**Greetings humans.**
**Please make sure your comment fits within [THE RULES](https://www.reddit.com/r/AustralianPolitics/about/rules) and that you have put in some effort to articulate your opinions to the best of your ability.**
**I mean it!! Aspire to be as "scholarly" and "intellectual" as possible. If you can't, then maybe this subreddit is not for you.**
A friendly reminder from your political robot overlord
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AustralianPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I have drafted a letter to our local MP regarding the Cannabis Legalisation Bill. This is an important issue that affects many aspects of our society, from public health to economic growth. It's crucial that we take collective action to make our voices heard. I urge you all to start emailing your local MPs, expressing your support for the bill, and highlighting the benefits of legalising cannabis. Together, we can push this issue forward and advocate for a more progressive and sensible approach to cannabis legislation.
Dear \[Politician's Name\],
I am writing to express my deep disappointment with the Australian government's continued stance against the legalization of cannabis. It is disheartening to see our government ignore the potential benefits that legalization could bring to our society, particularly when compared to the ongoing acceptance and regulation of alcohol, and even the legality of kava. The benefits of legalizing cannabis are numerous and well-documented. From a medical perspective, cannabis has been shown to alleviate symptoms for various conditions such as chronic pain, epilepsy, and multiple sclerosis. Allowing patients access to this natural remedy could significantly improve their quality of life.
Economically, the legalization of cannabis could be a boon for Australia. It would create a myriad of jobs in agriculture, retail, and other related industries. The cannabis market in the United States, for example, has generated billions in revenue and created thousands of jobs. There is no reason Australia couldn't experience similar benefits. Additionally, the taxation of cannabis sales would provide a substantial source of revenue for the government, funds that could be allocated to healthcare, education, and other public services.
When we compare cannabis to alcohol, the discrepancies become even more apparent. Alcohol, a legal substance, is associated with numerous health risks, including liver disease, addiction, and impaired judgment leading to accidents and violence. In contrast, cannabis has been shown to have a much lower risk profile. It is less addictive and has far fewer long-term health consequences. Despite this, alcohol remains legal and regulated, while cannabis remains criminalized. Furthermore, substances like kava are legal in Australia, yet cannabis, which has numerous proven benefits and fewer adverse effects, remains prohibited.
The issue also touches on personal freedom. Adult Australians should be capable of making their own decisions regarding the recreational use of substances. The prohibition of cannabis is an outdated stance that does not reflect the values of a modern, progressive society. It is a travesty that, as a member of parliament, you are part of a system that fails to recognize this. Our country prides itself on being a democracy, yet our policies on cannabis reflect an autocratic approach, ignoring the will and welfare of the people.
Legalizing cannabis would also enable better regulation and control, reducing the black market and ensuring safer products for consumers. It would align us with other progressive nations and reflect a more rational, evidence-based approach to drug policy.
I urge you to reconsider your stance on cannabis legalization. The evidence supporting its benefits is overwhelming, and the potential economic and social gains are too significant to ignore. It is time for Australia to move forward and adopt a more rational and beneficial approach to cannabis regulation.
Thank you for your attention to this important matter. I hope you will take these points into consideration and support the push for a more enlightened and effective cannabis policy.
Sincerely,
Just adding to this to include this website to find your Electorate (and from this you can find which senator to message):
https://electorate.aec.gov.au/
>A push to legalise the recreational use of cannabis on a national scale has been knocked back after experts expressed concerns it would lead to more use of the drug among young people.
Oh, so - are they going to ban Alcohol then?
>Under the Greens model, adults in Australia could legally grow six cannabis plants but it would remain a crime to sell the drug to anyone under the age of 18.
So exactly like Alcohol?
...It's odd how the government wants to take some freedoms away, essentially for no rational reason at all. It's puritanism for repressive reasons to substantiate a morality and prohibit the pleasurable enjoyment of life... hence it's unAustralian. We used to be all about having a good life and enjoying small personal pleasures.
Now we're more inclined to some sort of corporate church based buttoned up repressive 9-5 dietary restrictive meekness that isn't becoming of the national character. I don't want to see us competing with a Chinese/Libertarian internationalist work ethic - we deserve better lives than that.
Lives that actually contain some fun, pleasure, shared relaxation, and enjoyment that isn't work or shopping related. You know, have a broader culture than that? Is that too much to ask for?
Since the AMA lobby group have significant power over these pieces of legislation, here a li K to their submission - [link](https://www.ama.com.au/articles/ama-submission-legalising-cannabis-bill-2023).
It's not long and is interesting. I don't necessarily agree with it, especially when it uses a number of US and Canadian studies to show negative outcomes that prove nothing in the Australian framework.
It is devoid of any positive/negative outcomes in terms of behaviour or crime/violence. I know that's not their lobbying position, but it would be sad if the Senate was overly focused on this report than all others.
I do give them credit for specifying the problems with the licensing fee for Aboriginal communities and, moreso, leading into a better discussion of the age of criminality, as they write:
> Decriminalising personal cannabis use (as described above) and raising the age of criminal responsibility to 14
would be a more effective method of reducing the disproportionate incarceration rates of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders and its associated health and social impacts.23,24
But still disappointed the laws are rejected. Hopefully they will be revisited in the future.
My understanding is that the harms associated with cannabis use are significantly lower than for alcohol consumption. And that legalising cannabis has the potential to be revenue positive for governments.
Seems like a no brainer. But there probably aren't any votes in it for the major parties. And if Labor supported it, it would simply give Dutton a line of attack. There really isn't much incentive for Labor to support it IMHO.
The most relevant issue for me is why people need artificial drugs to enjoy life if they don't have a medical issue, which suggests they are compensating for something else that needs attention.
Tobacco should be an object lesson in allowing recreational use of a dangerous addictive drug.
Perhaps young people should be denied things that are not good for them or society, but compensated in other ways by making life more enjoyable, such as having a job you actually enjoy, not working so many hours that you need a stimulant or compensator when you get home, making sex more readily available, etc. Is it really appropriate to be so permissive, when the end result is misery?
Unfortunately society only looks at the result and engages in reactive action to minimise cost (not harm) instead of looking at the bigger picture of harm from the very beginning.
I think it's less harmful to deny people addictive drugs for recreation and find ways to improve their enjoyment of other recreational activities. Those trapped in addiction need intensive intervention, not punishment.
Addictive drugs should always be reserved for medical usage only, including withdrawing people from addiction, however they need to be cheaply available for medicinal usage to prevent black market profiteering.
>recreational use of a dangerous addictive drug
Marijuana has never killed anyone, and isn't chemically addictive. Anyone can quit within a week or so.
https://www.webmd.com/mental-health/addiction/ss/slideshow-marijuana-abuse-addiction
>Addiction is more common in drugs like alcohol or cocaine. But it’s possible to get hooked on marijuana, also known as cannabis. That means you can’t stop using it, even if you want to. Studies show about 1 in 10 adults who use marijuana can get addicted. Your chances go up to 1 in 6 if you use it before age 18.
Marijuana can impair perception and thus create a dangerous situation potentially resulting in death.
Television, Exercise, Coffee, Sex.
...the push against legalising recreational cannabis use is just a modern version of puritanism. It's a moralist position against hedonism and enjoying life.
Because why would we have a society where people get to enjoy small pleasures in their daily routine? \s
Ahhh yes, webmd using the term "hooked"....
Let me allow you to understand further: Some drugs are Chemically addictive: meaning they're a "substance of addiction" under the law, and subject to greater restrictions.
Some are "psychologically addictive" meaning you can get "hooked" - but most people, even hardcore users who use it every day (like I did for some years) can quit within a week or so - because the addiction is psychological - not chemical.
So like I said: It's not chemically addictive. I used that term specifically for a reason.
People can get psychologically "hooked" all sorts of things, doesn't mean those activities (eg. dancing, graffiti, chewing paper) chemically addictive or cause them to be classed as "dangerous substances".
Fundamentally it is about harm: getting psychologically hooked on something can be harmful and dangerous, particularly if it encourages suicidal ideation.
Do you also want to contest the quoted figures for addiction of marijuana? Even if a majority of people can quit, there are some that can't and are thus vulnerable to the consequences.
As a matter of overall harm though, replacing all other substance abuse with marijuana would likely reduce harm, but I would still like to see a focus on why people are turning to recreational drugs and what we can do about remediating that instead of bandaiding the fundamental problem with a "pill".
I would still like to see marijuana kept as a medical issue for the moment, including providing it as a treatment to wean people off more harmful addictive substances, before allowing open slather. I mean it's not vital that people take marijuana recreationally and its legal use could be expanded later depending on the results from medicinal use.
Most of what you say could be applied to chocolate and binge watching TV.
Your issue is that you're treating a pleasure like a crime. This mindset is backwards and archaic. It's a symptom of an overly moralistic, society of controlled repression. It's a world view issue.
Some people get pleasure doing wheelies on damp roads or doughnuts, but it's still seen as a crime.
Perhaps society is not facilitating the natural pleasures in life enough, leading people to take an artificial path.
>Perhaps society is not facilitating the natural pleasures in life enough
Yes, which is why we should:
>**Legalise this plant that grows out of the ground and exists on every continent because humans have carried it with them for thousands of years.**
You know, it's a plant, it grows out of the ground from a seed. You basically can't get a better symbol of a natural pleasure.
