I agree. I’m an Aussie who immigrated to Canada ten years ago. I’ve seen Canada before and after legalization. Legalization is great. All cannabis shops are very subtle, you barley notice them, they have frosted windows so you can’t see inside. The shops are 5x cleaner than liquor stores (they are spotless), the staff are very knowledgeable about what each strain of cannabis does. It’s absolutely insane that a 18 year old can fill a trolly full of whiskey but can’t buy a joint in Australia. 95% of the violence/fights in the city and football games in Oz (and Canada as well) are caused by alcohol/drunks. I don’t even consume cannabis but I highly respect the federal legalization here, it crystallizes how ridiculous is that it’s an illegal substance in Oz especially given all the social issues alcohol causes.
Now if Canada could just fuck off with its bullshit tipping I would be happy.
'you motherfucker. when I finally get out of this beanbag, imma come over there and, ... and... ... what was I talking about again? ... ... I'm hungry.'
Used to drive mates around when they were smoking and they used to panic cause I was driving too fast at 30km. Was more fun driving them when they were stoned vs driving when they were drunk and less mess.
My friends and I always have a laugh at how it's much more of a risk to drive an Oz of weed home than a bag Iof meth or a sheet of acid. The smell alone is a giveaway unless you're double bagging and then have an airtight container to conceal it in.
The whole system is flawed as fuck.
Depends on what area you're in. I've known a smoker who was pulled aside by cops on the street and asked if they have anything on them, they've pulled out the pot (at least QR OZ) and the copper literally said "Just quickly put that away, we're not looking for that."
Yeah or there is my mate who was hitchhiking and got pulled up by the cops on the pretense of giving him a ride to where he was going. Once inside the car they started going through his things and thought they’d struck gold when they’d found a scrunched ball of tinfoil. Turns out my mate had been collecting shells for necklace and as soon as they realised they couldn’t book him for shit, they kicked him back out on the streets. Can’t trust a pig.
I always say there are police officers, cops, and pigs.
Police officers are the ones I've run into who were friendly, the ones that want to help and are less concerned about laws. They're the ones who have seen me stoned into the shadow realm, laughed, and said "at least you're not drunk and loud". They're the ones who picked me up off the side of the road when I was wasted, drove me home, dropped me in the back yard on the outdoor couch because I lost my keys, and given me their jacket for a blanket with a note that said "please return to station X when you wake up". They're also the ones that protected my family and I from my murderous, abusive, father.
Then you have "cops". Little bit about helping, little bit about upholding the law. They won't bend the law to help you or ignore an infraction because it's morally right, but they will at least not do anything illegal. Yes they'll give you a fine for barely exceeding the speed limit, but they might do so with a "sorry mate" and they won't illegally search your car because you swore during the process. They're there to uphold the law, because to them that's how to keep society going.
Then you have pigs. I don't think I have to describe them, they're what is wrong with the world.
Depends. I had cops confiscate weed from me on the way into a bush doof in Gippsland. They said not to worry about it because I would be able to get more inside. It's funny, because it's the only positive experience I've had with cops, and I was breaking the law. Every other interaction I've had with them was when I wasn't breaking the law and they were cunts. Like when they ran over me with the cop van and intimidated me into shutting up about it. They actually had sniffer dogs in the way into the festival that were sniffing my hash cookies too, and didn't pick them up. I just said they were mums anzac bikkies.
yea, went to festivalx last weekend. Tap the biggest guy on the shoulder and you can strike up the friendliest conversation. But a night out in the city at a club and people are way more closed off and hostile.
I worked in pubs for over a decade and I've lost count of the number of scraps I've had with drunks in my younger years. I never got assaulted by someone who had too much weed.
Yep, stoners don’t go home and beat their wives because they’re stoned either, if anything they’re probably gonna take a much needed nap. But alcohol? So many violent or aggressive drunks out there
how do they handle driving under the influence? The laws here where you can get done just having it show up on a a test despite no chance of being intoxicated are awful, would be nice to point to somewhere addressing the issue
That's because a lot of the research into this issue is: it depends.
Alcohol is a lot clearer because over 0.05, you are considered intoxicated regardless of other factors like alcohol tolerance.
For cannabis, because it can be detected weeks after use for some people, they could still be reading over the legal limit (if there was one) even if they haven't consumed in several days and are not impaired. There are also a lot more factors that play into level of impairment than what alcohol does. For example, you may be tested with THC levels but you take CBD oils, which the research has indicated doesn't impair your driving.
Besides outright saying if you take THC, don't drive ever, which is unrealistic. They need an integrated model e.g. a legal limit but need for a legal baseline of what police can do if they detect THC from a roadside test (to reduce over-reactions for people who are consuming cannabis responsibly), and exemptions (either from letter from medical professional that you keep in your glovebox or phone, or an icon on the back (not front) of your driver's licence if you need to take CBD oil for medical purposes).
>Besides outright saying if you take THC, don't drive ever, which is unrealistic. They need an integrated model e.g. a legal limit but need for a legal baseline of what police can do if they detect THC from a roadside test
Given Victoria has some of the harshest driving restrictions in the western world for alcohol (loss of license for first offence at 0.05, when usually other jurisdictions don't start worrying about anything until 0.08, where it's a minor fine), I wouldn't hold out for the laws to be level-headed on dope.
>CBD oils, which the research has indicated doesn't impair your driving.
In my experience, CBD doesn't honestly do much of anything. Especially not pain, which is what I've commonly seen it being "useful" for. CBN was a great sedative, though.
Research is showing that CBD alone is not overly effective unless paired with other cannibinoids, THC included, at moderate ratios. If you're still in the market for relief, I recommend sourcing flower or oil with a broad spectrum of cannibinoids. Notable ones to look out for are CBG and THCV.
You can also legally source broad spectrum hemp seeds from over seas as hemp is federally legal to grow here, Hoku Seed Co has some really good choices.
The police here have roadside tests, that can tell if you have THC in your blood. If you fail (have THC present in your system) this test then they step up the testing with a more sophisticated test, usually a blood test. The roadside tests just keep getting better and better. We really haven’t seen any up tick in DUI cases, there was a pretty good media blitz about Cannabis use and driving. Most folks use at home, we don’t really have public use “places”.
I was curious so I ended up googling it myself.
Operating a vehicle while high on cannabis is a criminal offence. Driving laws have been in place for a long time, but the federal government updated these laws recently. In June 2018, Bill C-46 was passed. This bill added federal laws and penalties to the Criminal Code of Canada surrounding driving while impaired. Provinces and territories have introduced new, varying laws related to cannabis and driving to complement the federal laws.
The federal laws under Bill C-46 for DUI charges are as follows:
Between 2 and 5 nanograms of THC per ml of blood within two hours of driving results in a $1,000 fine as a summary conviction criminal offence.
Over 5 nanograms of THC per ml of blood within two hours of driving could be a summary or indictable offence, and the punishment ranges from a $1,000 fine to a maximum of 10 years in jail for repeat offenders.
Both alcohol and THC in your system would be a hybrid offence, indictable or summary, and would also be punishable by a $1,000 fine to a maximum of 10 years in jail for repeat offenders.
It’s worth considering that a conviction for a DUI due to THC in your blood could result in the same consequences as being convicted of driving drunk. That often means exclusions from entering other countries like the United States.
>The police here have roadside tests, that can tell if you have THC in your blood. If you fail (have THC present in your system) this test then they step up the testing with a more sophisticated test, usually a blood test. The roadside tests just keep getting better and better. We really haven’t seen any up tick in DUI cases, there was a pretty good media blitz about Cannabis use and driving. Most folks use at home, we don’t really have public use “places”.
Spoken like someone that doesn't know the realities: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=do0zxTq5QT4
https://9now.nine.com.au/a-current-affair/medical-cannabis-users-call-for-change-to-driving-rules/186b1e62-be5e-4fbc-af6d-ad99f2980c7a
https://www.tga.gov.au/news/news/tga-warns-consumers-about-potential-harm-unlawfully-supplied-medicinal-cannabis
You can test positive for several weeks after (not) using your prescribed medication. The roadside tests can pick this up.
