ACT Legalises Personal Cannabis Use

stickyfingers on 25/09/2019 - 22:53

It would be interesting to hear some opinions on the topic.
What do you think should be done in the grand scheme, nationwide? Legalise or not? Medical or recreational? Commercialised or personal only? Limits/restrictions?
Seems a bit silly that our laws can be so contradictory in how that it is legal, but it's also not…

Some older discussion on the topic

Key points:

  • Under laws passed today, adults in the ACT will be able to grow two cannabis plants each
  • The laws say the plants cannot be grown in public or be accessible to children
  • They conflict with Commonwealth law, which does not allow personal cannabis use
  • The laws passed the ACT Legislative Assembly this afternoon, allowing possession of up to 50 grams per person and a maximum of four plants per household.

The ACT has become the first Australian jurisdiction to legalise the possession, use and cultivation of small amounts of cannabis.

They will come into effect from January 31, 2020.

The legislation conflicts with Commonwealth laws prohibiting the possession of cannabis.

And cannabis users have been warned there are still serious legal risks, including potential jail time, when growing or smoking cannabis in the ACT.

Cannabis remains a prohibited substance under Commonwealth law, and police officers in the ACT will retain the power to arrest and charge anyone with cannabis under those laws.

It will also be possible for the Commonwealth to overrule the ACT, and seek to have the laws struck out as inconsistent with its own legislation.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-09-25/act-first-jurisdictio…

Health & Beauty

Comments

  • StonedWizard on 25/09/2019 - 22:56
    +56

    420 blaze it

  • [Deactivated] on 25/09/2019 - 23:36

    They better tone down the fireworks first.

  • kahn on 25/09/2019 - 23:46
    +6

    Won't someone please think of the children?! - Helen Lovejoy

    • Minimum chips on 29/09/2019 - 12:39
      +1

      You're right, we need to make sure the kids can get in on that sweet ganja.

  • trustnoone on 25/09/2019 - 23:53
    +12

    I thought the system was going to be more that you have to buy it from specialised shops that had high taxes (thus putting it back into the economy) interesting they let you just grow it. I'm imagining many people from NSW/Vic taking a Canberra trip now, at least tourism may boom haha.

    • stickyfingers on 26/09/2019 - 00:35
      +10

      Canberra the new Nimbin.

      • DemocracyManifest on 26/09/2019 - 20:56
        +2

        Finally a purpose to go back!

      • Lord Fart Bucket on 26/09/2019 - 22:34
        +3

        Too many weirdos in Canberra. Less when parliament isn't sitting.

      • hadronox on 28/09/2019 - 17:13

        Canbin, the nations capital!

    • Bid Sniper on 26/09/2019 - 11:25

      The porn and firecracksers run is now w33d run.

      • rover on 27/09/2019 - 16:30
        -2

        I know you are joking. But if you did do that, the person that gave you either the drug or even offered a puff on their durry would be breaking the law and could be (though very unlikely) charged. You'd be fine though!

    • aoeueoa on 27/09/2019 - 15:22
      +3

      I can assure you anyone who is already smoking weed is not going to get in a car and travel 4 hours just to smoke more weed.

    • mskeggs on 26/09/2019 - 06:41
      +5

      Different market. Cannabis is viewed as well understood and “natural”, and has a culture around it that makes it reasonably acceptable in mainstream circles. Tell somebody you’re taking LSD or wolf rage herbal incense and they make a bunch more assumptions about your lifestyle.

    • Cave Fire on 26/09/2019 - 07:25
      +4

      What's modified Lsd? for a first timer lsd can be overwhelming, think people take it not knowing how chaotic it can be. Plus have you missed all news about the benefits that cannabis extracts have without those issues? Not just mood/mental effects like Lsd.

    • navyskies on 26/09/2019 - 08:05
      +3

      dopey paranoid issues?

      Sounds like it might just be you thats incompatible with it.

      • [Deactivated] on 26/09/2019 - 09:23
        -2

        Get real. Hospitalized psychosis and schizophrenia patients are well documented for over 50 years.
        Why do dope smokers always seem to deny this important fact.

        I am ok with grass personally, but if it's abused it's a potential serious health problem. Don't be an idiot.

        • ThithLord on 26/09/2019 - 10:25

          People who struggle with mental health are far more likely to use cannabis, hence it's prevalence in mentally unwell people.

          It's been used for thousands of years, if not longer - it grows in the dirt.

          Sex is better, food is better, music is better, comedy is better, company is better on the bud.

          No need to fear monger or point the finger at cannabis, mate.

          • Ugly on 26/09/2019 - 12:43
            +15

            @ThithLord: "It grows in the dirt". So do opium, heroin & cocaine

            • bringbring on 27/09/2019 - 01:32
              -1

              @Ugly: No, heroin doesn't

              • Ugly on 27/09/2019 - 08:39
                +3

                @bringbring: Heroin (like opium and morphine) is made from the resin of poppy plants.

