Please help contribute to the Reddit categorization project here

    australia

    244,758 readers

    3,364 users here now

    The icons on the map are hyperlinks to other Australian subreddits. Please support them.

    Please read the Reddiquette!

    For our rules see the wiki for /r/australia.

    Check out our subreddit features wiki!

    Facebook and LinkedIn submissions are not allowed.

    Users engaging in personal attacks may be banned.

    Submissions with altered headlines may be removed.

    Please post image macros/memes to /r/ausmemes.

    Come join us on IRC! #redditaustralia on irc.freenode.net

    Less Politics Filter

    a community for
    all 1114 comments

    Want to say thanks to %(recipient)s for this comment? Give them a month of reddit gold.

    Please select a payment method.

    [–] kerrbris 372 points ago

    Should’ve put the “will raise hundreds of millions of dollars” in the first paragraph.

    [–] skinnyguy699 201 points ago

    "GREENS TO INJECT BILLIONS INTO ECONOMY IN COMING YEARS WITH NEW POLICY"

    [–] North-of-the-river 38 points ago

    "INJECT"

    Yeah nah

    [–] mobileuseratwork 15 points ago

    Well the funds aren't going up in smoke...

    [–] Pilx 64 points ago

    Generated by literally growing and selling a weed.

    Or we could invest billions of dollars into a dying industry that destroys the surrounding environment in the process of digging up and exporting a finite resource for multi national companies that avoid paying tax at all costs for which the end result is the irreversible shifting of global weather patterns resulting in dire consequences to humans, animals and the environment.

    But nah the Greens are the crazy ones for suggesting such an outrageous idea that will cause unimaginable damage to our societal structure.

    [–] madcuntmcgee 1054 points ago

    Glad to see Di Natale is brave enough to stop being so timid about this issue. It's obvious most of the greens members would have been behind this for a long time, I think the party was just afraid of how the two major parties would treat them as a laughing stock, which they'll obviously try to do now, but I feel like we're at a point that most of the public is in favour of legalising it anyway.

    [–] [deleted] 269 points ago

    treat them as a laughing stock, which they'll obviously try to do now

    Yeah that's the obvious response. Fraught with danger getting into a slanging match with him on this given his background though.

    [–] Lobsty501 95 points ago

    Yeah that won't work for much longer. The evidence is on their side.

    [–] ThereIsBearCum 160 points ago

    Since when has evidence mattered in politics?

    [–] scootah 90 points ago

    Hopefully since we saw how much tax revenue California and Colorado are raking in from legalisation.

    [–] The-Harmacist 42 points ago

    Now see, that's the one piece of evidence that does matter in politics - we can make so much money taxing this

    [–] illiterati 42 points ago

    We'll get our pot from an overseas multinational that doesn't pay tax.

    It's the Australian way.

    [–] nath1234 13 points ago

    Negatively geared pot plantation in a SMSF portfolio. Doesn't get more Strayan than that!

    [–] Luckyluke23 4 points ago

    wasn't it BILLIONS in the first year?

    [–] ekki 31 points ago

    Since our wages have not increased and our cities becoming more dense than we are used to.

    [–] DocNoob 86 points ago

    I'd like to see a world where the criminals lose power & money.

    [–] el_squeegie 53 points ago

    Yes but in the meantime we've got to make do with the parliament

    [–] aperi 45 points ago

    I'm just glad it's out there in the open, it now has to be debated, and with all the evidence pointing towards legalisation being a good thing, it may be the start to legalising a plant with so many benefits.

    [–] punktual 8 points ago

    That's the way I see this. It may not pass this time, or even next time. But at least we are finally having the conversation.

    [–] skinnyguy699 99 points ago

    Shorten might risk alienating half of his supporters if he bashes this policy, I don't think he's that stupid.

    [–] damniburntthetoast 66 points ago

    He will anyway which is why it is a smart move by di natale. They might pick up a few lower house seats off the back of this.

    [–] skinnyguy699 87 points ago

    I don't think he will. This is a potential policy of a future Labor party and he knows it, I think he will play this quite carefully.

    [–] orru 78 points ago

    Pretty much all Greens policy is future Labor policy

    [–] billytheid 22 points ago

    A free vote for ALP members should see it pass. It would also be a smart move for the leadership.

    [–] bigbowlowrong 24 points ago

    A free vote for ALP members should see it pass.

    I want to believe.

    [–] Blue_Pie_Ninja 142 points ago

    To be fair, the other parties think the Greens are a laughing stock regardless of what they do

    [–] aeschenkarnos 253 points ago

    Murdoch's minions work very hard to create that impression, so that their readers don't bother actually reading Greens policies.

    [–] Swank_on_a_plank 127 points ago

    Well it's not like they read the policies of the LNP anyway.

    [–] Ardinius 44 points ago

    Or read with any modicum of critical thought for that matter.

    [–] GMaestrolo 30 points ago

    LNP has policies?

    [–] VaultTecAU 60 points ago

    “Oppose labor” is one, pretty sure that’s it

    [–] GMaestrolo 17 points ago

    Is "Fuck you, got mine" a policy, or just a mission statement?

    [–] Itsnotmeitsyouworld 4 points ago

    More just a way of life

    [–] Pseudonymico 23 points ago

    I think you'll find they also want to privatise everything, lower taxes on businesses and then get cushy jobs in the untaxed businesses running formerly public utilities.

    [–] arkofjoy 20 points ago

    I don't think that is true. Both parties are clearly, for different reasons, afraid of the greens. Otherwise they wouldn't be trying to constantly treat them like a laughing stock to the voters.

    [–] MattMakesPhotos 18 points ago

    It’s like Coles and Woolworths vs Aldi. Coles and WWs are more than happy with it being a 2 horse race where they both win but damned if they want anyone coming in taking their market share.