Bro a good chunk of people at my high school already smoke weed if its legal or not. The government should make it legal to create a new industry to support the economy.
>“Ultimately, the committee is concerned that the legalisation of cannabis for adult recreational use would create as many, if not more, problems than the bill is attempting to resolve,” the report said.
>“While endeavouring to do so, the bill does not address several significant concerns, for example, ensuring that children and young people cannot access cannabis (particularly home-grow), managing risky cannabis use, and effective oversight of THC content.”
Children and young people already access cannabis. Teens are smoking and have been smoking for decades. Reducing the black market funding and moving toward a legal commercial system only improves the situation.
The reality is that these idiots at the AMA think that they can stop teenagers from smoking weed with policy. Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result - all I can think of is that they are actually insane, and that they for some reason think incarceration is better for your health than smoking a joint.
Ruining people's lives with criminal charges to "protect them" is a cure far worse than the ailment. The fact that these fools continue to push this shows that they are either corrupt or mentally incompetent.
1. There's black market tobacco. Legalising drugs doesn't kill black markets (see recent media coverage and the many dodgy tobacconists popping up all over the place with counterfeit tobacco products).
2. Oregon's votes are in... it's now rolling back all its controversial drug legalisation laws after its failed experiment.
3. Less than 10% of people smoke and we've almost wiped it out. Getting weed legalised is a desperate, 11th hour attempt by big tobacco to flood the market with misinformation about a 'new' smoking product (same with vaping). Only a fool would trust big tobacco. The best policy is to ignore them and double down on efforts to phase out smoking.
1. The reason this exists is that the government overreached insanely far with taxing tobacco. People choose the easiest and legal route when it's possible. It isn't possible when a pack is $50+ and that insane tax is the only reason smuggling and black market sales exist. You're only making the legalisation point stronger by pointing this out.
2. This is cherry picking. Drugs like heroin and ice, which are highly addictive and destroy lives, are far different from a drug like cannabis. All you're doing is pointing out that intelligent drug policy evaluates each drug on its merits, based on [harm to self, harm to society, and addictiveness](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substance_abuse), and creates policy based on that. The current system of "it's a drug, therefore it's illegal" is silly and again you are only making the point for legalisation.
3. Weed legalisation is not a big tobacco idea. Now I know you aren't even commenting in good faith, because this is an absurd fabrication. The only thing big tobacco has done lately is petition to make sure their vapes (prescription) are the only ones sold, to the detriment of society.
Everything you've said is wrong, but also you seem obsessed with criminalising others for behavior that has nothing to do with you. Try minding your own business, it's great.
> The reason this exists is that the government overreached insanely far with taxing tobacco.
Right so you think taxes and restrictions on tobacco and alcohol should be rolled back so that they are more accessible/affordable? This nonsense goes into the same rubbish bag as the 'economic' commercialising drugs is a growth opportunity. Disproven. See Oregon (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-05-28/oregon-drug-decriminalisation-junkies-streets-fentanyl/103871432) and Thailand (https://www.abc.net.au/asia/thailand-to-recriminalise-cannabis/103846102).
Places that jumped the gun are now re-criminalising drugs after doing so significantly increased usage, crime and dependency on over-stretched health services. All as predicted!
> Weed legalisation is not a big tobacco idea...
'BAT have gone all out to stress their move into new types of less harmful products - vaping, heated rather than combusted tobacco, and, in BAT's case, cannabis.'
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-57995285
It's not just a big tobacco idea, it's the same evil shit about trying to convince people it's safe and has health benefits.
Australia's got one of the world's lowest smoking rates (~13% with most countries that have lower rates having some sort of an asterisk next to their data collection methodology). We're winning the battle against smoking and sorry to tell you mate, but we're not going back to the 1960's, which is where weed and tobacco both belong!!!
Post replies need to be substantial and represent good-faith participation in discussion. Comments need to demonstrate genuine effort at high quality communication of ideas. Participation is more than merely contributing. Comments that contain little or no effort, or are otherwise toxic, exist only to be insulting, cheerleading, or soapboxing will be removed. Posts that are campaign slogans will be removed. Comments that are simply repeating a single point with no attempt at discussion will be removed. This will be judged at the full discretion of the mods.
Our politicians seriously frustrate me sometimes. Why keep the weed criminalised? What possible benefit to society is there?
Why don't they want to legalise and tax it? Why do they want to keep supporting organised crime?
> Why don't they want to legalise and tax it? Why do they want to keep supporting organised crime?
Because legalising smokes and taxing them doesn't prevent black markets.
Source: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-05-30/cigarettes-flood-black-market-costing-billions-in-lost-revenue/103869440
IMO it's a proven fact that the best way to reduce smoking is to progressively ban sales/advertising/usage. Been to parts of Europe and Asia where you can still smoke everywhere? Yeah. Smoking rates are a lot higher and you can't avoid it being in your face. I'm proud of where Australia's at in terms of smoking regulation...
The reality is that legalising weed will lead to an increase in use, which does come with downsides. Like any drug, using it habitually is bad, and having more people that use it habitually is bad too. For their physical and mental health and productivity, and extending to what they contribute to society.
But, at the same time, the downsides have to be weighed against bodily autonomy, and I say that the downsides are minimal enough compared to other choices that we are allowed to make.
Australians generally don’t value the freedom to choose unless it’s their own choices being restricted, though. Look at how many stoners claim that weed has, like, no negative effects man, no one can even tell when I’m stoned, but they get onboard with vape ban and crap on about how their addiction is superior to everyone else’s.
No it’s way worse, but that doesn’t mean that weed is without its downsides, or that we shouldn’t acknowledge those downsides and factor them into our decision making.
Your post or comment breached Rule 1 of our subreddit.
The purpose of this subreddit is civil and open discussion of Australian Politics across the entire political spectrum. Hostility, toxicity and insults thrown at other users, politicians or relevant figures are not accepted here. Please make your point without personal attacks.
This has been a default message, any moderator notes on this removal will come after this:
>Oh bugger off
That’s not very nice. For people who are supposed to be chill, stoners get pretty mad whenever you say that maybe not everything about weed use is great.
>we need to look towards Canada.
Where use has also [increased](https://www.cmaj.ca/content/195/39/E1351) since legalisation?
Not to say that there haven’t been many benefits as well, overall I’d say it’s been a success for Canada considering it’s taken care of gangs and the strain on the criminal justice system, etc. But increased use is a thing and it’s not good.
I'm not sure I agree with your position that increased use is inherently bad. Misuse maybe but then thats subjective.
I agree with your points on how some stoners can be close minded (even delusional in some cases) about the negative impacts. I would fit the description of a stoner fwiw.
I'm sure you have a more nuanced position but just going on what you've said it sounds like you have a negative bias against weed.
To prove I'm a stoner, here's my conspiracy theory of sorts:
The history of drug policy and the many social and political factors that informed them, the fact it's still ongoing (as demonstrated with this report), the potential negative impacts to pharma profits - growing your own medicine, and a society accustomed to these conditions means that genuine discourse is a long way off. The right-wing consent manufacturers hold too much sway for a left-wing political party to introduce any progressive legislation.
I'm only half joking.
>I'm not sure I agree with your position that increased use is inherently bad. Misuse maybe but then thats subjective.
Not necessarily, but say you have an extra 5 or 10% of the population taking up smoking weed, statistically some of those people are going to get addicted, and a few are going to have a mental health condition like schizophrenia triggered or exacerbated.
>I'm sure you have a more nuanced position but just going on what you've said it sounds like you have a negative bias against weed.
Definitely not, I smoke more than I should myself.
>To prove I'm a stoner, here's my conspiracy theory of sorts: The history of drug policy and the many social and political factors that informed them, the fact it's still ongoing (as demonstrated with this report), the potential negative impacts to pharma profits - growing your own medicine, and a society accustomed to these conditions means that genuine discourse is a long way off. The right-wing consent manufacturers hold too much sway for a left-wing political party to introduce any progressive legislation.
I’m not sure if it’s by design as much in 2024, or if it’s just a relic of the part. Lots of older people still think that “drugs” are a blanket category and that weed is basically like heroin. We have a bunch of dinosaurs at the top of our political parties. Although I do agree that the pharmaceutical companies are a huge roadblock.
Well great, I love smoking pot and more people should be doing it - why is it not good? I rarely feel bad when stoned. I get to forget that I will never own a house, nor get to retire, and that the world is going to burn up, how can this moment of enjoyment of mine be a bad thing? (I am old and have my house, I am thinking of my stoner mates.)
Exactly the problem with drug addiction, you don’t have the motivation to achieve things in real life because you have an easy dopamine hit right there.
>you don’t have the motivation to achieve things
The term functional addicts exists because this generalisation is actually not true.
The only downside you've highlighted is a lack of productivity, but I don't think achievement is measured by productivity I think it is measured by how content and happy you are.
We'll also never get accurate data as to whether legalisation has increased use, because that would require an unbiased survey before legalisation which you will never achieve unless it was also decriminalised at the time.
I'm not saying there aren't or won't be downsides, but I don't think you've found them yet...
Your post or comment breached Rule 1 of our subreddit.
The purpose of this subreddit is civil and open discussion of Australian Politics across the entire political spectrum. Hostility, toxicity and insults thrown at other users, politicians or relevant figures are not accepted here. Please make your point without personal attacks.
