Cannabis literature from Holland, where it's legal to buy small quantities of the drug for personal use.
If we are to believe Lord Birt, prohibition doesn't work. And there are plenty of compelling arguments that prohibition does harm: cannabis users are stigmatised by a criminal record – although states in Australia mostly issue warnings or fines to users, occasionally they go to jail. They are also exposed to drug pushers, who also peddle highly addictive amphetamines, cocaine and heroin.
There is also the harm caused by having a substance used by millions easily available, without any testing of its strength or quality. Then there is police time and resources trying to enforce a law that a great number of citizens regularly flout. And cannabis prohibition is a notorious driver of police corruption, as four Australian royal commissions since 1986 have all concluded.
Lastly, there is the economic loss to the community. According to Kenneth Clements, an economist at the University of Western Australia, cannabis is a A$5 billion domestic industry – double that of the wine industry. And the community suffers twice as a result of prohibition.
First, they pay the costs of policing cannabis: a 1995 Australian estimate was that 13 per cent of all criminal justice and police resources were devoted to cannabis crime. Second, they are deprived of the benefits of a 'white market' economy: regulated legalisation of cannabis would generate taxes that could be returned to health and education.
IN JUNE 2005, 500 of America's ivy league economists, led by Nobel economics laureate Milton Friedman, wrote to U.S. President George W. Bush, calling for an honest debate about marijuana prohibition. "We believe such a debate will favour a regime in which marijuana is legal, taxed and regulated like other goods," they said. Harvard University economist Jeffrey Miron estimates the regulation of marijuana would produce savings and tax revenue of up to US$14 billion a year.
Alex Wodak too believes marijuana should be taxed and regulated. "There would still be law enforcement, and there should be health warnings and messages like: if you can't control your use, ring this number. There would have to be proof of age required as well." Would he advocate this approach for all drugs? "No – cannabis is unique among illicit drugs. It's the only one where there is a strong case for treating it like alcohol and tobacco. But not like coffee and sugar."
But this is not the direction in which the political world is moving: when Australia's long-awaited National Cannabis Strategy was released in May 2006, some researchers and clinicians were bitterly disappointed. The sombre document recast marijuana as a 'hard' drug and recommended a three-pronged strategy: cutting off the supply, cutting off the demand, and finding treatments for those with a problem.
With the release of the document, the Australian Parliamentary Secretary for Health, Christopher Pyne, exhorted the nation, "We have to treat it [cannabis] as an illicit drug as dangerous as heroin, amphetamines or cocaine."
In contrast, the National Alcohol Strategy, released around the same time, had a positively chirpy tone. Its opening paragraph read, "Alcohol plays an important role in the Australian economy. It generates substantial employment, retail activity, export income and tax revenue. Alcohol also has an important social role..."
Nick Walsh, a family doctor at the Turning Point Alcohol and Drug Centre in the state of Victoria, shook his head at the National Cannabis Strategy. "Disappointing, not progressive, but expected. It's hard not to be cynical and see that this document is trying to fulfil our obligations to the international narcotics control board rather than address the underlying issue that the cannabis industry is unregulated and uncontrollable because it is illegal."
Hall is less critical: "The Australian federal government would like to recriminalise marijuana, [while] the states are divided. Given the disagreements, this document is a sensible compromise." Though Hall advocates legalisation of cannabis, he says "there's a snowball's chance in hell of that ever getting up."
As far as law reform or the medical use of marijuana (currently illegal) goes, this was not part of the terms of reference for Australia's cannabis strategy – the authors were not even permitted to address the issues.
Why do countries such as the U.S. and Australia seem increasingly prohibitive? "In the debate over drug policy, rationality and evidence is a small factor," says Wodak. "It's about winning votes by being hard on drugs", a strategy he dubs "political Viagra" for politicians. Although, he adds, "it's not as reliable as it used to be."
A stunning example is the Shafer report. In 1970, then U.S. President Nixon wanted an investigation into marijuana to back his war on drugs. He appointed Raymond Shafer, a Republican former governor of Pennsylvania with a reputation as a 'drug warrior' to lead it. Shafer's committee conducted the most wide-ranging review of marijuana ever undertaken by the U.S. federal government. And Shafer did a complete about face.