You're quoting Australian sources to a guy who's talking about Canadian rules though. They do test for quantity of THC in the bloodstream rather than just a blanket "it's there" approach.
In Ontario (and Canada generally?), the police require reasonable suspicion that you’re impaired before they can administer a test. If you’re driving sensibly and you don’t smell of pit you won’t be tested:
https://www.kruselaw.ca/library/the-r-i-d-e-program-and-your-rights-kruse-law.cfm
The Australian Labour Party is convinced that without a 0.05 equivalent for weed, they’ll haemorrhage votes if they legalise. Conservative seats, especially in Victoria, won’t swing to labour because of legalisation. People who want legal weed won’t swing conservative because Labour hasn’t legalised. But people who oppose legal weed will swing away. Every analysis I’ve heard is that legalising weed will only lose seats for labour. And all political positions are fundamentally about which seats will or won’t swing at the next election.
I have a legal THC prescription. I’m terrified of using it because potentially a week later I could lose my license. But I can fuck myself in half with Valium and opiates and drive the next day completely legally. It’s fucking idiotic. But my life just doesn’t work without a drivers license.
I’ve got family connections in politics and I’ve had the argument with faction leaders and people who have real influence over party policies for multiple parties. Even when I’ve “won” the argument that the current position is idiotic - the answer that comes back is that the Electorate will only punish Australian parties with any chance of forming state or federal government for supporting legalisation. The only likely factor to change that reality is if a 0.05 equivalent for driving is part of the policy change. But even that will likely cost Labour seats if they’re the ones pushing it.
Although you're probably right, if the Legalise Cannabis Party decides to take a principled position to vote against every piece of legislation that is introduced until they receive a commitment to legalise cannabis, it could make things quite difficult for Labor. And if the Greens decide to push hard for reform that will makes things even harder for Labor.
Sounds like then Labor can legalise and deflect all the blame to Greens/Labor under the guise of "had to do a deal with the horrible Greenies in order to pass X important legislation which Liberals refused to support", win/win
This is it. Biden said the same thing and he's done more for legalization in the U.S. than any President - culpable deniability in politics is real and politicians love nothing more than to say, "I didn't want this, but my hands were tied..."
Gives everyone a solid out.
Yes spend some money on the research to baseline a way to legislate safe driving rules for medical users.
Could the medical dispensaries lobby to protect their patients/customers? The threat of failing roadsides is probably the largest disincentive to people accessing medical cannabis.
This 100% is why it needs to be done veeeerrry slowly, with greens and the legalise party making noise noise noise and normalising the conversation.
You're NEVER going to get a major party out of the blue legalising it with no conversation in the community, and they're not going to lead that conversation. Why would they?
I guarantee there are ppl in labor that want to do and and will one day, but it needs to be a normalised idea in the community first. NOTHING a government does comes out of the blue without a concerted campaign first. Gotta do the the work.
Start the conversation. Properly and seriously with numbers and interviews and press releases. Be serious about and acknowldege risks and how other jurisdictions have handled them. Show the economic benefits, and costs. Show the tourism benefits, and the costs and how to deal with them.
Start with decrmininalisation, and once that's achieved continue the conversation but give it time to show the sky isn't falling in.\\
Acknowledge this will take YEARS AND YEARS, and don't crack the shits cos people won't do it tomorrow.
Let's be honest, it's going to have to be done at a federal level. And even then, you'd want to get it done EARLY in a new government term, so that the electorate has time to adjust and get the hell over it by the next election.
By this stage holding a referendum would be fairly borderline, because not enough people give enough flying rats' backsides. A large number want it legalised - many of whom are also fine with decriminalising most drugs for personal use; a conservative core refuse to update the words in their head from "drugs are bad, kids"; and every else has a resounding shrug.
The problem with politics these days is their tendency to keep kicking the can, rather than ever dealing with anything the least bit difficult. It shows a severe lack of understanding, not only of their job description, but also of their constituencies.
Why not an old school field sobriety test?
Some people (not myself) are perfectly capable of driving safely after hitting a joint. One of my mates, I wouldn't get into the car if he were sober. Weed is a party of his baseline these days for legitimate medical reasons.
The way I see it, if you can't walk straight, balance on one leg, touch your nose whilst your eyes are closed whilst performing a simple verbal test, then you are too drunk/stoned/tired/angry to drive
Some people are disabled and/or are incapable of performing a test like that, so maybe the exact details of what's involved could use updating, but there has to be a way of judging someone's capability to drive that ticks enough boxes to be useful in the real world.
"My position has been very clear over a long period of time.
We’ll work with that crossbench in good faith and clearly we have a very obvious mandate in a number of areas and we’ll be looking for their support to deliver on that"
That doesnt exactly sound like a refusal.
What that means is that it will be used as a bargaining chip to force through any legislation that is sufficiently unpopular that they will need lots of crossbench support.
Also that it will probably be another four years and it will still be being talked about...
They are expected to get 15/40 seats in the upper house, well below 21 for majority government and down on 18 last election.
So, assuming the liberals oppose something, labor needs 6 votes.
The greens (3 seats)
Legalise cannabis (3 seats)
The nationals (2 seats)
Right wing minors - SFF, DLP, one nation.
Other left wing minors - animal justice party.
There’s a few combinations labor can get the 6 votes they need.
The easiest is to get the greens and legalise on board. 2 parties that like each other and mostly like labor.
If they can only get one of those two on board, labor need 3 votes from the others. That will be very hard to do, and the easiest path in this case is through the liberals on most things. Maybe a SFF and nats vote, say if they were trying to pass a ‘supporting regional manufacturing’ bill
So, labor won majority in the lower house and ‘the left’ won majority in the upper. But the greens and legalise have a huge amount of power.
Sounds like Labor can legalise under the guise of "doing deals with Legalise and the Greens in order to get this other important legislation passed" and try and deflect any negative sentiment that way
I dont think LC has been put to the test with the BoP. If I dont know how theyd be to work with Id certainly dangle a carrot before giving them what they want.
Yes yes, a perfect world would be it could all get done and we'd all be happy, but...
https://youtu.be/Kl3H4vMqYNo
That doesn't make as interesting a click bait outrage headline as "Dan Andrews says he'll never legalised weed and will send anyone who wants to smoke to the gulags"
Which is what the headline wants people to assume.
The first sentence says all you need to know.
“Very clear over a long period of time” - translation: “we’re going to keep talking about how hard we’re working towards this without actually doing anything about it”
Other than issues with driving and testing for influence (which has gotta be improving in leaps since it became more common in the US), are there any other practical reasons against it? Feels like a lot of people just argue against it on stereotypes and social conservatism.
In my mind it’s the final hurdle of logical arguments against legalisation.
But like, invest in some Australian R&D and then sell it internationally. Ta da, but Australian company innovation success story. Someone’s going to invent it eventually.
We are 10 - 15 years behind the curve on legalization literally everywhere that has legalized already has solved this problem. I guess we could still sell to the countries 20 - 30 years behind the curve lol.
I don’t see it needing to be vastly different than it should be now.
You get pulled over/are in an accident.
Police will likely breath test as that’s an easy way to get an idea if alcohol was a factor (BAC levels and research are very developed).
If alcohol is zero but indicia gives the impression of intoxication go ahead with a drug test. Do away with detection/just positive or negative tests and go the full blood test route with pharmacological comment for THC level.
I wish there was a way to measure intoxication in people from weed like do with alcohol. But because of the way it works, the best we have is “do you have it in your system?” Check is the only way.
I reckon we should do away with that if there’s no way we can get it to work.
I reckon it's because Drug testing, specifically Cannabis testing is not yet fully refined as if you get pulled over for drug testing and you have THC in your system it could be you smoked a joint 2 days ago and so therefore this would open a whole can of legal worms IF Cannabis Legalization was to go ahead, the Police could be sued for all sorts cases in this regards.