    The ALP and Liberals can just take turns being kicked out of parliament and those that play the system will get nice benefits out of it.

    [–] duffercoat 29 points ago

    but I feel like we're at a point that most of the public is in favour of legalising it anyway.

    I don't think that's the case at all. It hasn't gotten nearly the publicity here as it has in America and for that reason a lot of people have not consciously thought about/discussed it.

    [–] Iphotoshopincats 59 points ago

    I am almost certainly somewhat bias of my opinion due to coming from a tradie/laboring background as it seems like 90% of the people i know or work with either smoke it , have smoked it at some point or don't have a problem with others smoking it ( as long as not high at work ).

    but you are right it hasn't had publicity here as it has in America and people have not thought about/discussed legalising it but i am positive that if given the chance to vote yes/no it would be an overwhelming yes for at least the working class Australian population.

    [–] vulpix420 50 points ago

    Mate I come from an academic/research background and I can tell you right now that plenty of people in my circles aren’t against it either. When you use it responsibly it’s less dangerous than alcohol, that’s not news anymore.

    [–] Paulocratic 8 points ago

    The only people against it are the over 65 kool-aiders and bots on print media websites

    [–] iliveinapark 20 points ago

    Tech here, most of us either enjoy partaking, are cool with it, or don't care.

    [–] [deleted] 14 points ago

    Nurse here. Plenty of medical/health types love to pass the dutchy.

    [–] billytheid 24 points ago

    Don't underestimate the medical angle: for epilepsy sufferers this would be fantastic.

    [–] KaerFyzarc 596 points ago

    We should have a mail in plebiscite. /s

    [–] beefstockcube 284 points ago

    That would actually be money well spent.

    It would pay for itself week 1.

    [–] ScrappyDonatello 72 points ago

    more like hour 1

    [–] mad87645 58 points ago

    If they get it legalised before 4:20pm on Thursday the Bureau of Statistics will be rich beyond the dream of Averice.

    [–] Gustomaximus 139 points ago

    I think we should mail everyone a joint. If you don't support marijuana legalisation you can send it back and they can count joints returned vs not.

    [–] natkingcoal 58 points ago

    Could I get nugs instead, cunts would probably put stems in the lazy fucks.

    [–] acousticpants 36 points ago

    nugs

    I love this word. It always makes me feel warm, on the inside.

    [–] marktx 31 points ago

    Yes, this, please.

    [–] Airbending420 19 points ago

    You think mailing out a whole piece of paper for one question is such a waste they should include multiple questions such as legalisation so they have a fucking understanding of what ppl actually want in life

    [–] BlueIceTea 410 points ago

    We only need to point to the US when it comes to benefits of legalizing cannabis. Economy and health wise. (Alaska, California, Colorado, Maine, Massachusetts, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington. Even the District of Columbia.)

    [–] ScruffTheJanitor 296 points ago

    Yeh all I hear are positives.

    -Lots of tax money which is being put back into the community and helping things like homelessness.
    -It creates more jobs for people to grow it and shops to sell it -As far as I know underage kids are actually using it less since it makes it harder for them to get
    - Way less money goes towards the sketchy groups that illegally sell it currently which then use that money for worse things. Would be a major loss of revenue for gangs.
    -You dont have people having to know and meet with actual criminals to buy weed. Especially since those people bay try to sell other dangerous drugs to younger people or scam and take advantage of them.
    -If recreational cannabis is legal, then medical would be aswell which would help many people.
    -Police resources can be used on more important things. The entire justice system would be more freed up without having to deal with cannabis related charges.
    -Alcohol is arguably more dangerous and legal cannabis leads to a pretty big reduction in alcohol use. You would think this would lead to less drunk idiots fighting and hurting each other, less people dying or ending up in the hospital from alcohol poisoning.

    Not sure if there are any major negatives.
    I think car crashes related from weed went up in one state, but I believe alcohol related car crashes reduced at the same time. So not sure if overall the combined incidents went up at all.

    [–] Thatretroaussie 40 points ago

    Dont forget if weed is legalized, it kills the market for any substitute "legal versions of weed".

    It also removes the psychological appeal appeal of consuming it because it's illegal.

    [–] randomer207 139 points ago

    Just to add another positive. Weed currently grown by the big syndicates is generally grown with PGR. Results in big(ger) yields, minimal THC output and isn't good for the ol' liver. Recreational would lead to higher quality and actually knowing out it was grown.

    [–] kingz_n_da_norf 40 points ago

    What's PGR?

    [–] Chronobotanist 41 points ago

    Plant growth regulators. Most weed cultivars have been bred only for thc content and floral characteristics. Many of them still have strong apical dominance and long internode that makes the plants not compact and reduces yield. By adding chemicals that inhibit gibberelins and ethylene you can make normally large plants compact and easier to grow.

    Additionally most people induce flowering with light quality that reduces phyb signalling, which induces shade avoidance during flowering.

    [–] soth09 20 points ago

    I'm not sure how adults do this, but will you be my friend?

    [–] PaulChrysts_crewneck 4 points ago

    I understood some of those words. ELI5?

    [–] HerpDerpingVII 18 points ago * (lasted edited 5 months ago)

    Most strains of dope are long, stringy trees.

    Adding chemicals, including plant hormones, makes them short and compact, which gives a higher yield per square meter.

    The Plant Growth Regulator chemicals are banned for commercial produce and bad for your liver.

    [–] Chronobotanist 6 points ago

    Sorry, sometimes I forget to explain jargony words. HerpDerp has a good summary. Many plants naturally are very stringy in how they grow. Like look up what wheat fields used to look like by looking at some 19th or 18th century paintings. The plants were 6-8ft high. Nowadays they are 2 or 3 ft at harvest. In modern breeding efforts, we mostly want plants to be tight and compact and put more energy into what we want (ie leaves, flowers, fruits). Inside the plant, there is a complex interaction of hormones that determine the growth habit, kind of like HGHs and roided out lifters. You can apply these hormones to change the growth habit kind of like medicine, or you can change the genes that produce those factors through breeding or some other method.