In his 1972 report, Marijuana: A Signal of Misunderstanding, he said: "Marijuana's relative potential for harm to the vast majority of individual users and its actual impact on society does not justify a social policy designed to seek out and firmly punish those who use it." As Watergate revealed, Nixon was appalled, and waged his war regardless. Since then, 15 million Americans have been arrested on marijuana charges.
Notwithstanding the current hardening of Australia's cannabis policy, Wodak is surprisingly optimistic. "It's a winnable battle. The arguments are so compelling. The policy has got to be based on rationality and evidence, not fearmongering and angst."
Wodak draws some cheer from Britain's recent decision. In December 2005 Michael Rawlins, the chairman of the U.K. Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, recommended that the British parliament not upgrade its punitive laws on cannabis from Class C to Class B; a recommendation that was accepted. "While cannabis can, unquestionably, produce harms, these are not of the same order as those of substances within Class B [the more punitive category that includes amphetamines, barbiturates and codeine]." He recommended education programs to discourage use and more research.
Despite his two decades in the trenches, Wodak shows no signs of battle fatigue. "What keeps me going? Every day I see people and their families damaged by these costly and ineffectual and counter-productive drug laws and policy. There is the excessive permissiveness to alcohol – we regularly see women bashed by drunken husbands – while marijuana remains criminalised.
"In thoughtful circles, the debate is over: harm reduction wins. Now the task is to get this through the political maze."
Elizabeth Finkel is a science writer in Melbourne, a contributing editor of COSMOS, and the author of Stem Cells: Controversy on the Frontiers of Science. She is a former research scientist with a doctorate in biochemistry.
Prohibition is a Crime!
There is a lot of discussion about Cannabis consumption being associated with mental disorders. I find it vexing to say the least that the trauma's of Prohibition are never factored in to the debate or any study done on Cannabis. If these researchers had ever been searched in the street, raided in their homes, insulted by the police, had their homes turned upside down, put through the courts, verbally abused by magistrates and judges, then fined or jailed, then go back to the world and try to explain all this to friends, family, colleagues and employers, they might have some idea of why it is that people who consume cannabis can end up feeling depressed. And after you've been through all that you really need a smoke to calm your nerves. If we really care about people who show signs of depression, mental disorders, psychotic illnes, schizophrenia, then why is it that the first thing that we do to them when we find them is through the law book at them and put them through all that. You say you want to help people who are down on there luck yet the first priority of 'Prohibition' is to punish them and make their life so much harder for them. Who are you trying to fool.
marijuana
Dear Cosmos (Dave Shiflett & Elizabeth Finkel or otherwise)
Looking for connections on the internet for marijuana I found your names and email so I write for advice and maybe a job or a connection.
I'm wondering what would be a good degree to study to help work and legalize marijuana as I believe marijuana is the miracle medicine, if only people had the knowledge of the daily benefits of it. I've done a course in the Arts, Integration and business, and am now pursuing marijuana as a medicine for all humans. I've done a lot of reading, research, studies and experiments myself, and with others being people who like it for recreational use or people who are sick and on tablets which are only ruining them as I've seen outcomes and no solutions.
Recent news has shown cough medicines have killed children in the past, this is where I believe marijuana is also harmless for children as it has also never before killed a grown adult, and I've found research it was used on children also as a medicine many years ago.
I went to the May 2007 Marijuana Mardigrass in Australia Nimbin and had very good outcomes and information, and had a really good time too and noticed no violence or anything to fear.
If we can connect/meet/talk somehow I'd love to share information and work to help in the process of legalizing marijuana for the benefit of all our sakes.
I hope to hear from you and for Victory to finally be done.
Thankyou
Antonia Likisiotis
email: toniaa1@xxxxxxxxxxx
Phone: 0402xxxxxx
Edit: personal details removed
Marijuana reply
Antonia,
Im completely with you on this subject and have no doubts about the use of marijuana. I have just started an honours course in molecular drug designing in South Australia at university.
I believe that this course is going to help me to understrand exactly what marijuana does to the brain of adults and children. Maybe i will find that the drug is more complicated or more simple than what we know in todays science but one thing that will stay the same is my stand. Pot, in my opinion is far from extremely harmfull (as the government likes to put it) to humans. Although it is not harmless either, purely from the fact that inhaling smoke and in particular carbon monoxide onto your lungs is not good for you.