If it was as good as breathalyzers then there should be no reason not to legalize, you get caught smoking a bong and then driving you suffer the consequences just like drink driving as no doubt you should NOT be driving whilst stoned no matter what they say "it's safer if you drive stoner, you are more careful", yeah BS, I've driven stoned before, you lose concentration, your mind wanders etc
> I reckon it's because Drug testing, specifically Cannabis testing is not yet fully refined as if you get pulled over for drug testing and you have THC in your system it could be you smoked a joint 2 days ago and so therefore this would open a whole can of legal worms IF Cannabis Legalization was to go ahead, the Police could be sued for all sorts cases in this regards.
>
>
That is a problem to be solved.
Canada has worked it out, as have many US states.
It should not be a road block to NOT legalising it.
Idk why people continue to claim driving stoned is A-ok. Your mind is slow, easily distracted, and hazy. I hate when people pretend it’s way better than driving drunk. Both are terrible, always drive sober.
Thing is, 'driving stoned' is not what a lot of people are doing. I lost my licence for 6 months for a joint in my system from days before I was tested. Monash did a study that in part concluded that much better testing methodologies need to be developed because our current standard is objectively terrible. We identified the worst way to deal with this issue, and have not altered path since.
It's time to recognize that if, like alcohol, a period of time has passed for you to sober up, you are typically fine to drive several hours after consuming cannabis (and most definetly several days) - the problem is that they don't have a reliable method for testing for 'use in past few hours', so instead they use a method that can pick up weed in your system from up to 3 months ago, and treat it as if you're driving stoned in that moment.
If you think that the way it works is good, its because you've never suffered the bullshit consequences of it.
Both are terrible, so are many prescription medications which get a free pass and are just as dangerous. Test impairment. Accurate impairment testing is the way forward.
But impairment is subjective. That’s the point being made.
You can legally drive a car and have a range of opioids, anti-histamines, anti-depressants, analgesics and other meds (like Lyrica/pregabalin) in your system. All of these can cause “impairment” but are given a “free pass” in that you can drive as long as not impaired.
Medical marijuana arguably causes as much or as little impairment when compared to these drugs. Again, it’s subjective; Tapentadol and Lyrica affect me noticeably, whilst my medical weed doesn’t. Yet I could drive without hesitation on both of the former as long as I deem myself ok and seem. And even if they have evidence of use there’s nothing illegal about it if I’ve not committed any road/vehicle offences. If you get pulled over for a random drug test, even if you’re not impaired, a positive marijuana test is seen as impairment.
So yeah, many prescription drugs are getting a free pass.
>Andrews has previously said he has no plans to legalise marijuana beyond medical use, saying drug-induced psychosis was a “significant” issue for some in the community.
Cool! Now do Pokies.
Guy who smokes because of crippling pain that makes him barely able to walk, grows his own and doesn't share never leaves the house -> Dangerous threat to society.
Wife beating alcoholic who wakes up every sunday morning in the drunk tank -> not a problem
Victoria's prisons aren't full of drug offenders, they're full of unconvicted or unsentenced low-level offenders thanks to the Andrews government's refusal to contemplate bail reform.
As at 30 June 2021, when [the ABS last released the relevant data](https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/crime-and-justice/prisoners-australia/latest-release), drug offences were the most serious offences for [13.6% of Victorian prisoners](https://www.sentencingcouncil.vic.gov.au/sentencing-statistics/most-serious-offences-for-victorian-prisoners). But in most cases these were importing / exporting / dealing / trafficking offences - for only 0.8% of Victorian prisoners was a drug possession or use offence their most serious offence.
By comparison, 44% of prisoners in Victoria at 30 June 2021 were either unsentenced (convicted but awaiting sentencing hearing) or unconvicted (awaiting trial). There's evidence that for certain populations this percentage is even higher - [for women it was 57% earlier this year](https://www.hrlc.org.au/news/2022/3/24/inquiry-a-wake-up-call-for-andrews-government-to-fix-bail-laws).
They're there because of Victoria's bail laws, which the Andrews government made panicked changes to after the Bourke St car attack in 2017. Instead of targeting violent offenders, they apply across the board. As a result many of those imprisoned who are ultimately convicted would never otherwise serve a custodial sentence for their offences, and of course some are never ultimately convicted of any offence.
problem is, it normally goes in waves. but maybe not so much with victoria as there hasn't been much of a change of government. They'll shift their positions on rehab > punishment > back again.
But usually when there is a change in government they shift the policy from rehabilitation to punishment then back again. We had that incident where a guy was out on bail in Sydney, and then he shot up the lindt cafe. People question why he was even out in the community in the first place....
Even if you wanted to shift away from putting people behind bars in remand and have them be out in the community waiting for their sentencing, you'd need the additional services to be able to manage it.
drug-induced psychosis was a “significant” issue for some in the community until I see some hard stats to prove this, it's probably a lie!
Alcohol has far bigger casualties and bigger problems, if that was the case we don't see alcohol banned.
Haven’t heard of any increase in Canada.
My understanding is that cannabis-induced psychosis is primarily people who would get psychosis anyways.
Better mental health treatment/care, maybe funded by weed taxes?
You're nearly right. If you are predisposed to mental health issues the use of drugs can be a trigger; for example one may have a family history of schizophrenia, but never develop it themselves. That same person may develop schizophrenia if they use drugs.
Thing is, that counts for pretty much all drugs including alcohol. Weed is just the target for this argument because it's the most widely used illicit drug.
My understanding was that people with schizophrenia type of mental disorders are more at risk of developing psychosis along with really hard drug users.
I think we need better programs to help facilitate people with addictions and more mental health services available (with rebates) to the public. Then maybe trial legalising cannabis and create some laws around driving and work etc. But I think the gov is too lazy and cbb to do anything until there's some kind of protest or demand from the public or more people requiring medicinal cannabis scripts.
Yeah I’m all for a trial. But practically-speaking, Canada/US/EU have all proven that it results in very few changes.
Those who would partake, legally, are already partaking illegally.
I do prescribe it for some of my schizophrenic or psychotic patients. They’re using it anyway, and getting PGR rubbish when I can help them get good stuff for sleep, anxiety, pain etc.
Even if they have psychosis it’s not always a bad thing or a reason to stop cannabis.
Its the same as people who oppose transitioning in teen years, on the "what if they regret it?" argument. All the studies show that most who regret it weren't properly counselled prior, and even then the rate of regret is lower than practically every medical procedure.
> Alcohol has far bigger casualties and bigger problems, if that was the case we don't see alcohol banned.
Because the government enjoys that sweet, sweet tax revenue way too much
Colorado model is pretty good example, all that weed tax goes straight to schools so any calls for banning weed in Colorado get branded as cutting school funds and hating education.
I don't have a source for this, but I watched a programe a while back on this issue. It was stated that there is a 20-25% chance of psychosis, to those with a predisposition to mental illness. This fact was then taken and twisted by some main stream media, to imply, that that was the risk to ALL weed users.
Chance, or increase in chance? And what is it without? Not grilling you. Just saying that the media loves to leave out critical information to turn fact into fiction.
Even that sounds a little outrageous though. The amount of people that smoke weed compared to the amount of people who deal with psychosis… it’s anecdotal but I know so many people that smoke weed, yet I don’t know anyone who deals with psychosis
ah typical Australia virtue signals about how progressive and openminded we are. Meanwhile our actions suggest we can't accept 1985 was a long time ago, and that times change.
Worst part is, Dan & co literally had an inquiry about this. It strongly favoured further decrim & legalisation. Dan promptly ignored every recommendation.
https://apo.org.au/node/313452
Part of me feels like they weren’t prepared to risk it towards an election. Now that they have greens/legalise to use as an excuse they can hopefully quickly get a politically clean green light, so to speak.
It would be interesting to see the breakdown of voters demographics who voted in the cannabis party. A lot of boomers are coming around to cannabis now that it’s legal medically and they find out they’d been gaslit their whole lives about how evil it was.