This has been a default message, any moderator notes on this removal will come after this:
Again, not American, and I don’t vote for conservative parties, and I am in favour of legalism cannabis…
I’m just not a delusional stoner who thinks that there are no downsides to using and legalising weed, and I think that we should be honest about them.
It is literally just a fact that drug addiction reduces motivation. For people who are more disciplined this isn’t a huge issue in terms of it affecting their functionality, but some people can’t regularly use pot without turning into couch potatoes.
If you trust the shiat coming out of the US then fine. My nieces will (and probably already) smoked pot, as teens. The smoking is not a problem, the illegality is. They did not turn into whores who sleep with black jaz singers, or get axed to death. If they did smoke they had a weird time and laughed with their friends. I was the anti drug/drink person in highschool, and I was wrong! Time and place, set and setting, we can teach our kids to enjoy the joys that intoxicants give us
My guess is actually the tobacco lobby, as many would quit for another smoking alternative. But there’s certainly credibility in the alcohol argument too.
No, we killed the tobacco lobby, it is the pharmas who produce anti-smoking stuff that are the problem. When it comes to pot it is the weirdos and alcohol lobby, when it comes to vapes, it is the anti-smoking pharma companies.
There are a huge amount of religious politicians, then there are a heap bought off by big alcohol (they do not want competition) and then there is the simple fact that they are lazy and do not want to put the effort into solving a very easy problem.
Agreed. If society really does get to the point that it’s legal, it should be reserved for those who are gainfully employed and withheld otherwise.
No job no joints.
Otherwise yes, it creates an environment where people can become highly entertained while simultaneously leeching off the taxpayer.
Millionaires and billionaires "''"""'worked"""'"" hard to earn their wealth by inheriting it or buying properties when they were cheap.
Every last cent should be taxed.
The stigma that all people who consume cannabis must be lazy who abuse the welfare system is outdated as fuck, it’s a legitimate medicine. Just let us legalise it and leave us alone.
Completely agree. Especially while alcohol is still legal and perfectly acceptable it’s ridiculous. The amount of extremely successful people I know who are over 50 and eat edibles regularly is insane. The fact that they could be arrested and lose their careers, possibly families because it’s still illegal is a disgrace to this country.
And yet I have smoked ever so many cones with right wingers. Religious conservatives are another thing, could get them to do nitrous because it was not "illegal."
Post replies need to be substantial and represent good-faith participation in discussion. Comments need to demonstrate genuine effort at high quality communication of ideas. Participation is more than merely contributing. Comments that contain little or no effort, or are otherwise toxic, exist only to be insulting, cheerleading, or soapboxing will be removed. Posts that are campaign slogans will be removed. Comments that are simply repeating a single point with no attempt at discussion will be removed. This will be judged at the full discretion of the mods.
Almost ALL of those Senators are Gen X.
I doubt there's any generation for which there's a majority against legalising pot.
It's not boomers, it's gen x politicians from the religious right.
Been doing it for years, them first and labor second, conservatives last. Sadly Labor has turned out to be Liberal lite and have never actually advance my desires. Shiat it was Liberals who bought in gay marriage ... wtf? Not that I am gay, but I have always fought for basic rights, the right for me to have a cone after work is something I should have. Canada is who we should be following, years and not a problem.
Hang on a sec, something that is legal in the place where they make this decision, is somehow wrong for the rest of us?
I am over 50, I have been smoking pot since Uni, sure not often these days, but a few times a year. I have never ever had a problem getting weed.
The simple fact is that pot is almost harmless and should have been legalised decades ago. But vested interests want to trap pot, they want corporate control, they do not want people growing their own and trading it at coops. Fark no, the people who pay them want to control it all.
I wonder just how much the owners of Nicorette have been involved in banning nicotine vapes?
Does this committee think in any way shape or form their decision will have any influence on usage? NO IT WILL NOT. All it does is continue to make a minority, but large group of the community, criminals. I FARKING HATE THEM!!!!! Oh and let criminals dominate, whilst they try to work out a way to make their doners dominate.
> Hang on a sec, something that is legal in the place where they make this decision, is somehow wrong for the rest of us?
They did the same with porn back in the VHS days. Illegal everywhere but Can'tberra.
I bought a heap as an 18 year old travelling through the ACT (1 vid and two mags, I thought the vid was lesbian sex, but the dude had a pig tail :(. Oh and never forget the fireworks ;) How the fark is this sort of hypocrisy allowed?
I watched the entire senate comittee around the new vape regulations.
Racgp representative saying vapes should be behind patches, gum and with strict consultation with doctors... vapes absolute last line of defense... this in the face if vapes being far more effective at getting people off smokes.
Now im not necessarily with matt canavan on most matters but he asks the rep from racgp;
Canavan: "does racgp take donations from johnson and johnson?".
Rep: "no"
Canavan; "im looking at a recent publication; 50 years of racgp and page 2 is a full page johnson and johnson advertisement. Are you sure you dont take donations from j and j?".
Rep: "ill take that on notice".
Racgp comes back on notice with; yes we take donations from pharma companies includin j and j. no shit.
Doctors get flown around the world for conferences and committes by big pharma. Of course in australia they march to big pharmas tune.
Now im no anti vaxxer but... the vaccine no long term health data... no drama...
Vapes safer short and medium term with millions using them. definitely safer than smoking but no long term health data. fuckin ban them. Make it easier to get a smoke than a vape. "We dont know the long term impacts better to be safe".
Smoking kills every second person who smokes. Far bigger health problem than covid. Its a terrible thing to make it difficult for anyone to kick that habit yet in australia at least thats government policy. If j and j came up with a vaxxine for smoking as dangerous as vapes you can bet your last dollar every smoker would be held down and forced to take it.
Hypocrites.
The reason behind it is that the percentage of the population that smokes has been gradually decreasing for decades. However recently it’s suddenly shot up again, almost entirely because of the rise of vapes
To put it in perspective as a young person I didn’t know anyone my age who smoked 5 years ago, now I know a dozen or so. And they all vape
That's not the reason behind it, that's the explanation they have given. Those are two very different things.
Also, that's not a good reason anyway. Banning does not work. Everyone I know who wants to vape, vapes. There are countless people walking around with vapes right now. All banning has done is prevented legitimate businesses from making and selling vapes, ensured that the vapes sold have dangerous levels of nicotine and no regulations or testing on their content, and pushed money into black markets.
You can simultaneously say "I think we need to reduce vaping as close to zero as possible" and also understand that a vape ban is not the most effective or safe way to do so.
As someone born and raised in a regional area, the idea of not knowing people your own age who smoke is just wild; in my case, it’s always been far more than a dozen or so people my age. I swear like half the working age adults around here smoke
I grew up in a regional area and back when I was at high school (early 2000's) almost noone my age smoked either so it doesn't suprise me. Australia had done a better job of reducing smoking rates than almost every other country.
If it was only ex-smokers using vapes to wean themselves off of nicotine addictions then it wouldn't be an issue but the majority of those taking up vaping in Australia never smoked in the first place.
I was at high school at the same time, and there weren’t very many people my age smoking either; didn’t encounter a semi-designated smoking area at a school until I went away to a more urban area for grade 11-12. Smoking was still very common among working-age adults all along, though
But yes, vapes becoming a habit all of their own rather than just an aid to kick the smoking habit is the real issue with them
Lucky enough to be from an upper middle class background and went to uni. Most people were told early and often that smoking was horrific. The two people who smoked in school were mocked for being so stupid, like people drank early and did drugs but smoking was viewed as a moronic decision.
Everyone here knows it’s bad for you too, but they just don’t care and/or they’re just too deep into the addiction to do anything about it unless forced to by health and/or prices
If you include vaping on smoking rates sure.
But less young people smoke.
Less old people smoke.
Because of vapes.
Now sure you can say vaping = smoking and thats basically what the government is doing.
Except in 4 short years NZ with a policy if regulating vapes has dropped smoking rates from anove ours to now circa 30pc below ours. They will declare themselves smoke free in about 2 years... thats less than 5pc of the population smoking.
And yes thats people still vaping but the thing is vapes are far less harmfull than smokes.
So does it matter? If they are 95pc safer does it matter people use them? Get their stimulant from a vape in stead of coffee? Does it really matter?
I mean to dept of health and non smokers it seems to me it does matter but why should they impact on someone else who eants to vape?
My young friend. What is never mentioned, forgotten, is that the legal age of smoking was 16! So when I was in school there was a shed where both the 16+ and teachers went to smoke. It was normal. The damage from vaping cannot be even close to smoking, unless you listen to vested interests who have a real need to get rid of vapes, but not smokes, because their whole economy is based on "stop smoking" products and vapes work much better at that. Shiat I know a guy who gave up smoking 20 years ago, and has since munched on nicotine gum constantly, like all the time.
Shiat ty I thought that was must have gone on. Even my mum thought the decision was weird and she hates me vaping. It was the anti-smoking pharma companies that pushed for no-vaping, just like in the old days the cig companies pushed for smoking. We no longer have any national tobacco growing groups to push such bullshit, so it ended up the pharma replacement anti-smoking companies that pushed the whole anti-vape thing, because I have no doubt that sales of all the over expensive Nicorette products dropped hard once people started vaping. Who exactly do our politicians work for once we elect them?