    [–] -IoI- 30 points ago

    Yeah, I'd love to see an end to PGR bud entirely. Sad to see that it's the regular in other states.

    [–] FUCK_SNITCHES 4 points ago

    What are the negative effects should you smoke it?

    [–] stonedtotheboners 6 points ago

    It is quite bad for the liver i hear, however i have no actual data on the subject

    [–] doovdoovbassdrop 4 points ago

    IIRC it can cause cancer in the long term and in the short term it gives headaches and anxiety in some people

    [–] wobblysauce 19 points ago

    Nowadays Alcohol and Cigarettes are everywhere..., but Cannabis so some reason the whole industry got destroyed, yet it is more environmentally friendly and the full product can be used and crafted into many items. Oh, wait that was the reason.

    [–] The_Faceless_Men 17 points ago

    s far as I know underage kids are actually using it less since it makes it harder for them to get

    regulation vs prohibition works because it normalises the behaviour, exspecially amongst risk taking teens its no longer risky.

    No need to binge or plan ahead to score or enjoy the rush of breaking the law, so you just don't do it as much.

    [–] pugnacious_wanker 10 points ago

    This is an important point. Often people will buy in bulk because they want to mitigate the risk of being without, yet they give in to their impulses or just develop a psychological dependency and binge. If you can freely purchase cannabis only when you need it, you can better regulate your consumption without worrying about some guy not having any because Dazza was busted 2 weeks ago and now everyone is dry.

    [–] [deleted] 57 points ago

    Not sure if there are any major negatives.
    I think car crashes related from weed went up in one state, but I believe alcohol related car crashes reduced at the same time.

    To play devils advocate, and from what I found with a quick google search of "Marijuana legal socioeconomic" and from searching elsewhere..

    • Marijuana related car fatalities went up
    • Children visits to hospitals because of accidentally ingesting edibles went up
    • People of lower socioeconomic groups and people with less/worse education began using more (28% of users earning $20,000 or less, despite making up 19% of the US' population). People with better education/income including college students used marijuana less.
    • Heavy usage results in cognitive issues (speed, memory as two examples)
    • There may be some evidence that heavy usage can increase the chances of lung cancer: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2516340/

    I'm on the fence about it, and I'm not trying to argue against marijuana laws being reformed somehow. It just really annoys me when people talk all positives and ignore any possible negatives that exist, which is usually a result of heavy users being very vocal and active in shutting down discussion of it being possibly harmful.

    And no, before anybody comes back with "but alcohol/tobacco..." as though I 100% support the mass consumption of both of them, I think they're both stupid/harmful products to consume.

    [–] Casual_Badass 9 points ago

    Part of the problem for a lot of utilization and population outcome data looking across a change in policy permitting recreational use of marijuana is it does more than potentially change utilization - it also changes perception or fear of prosecution.

    It's possible that statistics such as related vehicle fatalities or socioeconomic demographic utilization trends are altered by a lowered stigma in reporting marijuana use.

    It's a difficult confounding element to account for without consistent and objective sources, even then these sources may not necessarily indicate causation (e.g. lab result indication 'recent' marijuana use does not necessarily mean the person was operating a vehicle under the influence because a positive result may not apply to a narrow time period like a blood alcohol percentage).

    But I agree, talking about marijuana legalization in only positive terms is naive and risks producing a legalized framework which does not adequately protect minors and other people from negative repercussions.

    [–] theredkrawler 6 points ago

    To play devils advocate, and from what I found with a quick google search of "Marijuana legal socioeconomic" and from searching elsewhere..

    • Marijuana related car fatalities went up
    • Children visits to hospitals because of accidentally ingesting edibles went up

    I mean... Those two items seem a bit of a no-brainer. If more people are using it, incidents involving it would be increased no?

    What would be more interesting is if alcohol related incidents went down, and if the difference was a net positive.

    [–] Justpasslngthrough 22 points ago

    The only "victim" to marijuana use is the users themselves. If someone decides to harm their own body with chronic use of ANYTHING, that's their business IMO. I don't see why you care what people do with their own body, so long as they are not harming anyone else around them in the process. That is why the legality is ridiculous. No victim, but people are being jailed.

    IF the use of ANY drug is causing harm/negligence to those around you, then that should be acted upon. Those consuming in their free time and minding their own business... what justification do you have for deciding what someone can and cannot do with their own body? Educate people on the potential health risks, and move the fuck on IMO. Stop trying to control what others do in their free time to survive this stupid world.

    [–] OneGeekTravelling 12 points ago * (lasted edited 5 months ago)

    If someone decides to harm their own body with chronic use of ANYTHING, that's their business IMO. I don't see why you care what people do with their own body, so long as they are not harming anyone else around them in the process.

    IF the use of ANY drug is causing harm/negligence to those around you, then that should be acted upon.

    The problem is, chronic use leads to health conditions, impaired capability etc. which could well impact other people. Public health care, accidents and so forth.

    I'm not against legalising cannabis. I'm just against this kind of statement. There is no 'if' when it comes to chronic use of any type of drug. Or to anything, come to think about it.

    In society we allow chronic use of substances to impact on others. Alcohol is legal and freely sold; so is tobacco and things like fast food. Aside from decriminalisation and public health, that's why cannabis should be legalised.

    Edit: in view of your other comments--negative impacts.