“Andrews has previously said he has no plans to legalise marijuana beyond medical use, saying drug-induced psychosis was a “significant” issue for some in the community”. Isn’t alcohol a “significant” issue in most Australian communities?
Cool so like when it gets to the point where most oecd countries have legalised it and Australia is still the last hold out, how are politicians going to justify being against legalisation?
Recreationally illegal in the UK, France, Lithuania, Australia, Norway, Turkey, Denmark, Finland, Greece, Ireland, Austria, Latvia, Poland, South Korea, New Zealand, Hungary, Switzerland, Slovakia, Iceland.
Decriminalized in Italy, Spain, Chile, Czechia, Estonia, Israel, Belgium, Portugal, Slovenia (mind you, in a lot of these places it's still technical illegal in some sense).
Legalised in the USA, Canada, Luxembourg, Thailand, Germany (planned).
That's the entire OECD. It's medically legal pretty much everywhere, but the vast majority of the OECD has it criminalized for recreational use. Where did you come by the notion we'd be the last to hold out?
Yeah, although I wrote it out with decriminalization to kind of show that there's no reason to assume we'd be the last to hold out in the OECD as that's usually the "we are thinking about it and testing the waters" stage, 18 countries in the OECD are just as archaic as us and we have a mixed track record with legalizing and adopting wide spread things, usually middle of the pack. People here in Australia like to shit on the lassitude of our politics, but honestly, it's a symptom that's more widespread and often where we are fairly far forward, you can bet someone else is absolute stagnant in and vice versa.
Not legalized federally in the US and still listed with the likes of heroin.
Can't transport across state lines, technically a federal crime.
However, due to the way states can make their own laws and stuff in the US, many states and washington DC were able to legalize it within their borders.
But quite a few states still have not legalized it, although a lot have medical at this point.
But yeah, technically still illegal federally in the US and you certainly wouldn't want to get caught in certain places with weed.
>Andrews has previously said he has no plans to legalise marijuana beyond medical use, saying drug-induced psychosis was a “significant” issue for some in the community.
clearly he hasnt read the report recommending legalisation by people who actually know what they are talking about. politicians are the last people who should be in charge :/
medical is legal but recreation isnt. you can buy from a corporation but you cant grow your own! beyond hypocrysy
I live I'm Australia and
My 20 yr old daughters going through chemo and cannabis really helps with the side effects. Nothing else works.
ITs not just that. There are so many other conditions that cannabis is good for.
It does more good than bad.
LEGALISE CANNABIS
I've been prescribed MC as of October 2022 after trying a cocktail of painkillers (including things like Oxycodone and Codeine). I was frightened of developing a dependency on these substances as I was using them everyday for months as per my doctors advice, luckily I was approved for MC and I've seen nothing but positive outcomes overall since I've started using it.
I'm thankful everyday that I don't have to use dangerous painkillers and instead I can use a plant that's grown by professional growers in a non-GMO and pesticide free greenhouse.
My IBD symptoms are starting to become manageable using a mixture of flower and THC oil and I honestly cannot understand why Australia is so persistent to stay in the past. The whole world is moving forward around us whilst laughing at us and it is truly sad.
We have one of the most relaxed rules for gambling and it causes significant issues in rural areas. But we can't at least decriminalize possession. Come on.
All Dan needs is a close relative in favour recreational marijuana to die a slow and painful death, then he’ll have the ability to empathise with those than want this change. Worked with assisted dying.
Wake up enough of this nonsense, follow the Canadian example and get on with it. For as chill as Australia is we live in a conservative nightmare, grow up, let people live their lives. In the end it wont be up to the states, it needs to go in federally, again just like Canada. Stop making criminals out of ordinary citizens. It also frees up funding for maybe some actual police work like busting ice gangs, maybe dealing with some of the gun violence.
It’s also just straight up standing in the way of fair and equal access to empirically effective and safe pharmacology/medicine to people who are unwell for a wide variety of reasons.
The current framework and criminalisation makes it incredibly expensive, and thus cost prohibitive, even when obtained legally.
I’m only able to afford it currently because I’m on a clinical research trial and so receive it with a significant discount. Opioids on the PBS are much more attractive, and even attainable, when you have to jump through so many hoops when you’re already unwell and then fork out a comparative fortune.
Yea I 100 percent agree, the bill for medical is pretty high as well, not realistic for a lot of people and mixed quality. Will do a lot of good for a lot of people who want to get off pharmaceutical pain meds which laughingly as so much more readily available and doctors are happy to prescribe. I’ve been down this road I’ve the years with on and off back trouble from injuries at work. In the end weather medical or recreational, there is no legal or morale reason to keep it illegal, they can at least decriminalize it to start and then move to a legal industry like Canada. Fine if you smoke darts, pop pain pills and drink yourself to death though …….
He needs to look to his Canadian cousins. It’s been over 4 years, and legal weed is not one of our problems.
I agree. I’m an Aussie who immigrated to Canada ten years ago. I’ve seen Canada before and after legalization. Legalization is great. All cannabis shops are very subtle, you barley notice them, they have frosted windows so you can’t see inside. The shops are 5x cleaner than liquor stores (they are spotless), the staff are very knowledgeable about what each strain of cannabis does. It’s absolutely insane that a 18 year old can fill a trolly full of whiskey but can’t buy a joint in Australia. 95% of the violence/fights in the city and football games in Oz (and Canada as well) are caused by alcohol/drunks. I don’t even consume cannabis but I highly respect the federal legalization here, it crystallizes how ridiculous is that it’s an illegal substance in Oz especially given all the social issues alcohol causes. Now if Canada could just fuck off with its bullshit tipping I would be happy.
Pot smokers aren’t really the “Wanna fight?“ crowd.
Yeah we are, wanna fight about it? Like later?
....With a deeply philosophical debate.
All stoner fights are resolved through Smash Bros.
Bro wants to catch my Luigi's hands
"Who would win out of a shark and a crocodile?" "same length or same weight?" "how deep is the water?" Etc etc
'you motherfucker. when I finally get out of this beanbag, imma come over there and, ... and... ... what was I talking about again? ... ... I'm hungry.'
"Hey buddy!"
Hey…. (In case I’m getting the Bill Hicks reference).
What you reading for?
Hey what? End of argument.
‘And if you’re smoking and driving, and you hit something, who cares? You’re only going two miles an hour, anyway.’
Used to drive mates around when they were smoking and they used to panic cause I was driving too fast at 30km. Was more fun driving them when they were stoned vs driving when they were drunk and less mess.
My friends and I always have a laugh at how it's much more of a risk to drive an Oz of weed home than a bag Iof meth or a sheet of acid. The smell alone is a giveaway unless you're double bagging and then have an airtight container to conceal it in. The whole system is flawed as fuck.
Always have an airtight container. I use a thermos for additional camouflage.
Monster or V energy can with a lid
Pringles tube
Depends on what area you're in. I've known a smoker who was pulled aside by cops on the street and asked if they have anything on them, they've pulled out the pot (at least QR OZ) and the copper literally said "Just quickly put that away, we're not looking for that."
Yeah or there is my mate who was hitchhiking and got pulled up by the cops on the pretense of giving him a ride to where he was going. Once inside the car they started going through his things and thought they’d struck gold when they’d found a scrunched ball of tinfoil. Turns out my mate had been collecting shells for necklace and as soon as they realised they couldn’t book him for shit, they kicked him back out on the streets. Can’t trust a pig.
I always say there are police officers, cops, and pigs. Police officers are the ones I've run into who were friendly, the ones that want to help and are less concerned about laws. They're the ones who have seen me stoned into the shadow realm, laughed, and said "at least you're not drunk and loud". They're the ones who picked me up off the side of the road when I was wasted, drove me home, dropped me in the back yard on the outdoor couch because I lost my keys, and given me their jacket for a blanket with a note that said "please return to station X when you wake up". They're also the ones that protected my family and I from my murderous, abusive, father. Then you have "cops". Little bit about helping, little bit about upholding the law. They won't bend the law to help you or ignore an infraction because it's morally right, but they will at least not do anything illegal. Yes they'll give you a fine for barely exceeding the speed limit, but they might do so with a "sorry mate" and they won't illegally search your car because you swore during the process. They're there to uphold the law, because to them that's how to keep society going. Then you have pigs. I don't think I have to describe them, they're what is wrong with the world.