Good luck with your research,
i would be honoured if we could speak over e-mail or on msn about this subject.
Sincerely yours ,
Dustin
email: dustin_301@hotmail.com
prohibition is a crime
so true paul, ive smoked the herb for 27 years, the only time i feel paranoid is if and when i have contact with the police, and yes i do feel depressed at times because im viewed as a criminal,when i know im not. i believe the war on drugs antagonises mental illness, some people who have mental health issues avoid help because they understand thier choice to use cannabis will be viewed by health professionals with a negative bias,focusing on the drug use not the underlying issues.(i see doctors as an arm of the state, blindly accepting laws whether right or wrong).my view is a lot of drug users may have been abused(sexually,physically or emotionally)as children, only to be abused by the state with their punitive drug war when adults.prosecuted drug users are just Victims many times over.Hate and ideology should be replaced with peace and compassion. we shouldn't allow the government to use prisons to treat the mentaly ill,or push illconcieved political ideology down our throats. It's such an irony that we consider places like the US or australia as free countries, they are anything but.
Silly
I found it unbelievably hilarious to see the anti marijuana advertisement, depicting the number plate "cannabis- a paranoid state" im sure drinking coffee would make you fairly paranoid if every time you drank it, you thought the police were going to arrest you.
enough said
Marijuana and alcohol should
Marijuana and alcohol should be treated the same, they are both drugs that people take in order to make life more bearable. I guarantee if alcohol was to be outlawed again, there would be an uproar. Marijuana wasn't considered dangerous until propaganda brain washed America. People didn't question, they figured that the government knew what they were doing, and they trusted them. Not a single death has been related to marijuana use and nor will it ever, why? because marijuana users who use it on the weekends to celebrate a hard weeks work, tend to be extremely cautious. Like any drug, there are people who know when and when not to use. People who cannot control their drinking or smoking should not be using at all, PERIOD. Even though alcohol is legal, it has many risks that are not associated with marijuana. Alcohol impairs, while marijuana relaxes and many people have different preferences. Some people just don't like to get drunk and turn into an idiot for a few hours, some just want to sit back, relax and think. Also, science has blessed us thinkers with some hope, the vaporizer. For those who don't know yet, a vaporizer simply vaporizers the THC crystals off of the plant material giving you a smokeless high, therefore eliminating the need to smoke the plant. When the user is done, they throw the plant material in the garbage. Another way to harmlessly take marijuana is to ingest it, new studies have shown that ingesting marijuana has no negative physical long term affects.
thank you for letting me post my thoughts, and I hope this has enlightened people who are unfamiliar with marijuana.
The true crime is not using
The true crime is not using such a perfect medicine with over 4,000 of documented use and the fact that tobacco is legal which causes over 450,000 death a year and weed which only is responsible for 0 deaths a year look up info about weed at webmd .com
Marijuana
Dear Cosmos,
Can we all please call it by it's proper english name. HEMP.... If you look up Marijuana in my 1946 Edition Oxford Dictionary it says and I quote "Dried Indian HEMP used to make 'doped cigarettes'.
I cannot understand the mentality that puts hemp in the same pigeon hole as heroin,cocaine and amphetamines. Even comparing it to alchohol does hemp a dis-service. I like the 'about as harmful as aspirin' quote on your web page. You can die of overdose from Paracetemol but not THC.
One of my sisters was beaten for years by her alchoholic husband. I have observed during my 48 years of life that reactions to drug related deaths are given huge headlines by the news media but alchohol related deaths are somehow acceptable. One of my work acquaintances died of schlerosis of the liver at age 21. He had been drinking heavily since age 14. The only mention of his death was in the Obituaries. I have seen marriages break up because of every conceivable reason except hemp smoking. I'm sure that other people have seen it but not many I'll bet.