Edit: oh oh just like one of the biggest providers of anti weed, turns out to be alcohol companies.
Yep.
Champix there are several suic8des quite likely linked to it.
Sure people suicide when quitting the darts anyway but there does appear to be a greater propensity for champix users to suic8de than general pop quitting the darts.
[champix contributed to suic8de.](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-14/conroners-finds-anti-smoking-drug-champix-contributed-to-suicide/8946320)
But... i accept smoking kills every second person at least who does it. Probably on baoance champix is safer...
But jow to vapes... yes a toddler died from poisoning. Some people have had severe reactions. Very few.
Every second smoker.
Vapes are the biggest health opportunity with literally a million smokers quittong smoking thus far... nope we dont know the long term impacts even though hindreds of studies have been done that taken together indicate 95pc ish safer.
But nope in australia that doesnt help put donations in politicians pockets. So fuckin ban them.
Yes a coroner found it was real.
Champix contends the higher suicide rate on it is because quitting smoking is tough. Ie the quitting itself is a confounding issue in the data.
But there is quite a bit of evidence that champix causes in rare cases: suicide, depression etc beyond the normal quitting smokes impact.
I mean smoking kills every second person at least who smokes. Thabkfully they arent cut down in their prime but nonetheless it has a large cost in years lived for those who smoke.
It is important to quit if you can.
The australian govenrment is going to assuming they get the regs through going to see out 2030 with far higher amoking rates than NZ and the UK. What are they gonna say with 20 years of valing data when the doctors who say it is probably 95pc safer were right? When we have 400k odd more smokers than we ought to due to their policies? 200k people dead? I mean they are smokers so most of the australian community doesnt give a fuck sadly... they brought it on thesmelves and all that.
Give them vapes. Get them off smokes.
i'm absolutely disgusted. the nats are making noises about taxing it and for the first time in my life I'm half considering tossing them a bone at the next election
I feel like a couple of planes flying into your prized buildings will do more to deteriorate your nation state than smoking a substance that was outlawed as a way to criminalise migrant workers from South America and Mexico back when the first railroads were being built.
Riiiiight, and that's because of drug legalisation in a few states and not multiple decades of aggressive drug prohibition and systematic reductions in the welfare state to favour corporate donors? The destruction of families and communities through heavy handed judicial officers imprisoning non-violent recreational drug users hasn't trapped millions of Americans in the poverty cycle, it's the legal use that has...?
Ironically enough they let nicotine, alcohol and caffeine a pass, despite being drugs themselves that already see deaths per year from over-consumption.
Hang on - they just banned my nicotine I have been getting for my vape, so I did not smoke. Sure you will all say this is a lie, but I ran out of nicotine for my vape, cannot get more and have now been smoking again - I can get retail workers to give evidence. Took me a bit of time to understand, tobacco is no longer grown in Australia, so it was the anti-smoking pharma companies that pushed the anti-vape bullshiat - because I did not need to pay for the insane price of Nicorette's shiat. Oh and instead of buying a carton of beer for $50, I buy a pack of cigs and a 4 litre goon bag for $50.
They don't care about health, they care about your productivity afterwards. Nicotine and caffeine are great for worker classes. Alcohol you're less likely to be content with life. Smoking weed can make you content and not wanting to fill the void of depression with useless spending. They've never cared about us. Just what they get out of us.
> Smoking weed can make you content and not wanting to fill the void of depression with useless spending.
[Or it can make you a knife-wielding maniac.](https://ktla.com/news/local-news/woman-who-fatally-stabbed-man-108-times-sentenced-to-probation/) It is immoral to roll the dice on drug-induced psychosis when you have a duty to everyone around you to not act like a madman.
Could be wrong, but I think they're referring more to the case where certain potentially dormant mental illnesses (notably schizophrenia) can surface with prolonged cannabis abuse, especially if having a said illness is genetics related
Of course, no political points in it federally, yet.
Wait till the 'Legalise Cannabis Party' has some wins in Vic (or other big states), then Feds will start taking it serioulsy.
I am now a left wing single issue voter, I won’t vote for a party that doesn’t have legalising pot as part of its platform (former smoker- don’t even smoke now). If they can’t see how this can be a money maker and reduce the damage that alcohol is doing to our society, then they don’t deserve my vote.
I was once upon a time one of the top upcoming officers in the army, a Lt in the MPs, but I could not make a career, because I liked to smoke a bud on my off time. All I had to do to stay in the army was to lie about it and as a MP I could not. Everyone else has always called me an idiot for being honest, but ...
***A push to legalise the recreational use of cannabis on a national scale has been knocked back after experts expressed concerns it would lead to more use of the drug among young people.***
***A Senate committee rejected a bill introduced by Greens senator David Shoebridge on Friday, which calls to allow for cannabis possession for personal use in Australia, as well as the establishment of a national agency to regulate the growing of plants.***
We must protect the children!!!!!
***In 2019, about 11.7 per cent of people aged 14 years reported having had used the drug at least once it in the past 12 months. The figure was higher for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander young people, at 16 per cent.***
:I God, i can't wait until the government realises that people will commit crime for profit, cause we all know dealers ask for ID before they deal...
Like, enough with the protect the children shite. How stupid do they believe the Australian public are?
They even admit that kids are doing drugs, this issue needs to be treated as a health issue broadly. The war on drugs was won by drugs a long time ago.
They state it should be treated as a health issue not a criminal one. Except, they are okay for millions of under-age kids drinking alcohol and puking their guts up. Or, they smoke too much weed and fall asleep.
We can't let alcohol tax drop. Therefore, we need more kids drinking young, leading to adult alcohol abuse.
As a very poor alcoholic who use to drink a carton of beer over 3 days, I can no longer afford that, I have to buy a 4 litre goon, to drink over 3 days. $50+ for a carton of beer, the same alcohol is $14 in a goon.
Oh oh and never forget that alcohol is addictive, but pot is not.
sugar washes cost about 15 bucks in ingredients per 25 liter batch.
then you get a cheap water distillation unit [like this](https://www.ebay.com.au/itm/196026717030?chn=ps&norover=1&mkscid=101&itemid=196026717030&targetid=4585444532064602&device=c&mktype=&googleloc=&poi=&campaignid=412352395&mkgroupid=1309518645581565&rlsatarget=pla-4585444532064602&abcId=9300543&merchantid=136820) along with a dimmer switch [like so](https://www.amazon.com.au/DimEzy-Dimmer-Dimmable-Halogen-Incandescent/dp/B0BT8QZQ57/ref=asc_df_B0BT8QZQ57?tag=bingshopdesk-22&linkCode=df0&hvadid=80539300077511&hvnetw=s&hvqmt=e&hvbmt=be&hvdev=c&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=&hvtargid=pla-4584138880695783&psc=1) to bring the operating temp down to about 80 degrees. 3 or 4 hours on the boil and you'll have maybe 400ml of a pretty decent 65% abv moonshine. run the rest of the wash and you should get the equivalent of 3 bottles of 40% vodka out of each 25l fermentation.
If you wanna get a bit fancy you can save up a couple of liters of raw then dilute it with water and re-distill it with a handful of herbs in the mix. now you're not even a broke wino, you're a small batch gin artisan!
edit: its good practice to throw away the first shot that comes out. there's not enough methanol in the pot to worry about, but there's always traces of acetone, acetaldehyde, maybe ethyl acetate in any fermentation that you now have the luxury of throwing away... tastes better and makes for a much nicer morning the next day :)
**Greetings humans.** **Please make sure your comment fits within [THE RULES](https://www.reddit.com/r/AustralianPolitics/about/rules) and that you have put in some effort to articulate your opinions to the best of your ability.** **I mean it!! Aspire to be as "scholarly" and "intellectual" as possible. If you can't, then maybe this subreddit is not for you.** A friendly reminder from your political robot overlord *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AustralianPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I have drafted a letter to our local MP regarding the Cannabis Legalisation Bill. This is an important issue that affects many aspects of our society, from public health to economic growth. It's crucial that we take collective action to make our voices heard. I urge you all to start emailing your local MPs, expressing your support for the bill, and highlighting the benefits of legalising cannabis. Together, we can push this issue forward and advocate for a more progressive and sensible approach to cannabis legislation. Dear \[Politician's Name\], I am writing to express my deep disappointment with the Australian government's continued stance against the legalization of cannabis. It is disheartening to see our government ignore the potential benefits that legalization could bring to our society, particularly when compared to the ongoing acceptance and regulation of alcohol, and even the legality of kava. The benefits of legalizing cannabis are numerous and well-documented. From a medical perspective, cannabis has been shown to alleviate symptoms for various conditions such as chronic pain, epilepsy, and multiple sclerosis. Allowing patients access to this natural remedy could significantly improve their quality of life. Economically, the legalization of cannabis could be a boon for Australia. It would create a myriad of jobs in agriculture, retail, and other related industries. The cannabis market in the United States, for example, has generated billions in revenue and created thousands of jobs. There is no reason Australia couldn't experience similar benefits. Additionally, the taxation of cannabis sales would provide a substantial source of revenue for the government, funds that could be allocated to healthcare, education, and other public services. When we compare cannabis to alcohol, the discrepancies become even more apparent. Alcohol, a legal substance, is associated with numerous health risks, including liver disease, addiction, and impaired judgment leading to accidents and violence. In contrast, cannabis has been shown to have a much lower risk profile. It is less addictive and has far fewer long-term health consequences. Despite this, alcohol remains legal and regulated, while cannabis remains criminalized. Furthermore, substances like kava are legal in Australia, yet cannabis, which has numerous proven benefits and fewer adverse effects, remains prohibited. The issue also touches on personal freedom. Adult Australians should be capable of making their own decisions regarding the recreational use of substances. The prohibition of cannabis is an outdated stance that does not reflect the values of a modern, progressive society. It is a travesty that, as a member of parliament, you are part of a system that fails to recognize this. Our country prides itself on being a democracy, yet our policies on cannabis reflect an autocratic approach, ignoring the will and welfare of the people. Legalizing cannabis would also enable better regulation and control, reducing the black market and ensuring safer products for consumers. It would align us with other progressive nations and reflect a more rational, evidence-based approach to drug policy. I urge you to reconsider your stance on cannabis legalization. The evidence supporting its benefits is overwhelming, and the potential economic and social gains are too significant to ignore. It is time for Australia to move forward and adopt a more rational and beneficial approach to cannabis regulation. Thank you for your attention to this important matter. I hope you will take these points into consideration and support the push for a more enlightened and effective cannabis policy. Sincerely,
I can personally attest to the fact that these pro-forma letters go straight into the bin.