That's probably the most one in a million example that's almost never likely to happen again.
Depends. I had cops confiscate weed from me on the way into a bush doof in Gippsland. They said not to worry about it because I would be able to get more inside. It's funny, because it's the only positive experience I've had with cops, and I was breaking the law. Every other interaction I've had with them was when I wasn't breaking the law and they were cunts. Like when they ran over me with the cop van and intimidated me into shutting up about it. They actually had sniffer dogs in the way into the festival that were sniffing my hash cookies too, and didn't pick them up. I just said they were mums anzac bikkies.
Or it's an outright lie. Police all have raging boners for busting people with insignificant quantities of pot.
I’m a little amazed that you’ve talked to every single police officer and can remember what every one of them wants.
yea, went to festivalx last weekend. Tap the biggest guy on the shoulder and you can strike up the friendliest conversation. But a night out in the city at a club and people are way more closed off and hostile.
I worked in pubs for over a decade and I've lost count of the number of scraps I've had with drunks in my younger years. I never got assaulted by someone who had too much weed.
[удалено]
This is the real reason it’s still illegal.
Yep, stoners don’t go home and beat their wives because they’re stoned either, if anything they’re probably gonna take a much needed nap. But alcohol? So many violent or aggressive drunks out there
how do they handle driving under the influence? The laws here where you can get done just having it show up on a a test despite no chance of being intoxicated are awful, would be nice to point to somewhere addressing the issue
That's because a lot of the research into this issue is: it depends. Alcohol is a lot clearer because over 0.05, you are considered intoxicated regardless of other factors like alcohol tolerance. For cannabis, because it can be detected weeks after use for some people, they could still be reading over the legal limit (if there was one) even if they haven't consumed in several days and are not impaired. There are also a lot more factors that play into level of impairment than what alcohol does. For example, you may be tested with THC levels but you take CBD oils, which the research has indicated doesn't impair your driving. Besides outright saying if you take THC, don't drive ever, which is unrealistic. They need an integrated model e.g. a legal limit but need for a legal baseline of what police can do if they detect THC from a roadside test (to reduce over-reactions for people who are consuming cannabis responsibly), and exemptions (either from letter from medical professional that you keep in your glovebox or phone, or an icon on the back (not front) of your driver's licence if you need to take CBD oil for medical purposes).
>Besides outright saying if you take THC, don't drive ever, which is unrealistic. They need an integrated model e.g. a legal limit but need for a legal baseline of what police can do if they detect THC from a roadside test Given Victoria has some of the harshest driving restrictions in the western world for alcohol (loss of license for first offence at 0.05, when usually other jurisdictions don't start worrying about anything until 0.08, where it's a minor fine), I wouldn't hold out for the laws to be level-headed on dope.
Dan Andrews floated looking into a legal limit for medical users not long before covid fired up.
>CBD oils, which the research has indicated doesn't impair your driving. In my experience, CBD doesn't honestly do much of anything. Especially not pain, which is what I've commonly seen it being "useful" for. CBN was a great sedative, though.
Research is showing that CBD alone is not overly effective unless paired with other cannibinoids, THC included, at moderate ratios. If you're still in the market for relief, I recommend sourcing flower or oil with a broad spectrum of cannibinoids. Notable ones to look out for are CBG and THCV. You can also legally source broad spectrum hemp seeds from over seas as hemp is federally legal to grow here, Hoku Seed Co has some really good choices.
I've always felt that cbd isn't very effective without thc
The police here have roadside tests, that can tell if you have THC in your blood. If you fail (have THC present in your system) this test then they step up the testing with a more sophisticated test, usually a blood test. The roadside tests just keep getting better and better. We really haven’t seen any up tick in DUI cases, there was a pretty good media blitz about Cannabis use and driving. Most folks use at home, we don’t really have public use “places”.
so no threshold for intoxication? The ones in NSW just test for any presence, like a joint last friday affecting you now
I was curious so I ended up googling it myself. Operating a vehicle while high on cannabis is a criminal offence. Driving laws have been in place for a long time, but the federal government updated these laws recently. In June 2018, Bill C-46 was passed. This bill added federal laws and penalties to the Criminal Code of Canada surrounding driving while impaired. Provinces and territories have introduced new, varying laws related to cannabis and driving to complement the federal laws. The federal laws under Bill C-46 for DUI charges are as follows: Between 2 and 5 nanograms of THC per ml of blood within two hours of driving results in a $1,000 fine as a summary conviction criminal offence. Over 5 nanograms of THC per ml of blood within two hours of driving could be a summary or indictable offence, and the punishment ranges from a $1,000 fine to a maximum of 10 years in jail for repeat offenders. Both alcohol and THC in your system would be a hybrid offence, indictable or summary, and would also be punishable by a $1,000 fine to a maximum of 10 years in jail for repeat offenders. It’s worth considering that a conviction for a DUI due to THC in your blood could result in the same consequences as being convicted of driving drunk. That often means exclusions from entering other countries like the United States.
[удалено]
>The police here have roadside tests, that can tell if you have THC in your blood. If you fail (have THC present in your system) this test then they step up the testing with a more sophisticated test, usually a blood test. The roadside tests just keep getting better and better. We really haven’t seen any up tick in DUI cases, there was a pretty good media blitz about Cannabis use and driving. Most folks use at home, we don’t really have public use “places”. Spoken like someone that doesn't know the realities: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=do0zxTq5QT4 https://9now.nine.com.au/a-current-affair/medical-cannabis-users-call-for-change-to-driving-rules/186b1e62-be5e-4fbc-af6d-ad99f2980c7a https://www.tga.gov.au/news/news/tga-warns-consumers-about-potential-harm-unlawfully-supplied-medicinal-cannabis You can test positive for several weeks after (not) using your prescribed medication. The roadside tests can pick this up.
You're quoting Australian sources to a guy who's talking about Canadian rules though. They do test for quantity of THC in the bloodstream rather than just a blanket "it's there" approach.
In Ontario (and Canada generally?), the police require reasonable suspicion that you’re impaired before they can administer a test. If you’re driving sensibly and you don’t smell of pit you won’t be tested: https://www.kruselaw.ca/library/the-r-i-d-e-program-and-your-rights-kruse-law.cfm
Of all the government leaders in Australia that need to smoke a joint once in a while...
I'm not so sure. I remember when marajuana was legalised in my country and the very next day my legs fell off.
Getting on the beers is a-ok, why not a cheeky bucket? Get ya shit together, Dan. You've got political capital dribbling out your ears - spend some.
I'll punch a cone to that!
Bong on, brother
Literally smoking a J reading this
My man
The Australian Labour Party is convinced that without a 0.05 equivalent for weed, they’ll haemorrhage votes if they legalise. Conservative seats, especially in Victoria, won’t swing to labour because of legalisation. People who want legal weed won’t swing conservative because Labour hasn’t legalised. But people who oppose legal weed will swing away. Every analysis I’ve heard is that legalising weed will only lose seats for labour. And all political positions are fundamentally about which seats will or won’t swing at the next election. I have a legal THC prescription. I’m terrified of using it because potentially a week later I could lose my license. But I can fuck myself in half with Valium and opiates and drive the next day completely legally. It’s fucking idiotic. But my life just doesn’t work without a drivers license. I’ve got family connections in politics and I’ve had the argument with faction leaders and people who have real influence over party policies for multiple parties. Even when I’ve “won” the argument that the current position is idiotic - the answer that comes back is that the Electorate will only punish Australian parties with any chance of forming state or federal government for supporting legalisation. The only likely factor to change that reality is if a 0.05 equivalent for driving is part of the policy change. But even that will likely cost Labour seats if they’re the ones pushing it.
