More states legalize Pot 8) when for Oz?

[Skids]

[Skids]

This is how prohibition works.....

Drug gangs turn private Perth rentals into grow houses

Gang members using fake identities have been renting homes in Perth and turning them into hydroponic cannabis farms, prompting a warning to landlords.

Consumer Protection said 21 homes in the past seven months had been rented by members of southeast Asian gangs based in the eastern states, with the growing systems causing $70,000 worth of damage at one property

https://thewest.com.au/news/wa/drug-gangs-turn-private-perth-rentals-into-grow-houses-ng-b88436011z

[think positive]

A work colleague of my hubby's had his rental in Melbourne totally trashed this way too, ain't just Perth,


This is both good news, but also very disturbing


http://www.news.com.au/national/crime/australian-federal-police-ice-bust-makes-history/news-story/46a8d8f0d2ae239bf8214d1b8d1b9884

[stui magpie]

[David]

But quite mainstream jurisdictions already have, and it looks like Canada is soon to follow suit. I don't think it's such a hard sell really, though I think it will take longer here than elsewhere.

[Mugwump]

Funny, really, not one genuinely good argument in favour of it, yet everyone is certain it has to happen. Let's go through the arguments in favour again :

1. Doesn't hurt anyone else (well, psychosis, memory loss and traffic accidents don't hurt anyone do they ?)
2. It's no worse than alcohol (an utter failure of logical reasoning)
3. it's wrong to criminalise what many people do anyway (ie a law that I choose to break should not be a law)
4. Legal availability will not increase use (yeah, right) and will not be the thin end of the wedge causing wider availability on a par with alcohol today (right)
5. It's not bad for society to have a drugged population (uh huh)
6. it won't cause issues with our Asian neighbours (uh, yeah, man, they're cool about it)

[David]

If I can address your first point last, since when do we let our Asian neighbours dictate our domestic social policy? Indonesia and Malaysia probably think that we're degenerates for allowing gay couples to live openly and adopt children, and China probably thinks we take this whole free speech and political transparency business way too seriously. Who cares what they think?

Otherwise, working backwards:

5. The status quo in this country is that some of the population is stoned some of the time (and some more often than others). If marijuana is legalised, the situation will still be that some of the population is stoned some of the time. If that's what you would call a 'drugged population', then welcome to Australia 2017: we're already here. And we've also been a drunken population since white people first set foot in the country.

4. We can debate levels of increase or even decrease in usage, but I think it's quite clear that use won't skyrocket. Please feel free to provide evidence to the contrary from Amsterdam or Colorado.

3. It's certainly wrong to criminalise victimless acts.

2. It's not just 'no worse' than alcohol, it's significantly less harmful in many important respects.

1. It doesn't hurt anyone else. It may, in certain cases, however, hurt the user themselves. One of our society's general legal principles is that some level of freedom to make good or bad decisions is better than seeking to police every possible thing we could do to hurt ourselves. Not everybody thinks that way, of course; we still have a temperance movement to this day who would be happy to see alcohol banned and can't understand why our society continues to invite such misery on itself. I have some sympathy for their views, but I also thank God every day that such puritans don't have control of the country.

If you don't find any of the above compelling, here are some more arguments in favour of decriminalisation and/or legalisation of marijuana:

1) Much as prohibition made Al Capone and gangsters like him rich, marijuana prohibition makes criminal syndicates wealthy and gives them the resources to engage in even more unpleasant trades. A legal and regulated market for marijuana would take that source of income away.

2) Police resources currently being dedicated to locking away or fining users and small-time dealers could be redirected to more serious social problems, while those people can avoid having their lives ruined.

3) Legalisation and regulation means that production will be monitored and the drug will be safer to use – less chance of users getting spiked or inhaling toxic chemicals.

4) People will feel far more able to discuss marijuana use with GPs and mental health professionals, meaning that users and potential users at risk of developing schizophrenia stand a much greater chance of being warned off it.

5) Marijuana use in moderation is generally not harmful and leads to a higher incidence of good parties.