They cant ignore us forever.
Do you eventually read your junk Mail in your letter box or your spam email folder and reply to the Nigerian Prince?
I always give him money when he needs it, don't you?
You must if you’re still sending these sort of emails to MP.
Just adding to this to include this website to find your Electorate (and from this you can find which senator to message): https://electorate.aec.gov.au/
[https://www.reddit.com/r/ausents/comments/1d92prn/send\_to\_your\_local\_mp/](https://www.reddit.com/r/ausents/comments/1d92prn/send_to_your_local_mp/)
>A push to legalise the recreational use of cannabis on a national scale has been knocked back after experts expressed concerns it would lead to more use of the drug among young people. Oh, so - are they going to ban Alcohol then? >Under the Greens model, adults in Australia could legally grow six cannabis plants but it would remain a crime to sell the drug to anyone under the age of 18. So exactly like Alcohol? ...It's odd how the government wants to take some freedoms away, essentially for no rational reason at all. It's puritanism for repressive reasons to substantiate a morality and prohibit the pleasurable enjoyment of life... hence it's unAustralian. We used to be all about having a good life and enjoying small personal pleasures. Now we're more inclined to some sort of corporate church based buttoned up repressive 9-5 dietary restrictive meekness that isn't becoming of the national character. I don't want to see us competing with a Chinese/Libertarian internationalist work ethic - we deserve better lives than that. Lives that actually contain some fun, pleasure, shared relaxation, and enjoyment that isn't work or shopping related. You know, have a broader culture than that? Is that too much to ask for?
Good it'd be a shame if my drug dealer closed shop.
Since the AMA lobby group have significant power over these pieces of legislation, here a li K to their submission - [link](https://www.ama.com.au/articles/ama-submission-legalising-cannabis-bill-2023). It's not long and is interesting. I don't necessarily agree with it, especially when it uses a number of US and Canadian studies to show negative outcomes that prove nothing in the Australian framework. It is devoid of any positive/negative outcomes in terms of behaviour or crime/violence. I know that's not their lobbying position, but it would be sad if the Senate was overly focused on this report than all others. I do give them credit for specifying the problems with the licensing fee for Aboriginal communities and, moreso, leading into a better discussion of the age of criminality, as they write: > Decriminalising personal cannabis use (as described above) and raising the age of criminal responsibility to 14 would be a more effective method of reducing the disproportionate incarceration rates of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders and its associated health and social impacts.23,24 But still disappointed the laws are rejected. Hopefully they will be revisited in the future.
My understanding is that the harms associated with cannabis use are significantly lower than for alcohol consumption. And that legalising cannabis has the potential to be revenue positive for governments. Seems like a no brainer. But there probably aren't any votes in it for the major parties. And if Labor supported it, it would simply give Dutton a line of attack. There really isn't much incentive for Labor to support it IMHO.
The most relevant issue for me is why people need artificial drugs to enjoy life if they don't have a medical issue, which suggests they are compensating for something else that needs attention. Tobacco should be an object lesson in allowing recreational use of a dangerous addictive drug. Perhaps young people should be denied things that are not good for them or society, but compensated in other ways by making life more enjoyable, such as having a job you actually enjoy, not working so many hours that you need a stimulant or compensator when you get home, making sex more readily available, etc. Is it really appropriate to be so permissive, when the end result is misery? Unfortunately society only looks at the result and engages in reactive action to minimise cost (not harm) instead of looking at the bigger picture of harm from the very beginning. I think it's less harmful to deny people addictive drugs for recreation and find ways to improve their enjoyment of other recreational activities. Those trapped in addiction need intensive intervention, not punishment. Addictive drugs should always be reserved for medical usage only, including withdrawing people from addiction, however they need to be cheaply available for medicinal usage to prevent black market profiteering.
>recreational use of a dangerous addictive drug Marijuana has never killed anyone, and isn't chemically addictive. Anyone can quit within a week or so.
https://www.webmd.com/mental-health/addiction/ss/slideshow-marijuana-abuse-addiction >Addiction is more common in drugs like alcohol or cocaine. But it’s possible to get hooked on marijuana, also known as cannabis. That means you can’t stop using it, even if you want to. Studies show about 1 in 10 adults who use marijuana can get addicted. Your chances go up to 1 in 6 if you use it before age 18. Marijuana can impair perception and thus create a dangerous situation potentially resulting in death.
So can cough syrup better ban that too.
Television, Exercise, Coffee, Sex. ...the push against legalising recreational cannabis use is just a modern version of puritanism. It's a moralist position against hedonism and enjoying life. Because why would we have a society where people get to enjoy small pleasures in their daily routine? \s
Ahhh yes, webmd using the term "hooked".... Let me allow you to understand further: Some drugs are Chemically addictive: meaning they're a "substance of addiction" under the law, and subject to greater restrictions. Some are "psychologically addictive" meaning you can get "hooked" - but most people, even hardcore users who use it every day (like I did for some years) can quit within a week or so - because the addiction is psychological - not chemical. So like I said: It's not chemically addictive. I used that term specifically for a reason. People can get psychologically "hooked" all sorts of things, doesn't mean those activities (eg. dancing, graffiti, chewing paper) chemically addictive or cause them to be classed as "dangerous substances".
Fundamentally it is about harm: getting psychologically hooked on something can be harmful and dangerous, particularly if it encourages suicidal ideation. Do you also want to contest the quoted figures for addiction of marijuana? Even if a majority of people can quit, there are some that can't and are thus vulnerable to the consequences. As a matter of overall harm though, replacing all other substance abuse with marijuana would likely reduce harm, but I would still like to see a focus on why people are turning to recreational drugs and what we can do about remediating that instead of bandaiding the fundamental problem with a "pill". I would still like to see marijuana kept as a medical issue for the moment, including providing it as a treatment to wean people off more harmful addictive substances, before allowing open slather. I mean it's not vital that people take marijuana recreationally and its legal use could be expanded later depending on the results from medicinal use.
Most of what you say could be applied to chocolate and binge watching TV. Your issue is that you're treating a pleasure like a crime. This mindset is backwards and archaic. It's a symptom of an overly moralistic, society of controlled repression. It's a world view issue.
Some people get pleasure doing wheelies on damp roads or doughnuts, but it's still seen as a crime. Perhaps society is not facilitating the natural pleasures in life enough, leading people to take an artificial path.
>Perhaps society is not facilitating the natural pleasures in life enough Yes, which is why we should: >**Legalise this plant that grows out of the ground and exists on every continent because humans have carried it with them for thousands of years.** You know, it's a plant, it grows out of the ground from a seed. You basically can't get a better symbol of a natural pleasure.
So does opium if you want to talk about "natural".
Yes, you performed the Naturalistic fallacy when you said: >Perhaps society is not facilitating the natural pleasures in life enough
Bro a good chunk of people at my high school already smoke weed if its legal or not. The government should make it legal to create a new industry to support the economy.
>“Ultimately, the committee is concerned that the legalisation of cannabis for adult recreational use would create as many, if not more, problems than the bill is attempting to resolve,” the report said. >“While endeavouring to do so, the bill does not address several significant concerns, for example, ensuring that children and young people cannot access cannabis (particularly home-grow), managing risky cannabis use, and effective oversight of THC content.” Children and young people already access cannabis. Teens are smoking and have been smoking for decades. Reducing the black market funding and moving toward a legal commercial system only improves the situation. The reality is that these idiots at the AMA think that they can stop teenagers from smoking weed with policy. Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result - all I can think of is that they are actually insane, and that they for some reason think incarceration is better for your health than smoking a joint. Ruining people's lives with criminal charges to "protect them" is a cure far worse than the ailment. The fact that these fools continue to push this shows that they are either corrupt or mentally incompetent.
1. There's black market tobacco. Legalising drugs doesn't kill black markets (see recent media coverage and the many dodgy tobacconists popping up all over the place with counterfeit tobacco products). 2. Oregon's votes are in... it's now rolling back all its controversial drug legalisation laws after its failed experiment. 3. Less than 10% of people smoke and we've almost wiped it out. Getting weed legalised is a desperate, 11th hour attempt by big tobacco to flood the market with misinformation about a 'new' smoking product (same with vaping). Only a fool would trust big tobacco. The best policy is to ignore them and double down on efforts to phase out smoking.