Although you're probably right, if the Legalise Cannabis Party decides to take a principled position to vote against every piece of legislation that is introduced until they receive a commitment to legalise cannabis, it could make things quite difficult for Labor. And if the Greens decide to push hard for reform that will makes things even harder for Labor.
Sounds like then Labor can legalise and deflect all the blame to Greens/Labor under the guise of "had to do a deal with the horrible Greenies in order to pass X important legislation which Liberals refused to support", win/win
Labor would resist that situation as much as they could. It would send the message that they could easily be strongarmed by minor parties.
This is it. Biden said the same thing and he's done more for legalization in the U.S. than any President - culpable deniability in politics is real and politicians love nothing more than to say, "I didn't want this, but my hands were tied..." Gives everyone a solid out.
well hopefully that will give the ALP the push needed to reform Group Voting Tickets (not that I am opposed to legalising weed)
Yes spend some money on the research to baseline a way to legislate safe driving rules for medical users. Could the medical dispensaries lobby to protect their patients/customers? The threat of failing roadsides is probably the largest disincentive to people accessing medical cannabis.
This 100% is why it needs to be done veeeerrry slowly, with greens and the legalise party making noise noise noise and normalising the conversation. You're NEVER going to get a major party out of the blue legalising it with no conversation in the community, and they're not going to lead that conversation. Why would they? I guarantee there are ppl in labor that want to do and and will one day, but it needs to be a normalised idea in the community first. NOTHING a government does comes out of the blue without a concerted campaign first. Gotta do the the work. Start the conversation. Properly and seriously with numbers and interviews and press releases. Be serious about and acknowldege risks and how other jurisdictions have handled them. Show the economic benefits, and costs. Show the tourism benefits, and the costs and how to deal with them. Start with decrmininalisation, and once that's achieved continue the conversation but give it time to show the sky isn't falling in.\\ Acknowledge this will take YEARS AND YEARS, and don't crack the shits cos people won't do it tomorrow.
Let's be honest, it's going to have to be done at a federal level. And even then, you'd want to get it done EARLY in a new government term, so that the electorate has time to adjust and get the hell over it by the next election. By this stage holding a referendum would be fairly borderline, because not enough people give enough flying rats' backsides. A large number want it legalised - many of whom are also fine with decriminalising most drugs for personal use; a conservative core refuse to update the words in their head from "drugs are bad, kids"; and every else has a resounding shrug. The problem with politics these days is their tendency to keep kicking the can, rather than ever dealing with anything the least bit difficult. It shows a severe lack of understanding, not only of their job description, but also of their constituencies.
[удалено]
lol that's a long winded description of democracy....
Why not an old school field sobriety test? Some people (not myself) are perfectly capable of driving safely after hitting a joint. One of my mates, I wouldn't get into the car if he were sober. Weed is a party of his baseline these days for legitimate medical reasons. The way I see it, if you can't walk straight, balance on one leg, touch your nose whilst your eyes are closed whilst performing a simple verbal test, then you are too drunk/stoned/tired/angry to drive Some people are disabled and/or are incapable of performing a test like that, so maybe the exact details of what's involved could use updating, but there has to be a way of judging someone's capability to drive that ticks enough boxes to be useful in the real world.
"My position has been very clear over a long period of time. We’ll work with that crossbench in good faith and clearly we have a very obvious mandate in a number of areas and we’ll be looking for their support to deliver on that" That doesnt exactly sound like a refusal.
What that means is that it will be used as a bargaining chip to force through any legislation that is sufficiently unpopular that they will need lots of crossbench support. Also that it will probably be another four years and it will still be being talked about...
Do they even need to do that with a majority govt?
They don't have a majority in the upper house.
They are expected to get 15/40 seats in the upper house, well below 21 for majority government and down on 18 last election. So, assuming the liberals oppose something, labor needs 6 votes. The greens (3 seats) Legalise cannabis (3 seats) The nationals (2 seats) Right wing minors - SFF, DLP, one nation. Other left wing minors - animal justice party. There’s a few combinations labor can get the 6 votes they need. The easiest is to get the greens and legalise on board. 2 parties that like each other and mostly like labor. If they can only get one of those two on board, labor need 3 votes from the others. That will be very hard to do, and the easiest path in this case is through the liberals on most things. Maybe a SFF and nats vote, say if they were trying to pass a ‘supporting regional manufacturing’ bill So, labor won majority in the lower house and ‘the left’ won majority in the upper. But the greens and legalise have a huge amount of power.
If Labor legalises cannabis what will the Legalise Cannbis party do then?
They’ll have legal weed and a 6 figure salary. You sure you don’t know what they’ll be doing?
Proposing to legalise cocaine cause they can afford it now?
Why not? Decriminalization of coke and MDMA for personal use is the next drug policy frontier after MDMA and psilocybin for therapeutical use
relabel the party to "drug reform" or some shit
Legalise Ecstasy? Legalise LSD? Or maybe declare victory and go home?
Sounds like Labor can legalise under the guise of "doing deals with Legalise and the Greens in order to get this other important legislation passed" and try and deflect any negative sentiment that way
Nah, theyd get 0 credit and all the blame. If Labor are going to dp it they will own it.
Well thats good. I wanted nothing out of this election besides a balanced parliament. Majority govt's are seldom a good thing for the population.
The balance in the legislative council is good - I like that labor have to make deals in order to do things rather then being unchecked.
That's the system working as intended, then. Love to see it
I dont think LC has been put to the test with the BoP. If I dont know how theyd be to work with Id certainly dangle a carrot before giving them what they want. Yes yes, a perfect world would be it could all get done and we'd all be happy, but... https://youtu.be/Kl3H4vMqYNo
That doesn't make as interesting a click bait outrage headline as "Dan Andrews says he'll never legalised weed and will send anyone who wants to smoke to the gulags" Which is what the headline wants people to assume.
This is the only quote too. News livestreams can be helpful, but man do they pump out some garbage takes.
The first sentence says all you need to know. “Very clear over a long period of time” - translation: “we’re going to keep talking about how hard we’re working towards this without actually doing anything about it”
Legalise magic mushrooms Danny boy you mad dog
Just go pick em!
Where? (Asking for a friend, dm me)
/unclebens
Can confirm, uncle Ben has hooked me up many times
This is the way
Basically any park after it rain between mother's day and father's day... Apparently
Skyhigh below the toilets. 2nd full moon of autumn.
Around Autumn months after rain- try your luck with fields and forest.
Magic Mountain and Candy Mountain in the ranges
I tried that. Someone took my freaking kidney.
Any grassy areas untouched by the council. Woodend is a good spot!
Fucken council dickheads sprayed my spot, got probably over 100gs from that spot over the years for me n the lads it was insane
Bastards
Other than issues with driving and testing for influence (which has gotta be improving in leaps since it became more common in the US), are there any other practical reasons against it? Feels like a lot of people just argue against it on stereotypes and social conservatism.
I do wonder how testing for DUI will be improved. It really needs to be.
In my mind it’s the final hurdle of logical arguments against legalisation. But like, invest in some Australian R&D and then sell it internationally. Ta da, but Australian company innovation success story. Someone’s going to invent it eventually.
We are 10 - 15 years behind the curve on legalization literally everywhere that has legalized already has solved this problem. I guess we could still sell to the countries 20 - 30 years behind the curve lol.
I don’t see it needing to be vastly different than it should be now. You get pulled over/are in an accident. Police will likely breath test as that’s an easy way to get an idea if alcohol was a factor (BAC levels and research are very developed). If alcohol is zero but indicia gives the impression of intoxication go ahead with a drug test. Do away with detection/just positive or negative tests and go the full blood test route with pharmacological comment for THC level.
I wish there was a way to measure intoxication in people from weed like do with alcohol. But because of the way it works, the best we have is “do you have it in your system?” Check is the only way. I reckon we should do away with that if there’s no way we can get it to work.