For those who don't know, American Foriegn Policy dictates that if you want any kind of help from them your country must prohibit hemp. What does that mean? If you want fibre to make a product you have to use a synthetic fibre. Which country produces more synthetic fibre than anyone else? America of course. The whole reason it was called Marijuana (a Mexican colloquialism) was to confuse their own farmers who had been growing it since before the USA was a country. When Pearl Harbor was bombed in 1941 the Dupont company had to inform the U.S. military that it could not supply enough synthetic fibre for the war effort, so what did the American Government do, it started the "Hemp for Victory" campaign. Suddenly American farmers were asked to grow 'hemp' for tents and ropes etc.Cannot stand hypocrites.
In my opinion companies like Dupont are the main protagonists of modern hemp laws. If hemp fibre was once again widely used for canvas, rope, heshion, denim fibre and the like, synthetic fibre companies and the cotton industry in general would loose huge profits. If the cotton growers swapped to hemp they would still get those profits, probably more because hemp is less labour and chemically intensive. When I was young everything was packaged in heshion.Potatoes,apples,oranges,carpets all sorts of things.
Hemp is a hardy plant with a million uses (and many millions of users). Plastic is the current fibre with a million uses. Please don't get me wrong, without plastis most medical procedures could not be done and all sorts of essential services and products would not exist, but in 1943 Henry Ford made a plastic car body from hemp. That little fact seems to have been forgotten.
Planet Earth cannot degrade polymers. The fibres separate but do not degrade. I would be much happier carrying my groceries home in heshion bags rather than plastic ones (and I do) and I'm sure some people would be VERY happy to wipe their bums with paper made from hemp, (if you get my meaning).
Hemp could save a lot of environmental damage but who cares eh?
Re Cannabis versus Hemp
I totally agree with the hypothesis that large-scale hemp production is heavily influenced by the multinationals in favour of the more chemically intensive Cotton and Nylon-Synthetics industry.
It's the chemical derived from the female flowering tops is used medicinally and is the source of marijuana and hashish.
The word hemp is used in combination for several other kinds of fiber plants, notably Manila hemp and sisal hemp. The true hemp plant is related to the hop,
Hemp was a popular fiber because it is strong and grows quickly; it produces 250% more fiber than cotton and 600% more fiber than flax when grown on the same land.
The Declaration of Independence was printed on hemp paper.
It was used to make canvas, and the word canvas itself derives from cannabis
Manila yielded better rope. Burlap, made from jute, took over the sacking market. The paper industry began using wood pulp. The carpet industry switched over to wool, sisal, and jute, then nylon. Netting and webbing applications were taken over by cotton and synthetics.
Industrial Hemp should be harvested before it flowers. This early cropping is done because fibre quality declines if flowering is allowed and prevents the source of drug material.
In these strains of industrial hemp the tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) are almost negligible.
Cannabis is the genus favoured by medical practitioners.
Cannabis for non-drug purposes (especially ropes and textiles) was then already well known as hemp.
Synthetics especially nylon and other polymers are dependent on huge quantities of petrochemicals either as a solvent in their production or as fuel for the actual production. Nylon, polymex, polyamitride, viscous, polyester, acrylic- the list goes on.
If hemp, jute or flax were to be substituted- which as cellulose fibres are many times stronger than the synthetics, it would totally erase any incentive for a synthetic.
True- we do need synthetics for specific tasks- but many mundane and basic goods can be manufactured easily with natural fibres.
Do not forget that the medieval and Renaissance of Europe was built on a wool-jute-hemp-linen economy.
Cotton is incredibly dependent on agricultural chemicals such as pesticides, herbicides, fungicides and fertilizer. In many areas, cotton simply could not grow without chemical assistant- in terms of pestcide and fertiliser.
The entire cotton mega-industry is a major earner for the agricultural chemical giants like Monsanto.
Summarily- I think you hit the nail right on the head. Like most things in this world basic economics rather than ideologies are the basis of all conflict.
My comment above on industrial hemp
All that being said about industrial hemp- I ccompletely disagree with any legalization of cannabis.
It has documented side effects which do create massive costs to society- the tax paying kind as opposed to the stereotypically marginally employed or low-income stoner- yes we all know that there are a few exceptions- but statistically the bell-curve is known to best represent population demographic info- HENCE- the centre of the bell-curve is on low-income groups- who do not subsidise their own health care nor illegitimate offspring and higher income groups should not be burdened by other demographics' poor choices or control of will power.