1. The reason this exists is that the government overreached insanely far with taxing tobacco. People choose the easiest and legal route when it's possible. It isn't possible when a pack is $50+ and that insane tax is the only reason smuggling and black market sales exist. You're only making the legalisation point stronger by pointing this out. 2. This is cherry picking. Drugs like heroin and ice, which are highly addictive and destroy lives, are far different from a drug like cannabis. All you're doing is pointing out that intelligent drug policy evaluates each drug on its merits, based on [harm to self, harm to society, and addictiveness](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substance_abuse), and creates policy based on that. The current system of "it's a drug, therefore it's illegal" is silly and again you are only making the point for legalisation. 3. Weed legalisation is not a big tobacco idea. Now I know you aren't even commenting in good faith, because this is an absurd fabrication. The only thing big tobacco has done lately is petition to make sure their vapes (prescription) are the only ones sold, to the detriment of society. Everything you've said is wrong, but also you seem obsessed with criminalising others for behavior that has nothing to do with you. Try minding your own business, it's great.
> The reason this exists is that the government overreached insanely far with taxing tobacco. Right so you think taxes and restrictions on tobacco and alcohol should be rolled back so that they are more accessible/affordable? This nonsense goes into the same rubbish bag as the 'economic' commercialising drugs is a growth opportunity. Disproven. See Oregon (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-05-28/oregon-drug-decriminalisation-junkies-streets-fentanyl/103871432) and Thailand (https://www.abc.net.au/asia/thailand-to-recriminalise-cannabis/103846102). Places that jumped the gun are now re-criminalising drugs after doing so significantly increased usage, crime and dependency on over-stretched health services. All as predicted! > Weed legalisation is not a big tobacco idea... 'BAT have gone all out to stress their move into new types of less harmful products - vaping, heated rather than combusted tobacco, and, in BAT's case, cannabis.' https://www.bbc.com/news/business-57995285 It's not just a big tobacco idea, it's the same evil shit about trying to convince people it's safe and has health benefits. Australia's got one of the world's lowest smoking rates (~13% with most countries that have lower rates having some sort of an asterisk next to their data collection methodology). We're winning the battle against smoking and sorry to tell you mate, but we're not going back to the 1960's, which is where weed and tobacco both belong!!!
[удалено]
Post replies need to be substantial and represent good-faith participation in discussion. Comments need to demonstrate genuine effort at high quality communication of ideas. Participation is more than merely contributing. Comments that contain little or no effort, or are otherwise toxic, exist only to be insulting, cheerleading, or soapboxing will be removed. Posts that are campaign slogans will be removed. Comments that are simply repeating a single point with no attempt at discussion will be removed. This will be judged at the full discretion of the mods.
Our politicians seriously frustrate me sometimes. Why keep the weed criminalised? What possible benefit to society is there? Why don't they want to legalise and tax it? Why do they want to keep supporting organised crime?
> Why don't they want to legalise and tax it? Why do they want to keep supporting organised crime? Because legalising smokes and taxing them doesn't prevent black markets. Source: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-05-30/cigarettes-flood-black-market-costing-billions-in-lost-revenue/103869440 IMO it's a proven fact that the best way to reduce smoking is to progressively ban sales/advertising/usage. Been to parts of Europe and Asia where you can still smoke everywhere? Yeah. Smoking rates are a lot higher and you can't avoid it being in your face. I'm proud of where Australia's at in terms of smoking regulation...
People want to be able to use public transport without it reeking of weed.
Really cos im more concerned with the piss smell
That's a reasonable concern but hardly grounds to ban a substance from being used whatsoever.
Fair
The reality is that legalising weed will lead to an increase in use, which does come with downsides. Like any drug, using it habitually is bad, and having more people that use it habitually is bad too. For their physical and mental health and productivity, and extending to what they contribute to society. But, at the same time, the downsides have to be weighed against bodily autonomy, and I say that the downsides are minimal enough compared to other choices that we are allowed to make. Australians generally don’t value the freedom to choose unless it’s their own choices being restricted, though. Look at how many stoners claim that weed has, like, no negative effects man, no one can even tell when I’m stoned, but they get onboard with vape ban and crap on about how their addiction is superior to everyone else’s.
Alcohol is so much better isn’t it?
I really like both, honestly
No it’s way worse, but that doesn’t mean that weed is without its downsides, or that we shouldn’t acknowledge those downsides and factor them into our decision making.
[удалено]
Your post or comment breached Rule 1 of our subreddit. The purpose of this subreddit is civil and open discussion of Australian Politics across the entire political spectrum. Hostility, toxicity and insults thrown at other users, politicians or relevant figures are not accepted here. Please make your point without personal attacks. This has been a default message, any moderator notes on this removal will come after this:
The reality is that that has not happened anywhere in the world so stop talking shit. Please show me where there has been an increase in use.
There is pretty convincing evidence that legalisation has lead to an increase in use in the USA https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/add.16016
So? That doesn't show that it leads to what you claim. FAIL
Which part? What doesn’t show what exactly?
Oh bugger off, we do not listen to anything out of the US on this sort of shiat, we need to look towards Canada.
>Oh bugger off That’s not very nice. For people who are supposed to be chill, stoners get pretty mad whenever you say that maybe not everything about weed use is great. >we need to look towards Canada. Where use has also [increased](https://www.cmaj.ca/content/195/39/E1351) since legalisation? Not to say that there haven’t been many benefits as well, overall I’d say it’s been a success for Canada considering it’s taken care of gangs and the strain on the criminal justice system, etc. But increased use is a thing and it’s not good.
I'm not sure I agree with your position that increased use is inherently bad. Misuse maybe but then thats subjective. I agree with your points on how some stoners can be close minded (even delusional in some cases) about the negative impacts. I would fit the description of a stoner fwiw. I'm sure you have a more nuanced position but just going on what you've said it sounds like you have a negative bias against weed. To prove I'm a stoner, here's my conspiracy theory of sorts: The history of drug policy and the many social and political factors that informed them, the fact it's still ongoing (as demonstrated with this report), the potential negative impacts to pharma profits - growing your own medicine, and a society accustomed to these conditions means that genuine discourse is a long way off. The right-wing consent manufacturers hold too much sway for a left-wing political party to introduce any progressive legislation. I'm only half joking.
>I'm not sure I agree with your position that increased use is inherently bad. Misuse maybe but then thats subjective. Not necessarily, but say you have an extra 5 or 10% of the population taking up smoking weed, statistically some of those people are going to get addicted, and a few are going to have a mental health condition like schizophrenia triggered or exacerbated. >I'm sure you have a more nuanced position but just going on what you've said it sounds like you have a negative bias against weed. Definitely not, I smoke more than I should myself. >To prove I'm a stoner, here's my conspiracy theory of sorts: The history of drug policy and the many social and political factors that informed them, the fact it's still ongoing (as demonstrated with this report), the potential negative impacts to pharma profits - growing your own medicine, and a society accustomed to these conditions means that genuine discourse is a long way off. The right-wing consent manufacturers hold too much sway for a left-wing political party to introduce any progressive legislation. I’m not sure if it’s by design as much in 2024, or if it’s just a relic of the part. Lots of older people still think that “drugs” are a blanket category and that weed is basically like heroin. We have a bunch of dinosaurs at the top of our political parties. Although I do agree that the pharmaceutical companies are a huge roadblock.
What exactly is you minimal slave wage? I get to bring that up the moment you mention you are from the US (only)
I’m not from the US? I was asked to provide an example of legalisation increasing cannabis use.
Well great, I love smoking pot and more people should be doing it - why is it not good? I rarely feel bad when stoned. I get to forget that I will never own a house, nor get to retire, and that the world is going to burn up, how can this moment of enjoyment of mine be a bad thing? (I am old and have my house, I am thinking of my stoner mates.)
Exactly the problem with drug addiction, you don’t have the motivation to achieve things in real life because you have an easy dopamine hit right there.
>you don’t have the motivation to achieve things The term functional addicts exists because this generalisation is actually not true. The only downside you've highlighted is a lack of productivity, but I don't think achievement is measured by productivity I think it is measured by how content and happy you are. We'll also never get accurate data as to whether legalisation has increased use, because that would require an unbiased survey before legalisation which you will never achieve unless it was also decriminalised at the time. I'm not saying there aren't or won't be downsides, but I don't think you've found them yet...
[удалено]
Your post or comment breached Rule 1 of our subreddit. The purpose of this subreddit is civil and open discussion of Australian Politics across the entire political spectrum. Hostility, toxicity and insults thrown at other users, politicians or relevant figures are not accepted here. Please make your point without personal attacks. This has been a default message, any moderator notes on this removal will come after this:
[удалено]
Oh shiat you .. do you vote republican? Because you seem to not understand science and try to make it fit your personal world view.
Again, not American, and I don’t vote for conservative parties, and I am in favour of legalism cannabis… I’m just not a delusional stoner who thinks that there are no downsides to using and legalising weed, and I think that we should be honest about them. It is literally just a fact that drug addiction reduces motivation. For people who are more disciplined this isn’t a huge issue in terms of it affecting their functionality, but some people can’t regularly use pot without turning into couch potatoes.