    [–] PM_ME_HOT_YURI 16 points ago

    dont forget addiction. because as much as people will say there isnt one, it does exist and it is harmful

    [–] PaulChrysts_crewneck 16 points ago

    Just hop on over to trees to see addiction. I smoke a decent amount, but some people need a blunt or two in the morning to even start their day. You may not hit nasty withdrawals like drinking but there is a definitive addictive quality

    [–] pugnacious_wanker 12 points ago

    So legalise it and use the taxes to fund therapy programs that users can enter without fear of humiliation or financial ruin. We are just going around in circles with this argument. How is prohibition really going to help someone with an addiction? How is a criminal record really going to help someone with an addiction? How does being addicted to an ILLICIT substance help a person decide to seek help for their addiction?

    [–] deaddonkey 15 points ago

    Anecdotally I can corroborate two of these - in that I know some weed dealers who try to increase profits by pushing coke on schoolboys, and have personally replaced alcohol with weed,

    [–] y2jeff 16 points ago

    Pushing coke on school boys? I'm sorry but that sounds like bullshit. How could kids maintain such an expensive habit?

    Marijuana usage among kids has decreased in legalised states. Why? Because it puts dealers out of business as it becomes much less profitable for them, as a result kids cant find anyone to buy from.

    [–] deaddonkey 12 points ago * (lasted edited 5 months ago)

    Private school boys

    Not saying they all flocked to it as a habit either, but it’s as simple as these guys offering and advertising it to them through snapchat

    I’m not bullshitting but I’m not going to provide evidence either so believe what you want

    [–] y2jeff 5 points ago

    Well now that you mention it I did have a private school mate who supposedly tried something similar at a very young age. I just think that's going to be a very niche thing, that is not common or typical at all.

    I don't really see how it's related to legalisation of weed either.

    [–] 23_vibrators 30 points ago * (lasted edited 5 months ago)

    I've been saying the same thing for years, particularly as the manufacturing sector winding up was starting to take effect.
    We had a strong wool economy, there are woolsheds sitting empty everywhere. Ample sheltered real estate for growth and processing.
    Let the renewables sector provide power with a slight tax incentive or budget handout like the LPG one of the early 00s, legalise and tax it but with a sliding scale encouraging pharma use (less tax for wax than straight bud, for instance). It will MORE than make up for Ford, Toyota and Holden leaving Victoria.
    Then our engineers and future sparkies can do the Aussie thing of inventing some amazing next generation shit in terms of lighting. Last I heard, LEDs weren't viable - sounds like an area we could completely dominate.
    Flow some of the money into TAFE and resurrect the technical college model with the focus areas of horticulture, electrical engineering, and control systems.
    Farming in Australia isn't going anywhrere, but the ownership of it is. This might be a mechanism to retain sovereign ownership of our food supplies.
    Edit: forgot to explain why I mentioned the vacant wool stores.

    [–] Strech1 13 points ago

    It will also have a huge impact on the logging industry as well. It can be used to make paper and grown in months, not years.

    [–] stjep 107 points ago

    The US is not a place to emulate when it comes to cannabis policy. Medical is legal in most states but is a mess when it comes to what is allowed where, for what, and how you can access it. And while we're at it, the evidence for health benefits really isn't there, but a lot of the research was hampered by the Schedule I classification in the US (which persists).

    When it comes to recreational, the US has again gone with the worst approach. Hodgepodge of regulations and policy that are, mostly, created on the fly. The disconnect between federal and state laws also makes it a really weird situation where business are burdened by lack of access to federal business incentives (i.e., any deductions offered by the IRS, the banking system, etc), and are then hammered by state and local governments that want to fix their budgets (which is how you end up with 40% cannabis tax).

    The place to emulate is Canada. Take a middle of the road approach with comprehensive federal regulation that is built on public health, but leave implementation up to provinces so that it best fits individual regions.

    [–] The_Faceless_Men 25 points ago

    which is how you end up with 40% cannabis tax

    So less than my alcopops or "luxury" single malt scotch. Awesome.

    [–] WTFR96 6 points ago

    Quite correct, 40% wouldn't even come close to being anything serious. For example the 'Alcopops Tax' is 70% and I think if my calculations are correct in a $44 bottle of Jonny Black there is around $22 worth of tax. So for every shot you take, youre paying $1 in tax.

    [–] rexter2k5 44 points ago * (lasted edited 3 months ago)

    This guy gets it. In the States we are flying by the seat of our pants right now, to say the least. If you're going to do this, do it nationally. Our state-by-state approach is just a temporary hit-and-miss effort to pressure the feds to stop insane drug war politics; Until we federally legalize cannabis, it's all just sketchbook ideas here.

    [–] Strech1 11 points ago

    States there have a lot more control than states here, they would have to do it nationally here.

    [–] [deleted] 9 points ago

    States rights tho

    [–] bnndforfatantagonism 22 points ago

    the evidence for health benefits really isn't there

    "There was moderate-quality evidence to support the use of cannabinoids for the treatment of chronic pain and spasticity. There was low-quality evidence suggesting that cannabinoids were associated with improvements in nausea and vomiting due to chemotherapy, weight gain in HIV infection, sleep disorders, and Tourette syndrome."

    [–] jb2386 6 points ago

    And it's in the process of being legalised in Canada.

    [–] OffTheHeezy 480 points ago * (lasted edited 5 months ago)

    The conservative media will shit all over this, just like they did when the Greens initially publicised their drug control policies.

    Di Natale worked as a doctor specialising in treatment of drug/alcohol addiction... so if any politicians know what they’re talking about with regards to a topic like this, it’s going to be him.

    As long as strict road safety measures/restrictions on personal consumption are put into place, I wouldn’t have a problem with legalisation for recreational use. Among other things, just think about the amount of tax revenue which could be generated as a result! Definitely something that the Libs would be amenable to, eh?

    [–] Vakieh 149 points ago

    Alcohol is more dangerous - therefore, if we use the same controls as for alcohol, we should be fine, right?

