Firstly let me say that I agree that smoking - whatever type of smoking - should be banned in confined public places and anywhere around children, but this is not really the argument here.
...What I learnt from all of this was that the cops and even the courts don't really give a toss about weed. The only time they really have a problem is if you are openly flouting their laws on the streets in front of everyone. If you keep your pot use fairly private then you generally don't have a problem.
...I think if all these activists just shut the fuck up and kept their use to themselves then the media would have nothing to talk about, the cops would turn a blind eye and no one would care. When people like this bloke do dumb things then non smokers and busy bodies have something to talk about. Sweet old Betty from number 9 will be on the phone to John Laws whinging about how pot makes you stupid, aggresive and a dole bludger. Thats not what we want.
I know plenty of people that smoke pot. None of them have any trouble with the law because we keep it fairly private. Cops don't care if you smoke, they do care if you smoke in public in front of kids and nigels. It's the same as with underage drinking. We all did it, our kids will do it, and their kids will do it. As long as its done in privacy and with supervision no one will care.
Certainly from a normalised perspective (no pun intended), that's fast becoming common practice, and legally speaking it's certainly a safer approach. However, a more conscienscious objector may see the need for a more radical approach, realising that without continual public debate/ discussion - which isn't happening at present - it's the only way of maintaining the attention of the wider public.
Of course, a large proportion of drug users who agree their drugs should be legalised lack both the conviction and motivation to actively protest these laws, laws which we all know are widely flouted. It's understandable, considering the present alienation shown towards users, but what also needs to be realised, is that in essence, this fear invoked complacence plays directly into the hands of the prohibitionists.
The "do drugs secretly and tell know one" philosphy is something we saw all too much of during past decades. A very big worry to me is that there is a re-emergence of this trend. It has potential to affect survey participation, and that means demographics remain less representative of the greater population i.e. inaccurate.
I certainly don't believe we must strive to avoid the "Betty's of no 9" from commenting on Laws like programs. Discussion, opinions etc in any form are welcome whether or not there's room given for alternative opinions. Most people I know over 40 don't give Laws's show an ounce of credibility for this very reason - lack of balance, ignorant participants etc. The thing is, numbers do count, so the more every day people that reveal themselves as users, the better chance of properly informing the likes of Betty. That's because informing these people can equate to changing their opinions. The alternative is more of what we had during the 80s and past decades i.e. a more networked but more clandestine drug scene which equated to a less sociologically integrated scene.
On the subject of the Diversion System; while diversion can be effective in preventing some from getting a criminal record, this is only part of it's recognised purpose. The other and often under stated reason is to reduce the likelihood of user re-offending.
However, while it is easy to assess the success of the scheme in the first instance, there have been no studies to date that have adequately assessed the rate of re-offending, which as said, is considered a major reason for having a diversion system in the first place.
So lets imagine a way is found that can determine re-offending, and lets also assume that the number of re-offenders is high. Does that then imply the current system is inneffective? If so, what course of action needs to be taken? Perhaps authorities would throw their hands in the air and give up - legalise marijuana - an unlikely senario to say the least. The alternative course of action would probably lie in the other direction; make penalties tougher, introduce probationary periods or some compliance regulation such as drug tests.
Regardless of the outcomes of such a study, assessment of this system should be considered important to everyone, if only to highlight the ineffectiveness of the current diversion based system.
Pot isn't something that needs to be scientifically checked or chemically tested like pills. Users are more than capable of working out if what they are buying is "pot or not". It's different with pills because no one can tell what's in them just by looking. Pills are also a lot more dangerous then your average bud.
You missed my point on this one, although I will say that around the area I grew up in, it was once quite common for poor quality pot to be laced with various drugs, particularly horse tranquillizer (possibly ketamine), and less commonly, heroin. While the practice is virtually non-existent today, it's nevertheless always a possibility. But I digress...
My point in comparing the actions of the guy in the story to on-site pill testing was that exchanging/ handling drugs in a public place, for whatever the reasons, violates local laws. I'm certainly not arguing against the need for pill testing - heaven forbid - I'm simply demonstrating that radical steps are sometimes considered by some activists - either brave or foolish enough, depending upon your view - as the only way of gaining attention, particularly in regards to social and health impacts (or lack of) stemming from marijuana use. If every pot smoker or person believing pot laws should change, stood up, a relative risk factor could be accurately applied and reform then be based upon evidence rather than the present religious or moral based arguments.