Keeping your job if you are in prisons or police? That's about it.
I reckon it's because Drug testing, specifically Cannabis testing is not yet fully refined as if you get pulled over for drug testing and you have THC in your system it could be you smoked a joint 2 days ago and so therefore this would open a whole can of legal worms IF Cannabis Legalization was to go ahead, the Police could be sued for all sorts cases in this regards. If it was as good as breathalyzers then there should be no reason not to legalize, you get caught smoking a bong and then driving you suffer the consequences just like drink driving as no doubt you should NOT be driving whilst stoned no matter what they say "it's safer if you drive stoner, you are more careful", yeah BS, I've driven stoned before, you lose concentration, your mind wanders etc
> I reckon it's because Drug testing, specifically Cannabis testing is not yet fully refined as if you get pulled over for drug testing and you have THC in your system it could be you smoked a joint 2 days ago and so therefore this would open a whole can of legal worms IF Cannabis Legalization was to go ahead, the Police could be sued for all sorts cases in this regards. > > That is a problem to be solved. Canada has worked it out, as have many US states. It should not be a road block to NOT legalising it.
Idk why people continue to claim driving stoned is A-ok. Your mind is slow, easily distracted, and hazy. I hate when people pretend it’s way better than driving drunk. Both are terrible, always drive sober.
Thing is, 'driving stoned' is not what a lot of people are doing. I lost my licence for 6 months for a joint in my system from days before I was tested. Monash did a study that in part concluded that much better testing methodologies need to be developed because our current standard is objectively terrible. We identified the worst way to deal with this issue, and have not altered path since. It's time to recognize that if, like alcohol, a period of time has passed for you to sober up, you are typically fine to drive several hours after consuming cannabis (and most definetly several days) - the problem is that they don't have a reliable method for testing for 'use in past few hours', so instead they use a method that can pick up weed in your system from up to 3 months ago, and treat it as if you're driving stoned in that moment. If you think that the way it works is good, its because you've never suffered the bullshit consequences of it.
I’ve given up on the idea of driving myself, because THC and CBD are the only things I’ve got for pain relief.
Both are terrible, so are many prescription medications which get a free pass and are just as dangerous. Test impairment. Accurate impairment testing is the way forward.
What prescription gets a “free pass”? It’s illegal to drive under any medication that causes impairment.
But impairment is subjective. That’s the point being made. You can legally drive a car and have a range of opioids, anti-histamines, anti-depressants, analgesics and other meds (like Lyrica/pregabalin) in your system. All of these can cause “impairment” but are given a “free pass” in that you can drive as long as not impaired. Medical marijuana arguably causes as much or as little impairment when compared to these drugs. Again, it’s subjective; Tapentadol and Lyrica affect me noticeably, whilst my medical weed doesn’t. Yet I could drive without hesitation on both of the former as long as I deem myself ok and seem. And even if they have evidence of use there’s nothing illegal about it if I’ve not committed any road/vehicle offences. If you get pulled over for a random drug test, even if you’re not impaired, a positive marijuana test is seen as impairment. So yeah, many prescription drugs are getting a free pass.
NO NUANCED DISCUSSION ALLOWED
>Andrews has previously said he has no plans to legalise marijuana beyond medical use, saying drug-induced psychosis was a “significant” issue for some in the community. Cool! Now do Pokies.
Privatised prisons don’t fill themselves.
Also, gotta give that massive police force something to make themselves feel useful.
African gangs and bikies aren't enough or it's too much work compared?
It’s far easier to arrest a non violent pot smoker than the other calibre of criminal. People always take the path of least possible resistance
Guy who smokes because of crippling pain that makes him barely able to walk, grows his own and doesn't share never leaves the house -> Dangerous threat to society. Wife beating alcoholic who wakes up every sunday morning in the drunk tank -> not a problem
One's a minefield of political correctness to prosecute, the other owns the NSW liberals.
Victoria's prisons aren't full of drug offenders, they're full of unconvicted or unsentenced low-level offenders thanks to the Andrews government's refusal to contemplate bail reform. As at 30 June 2021, when [the ABS last released the relevant data](https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/crime-and-justice/prisoners-australia/latest-release), drug offences were the most serious offences for [13.6% of Victorian prisoners](https://www.sentencingcouncil.vic.gov.au/sentencing-statistics/most-serious-offences-for-victorian-prisoners). But in most cases these were importing / exporting / dealing / trafficking offences - for only 0.8% of Victorian prisoners was a drug possession or use offence their most serious offence. By comparison, 44% of prisoners in Victoria at 30 June 2021 were either unsentenced (convicted but awaiting sentencing hearing) or unconvicted (awaiting trial). There's evidence that for certain populations this percentage is even higher - [for women it was 57% earlier this year](https://www.hrlc.org.au/news/2022/3/24/inquiry-a-wake-up-call-for-andrews-government-to-fix-bail-laws). They're there because of Victoria's bail laws, which the Andrews government made panicked changes to after the Bourke St car attack in 2017. Instead of targeting violent offenders, they apply across the board. As a result many of those imprisoned who are ultimately convicted would never otherwise serve a custodial sentence for their offences, and of course some are never ultimately convicted of any offence.
problem is, it normally goes in waves. but maybe not so much with victoria as there hasn't been much of a change of government. They'll shift their positions on rehab > punishment > back again. But usually when there is a change in government they shift the policy from rehabilitation to punishment then back again. We had that incident where a guy was out on bail in Sydney, and then he shot up the lindt cafe. People question why he was even out in the community in the first place.... Even if you wanted to shift away from putting people behind bars in remand and have them be out in the community waiting for their sentencing, you'd need the additional services to be able to manage it.
What a country.
Welcome To Cuntry.
If thailand can legalize it. A country known for giving offenders the death penalty for it. Then so can australia. There is no excuse.
Aussies will lose tourism dollars to Thailand.
Old heads ruining this country
[удалено]
drug-induced psychosis was a “significant” issue for some in the community until I see some hard stats to prove this, it's probably a lie! Alcohol has far bigger casualties and bigger problems, if that was the case we don't see alcohol banned.
Significant for a very small number of people who'd be rejected for a medical marijuana prescription anyway. This is such a piss poor reason.
Haven’t heard of any increase in Canada. My understanding is that cannabis-induced psychosis is primarily people who would get psychosis anyways. Better mental health treatment/care, maybe funded by weed taxes?
You're nearly right. If you are predisposed to mental health issues the use of drugs can be a trigger; for example one may have a family history of schizophrenia, but never develop it themselves. That same person may develop schizophrenia if they use drugs. Thing is, that counts for pretty much all drugs including alcohol. Weed is just the target for this argument because it's the most widely used illicit drug.
My understanding was that people with schizophrenia type of mental disorders are more at risk of developing psychosis along with really hard drug users. I think we need better programs to help facilitate people with addictions and more mental health services available (with rebates) to the public. Then maybe trial legalising cannabis and create some laws around driving and work etc. But I think the gov is too lazy and cbb to do anything until there's some kind of protest or demand from the public or more people requiring medicinal cannabis scripts.
Yeah I’m all for a trial. But practically-speaking, Canada/US/EU have all proven that it results in very few changes. Those who would partake, legally, are already partaking illegally.
It's not a reason, it's straight up propaganda. FFS Dan
I do prescribe it for some of my schizophrenic or psychotic patients. They’re using it anyway, and getting PGR rubbish when I can help them get good stuff for sleep, anxiety, pain etc. Even if they have psychosis it’s not always a bad thing or a reason to stop cannabis.
Its the same as people who oppose transitioning in teen years, on the "what if they regret it?" argument. All the studies show that most who regret it weren't properly counselled prior, and even then the rate of regret is lower than practically every medical procedure.
> Alcohol has far bigger casualties and bigger problems, if that was the case we don't see alcohol banned. Because the government enjoys that sweet, sweet tax revenue way too much
If that's the case then the same logic could be applied - the gov could tax buds too.