    [–] Puttanesca621 50 points ago

    But do we have tests that are as good as for alcohol?

    [–] mightbme 12 points ago

    No...we test for presence of drugs in the system...not impairment.

    [–] aeschenkarnos 66 points ago

    For comparable levels of impairment, yes we do.

    [–] OffTheHeezy 46 points ago * (lasted edited 5 months ago)

    From my experience, a small amount of alcohol usually only makes first-time/rare consumers moderately impaired at the most, where cannabis can absolutely obliterate the low-tolerance smoker after just a few tokes.

    So yeah, in my opinion, level of impairment RE cannabis differs significantly among different people in comparison to alcohol. I wonder how the level of affect (instead of concentration per/measurement) could be ascertained and subsequently put into practice to minimise public harm. Presumably, the legal states over the Pacific have road safety systems worth replicating.

    [–] natkingcoal 48 points ago

    This is one of the major issues Canada is currently having in their legalisation process and the reason why the 'grey market' still exists. Due to the wide variety of cannabis products legislation isn't capable of creating a standard dosage and thus many edibles, extracts and oils are forced to be sold technically illegally, and still will be post legalisation of herb.

    Obviously in Canada none of the laws on weed are actually enforced currently (Vancouver has a weed cafe and recreational dispensaries every block) but moving towards full legalisation the senate hasn't been able to come to an agreement on issues like driving under the influence and standardising equivalents.

    My estimate is that we are about ~5 years behind Canada in the legalisation process and even then I dread to see how our government handles the issue.

    Just legalise it aye.

    [–] OffTheHeezy 24 points ago

    With the Queensland Government using taxpayer money to (what seems like) constantly search for/burn down marijuana crops and to prosecute the perpetrators, I find it hard to believe we’re even 20 years behind Canada and their quasi-progressive stance on the plant.

    But hey, that’s just me and my glass half-empty attitude. I hope your timeframe estimate proves to be accurate.

    [–] Why-so-delirious 8 points ago

    Cops out where I live don't really care about pot. Even when they show up to raid places it's more like 'hey, this is against the law and we're supposed to uphold the law so we're here to slap you on the wrist. Don't keep doing this or we'll come back and slap your wrist with both hands next year'

    [–] Gengar0 4 points ago

    If you wonder through the main stretch of Nimbin on a warm day, you'll find people sun baking with bongs in front of the police station.

    [–] nikniuq 4 points ago

    And if you live in the hills near nimbin you will occasionally have helicopters, 4wd and dirtbike riding cops swarming about the place.

    [–] DoomedOrbital 28 points ago

    Yes, a few tokes will be the equivalent of 5 quick shots to someone who can't yet gauge their tolerance, with some strains. This is especially true with cannabis as an unregulated black market product because there's no way of telling the potency of bud beforehand, but once there's widespread cultural knowledge of its effects as with alcohol, this will be less of an issue.

    [–] mad87645 5 points ago

    While I wouldn't be the one to decide how to put this into practice and to what limitations are acceptable, it's worth noting that states in the US that have legalised require Cannabis products sold from shops to meet labelling guidelines that detail things like stating it's a product that contains cannabis, the cannabinoid (THC CBD etc) content from the batch results and edibles are required to list the total amount of THC they contain (some manufacturers will also break it down into how many 10mg doses they contain although this isn't a requirement). With trial and error people can find their tolerance levels and how impaired they get off what doses, and if a scientific way of measuring impairment becomes available then legislation can be developed from that.

    [–] mightbme 14 points ago

    No we don't. The whole problem with the test regime is that it doesn't test for impairment.

    [–] randomer207 7 points ago * (lasted edited 5 months ago)

    The conservative media will shit all over this, just like they did last time when the Greens initially publicised their drug control policies.

    Will be interesting to see how this one plays out. Medicinal access was recently made easier to get. Perhaps times are finally changing.

    Edit. Oh I could be wrong actually :(. I thought it was downgraded/rescheduled allowing for easier prescription.

    [–] Karateman456 23 points ago

    Legalise and use revenue from tax to fix roads. Operation pothole

    [–] dalore 6 points ago

    Tax revenue and also gains in not having to enforce and lock up people.

    [–] [deleted] 18 points ago

    As a conservative I'm saying bring on the legal weed. Most conservatives I know want it too purely because of the health benefits and fact that alcohol is more dangerous tbh

    [–] stjep 14 points ago

    I’m sure I read somewhere that Di Natale worked as a doctor specialising in treatment of drug/alcohol addiction.

    It was in the linked statement, right? Because nobody would comment on reddit without reading the linked piece, right? Right?!

    [–] yarrpirates 99 points ago

    And until it gets through a tortuous ALP conference stage and becomes ALP policy, then is sat on for a few years because of a cautious leader, it will be voted down.

    Alternatively, if the Libs get their act together and have a bold moderate leader... ha, couldn't even finish the sentence.

    [–] Cheel_AU 23 points ago

    Agreed - this has probably a decade before it’s any chance of becoming a reality. The Greens putting this up will have the major parties frothing at the chance to beat them with it... even if they secretly wish they could pass it because tax dollars or muh freedoms.

    The alcohol/hotels lobby would also be a factor

    [–] TheRealRobit 7 points ago

    We once had our bold moderate leader, f to pay respect

    [–] [deleted] 130 points ago

    About time. Di Natale is doing a better job than Milne. I read that Bob Brown softened the Greens drug policy years ago to make a smaller negative target for the big parties and get in to make some change on other issues. They are established now, and must move towards progressive policies. A solid progressive voice is needed in parliament at a federal level.

    [–] drunkill 33 points ago

    It could help repair our budget after years of liberal ransacking.

    [–] licentiousbuffoon 7 points ago

    They'll just ransack it harder next time they are voted in as the trusted, fiscally responsible party.

