We Need Some Kind Of New Policy

Banning synthetic cannabis has failed to stop its sale and has probably caused stronger forms of the party drug to be sold.

Really, now there is a surprise. Fancy that? It's funny how none of the law enforcement agencies/family groups/whohever don't remember the prohibition era in America, to name just one example of bans not working.

These substances sold under various names, had their herbal-chemical blend effectively outlawed in July when eight cannabis-like chemicals were banned by Australia's federal medicines regulator.

But it is still being sold widely in Melbourne in happy herb shops, and the like, as suppliers have got around the law by reformulating brands with chemicals that have a similar effect but are not on the banned list.

It is really kind of irritating, I'd think, for, I presume, the relatively small number of users, the only thing the banning would have done was publicise the issue and deliver the product to more users... an infinitely able to be slightly changed product.

Victoria Police say the drugs are virtually impossible to control as there is no way to know what chemicals were in them without forensic tests.

Marijuana is, arguably, the oldest drug know to man. It is quite possibly the drug with the longest history and the most number of users, ever, in the history of all drugs known to this world.  To give you an accurate idea as to the number of people who use marijuana, if you took the number of people who use every illegal drug and added them together, there still wouldn't be more people than those who use marijuana

Already, banning it has, arguably, lead to it being driven it in from the open paddock to stronger forms of marijuana being produced under lights.

Marijuana wasn't banned until the 1930's when the paper, oil, cotton industries, among other groups, ganged up against it to have it banned. It had been used since biblical days before that. It makes no sense that if it hadn't destroyed the world for the previous 2000 years that it would destroy the world now.

Of course, when it seemed that the world's opinion of marijuana changed 20 years ago, that it was considered the soft drug that it was and that it looked like the world was on  the brink of making the sensible and obvious decision to decriminalise it, those with vested interests ramped up their opposition, especially highlighting, what effectively is the rare physiological harm that can happen to the minority of users.

It is the same old story that we hear from the continually failing law enforcement of illegal drugs. It is almost impossibly to enforce, the dealers change their methods and their techniques, the battle is being lost. And in this case, the producers have the added ability to change the chemical structure of the drugs themselves as an added advantage to stay ahead of law enforcement.

So, now that "the powers that be" (politicians/law enforcement agencies/family groups/whoever) have taken a relatively small, inconsequential, drug of pleasure and have done the usual thing, Striesand effected it, highlighted it, criticise it, ban it, in the process giving it huge publicity and potentially increased it's users, and have inevitably failed, what do you think their next move is?

The Therapeutic Goods Administration will attempt to shut down all synthetic cannabis trade in May when it introduces a blanket ban on any substance that mimics the effects of cannabis. The legislation is designed not only to halt the sale of existing brands but to place a ban on all future forms of the drug.

But drug experts say the legislation is so broad it may be unenforceable and could encourage those who previously enjoyed legal highs to turn to illicit drugs.

In the end, I don't think any of this has anything to do with the good, or health of the nation. I don't think it has anything to do with the lives of the members of society who chose to use drugs. No I don't. I think it has everything to do with the justification of the jobs of law enforcement, politicians, psychologists, and every other expert involved. It is all about justifying their existence and really has very little to do with drug users. 

It plays into the fears of people, parents; it plays into the bloody mindedness of those who like to point their fingers and say, you will do as we tell you, you will do as you are told,  politicians; it attempts to funnel money into the "legitimate" economy to grow businesses that make those business men rich who make monetary donations to political parties. 

How much money do you think is continually pumped into law enforcement around the world to police, what prove again and again and again to be failed marijuana drug policies? The only thing they effectively do is create billionaire criminals? How much money do you think is is? 

I don't know. 

Hang on, I am going to go and Google it?

OMG! The figures are mind boggling. 

I can only find American figures, which are five years old, but they quote a figure of some where around 50 billion dollars.

Government officials love to warn us that criminal characters profit from marijuana sales, while ignoring the obvious: prohibitionist laws handed the criminals the marijuana business in the first place, effectively giving marijuana dealers a $120 billion a year untaxed business.

And, you know, it might make some sense if marijuana was so dangerous that it needed to be banned at all, but science long ago came to precisely the opposite conclusion. Marijuana, compared to alcohol, is amazingly safe. Marijuana is much less addictive than alcohol, with eight percent of users becoming dependent, as opposed to 18 percent for booze. Marijuana is much less toxic. Heavy drinking is well-documented to damage the brain and liver, and to increase the risk of many types of cancer. Marijuana, on the other hand, has never caused a medically documented overdose death, and scientists are still debating whether even heavy marijuana use causes any permanent harm at all. Then there's violence, for which the scientific findings are overwhelming: Alcohol incites violence and aggression; marijuana doesn't.

Despite all of this, there is now one person arrested every 30 seconds on marijuana charges, at a staggering cost in law enforcement expenses, lost tax revenues, and staggering profits for criminal gangs.


So, what do you think would happen, if marijuana was legalised, and all the money that we currently spend on law enforcement was put into medical treatment of users and the profits were removed from the criminal gangs and put into the hands of legitimate business owners?


How would that effect society?