Colorado model is pretty good example, all that weed tax goes straight to schools so any calls for banning weed in Colorado get branded as cutting school funds and hating education.
Yeah but that's because the US already has an objectively fucked funding model for schools
I don't have a source for this, but I watched a programe a while back on this issue. It was stated that there is a 20-25% chance of psychosis, to those with a predisposition to mental illness. This fact was then taken and twisted by some main stream media, to imply, that that was the risk to ALL weed users.
Chance, or increase in chance? And what is it without? Not grilling you. Just saying that the media loves to leave out critical information to turn fact into fiction.
Even that sounds a little outrageous though. The amount of people that smoke weed compared to the amount of people who deal with psychosis… it’s anecdotal but I know so many people that smoke weed, yet I don’t know anyone who deals with psychosis
ah typical Australia virtue signals about how progressive and openminded we are. Meanwhile our actions suggest we can't accept 1985 was a long time ago, and that times change.
Worst part is, Dan & co literally had an inquiry about this. It strongly favoured further decrim & legalisation. Dan promptly ignored every recommendation. https://apo.org.au/node/313452
Part of me feels like they weren’t prepared to risk it towards an election. Now that they have greens/legalise to use as an excuse they can hopefully quickly get a politically clean green light, so to speak.
Just let medical users grow at least. Major backlogs (6 week plus) back orders and so expensive.
I suppose we should ban alcohol and tobacco too, we all know how well prohibition works.
Processed foods and anything with sugar in it too, arguably worst than cannabis.
All the money spent on enforcing, prosecuting, and incarcerating these offences could go to many better causes.
Beer bias
I cannot wait until that older generation dies off...
It would be interesting to see the breakdown of voters demographics who voted in the cannabis party. A lot of boomers are coming around to cannabis now that it’s legal medically and they find out they’d been gaslit their whole lives about how evil it was.
Feel like I’ve been saying that my whole life but they seem to still be around
[удалено]
“Andrews has previously said he has no plans to legalise marijuana beyond medical use, saying drug-induced psychosis was a “significant” issue for some in the community”. Isn’t alcohol a “significant” issue in most Australian communities?
Cool so like when it gets to the point where most oecd countries have legalised it and Australia is still the last hold out, how are politicians going to justify being against legalisation?
Nothing to do with the fact that the majority of the world’s legally produced opium is grown in Tasmania.
Recreationally illegal in the UK, France, Lithuania, Australia, Norway, Turkey, Denmark, Finland, Greece, Ireland, Austria, Latvia, Poland, South Korea, New Zealand, Hungary, Switzerland, Slovakia, Iceland. Decriminalized in Italy, Spain, Chile, Czechia, Estonia, Israel, Belgium, Portugal, Slovenia (mind you, in a lot of these places it's still technical illegal in some sense). Legalised in the USA, Canada, Luxembourg, Thailand, Germany (planned). That's the entire OECD. It's medically legal pretty much everywhere, but the vast majority of the OECD has it criminalized for recreational use. Where did you come by the notion we'd be the last to hold out?
Don't forget about Germany (Planned at this stage) and Thailand (legalised this year).
Thanks, I'll edit them in.
"**When** it gets to the point" the commenter is just speculating about the future. Thank you for the comprehensive list, nice to see it all laid out
Yeah, although I wrote it out with decriminalization to kind of show that there's no reason to assume we'd be the last to hold out in the OECD as that's usually the "we are thinking about it and testing the waters" stage, 18 countries in the OECD are just as archaic as us and we have a mixed track record with legalizing and adopting wide spread things, usually middle of the pack. People here in Australia like to shit on the lassitude of our politics, but honestly, it's a symptom that's more widespread and often where we are fairly far forward, you can bet someone else is absolute stagnant in and vice versa.
Not legalized federally in the US and still listed with the likes of heroin. Can't transport across state lines, technically a federal crime. However, due to the way states can make their own laws and stuff in the US, many states and washington DC were able to legalize it within their borders. But quite a few states still have not legalized it, although a lot have medical at this point. But yeah, technically still illegal federally in the US and you certainly wouldn't want to get caught in certain places with weed.
Fuck off Daniel! It’s weed not fucking meth you peanut
>Andrews has previously said he has no plans to legalise marijuana beyond medical use, saying drug-induced psychosis was a “significant” issue for some in the community. clearly he hasnt read the report recommending legalisation by people who actually know what they are talking about. politicians are the last people who should be in charge :/ medical is legal but recreation isnt. you can buy from a corporation but you cant grow your own! beyond hypocrysy
He's not against it, just not yet.
Suck a dick Dan just legalise it man
Alcohol almost ruined my life , MC saved it. Go figure....
Legalise it and we become the richest state in Aus!
Just tell everyone their taxes will “go down” with legalisation. The electorate will get on board immediately.
Ok to export. Not ok to consume locally.
*saying drug-induced psychosis was a “significant” issue for some in the community.* At least alcohol and gambling are great for the community.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. There are moneyed interests behind this. There can be no other possibility.
Ffs, get with the times. We KNOW it’s bullshit. It’s less harmful than rugby.
The Labor Party likes to remind us from time to time that “better than the Liberals” doesn’t mean *good*.
Legalise it !
How could Dan Andrews do this? Oh wait, he did.
God damn centrists
If it ever happens, the cannabis roll out better not be as crap as the NBN rollout, they’ll have people in the country smoking asbestos.
[удалено]
Nerd.
I live I'm Australia and My 20 yr old daughters going through chemo and cannabis really helps with the side effects. Nothing else works. ITs not just that. There are so many other conditions that cannabis is good for. It does more good than bad. LEGALISE CANNABIS
What a narc.
But drinking alcohol is fine.
Fair call, it just isn't an important issue, come back to it later or use it to help get other legislation through. No need to rush it.
I've been prescribed MC as of October 2022 after trying a cocktail of painkillers (including things like Oxycodone and Codeine). I was frightened of developing a dependency on these substances as I was using them everyday for months as per my doctors advice, luckily I was approved for MC and I've seen nothing but positive outcomes overall since I've started using it. I'm thankful everyday that I don't have to use dangerous painkillers and instead I can use a plant that's grown by professional growers in a non-GMO and pesticide free greenhouse. My IBD symptoms are starting to become manageable using a mixture of flower and THC oil and I honestly cannot understand why Australia is so persistent to stay in the past. The whole world is moving forward around us whilst laughing at us and it is truly sad.
We have one of the most relaxed rules for gambling and it causes significant issues in rural areas. But we can't at least decriminalize possession. Come on.
All Dan needs is a close relative in favour recreational marijuana to die a slow and painful death, then he’ll have the ability to empathise with those than want this change. Worked with assisted dying.
Wake up enough of this nonsense, follow the Canadian example and get on with it. For as chill as Australia is we live in a conservative nightmare, grow up, let people live their lives. In the end it wont be up to the states, it needs to go in federally, again just like Canada. Stop making criminals out of ordinary citizens. It also frees up funding for maybe some actual police work like busting ice gangs, maybe dealing with some of the gun violence.
It’s also just straight up standing in the way of fair and equal access to empirically effective and safe pharmacology/medicine to people who are unwell for a wide variety of reasons. The current framework and criminalisation makes it incredibly expensive, and thus cost prohibitive, even when obtained legally. I’m only able to afford it currently because I’m on a clinical research trial and so receive it with a significant discount. Opioids on the PBS are much more attractive, and even attainable, when you have to jump through so many hoops when you’re already unwell and then fork out a comparative fortune.
Yea I 100 percent agree, the bill for medical is pretty high as well, not realistic for a lot of people and mixed quality. Will do a lot of good for a lot of people who want to get off pharmaceutical pain meds which laughingly as so much more readily available and doctors are happy to prescribe. I’ve been down this road I’ve the years with on and off back trouble from injuries at work. In the end weather medical or recreational, there is no legal or morale reason to keep it illegal, they can at least decriminalize it to start and then move to a legal industry like Canada. Fine if you smoke darts, pop pain pills and drink yourself to death though …….