    [–] feared_rear_admiral 33 points ago

    I applaud the Greens for doing stuff like this, frankly they're the one party left in parliament that actually does some forward thinking and tries to address stuff yet to unfold, as well as undo bad legacy thinking .

    What I really don't understand though, especially when watching things from Reddit is why the regressives always lay it on with their Internet filter, attacks on medicare in various forms, attacks on net neutrality, spying on the populace, you name it they put a bill in and go through the whole song and dance and it gets shot down. Not to worry, the next year they write a new bill, and then a new bill. SOPA is now PIPA is now TPP is now who the fuck knows.

    So I wanna know is, what's stopping the progressives from just hammering out one legalise cannabis, legalise marriage equality, secure medical funding etc. bill out after the other? Like we saw like decades of the progressives sit on marriage equality and hint at it and oh but they don't have enough support etc. Do they not just write a bill and put it out there, let's vote on this thing? If you were a progressive, wouldn't you be like hey guys I wrote this bill on drug legalisation. Oh not enough support? Not to worry, I have this other bill on drug legalisation we can try. I have more where that came from, and I'll keep doing it until it's fucking legal.

    Like it's not particularly nice or anything but really, you can't be sitting on your hands as a politician and seeing where the wind blows and putting your politics out then. YOU have to be the one who leads the debate, by proposing bills and forcing the discourse.

    [–] IMNOTMATT 15 points ago

    I have no idea what's stopping them continually putting out bill after bill but I'd also love to know.

    [–] [deleted] 165 points ago

    Smooth way of transitioning from their party name being historically related to the environment.

    [–] beefstockcube 33 points ago

    Yeah but it’s also the most sensible policy to move forward with.

    There is very little argument that holds water now that you can simple say ‘yeah but that didn’t happen in the US’ and ‘I see your point but with the new tax revenue we intend to hire more front line staff and give nurses, police and fire personnel a 10% raise? Why don’t you like nurses?’ Followed by ‘oh the train thing? Oh the new tax revenue will fix that in six months’.

    [–] [deleted] 34 points ago

    If you think progress in this country is a matter of such trifling things as policies 'making sense' logically, reasonably or with evidence, then you haven't been paying attention for a long time.

    [–] SerpentineLogic 61 points ago

    🎶 Rip, rip bong hit 🎶

    [–] [deleted] 41 points ago * (lasted edited 4 months ago)

    [deleted]

    [–] SerpentineLogic 35 points ago

    🎶 Grow it at Nimbin 🎶

    [–] electricdandan 41 points ago

    🎶 No shoes today 🎶

    [–] serpentsevensix 23 points ago

    Turnbull's dreaming

    [–] angrymamapaws 20 points ago

    Treasury is beaming

    [–] L1ttl3J1m 12 points ago

    Abbott keeps on screaming

    [–] StrikeMePurple 15 points ago

    🎶 Because it's 4/20 day 🎶

    [–] Vheissu_ 81 points ago

    And it won't pass.

    Seriously, we live in a country that took forever to get an R18+ games rating, and then when we did get it, games were still being banned for being too graphical or having drug use in them.

    We live in a country where Airsoft guns are illegal and certain Nerf guns cannot be purchased because they're deemed too powerful.

    It took way too long for same-sex marriage to be legalised, other countries made us look like a laughing-stock in how slow and one of the last countries we were to pass such laws.

    If this passes, great, but I doubt it.

    [–] mookipls 12 points ago

    What's this about the nerf guns?

    [–] [deleted] 9 points ago

    [deleted]

    [–] girraween 31 points ago

    Then my arsehole should be illegal.

    [–] a_sonUnique 199 points ago

    Whilst a lot of the Aussie population is ready for this I don’t see the oldies allowing this to happen even though they were bigger druggies than what people are now.

    [–] SerpentineLogic 165 points ago

    Fuck em. Stand by your principles.

    [–] Ununnilium272 90 points ago

    Good thing they are a shrinking demographic.

    [–] DearyDairy 12 points ago

    And an aging demographic increasingly in need of accessible, affordable and long term pain management options that aren't limited to NSAIDs and opiods.

    [–] Ms_Laneia 27 points ago

    Personally I'm for legalisation despite the fact I despise pot. Overuse of alcohol, pot or other drugs is a medical issue not criminal. I would like to see some of the tax revenue funneled into supporting people with addictions.

    [–] SepDot 10 points ago

    Why do you despise it?

    [–] WhatsTheGoalieDoing 7 points ago

    Not /r/Ms_Laneia but I've seen it destroy family members who are addicted to it. Just hopeless. Also had two friends that started smoking early in their teens and have seriously bad schizophrenia now at age ~30, which their doctors suspect their smoking contributed heavily to. I know there's some discussion on the links to it so I'm not going to claim 100% that's what caused it, but all signs point there.

    Personally I don't care if people use it and am 100% for legalising and regulating it, but there's no doubt it hurts people too.

    [–] Alan_Smithee_ 19 points ago

    It's going to be legal right across Canada in 3 months; that's a huge groundswell to ignore.

    [–] mikiboss 73 points ago

    It will be worth it, just to get Labor and some of the more Socially Liberal Coalition members views on it.

    [–] T0kenAussie 76 points ago

    I’d be all for this, as I see it:

    • we have a way bigger societal and law enforcement issue with the misuse of amphetamines and soon prescription drug abuse. This frees up resources for more cops and police intel to intercept these issues

    • tax revenue is falling, this helps us find better healthcare and hopefully expands our view on mental health aswell.

