Homo Sapiens, the animal, has a pleasure-circuit hard-wired into its cranium. It's a carry-over from its more primitive ancestors. To deny that this circuit exists, is to deny the realities of history and today's world.

What has changed in the last few millennia is the trading of knowledge regarding stimulants and substances that excite this circuit. This occurred right alongside the developing trade and exploitation of spices, precious metals and gems, fabrics, etc.

The demand for such substances can never really be eradicated - human nature will always find a way. Prohibition simply will not work. Witness tobacco and alcohol.

Taking the money out of the drug trade is the only way to curb it.

Decriminalize the personal use and production of marijuana and the bottom will drop out of the drug market, with the exception of the synthetic drugs - which should remain illegal in all its forms.

Addicts should be treated, they're a dying breed anyway.

There's already talk of raising the legal drinking age to 21, which I agree with, so the same rules could apply to pot smoking.

Consider the social implications of decriminalizing marijuana while raising the penalties for synthetic drugs.

And to forestall the howls of objection, first consider the costs of alcohol and tobacco when compared to marijuana.

My two bobs worth.

legalising dope is one thing but supplying addicts is another entirely...although I'm against them both. 

Leglisign weed because the gov will tax it, and impose stricter penalties for growers (It then becomes tax evasion)
Supplying addicts because bugger em - I ain't paying for them to get high.

ER  PERHAPS 

perhaps...removing the PROFIT  .. IS  ..the only answer.!??



wtf?? who would've thunk it eh?

Lionel Edriess wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2013 at 6:57pm:



Well that's fine, but I just don't trust teh gov not to exploit it for their own gain. 

The model I'm thinking of is that of tobacco - a supposedly 'legal' plant - so long as you don't get any big ideas about managing your own habit by growing your own.  Teh gov doesn't take kindly to being deprived of it's cut.

Yes LE 
of course it computes..! 

and it has been evident to everybody else...   except for pollies afraid of losing power, the brainwashed, and the vested interests.
some rich cnts are just getting richer ,, at the expense of the cohesion of our entire society.

... wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2013 at 9:35pm:


No argument intended.

I take your point about the Gov't wanting it's cut - the penalties for chop-chop are outrageous!

If its just a weed, the least you could do is keep it under control.

miketrees wrote on Jul 13^th, 2013 at 12:24pm:


Some ppl just arent into drugs. Give them heroin and they wont take it. Hard to believe i know but they exist as do non-drinkers and non-gamblers. If the govt was to supply known addicts and have some kind of criteria on it then it could work. However thats not what this thread was about. If drugs were decriminalised then there wouldn't be so much "crime". Someone would have some god stats for their election campaign.

On another note the govt is dishing out drugs that cause health problems. They are also regulating how much drugs a patient can have. This should be regulated by doctors not pollies.

SOB