Schapelle Corby Should Have Served The Full Sentence

Whats wrong with this picture? Tobacco is a carcinogenic and legally sold to adult Australian, but Cannabis is also a carcinogenic and its sale to Australians is considered illegal.

 

It is? According to my research, it seems to offer some protection against cancer.

 

Yeah, I've heard this but again I live relatively close to nimbin and pro weed arguments are in your face! It's dodgy looking characters always selling the message not some well dressed businessman or doctors and nurses etc!

 

From the research I have done, its difficult to find an accurate answer as to whether or not cannabis is a carcinogenic or not, and depends on what site or department you research, as they all seem to have a different opinion.

Its the same situation as this global warming mess, everyone has an agenda, and no one wants to tell the real unbiased truth for truths sake, and everyone not knowing the truth gets caught in the middle.

 

Which makes it a health/medical problem surely?

 

Apparently for a lot of young people it's passe - and that's not a bad thing. However I can say I've never used it, not interested in using it and haven't got a clue where to start finding it - but that's probably because I'm not interested.

Given that it appears to be used quite a lot then it must be relatively easy to obtain.

But it still gets up my nose that it's prohibited and not regulated.

- - - Updated - - -

Stupid isn't it?

 

As with all things mental health - yes and no

Basically as someone once said to me - if we had any idea of the health effects of tobacco we never would have made it legal. From a medico-legal point of view my biggest concern is with drug tolerance - if you take cannabis expect your next anaesthetic to be pretty (*)(*)(*)(*)ty

 

I for one would not appreciate a doctor operating on me after he has just dropped a doobie.
Or a pilot flying me all over the place under the influence. Talk about high as a kite.
Or a teacher driving my kids on an excursion while sucking on a joint.
Or a truck driver driving toward me and my family at 100km full of weed.

I know they could all be on something right now. But I am happy that they will go to prison for their actions. Outside of the revenue advantages it would offer I do not see any other advantage.

The social impact would be devastating.

 

Testing would have to be more widespread.... not universal, but anything operating machinery or with any duty of care. Give WHS people something useful to do.

 

So any revenue raised would be used to police it? So what purpose would this serve? We all have duty of care, even when you are driving to work, you have duty of care. So if we go with these rules nobody would be smoking it because unlike grog it stays in your system for days. So if you want to torch a lazy bunger with your mates on Saturday, and legally able to do so, you would not be able to drive the backhoe at work on Monday?

As i said, i believe the social impact in the negative far outweighs the financial benefit in the positive.

 

Good things for potential and actual users to know. Once it's legalised and regulated the packets can carry warnings like that.

 

YES. Lets believe what the doctors say!! Whats the old adage: "A doctors the only one who can burry their own mistake".

http://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/blowing-smoke-vintage-ads-of-doctors-endorsing-tobacco/10/

 

An interesting question would be: if cigarettes all of a sudden became illegal, would it reduce the number of users?

 

Neither would I. But if it was Tuesday, and the persons you described above smoked a bowl last Saturday night, I would have no problem with it whatsoever.

 

Only slightly. What it would do would be to make law abiding citizens into criminals, and create yet another black market run by thugs who use bullets instead of lawyers to settle disputes.

 

So how do you police it and at what cost.

Remember the examples I gave don't allow for second chances. Its a little too late to after the pot heads have created an accident and killed or injured your family. You can't just say, horrible that accident, that bastard was off his tits. Lets face it we can't keep up with policing the morons who drink and drive. It is said that we only find less than 5% of drink drivers. We just do not have the man power.

The social impact and in my opinion disintegration of society in general would be too high a price to pay so some clown can enjoy a high. Where do we draw the line, heroin, crack......

 

Very good question!

 

You police it the same way it's done today. Weed is freely available to anyone who wants it. Alcohol carries the same risks, and I don't see you screaming to criminalize it.

We draw the line at it's my (*)(*)(*)(*)ing body, not your's, and since I own myself, I can put whatever chemical I want into my own body. Back the (*)(*)(*)(*) off, busy boy, it's none of your business.

 

the cost of policing it effectively far out weighs the benefit of revenue raised, if you take into account the social cost.

I have absolutely no argument in criminalising alcohol, as I believe it is worse than weed and we all know the far reaching negative effects that alcohol has had on society in general. But lets use alcohol as an example of what legalising weed may have on communities and families. Your not helping your argument here.

Using your argument that consumption of mental destabilising drugs, alcohol include, is ones own business and that as long as it doesn't effect others should be legal because of freedom to the individual. You are either thirteen years old or under the influence of one of these said substances if you believe that nobody else is ever effected. There are always casualties somewhere that are affected.

Again using your argument. The said heroin addict . Do we just leave their dead and useless body to rot to the bone in the street ? No ? Who has the unenviable task of cleaning it up ? Would that person be said to be affected ?

I understand what your argument is, and agree that in a perfect world this may be possible. But in case you have not noticed we are not in a perfect world. There are consequences for everything we do.

Your argument at best is idealistic.

 

This discussion has opened my eyes. I'm not actually into accepting that people shove whatever they want into their body, it is ludicrous based on potential effects on society. I do accept that legalising drugs will cut out many other side issues associated with illicit drugs such as taking away a major source of revenue from gangs. I'm not sure what else gangs and war lords would have in their quest for riches. Maybe they will move to rob more banks and steal people's personal possessions. Maybe at the moment they can play their little game between themselves and their hardcore clients.....but you certainly wouldn't want them beginning to impose themselves on the rest of the by standing, law abiding citizens.

Anyway, I think making cigarettes illegal would work positively based on the broad educational campaign that has significantly reduced numbers of users already. It will never happen.....they will continue to price them out I'd say. ......then again, cheap tobacco could become the new revenue raiser for gangs??
I'm just stabbing in the dark here......who freakin knows!!!

 

Prohibition is the key to this. Where people want something and it's prohibited they'll get it somehow. And someone will be willing to take the risks to supply it and make money out of it. The Seagram distillery in Ontario was grateful for prohibition in the US, it made the company's fortune.

 

My argument is that my body does not belong to you, therefore you have no right to tell me what I can and cannot do with it. There is no argument you can make to suppress that idea. You don't own me. I do. What you think about what I put in my body is complete horse(*)(*)(*)(*).

 

This is a very complicated issue. It is like morality and ethics which is different to different people and different between cultures. Do we take the idea of a persons right to sanctity of their body as an absolute and stand back and do not interfere while someone committs suicide or gross self harm? If not, at what point do we intervene, at what level of self harm to we intervene? The questions really, are "does a person have the right to harm themselves"? and "do we have a right or an imperative to prevent that harm" and of course to both questions, why?

 

Some good points here actually AM. For abusers there has to be a large element of mental health concern. People don't abuse because they're happy. They only feel happy when they are abusing. My most memorable moments in life were when I was dead set sober. I think you will find with most abusers is that there are underlying issues that aren't pleasant!

 

I took this comment with a grain of salt diuretic, but it seems you might be right about her family! I can't believe they would be stupid enough to jeopardise Schapelle having her sentence revoked for an opportunity to make some money.