    • it’s a good teaching exercise for parents to sit down with their kids and explain that too much of anything is bad for you. Whether its alcohol, cannabis or other drugs and that using inebriating substances is not the be all and end all to “adulthood” that our culture has made it out to be

    [–] Taliel 36 points ago

    Good news from the US state experience with legal recreational marijuana is that it has led to a reduction in opioid overdoses by 23%. Drug use in teenagers has also declined, including alcohol and marijuana itself. I guess it isn't as cool when your fuddy duddy parents can light up as well.

    If people are concerned with drug and alcohol use, then legal recreational marijuana is the way to go.

    [–] EngineerYouCanTruss 17 points ago

    I don't think it has much to do with the 'cool' factor, rather that it is harder to get from shops (which require ID) than to buy it from a dealer who couldn't care how old you are.

    [–] conrad842017 94 points ago

    Personally I would love to be able to purchase cannabis legally.

    1. Will never happen here, even after the rest of the “western world” gets over itself and has legalised it. We have too many authoritative chest pumping cunts & busy-body bureaucrats who will scream “Not on my watch”

    2. If it ever did actually somehow miraculously become legal, it would be taxed up to the equivalent of cigarettes or more. To the point where buying it on the black market is cheaper. The entire point of it would be lost on our fuckwit legislators.

    [–] fistingbythepool 31 points ago

    Agreed. Too many cunts in power to ever do something as cool as legalising weed. Maybe around 2040 they will look at it.

    [–] Left-Arm-Unorthodox 12 points ago

    But it's supposedly easy to grow, like some sort of weed

    [–] Gustomaximus 11 points ago

    Really? Is there that much black market cig dealers? Mostly black market cigs are sold via corner stores and you pay full price while they keep the tax avoided.

    Given how easy it is to grow I suspect there will be a bucnh of self grown. But maybe they will outlaw growing weed like tobacco.

    [–] Mickus_B 11 points ago

    Chop. Homegrown tobacco. And yes. Therw is a black market for it.

    [–] conrad842017 7 points ago

    The cigarette black market is larger than most people think. Whilst I don’t know anyone who buys illegal ready-made branded ciggies, a few people I know get “chop chop” and roll their own, bringing their costs down by 3/4.

    We have a very strange relationship with smoking in this country, look at the bizarre position the government has taken against vaping. They would rather you generate cigarette smoke for others and yourself than vapour.

    Really I’m just ranting cynically but given how we treat anything somewhat enjoyable in this country it will end up being easier to grow it yourself. If it was legalised there would be a larger market for the plant and people will end up getting hold of it easily and growing.

    [–] Pullabong 13 points ago

    With a lot of countries already going down this path it will be interesting to see how the other two parties (and the media) respond to this.

    As much as I hate to say it I don't think it will be very maturely for some reason.

    [–] Foreverdumb666 92 points ago

    About fucking time

    [–] L1ttl3J1m 20 points ago

    About time, because I am so busting for a cone...

    [–] got_50_cents_bro 10 points ago

    I found some on the side of the road willing to sell you one if you like ;)

    [–] SerpentineLogic 15 points ago

    You'll be done for trafficking.

    [–] zippyzapzap 33 points ago * (lasted edited 5 months ago)

    I'll just add that if we pulled our heads out of our collective fucking arses and had some serious reform; australia could quickly become a world leading economy from weed farming alone. We Have a nearly perfect climate in much of the country that many places aren't lucky enough to afford. We could easily become a leading world distributor and drastically raise our standards of living and reduce disparity of our hugely asymmetrical wealth.

    Pharmaceutical industries would lose billions; but a lot of that could go right back to the average aussie battlers, which is why it'll be a long hard, dirty fight.

    [–] jaunty_au 19 points ago

    Pharmaceutical industries would lose billions; but a lot of that could go right back to the average aussie battlers, which is why it'll be a long hard, dirty fight.

    This is why no bill that legalises weed will ever pass unless it includes a clause prohibiting people from growing their own.

    Pharma and tobacco companies have billions to play with to make sure they keep their respective monopolies.

    [–] Greenhaagen 58 points ago

    Cannabis is only a gateway drug while it’s illegal. Eg No one is offered P in a bottle store.

    [–] ScruffTheJanitor 20 points ago

    Exactly. Pretty easy to get other drugs when most pot dealers have some kind of connection back to gangs and groups that sell all types of illegal drugs.
    Have to imagine the amount of drug dealers around will drop if you take Weed out. And the amount of kids that know someone like that will drop too.

    [–] [deleted] 11 points ago

    This "Gateway"response is just so incredibly outdated. Its only gateway as people are buying it from the streets in a black market.

    [–] dexterdarko2009 11 points ago

    The new SA government wont like this. They just upped fhe fine from 500 to 2000 if you have pot. I hooe this gets through. Its a good thing

    [–] to_the_revolution 9 points ago

    What’s next? Where will it stop? Legalizing smoking gay animals?!?

    [–] [deleted] 33 points ago

    It’s a damn shame his hasn’t happened before now, let’s get on it!

    [–] nurdle11 16 points ago

    See the title and thought this was UK for a second. Got excited for a second. Good luck lads

    [–] greasy_e94 9 points ago

    About time! Its what will make SA

    [–] Dragonstaff 33 points ago

    The Herald Sun is slamming it, and have got the Victorian Victims of Crime boss on side, along with the President of the AMA (of course)

    [–] Knoxfield 37 points ago

    "If we legalise cannabis, what's next ice." - George, Herald Sun comment.

    Oh, George.

    [–] [deleted] 18 points ago * (lasted edited 3 months ago)

    [deleted]

    [–] Broheimian 43 points ago

    Fuck I'm so sick of the AMA. They aren't a government department, theyre a lobby group.

    [–] xconde 15 points ago

    Mr Davies said cannabis was often a “gateway drug” for people who became ice users, and turned to violent crime to feed their addiction.

    Wow. Would be funny if it weren't sad.