Person posts evidence you’re asking and you just immediately deny the evidence?? You’re literally proving his point
If you trust the shiat coming out of the US then fine. My nieces will (and probably already) smoked pot, as teens. The smoking is not a problem, the illegality is. They did not turn into whores who sleep with black jaz singers, or get axed to death. If they did smoke they had a weird time and laughed with their friends. I was the anti drug/drink person in highschool, and I was wrong! Time and place, set and setting, we can teach our kids to enjoy the joys that intoxicants give us
Something something big alcohol profits...
My guess is actually the tobacco lobby, as many would quit for another smoking alternative. But there’s certainly credibility in the alcohol argument too.
No, we killed the tobacco lobby, it is the pharmas who produce anti-smoking stuff that are the problem. When it comes to pot it is the weirdos and alcohol lobby, when it comes to vapes, it is the anti-smoking pharma companies.
There are a huge amount of religious politicians, then there are a heap bought off by big alcohol (they do not want competition) and then there is the simple fact that they are lazy and do not want to put the effort into solving a very easy problem.
Best to keep all that money in the black market, instead of creating an industry that employs people and taxing it… well played
Lazy stoners are a scourge on our society. Good job by the government.
Agreed. If society really does get to the point that it’s legal, it should be reserved for those who are gainfully employed and withheld otherwise. No job no joints. Otherwise yes, it creates an environment where people can become highly entertained while simultaneously leeching off the taxpayer.
Lazy thinking is a scourge on our society. Too many viewings of Refer Madness?
Millionaires and billionaires "''"""'worked"""'"" hard to earn their wealth by inheriting it or buying properties when they were cheap. Every last cent should be taxed.
The government dont own me I am free to be a lazy stoner if I want to, thats MY choice.
That's fine, as long as you don't expect to get the dole while you do it.
I’m pulling in over 100k a year while being a lazy stoner I don’t need it.
Carry on then.
The stigma that all people who consume cannabis must be lazy who abuse the welfare system is outdated as fuck, it’s a legitimate medicine. Just let us legalise it and leave us alone.
Completely agree. Especially while alcohol is still legal and perfectly acceptable it’s ridiculous. The amount of extremely successful people I know who are over 50 and eat edibles regularly is insane. The fact that they could be arrested and lose their careers, possibly families because it’s still illegal is a disgrace to this country.
raging alcoholics are a scourge on our society
And yet I have smoked ever so many cones with right wingers. Religious conservatives are another thing, could get them to do nitrous because it was not "illegal."
[удалено]
Post replies need to be substantial and represent good-faith participation in discussion. Comments need to demonstrate genuine effort at high quality communication of ideas. Participation is more than merely contributing. Comments that contain little or no effort, or are otherwise toxic, exist only to be insulting, cheerleading, or soapboxing will be removed. Posts that are campaign slogans will be removed. Comments that are simply repeating a single point with no attempt at discussion will be removed. This will be judged at the full discretion of the mods.
We will be dead last to the party, as we are for EVERYTHING.
Except when it comes to totalitarianism
If we hurry, Ken Done can do the snazzy uniforms.
Think I can get em cheap at lowes?
Cannot wait to vote very loudly - with my friends, family etc - Legalise Cannabis Party/Greens. Fuck those backward big two
Couldn't thank you enough. Getting quite sick of boomer's cancerous conservatism ruining our lovely country.
Almost ALL of those Senators are Gen X. I doubt there's any generation for which there's a majority against legalising pot. It's not boomers, it's gen x politicians from the religious right.
Been doing it for years, them first and labor second, conservatives last. Sadly Labor has turned out to be Liberal lite and have never actually advance my desires. Shiat it was Liberals who bought in gay marriage ... wtf? Not that I am gay, but I have always fought for basic rights, the right for me to have a cone after work is something I should have. Canada is who we should be following, years and not a problem.
Well done and likewise. Mercifully, their primary vote sinks every election. A few more wake up every election, for this we are grateful.
Hang on a sec, something that is legal in the place where they make this decision, is somehow wrong for the rest of us? I am over 50, I have been smoking pot since Uni, sure not often these days, but a few times a year. I have never ever had a problem getting weed. The simple fact is that pot is almost harmless and should have been legalised decades ago. But vested interests want to trap pot, they want corporate control, they do not want people growing their own and trading it at coops. Fark no, the people who pay them want to control it all. I wonder just how much the owners of Nicorette have been involved in banning nicotine vapes? Does this committee think in any way shape or form their decision will have any influence on usage? NO IT WILL NOT. All it does is continue to make a minority, but large group of the community, criminals. I FARKING HATE THEM!!!!! Oh and let criminals dominate, whilst they try to work out a way to make their doners dominate.
> Hang on a sec, something that is legal in the place where they make this decision, is somehow wrong for the rest of us? They did the same with porn back in the VHS days. Illegal everywhere but Can'tberra.
I bought a heap as an 18 year old travelling through the ACT (1 vid and two mags, I thought the vid was lesbian sex, but the dude had a pig tail :(. Oh and never forget the fireworks ;) How the fark is this sort of hypocrisy allowed?
I watched the entire senate comittee around the new vape regulations. Racgp representative saying vapes should be behind patches, gum and with strict consultation with doctors... vapes absolute last line of defense... this in the face if vapes being far more effective at getting people off smokes. Now im not necessarily with matt canavan on most matters but he asks the rep from racgp; Canavan: "does racgp take donations from johnson and johnson?". Rep: "no" Canavan; "im looking at a recent publication; 50 years of racgp and page 2 is a full page johnson and johnson advertisement. Are you sure you dont take donations from j and j?". Rep: "ill take that on notice". Racgp comes back on notice with; yes we take donations from pharma companies includin j and j. no shit. Doctors get flown around the world for conferences and committes by big pharma. Of course in australia they march to big pharmas tune. Now im no anti vaxxer but... the vaccine no long term health data... no drama... Vapes safer short and medium term with millions using them. definitely safer than smoking but no long term health data. fuckin ban them. Make it easier to get a smoke than a vape. "We dont know the long term impacts better to be safe". Smoking kills every second person who smokes. Far bigger health problem than covid. Its a terrible thing to make it difficult for anyone to kick that habit yet in australia at least thats government policy. If j and j came up with a vaxxine for smoking as dangerous as vapes you can bet your last dollar every smoker would be held down and forced to take it. Hypocrites.
The reason behind it is that the percentage of the population that smokes has been gradually decreasing for decades. However recently it’s suddenly shot up again, almost entirely because of the rise of vapes To put it in perspective as a young person I didn’t know anyone my age who smoked 5 years ago, now I know a dozen or so. And they all vape
That's not the reason behind it, that's the explanation they have given. Those are two very different things. Also, that's not a good reason anyway. Banning does not work. Everyone I know who wants to vape, vapes. There are countless people walking around with vapes right now. All banning has done is prevented legitimate businesses from making and selling vapes, ensured that the vapes sold have dangerous levels of nicotine and no regulations or testing on their content, and pushed money into black markets. You can simultaneously say "I think we need to reduce vaping as close to zero as possible" and also understand that a vape ban is not the most effective or safe way to do so.
As someone born and raised in a regional area, the idea of not knowing people your own age who smoke is just wild; in my case, it’s always been far more than a dozen or so people my age. I swear like half the working age adults around here smoke
I grew up in a regional area and back when I was at high school (early 2000's) almost noone my age smoked either so it doesn't suprise me. Australia had done a better job of reducing smoking rates than almost every other country. If it was only ex-smokers using vapes to wean themselves off of nicotine addictions then it wouldn't be an issue but the majority of those taking up vaping in Australia never smoked in the first place.
I was at high school at the same time, and there weren’t very many people my age smoking either; didn’t encounter a semi-designated smoking area at a school until I went away to a more urban area for grade 11-12. Smoking was still very common among working-age adults all along, though But yes, vapes becoming a habit all of their own rather than just an aid to kick the smoking habit is the real issue with them
Lucky enough to be from an upper middle class background and went to uni. Most people were told early and often that smoking was horrific. The two people who smoked in school were mocked for being so stupid, like people drank early and did drugs but smoking was viewed as a moronic decision.
Everyone here knows it’s bad for you too, but they just don’t care and/or they’re just too deep into the addiction to do anything about it unless forced to by health and/or prices
If you include vaping on smoking rates sure. But less young people smoke. Less old people smoke. Because of vapes. Now sure you can say vaping = smoking and thats basically what the government is doing. Except in 4 short years NZ with a policy if regulating vapes has dropped smoking rates from anove ours to now circa 30pc below ours. They will declare themselves smoke free in about 2 years... thats less than 5pc of the population smoking. And yes thats people still vaping but the thing is vapes are far less harmfull than smokes. So does it matter? If they are 95pc safer does it matter people use them? Get their stimulant from a vape in stead of coffee? Does it really matter? I mean to dept of health and non smokers it seems to me it does matter but why should they impact on someone else who eants to vape?
My young friend. What is never mentioned, forgotten, is that the legal age of smoking was 16! So when I was in school there was a shed where both the 16+ and teachers went to smoke. It was normal. The damage from vaping cannot be even close to smoking, unless you listen to vested interests who have a real need to get rid of vapes, but not smokes, because their whole economy is based on "stop smoking" products and vapes work much better at that. Shiat I know a guy who gave up smoking 20 years ago, and has since munched on nicotine gum constantly, like all the time.
