sides and use the 'kills cancer cells' and 'no one has ever died from lung cancer from JUST cannabis"... I would love to have someone force some of these activists to be more enlightening on what that means. Plenty of people have died from lung cancer who were not cigarette smokers. They may have been car mechanics, they may have spent time around asbestos etc. It is ridiculous that generations have been brought up thinking that nothing bad can happen from smoking pot. Go on youtube and check out the mass of idiots who smoke grams of butane extracted 'oil' everyday. These people are being sold something under the guise of medicine, they do not use it as such, they likely have no idea that all their bong hits contain all those harsh sounding chemicals, they probably don't realize how very hard it is to purge any amount of butane from their extract. These things are sold in little fancy packs with fancy names and NO form of warning.

If cannabis becomes legal where I live and is sold without warnings, I will lose my shit. It is offensive to me that most alcohol bottles have no form of warnings aside from "don't drink and drive" while I have to look at pictures of needles in eyes, rotted cancer mouths and diseased lungs on EVERY pack of cigarettes.

The argument that sugary foods and coffee don't have labels is a crock of shit... Sorry, it is. I was taught in my high school health class that coffee and sugary foods are the #1 detriment to human consumption. I was told, pot is rather benign, you can't OD, it doesn't cause cancer (???) and it is 100% natural (which is also bullshit, pot has not been 'natural' for decades!!! I hear vegans/hippies bitch about GMO products all the time, I agree it is bad, but what do you think your purple kush is??) I have never drank a cup of coffee, I smoke pot everyday.

EVERYONE knows that poor diet isn't good for you. Everyone knows what poor diet is, they can taste it every time they bite into it's delicious, fluffy, cream filled glory. Pot is still fairly underground considering the amount of definite research that has been done on it. For generations tobacco was available to anyone who wanted it, it was suspected to be perfectly benign and continued to be abused and marketed the same for a LONG time, the same thing sadly could happen with marijuana. Once legalized, of course the propaganda will be lighter (best believe it will still be there) but studies and experimentation with the mass of cannabinoids and other chemicals in the plant can be studied without legal issues. Who is to say something really shitty will be found? No one.

I hope Australia gets freed from the grips of constant incarceration and shitty shwag weed. If they do, I will really hope that these purposed packages will have warnings with website links to studies and the info us stoners choose not to read/listen to.

Some of my favourite posters on this site have just bummed me out. How could you be so knowledgeable but so one sided? Cap. Heroin, I know that cannabis helped you out of a real addiction. Maybe the massive positives have made you ignorant to the obvious issues that cannabis can have... and maybe the extracts will catch up to you. Hopefully not.
 
Cannabis has been touted as a completely benign and safe drug for generations now. In high school, I knew many kids who called pot 'medicine' when all they did with it was get baked at lunch time and after school. Eat too many chips etc. That is not medicine and it is pretty sad that people think this drug is 100% AOK.

I smoke/vape pot daily, have for 10 years. This whole time I have known that I am breathing in smoke from a plant whos origin I cannot pinpoint. For the time being, this stuff is grown by anyone who can get the lights/seeds/space. It is dried to roughly 80% of it's original moisture content and then sealed in bags and shipped to other drug dealers who put their jerkoff hands all over it and seal it in other bags in shitty conditions. Most all cannabis has mould in it.
Beside the point... The properties of smoke are damaging. Captain Heroin mentioned the direct relation between cannabis and tobacco. All those warning labels of "cyanide, carbon monoxide, tar, formaldehyde, benzene" ... Usually when you make a cigarette smoker read the label and see that their tobacco smoke contains this they say something along the lines of "ugh, how dare the tobacco industry add these chemicals" then I have to tell them that these are simply properties of smoke, they are not 'added' by the company who makes the cigarettes.

It would be irresponsible and ignorant to legalize marijuana and allow it to be sold in the same fashion the LA clubs are selling it. As I said, people seem to think that this drug is perfectly fine to use all day, everyday. Smoking it is carcinogenic, why don't people know more about this? Because all the 'activists' are brutally one sides and use the 'kills cancer cells' and 'no one has ever died from lung cancer from JUST cannabis"... I would love to have someone force some of these activists to be more enlightening on what that means. Plenty of people have died from lung cancer who were not cigarette smokers. They may have been car mechanics, they may have spent time around asbestos etc. It is ridiculous that generations have been brought up thinking that nothing bad can happen from smoking pot. Go on youtube and check out the mass of idiots who smoke grams of butane extracted 'oil' everyday. These people are being sold something under the guise of medicine, they do not use it as such, they likely have no idea that all their bong hits contain all those harsh sounding chemicals, they probably don't realize how very hard it is to purge any amount of butane from their extract. These things are sold in little fancy packs with fancy names and NO form of warning.

If cannabis becomes legal where I live and is sold without warnings, I will lose my shit. It is offensive to me that most alcohol bottles have no form of warnings aside from "don't drink and drive" while I have to look at pictures of needles in eyes, rotted cancer mouths and diseased lungs on EVERY pack of cigarettes.

The argument that sugary foods and coffee don't have labels is a crock of shit... Sorry, it is. I was taught in my high school health class that coffee and sugary foods are the #1 detriment to human consumption. I was told, pot is rather benign, you can't OD, it doesn't cause cancer (???) and it is 100% natural (which is also bullshit, pot has not been 'natural' for decades!!! I hear vegans/hippies bitch about GMO products all the time, I agree it is bad, but what do you think your purple kush is??) I have never drank a cup of coffee, I smoke pot everyday.

EVERYONE knows that poor diet isn't good for you. Everyone knows what poor diet is, they can taste it every time they bite into it's delicious, fluffy, cream filled glory. Pot is still fairly underground considering the amount of definite research that has been done on it. For generations tobacco was available to anyone who wanted it, it was suspected to be perfectly benign and continued to be abused and marketed the same for a LONG time, the same thing sadly could happen with marijuana. Once legalized, of course the propaganda will be lighter (best believe it will still be there) but studies and experimentation with the mass of cannabinoids and other chemicals in the plant can be studied without legal issues. Who is to say something really shitty will be found? No one.

I hope Australia gets freed from the grips of constant incarceration and shitty shwag weed. If they do, I will really hope that these purposed packages will have warnings with website links to studies and the info us stoners choose not to read/listen to.

Some of my favourite posters on this site have just bummed me out. How could you be so knowledgeable but so one sided? Cap. Heroin, I know that cannabis helped you out of a real addiction. Maybe the massive positives have made you ignorant to the obvious issues that cannabis can have... and maybe the extracts will catch up to you. Hopefully not.

Well said mate.
 
Cap. Heroin, I know that cannabis helped you out of a real addiction. Maybe the massive positives have made you ignorant to the obvious issues that cannabis can have... and maybe the extracts will catch up to you. Hopefully not.

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.
 
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.

Moral panic? Nope. Just a counter argument to help reduce the chances of it being "legalized" for whatever financial reasons behind it, and there are dozens. I have never seen The Daily Telegraph ever publish any anti-abortion articles, so that puts your "moral panic" argument squarely to rest.

They don't want it "legalized" because it would harm sales of other "products" (too many to name)...namely garden variety "psychomeds" that don't really work or only work in a limited context.
 
Top