[ronrat]

The Asian neighbours have a mssive problem with speed.And in other areas opium. They have not and should not have any say in how we run things. The dumb Corby would have got off lighter if her slag mother had not kept selling her out to the media. The Australian drug laws are not an issue here.

[Mugwump]

^ David, in order :

5) Some people are indeed stoned. I knew many of them as friends when I lived, as a late teenager, in the part of society where this type of thing was more common. Several are now strikingly cognitively damaged in their fifties, roughly in proportion to their level of usage.

4) I lived in The Hague for four years. The number of human blown fuses you see in the street - every one a life that might have had some promise - might surprise you. There are also surprisingly strict laws on dealing in Holland and plenty of serious drug busts. Holland is also the drug trafficking capital of Europe, and it has been tightening its laws ever since the 1960s because of the problems it causes. This is despite it having a Calvinist culture which is very different to Australia.

3) "Certainly wrong to criminalise victimless acts". Would you like to explain how that certainty relates to say, seat belt laws ? I think our state prohibition of poker machines was also an excellent law that was repealed in the grubby preparedness of our government to profit from misery. Just because something is, in society, does not mean that it should be. Much conventional wisdom is quite pernicious. Laws which protect people from their own ignorance and stupidity are a very legitimate thing for the community to legislate through parliament. Consider also consumer credit acts.

2) A poor equivalence. If dope comes to be used with the same frequency as alcohol, and to be promoted and integrated as far as alcohol, I think the medical and social evidence that we have, suggests it will be every bit as harmful. Comparing like with like, why would it not be ? And if you believe that it is less harmful, it'll be logical to sell it in supermarkets alongside booze, I suppose ?

Your (1) is a restatement of point (3), in effect.

Regarding legalisation in the region, given the sigificant penalties in Asia, I think you will find significant drug tourism (ask Amsterdam how that feels) and the real possibility that Australia will become the dope farm for Asia.

The issue of police resources is an old canard. It can be made about anything below grievous assault and murder. In the end, you have to decide whether, as a society, we want a doped population routinely using mind altering and mind-damaging drugs which strip the individual of judgement and moral reasoning ; and if not, then policing is the consequence, not the driver of policy.

Your occasional party puffs, and Skids' loungeroom spliff are not the problem. These are akin to the argument that "because I, a responsible driver, do not wear a seat belt on my short trips, then they should not be mandatory". A long time ago, about 1968, we implicitly decided as a society that drugs were somehow legitimate, in a coded kind of way. Since then, we have seen hard drug use, associated crime and personal destruction rise to levels that a previous generation would have thought insane. There are many reasons for this, but the implicit licensing of drug use, and its ability to dethrone ordinary moral reasoning and social functioning, seems to be a significant part of it.

[Culprit]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/recreational-drugs-government-gangsters-war-decriminalise-legalise-transform-reform-experts-a7763546.html

The prohibition of drugs has had “little or no impact” on the rate of drug use, the Global Commission on Drug Policy’s annual report said last year, as the number of drug users had increased by almost 20 per cent between 2006 and 2013.

It's such a simple plan.

[HAL]

What happened to it?

[partypie]

We may as well ban alcohol too, because some people are damaged by it. Sorry Mugwumps, I don't buy your depiction of pot smokers as a bunch of damaged losers.

[Mugwump]

[Skids]

It's fly out day today & boy, what a hell of a week!

I haven't had a smoke for about 2 weeks and to say I'm looking forward to kicking back with a cold beer and a nice big spliff tonight would be a huge understatement.
I'll have the best sleep I've had in over a week, the alarm will change from 0415hr to 0630, when I'll get up and hit the beach for a run and a sniff of that crisp ocean breeze.

And that makes me a criminal?! Ludicrous

[Mugwump]

^ good for you, mate, and I hope you enjoy it. In answer to your question, however, yes it does. The law has been enacted by parliament, and you are choosing to break it. But given the fact that it is not enforced with any rigour, I can well understand your lack of concern for it. When the government won't police its laws effectively, they bring the law into disrepute.