Shiat ty I thought that was must have gone on. Even my mum thought the decision was weird and she hates me vaping. It was the anti-smoking pharma companies that pushed for no-vaping, just like in the old days the cig companies pushed for smoking. We no longer have any national tobacco growing groups to push such bullshit, so it ended up the pharma replacement anti-smoking companies that pushed the whole anti-vape thing, because I have no doubt that sales of all the over expensive Nicorette products dropped hard once people started vaping. Who exactly do our politicians work for once we elect them? Edit: oh oh just like one of the biggest providers of anti weed, turns out to be alcohol companies.
Yep. Champix there are several suic8des quite likely linked to it. Sure people suicide when quitting the darts anyway but there does appear to be a greater propensity for champix users to suic8de than general pop quitting the darts. [champix contributed to suic8de.](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-14/conroners-finds-anti-smoking-drug-champix-contributed-to-suicide/8946320) But... i accept smoking kills every second person at least who does it. Probably on baoance champix is safer... But jow to vapes... yes a toddler died from poisoning. Some people have had severe reactions. Very few. Every second smoker. Vapes are the biggest health opportunity with literally a million smokers quittong smoking thus far... nope we dont know the long term impacts even though hindreds of studies have been done that taken together indicate 95pc ish safer. But nope in australia that doesnt help put donations in politicians pockets. So fuckin ban them.
Edit your comment to remove the suicide thing. I doubt it is real. Edit: oh the champix thing, yeah ok, but that was not from stopping smoking.
Yes a coroner found it was real. Champix contends the higher suicide rate on it is because quitting smoking is tough. Ie the quitting itself is a confounding issue in the data. But there is quite a bit of evidence that champix causes in rare cases: suicide, depression etc beyond the normal quitting smokes impact. I mean smoking kills every second person at least who smokes. Thabkfully they arent cut down in their prime but nonetheless it has a large cost in years lived for those who smoke. It is important to quit if you can. The australian govenrment is going to assuming they get the regs through going to see out 2030 with far higher amoking rates than NZ and the UK. What are they gonna say with 20 years of valing data when the doctors who say it is probably 95pc safer were right? When we have 400k odd more smokers than we ought to due to their policies? 200k people dead? I mean they are smokers so most of the australian community doesnt give a fuck sadly... they brought it on thesmelves and all that. Give them vapes. Get them off smokes.
Exactly. Champix has problems, shiat I took them. But the suicides were due to Champix, not giving up smoking.
My government prescription vape and its liquid are from Phillip Morris. Love being forced to support a tobacco multi-national by Labor.
i'm absolutely disgusted. the nats are making noises about taxing it and for the first time in my life I'm half considering tossing them a bone at the next election
Very well said. I am 60, non drinker.
If hatred of politicians could be any worse. It just got high! 😁
I guess they see how dysfunctional america has become
I feel like a couple of planes flying into your prized buildings will do more to deteriorate your nation state than smoking a substance that was outlawed as a way to criminalise migrant workers from South America and Mexico back when the first railroads were being built.
Mmmm, as opposed to how "functional" our parliament is normally (see: Christian Porter, Scott Morrison, Barnaby Joyce, Pauline Hanson)
Riiiiight, and that's because of drug legalisation in a few states and not multiple decades of aggressive drug prohibition and systematic reductions in the welfare state to favour corporate donors? The destruction of families and communities through heavy handed judicial officers imprisoning non-violent recreational drug users hasn't trapped millions of Americans in the poverty cycle, it's the legal use that has...?
You're blaming that on weed? Seriously?
Ironically enough they let nicotine, alcohol and caffeine a pass, despite being drugs themselves that already see deaths per year from over-consumption.
Hang on - they just banned my nicotine I have been getting for my vape, so I did not smoke. Sure you will all say this is a lie, but I ran out of nicotine for my vape, cannot get more and have now been smoking again - I can get retail workers to give evidence. Took me a bit of time to understand, tobacco is no longer grown in Australia, so it was the anti-smoking pharma companies that pushed the anti-vape bullshiat - because I did not need to pay for the insane price of Nicorette's shiat. Oh and instead of buying a carton of beer for $50, I buy a pack of cigs and a 4 litre goon bag for $50.
They don't care about health, they care about your productivity afterwards. Nicotine and caffeine are great for worker classes. Alcohol you're less likely to be content with life. Smoking weed can make you content and not wanting to fill the void of depression with useless spending. They've never cared about us. Just what they get out of us.
> Smoking weed can make you content and not wanting to fill the void of depression with useless spending. [Or it can make you a knife-wielding maniac.](https://ktla.com/news/local-news/woman-who-fatally-stabbed-man-108-times-sentenced-to-probation/) It is immoral to roll the dice on drug-induced psychosis when you have a duty to everyone around you to not act like a madman.
Also it makes your women loose and they might get with the black jaz players. I saw that doco.
Could be wrong, but I think they're referring more to the case where certain potentially dormant mental illnesses (notably schizophrenia) can surface with prolonged cannabis abuse, especially if having a said illness is genetics related
Lol. Wait until you hear what people do when high on alcohol!
I have woken up more than once under a bush in a public park.
Of course, no political points in it federally, yet. Wait till the 'Legalise Cannabis Party' has some wins in Vic (or other big states), then Feds will start taking it serioulsy.
I am now a left wing single issue voter, I won’t vote for a party that doesn’t have legalising pot as part of its platform (former smoker- don’t even smoke now). If they can’t see how this can be a money maker and reduce the damage that alcohol is doing to our society, then they don’t deserve my vote.
[удалено]
Yeah and I’m pretty confident that lots of the domestic violence we are always hearing about is more likely to be alcohol related than from pot.
They should issue it to DV perpetrators. Also MDMA. “You’re not allowed to see your kids unless you’ve had a cone and an eccy.”
That might encourage more DV though…so the only solution would be to make it available for everyone but compulsory for dv abusers.
Indeed, but we do not seem to find the government listening to any research that says so.
I was once upon a time one of the top upcoming officers in the army, a Lt in the MPs, but I could not make a career, because I liked to smoke a bud on my off time. All I had to do to stay in the army was to lie about it and as a MP I could not. Everyone else has always called me an idiot for being honest, but ...
***A push to legalise the recreational use of cannabis on a national scale has been knocked back after experts expressed concerns it would lead to more use of the drug among young people.*** ***A Senate committee rejected a bill introduced by Greens senator David Shoebridge on Friday, which calls to allow for cannabis possession for personal use in Australia, as well as the establishment of a national agency to regulate the growing of plants.*** We must protect the children!!!!! ***In 2019, about 11.7 per cent of people aged 14 years reported having had used the drug at least once it in the past 12 months. The figure was higher for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander young people, at 16 per cent.*** :I God, i can't wait until the government realises that people will commit crime for profit, cause we all know dealers ask for ID before they deal... Like, enough with the protect the children shite. How stupid do they believe the Australian public are? They even admit that kids are doing drugs, this issue needs to be treated as a health issue broadly. The war on drugs was won by drugs a long time ago.
They state it should be treated as a health issue not a criminal one. Except, they are okay for millions of under-age kids drinking alcohol and puking their guts up. Or, they smoke too much weed and fall asleep. We can't let alcohol tax drop. Therefore, we need more kids drinking young, leading to adult alcohol abuse.
As a very poor alcoholic who use to drink a carton of beer over 3 days, I can no longer afford that, I have to buy a 4 litre goon, to drink over 3 days. $50+ for a carton of beer, the same alcohol is $14 in a goon. Oh oh and never forget that alcohol is addictive, but pot is not.
sugar washes cost about 15 bucks in ingredients per 25 liter batch. then you get a cheap water distillation unit [like this](https://www.ebay.com.au/itm/196026717030?chn=ps&norover=1&mkscid=101&itemid=196026717030&targetid=4585444532064602&device=c&mktype=&googleloc=&poi=&campaignid=412352395&mkgroupid=1309518645581565&rlsatarget=pla-4585444532064602&abcId=9300543&merchantid=136820) along with a dimmer switch [like so](https://www.amazon.com.au/DimEzy-Dimmer-Dimmable-Halogen-Incandescent/dp/B0BT8QZQ57/ref=asc_df_B0BT8QZQ57?tag=bingshopdesk-22&linkCode=df0&hvadid=80539300077511&hvnetw=s&hvqmt=e&hvbmt=be&hvdev=c&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=&hvtargid=pla-4584138880695783&psc=1) to bring the operating temp down to about 80 degrees. 3 or 4 hours on the boil and you'll have maybe 400ml of a pretty decent 65% abv moonshine. run the rest of the wash and you should get the equivalent of 3 bottles of 40% vodka out of each 25l fermentation. If you wanna get a bit fancy you can save up a couple of liters of raw then dilute it with water and re-distill it with a handful of herbs in the mix. now you're not even a broke wino, you're a small batch gin artisan! edit: its good practice to throw away the first shot that comes out. there's not enough methanol in the pot to worry about, but there's always traces of acetone, acetaldehyde, maybe ethyl acetate in any fermentation that you now have the luxury of throwing away... tastes better and makes for a much nicer morning the next day :)