Here is the comment I submitted in response to the post I just
reblogged linked to here (which was moderated out of existence by the owner of that blog, an individual I shall from now on refer to as ‘Precious’):
In the nicest possible way, I disagree with almost everything in your post. However, I do agree whole-heartedly with your last paragraph, and the “stop pussy footing around” sentiment in the 2nd last para. And, if legalisation was on the table, you wouldn’t have to be concerned about writing this post at all… most of your points would become moot, and that would be a good thing.
FYI, users of cannabis no longer have to ‘smoke’ it – there are many ways of imbibing the psychoactive compounds in cannabis without setting fire to it – including vaporising, eating, and even nasal mists. Also, just because someone has used cannabis does not indicate that they are “stoned and stupid”. It’s all about dosage and environment and pre-existing mental state. There are plenty of ‘high-functioning’ stoners out there, that hold down a job, have a family, engage with society, and generally live normal lives, but every now and then, or every day, or on the weekend, enjoy a puff or a cookie, or a fudge-block.
The ‘gateway drug’ issue is something else I disagree with, and there are plenty of other studies that disprove this. It’s not the drug itself that acts as a a gateway to ‘harder’ drugs, it is the personality of the user that dictates this. If you have an easily-addicted brain, then any drug is potentially going to be attractive to you. Cannabis is blamed for this mostly because it is the most common drug, and usually the first drug that people get a chance to indulge in, therefore it is blamed for ‘opening the floodgates’.
As for the ‘what about the kids’ idea that seems to pervade public health policy – well, that’s what parents are for… and that’s a whole other can of worms on issues that go way beyond the question of whether a teenager decides to smoke a bong at a party. And for those in society who are susceptible to mental health problems (especially schizophrenia and the like), then an association with cannabis in an uncontrolled manner is probably best avoided (there are several conditions where controlled use of cannabis could be highly beneficial). The same can be said for so many things – it’s about what individuals are exposed to, and how they respond. So, in that sense, legalisation is the way to go, with a strong regulatory framework that supports responsible use of the drug and ensures maximum input and guidance from unbiased medical professionals where required.
Anyway, that was just my 2 cents worth. Cheers!
As I mentioned, my comment was deleted (or, more correctly, ‘not approved’) by that blog. Fine. But I thought I would just chase it up with the author to confirm, as I didn’t believe I had said anything too bad – it was simply civil discourse on a subject I have an interest in.
Anyway, here is the conversation thread from good ol’ Twitter:
The precious owner of that blog somehow perceived that my comment was “encouraging illegal activity”. I disagree with that, vehemently, and I know the definition of the word ‘encourage’, unlike some… Also, according to Precious, I was saying that “dope smoking is good for you”. I disagree with that assessment of my comment, vehemently, as well. My comment clearly alludes to alternatives to smoking, and in no way anywhere says that smoking is “good for you”. I may actually believe that it is, but my comment did not say that.
This is a classic case of an individual who promotes their philosophies of being ‘liberal’, and yet seemingly cannot read someone else’s view without a rush of blood to the eyeballs that prevents them from understanding what they are reading, and losing the ability to comprehend basic definitions of common words in the Australian English language. Perhaps Precious had a headache that day.
They are also blogging, publicly, on a topic that is clearly above their general comprehension level. Precious has no idea about the basic differences between the combustible components of tobacco vs. cannabis, let alone the other more complex elements of the cannabis debate. Precious should perhaps find other topics to blog about, especially if Precious is unwilling to take on board any new information apart from whatever Precious has absorbed thus far in Precious’ sheltered world-view. Stick to failed and destined-to-fail political ramblings, Precious…
Anyway, that’s my little counter-rant over.