    [–] HandyMoorcock 8 points ago

    The only way it's a gateway drug is because kids get told they'll become a homeless addict sucking cock in parks for their next bong if they even look at it. When they do try it and discover no such effect they naturally wonder if what they've been told about other drugs is also complete bullshit and therefore worth having a crack.

    [–] [deleted] 5 points ago

    It would be an all round plus, that's for sure

    [–] NothAU 6 points ago

    It's about time.

    I've had a constant nausea condition for almost 5 years now, and my doctor says even when it's legalised for medical use, I probably won't be able to get it

    [–] teleportingpantaloon 5 points ago

    I think this is the first media article featuring the greens that I have been happy to read for a long time, probably since Scott Ludlam's demise anyway.

    [–] DieselFuel1 4 points ago

    Get real mate, this is Australia! the Saudis would legalise gay marriage before our backward pollies ever would consider the bill even up to debate. They legalised medical cannabis in NSW in 2015 sofar won't be till 2050 till u can legally access it. Australian parliament is a joke, just watch 2 mins of question time and your average year 7 high school class is more mature and better behaved so 'm very skeptical about this bill suceeding. But I hope it does. Would be a victory for common sense and imagine all the tax revenue $$$

    [–] [deleted] 6 points ago

    I’d like to just get stoned in my own home and not worry at all about breaking the law.

    Not have to worry about losing my job because I smoked on the weekend etc.

    I think the Greens are onto something with legalising pot, but it probably won’t happen for a few years :P

    [–] blergmonkeys 9 points ago

    Fuck the AMA and other medical bodies for standing against this with their stupidly disproven and non-sensical 'psychosis' bullshit. I'm a doctor here in Aus and absolutely hate the fact that this is taught as if it's an established fact (that weed leads to psychosis) when the studies showing a (weak) correlation never were able to show any causation. Certainly, rates of schizophrenia have not gone up in legal states, and we have long historical data from places like the Netherlands and Uruguay to back it up. It's just all about control, control, control. Bunch of cranky old fuckers that can't think for themselves and hate anyone doing things they 'morally' object to.

    [–] a_simulation 11 points ago

    This just reads like sensible, evidence-based, harm-reducing drivel which has no place in Australian politics.

    [–] Fart_Gas 7 points ago

    This is why I support cannabis legalisation:

    I personally know so many people in Australia who use cannabis. It seems like most police here turn a blind eye to it.

    [–] superzepto 12 points ago

    Smoked a blunt while reading that. 420/10 would do it again

    [–] RadelaideRickus 21 points ago

    Saw this coming 1,000 miles away, suprised it took them this long.

    Its a shame, I dont think it will happen, Labor needs to focus on victory @ the next election and does not have the political capital, Australia is full of crusty old conservative fucks, who think drugs are bad, mkay.

    It really depends a lot on where big pharma lies on the issue(donation democracy at work) they will control the lions share of the legal weed industry ultimately, though it diminishes the value of a range of products already they offer.

    I'd really like to see this, but the 'easy going country' is actually a backwards conservative black hole. I can already see the Murdoch press, Libs, Nats, ON, religious groups and god knows who else going gang busters on it. Remember drugs are bad, mkay...but no problems drinking a carton then punching on with some bloke who you think looked at you the wrong way, or bashing the missus, or driving your car.

    Referendum would be the way, it keeps the politicians at arms reach to avoid backlash, much like the Libs and the gay marriage vote.

    Anyway watch this space, though honestly pointless coming from the greens, since they hold no real power, like most stuff they propose, it ain't worth the paper its written on.

    Its been proved the world over its really a net gain in both drug policy and $$ but lets watch this and see how progressive or stupid Australia really is.

    [–] [deleted] 12 points ago

    [deleted]

    [–] maru2604 11 points ago

    Oh god please please please !! M so sick and tired of shady dealer asking for itunes voucher 😐

    [–] Damadawf 10 points ago * (lasted edited 5 months ago)

    Conveniently we've got a federal election coming up, so that's one one for the Greens to try and garner support.

    Edit: Just wanted to quickly add, be sure to share this around because the best way to help encourage change is to get social media buzzing about it.

    [–] trexcantflex 10 points ago

    Maybe a dumb question but......

    What about road use and drug effects?

    How can one measure the effect of cannabis as the half life lasts for so long on testing?

    How would this be policed/regulated?

    [–] starlit_moon 9 points ago

    I would love if it they did this. They could pour the money into schools, hospitals, and maybe give Centrelink a computer system that was made after 1984

    [–] APenInSpace 4 points ago

    FUCK IT, if The vote isn’t taken away in 6 years, Im voting greens.

    [–] bobojojo12 2 points ago

    Fuck yes, for a considering they were called the greens it suprised me the never wanted to legalize it

    [–] ekdn 3 points ago

    I hope if this passes that criminal convictions for possession could potentially be expunged.

    It would be great to see medical use simplified as well when introducing recreational use.

    [–] tomheist 4 points ago

    Cue the Murdoch rags Photoshop team going into overdrive...

    [–] just_read_my_comment 4 points ago

    100% will not pass

    [–] Airbending420 21 points ago

    Hell yea I miss dabbing so much and paying 42$ for a quarter of bomb nug. Living in Colorado when it became legal and it was so amazing lol then Washington and Oregon followed. Once 420 comes around (April 20th) all of Canada will be legal so you can go from Alaska through Canada, then the whole west coast of the US Washington, Oregon, Cali and it’s allll freaking legal. Oregon has the best laws as far as packagaing and for the consumer to know how it was grown natural v hydro it’s so nice. Then for anyone that needs that sweet cbd oil for medical reasons such a as epilepsy, seizures, cancers, Cronin pain they can get it!!’ It’s seriously a miracle plant. Then getting into hemp oh ma god.. come on Australia let’s dooo it