                • bringbring on 27/09/2019 - 21:50

                  @Ugly: Thats just like saying LSD grows in the dirt. No, it doesn't, it's synthetic

                • trapper on 08/10/2019 - 16:39
                  +1

                  @Ugly: Made from != grows in the dirt.

          • afoveht on 26/09/2019 - 12:48
            +2

            @ThithLord: Yes, dope can be fantastic, but talking down its risks is no less dishonest than talking them up.

            • ThithLord on 26/09/2019 - 12:59

              @afoveht: Of course, of course. But it isn't dangerous to the majority of the population, if used in moderation. Unlike a lot of currently-legal drugs

              • HighAndDry on 27/09/2019 - 09:53
                -3

                @ThithLord: Nothing "used in moderation" is dangerous.

                • ThithLord on 27/09/2019 - 11:02

                  @HighAndDry: Thank you for this pearl of wisdom, H&D

                • zoob on 29/09/2019 - 19:28

                  @HighAndDry: Cigarettes are dangerous in any quantity, although obviously it increases with higher use.

          • rump parliament on 28/09/2019 - 00:16
            +1

            @ThithLord: They're kinda right though. Cannabis is a pretty well established risk factor for schizophrenia. Schizophrenia is more or less excessive dopamine (neurotransmitter). The end result of consuming cannabis is releasing dopamine so it can trigger schizophrenia. That said schizophrenia has a massive genetic component so more of a significant risk in people with a family history of schizophrenia.

            • trapper on 08/10/2019 - 16:42

              @rump parliament: I don't smoke it, but it is painfully obvious that the biggest risk factor by far for cannabis users are the criminal penalties.

              Should never have been illegal in the first place, Millions of lives ruined, for nothing.

          • BooYa on 28/09/2019 - 06:07

            @ThithLord: Very subjective - sex was definitely not better for me, whether company is better or not, depends on who the people are (on pot or not).

        • PAZMAT on 26/09/2019 - 16:24
          +1

          My understanding is that if you have a predisposition to developing schizophrenia, then cannabis can exacerbate symptoms and cause early onset. But when used in mild amounts it has been shown to stimulate neurogenesis. Obviously excessive use is a different issue though.

        • ruddiger7 on 27/09/2019 - 08:17

          As with all things when they are abused. A lot of these people already had mental issues or were on the verge of prior to. One medium isn't always also going to have the same affect on everyone but also not a reason to restrict it from everyone either.

          • [Deactivated] on 27/09/2019 - 09:36
            +1

            @ruddiger7:

            not a reason to restrict it from everyone either.

            Actually it has been a reason, and still is nationally, and over most of the world.
            Why defend hallucinogenic drugs at all? I defend healthy living and food. Not dependency on drugs.
            Take an IQ and fitness test before and after three months of smoking weed heavily. The results speak for the benefits of not taking weed.

            Better off spending your money on health and enjoying life, not hiding from it behind drugs.
            On the other hand, if you need it, it probably indicates mental health issues to some degree.
            I'm not against drugs, just irritated by the widespread support for what I think is a unhealthy, possibly damaging, addictive habit (for many).

            • ruddiger7 on 27/09/2019 - 12:36
              +2

              @[Deactivated]: You said it yourself, three months of smoking heavily. I don't advocate that kind of heavy use either. Everything in moderation and smoking isn't the only way to use it. People need to be responsible for themselves, people can still be high functioning and enjoy occasional use.

            • trapper on 10/10/2019 - 14:55
              +1

              @[Deactivated]: In some cases the criminalisation of an 'unhealthy' habit is more damaging that the actual habit ever was - to both the users and to society in general.

              This is the case for cannabis, and for many other drugs.

    • Adz81 on 26/09/2019 - 09:30
      +1

      Any reccommendations from this site (asking for a friend O.o)… The green leaf site is kinda horrible.

        • stickyfingers on 26/09/2019 - 18:45

          My biggest concern with products from websites like this is not being able to be sure that you don’t take too much.

          You can’t really test it to be sure the seller didn’t over concentrate it.

          • [Deactivated] on 26/09/2019 - 21:57

            @stickyfingers: Some sites suggest starting really small. But yeah, it can knock you off your feet if you take too much.
            Just lay down and have water available works for me.

            The bit I like is because it is so strong, $100 worth can last a year. Beats alcohol and weed.

        • metaverse on 26/09/2019 - 19:42

          Products display an error page for Greenleaflegal. Was excited to try Ayahuasca.damnit.

          • [Deactivated] on 10/10/2019 - 15:14

            @metaverse: I tried it four or five times. It's only a really weak version but is mind blowing stuff. Absolute beyond belief peace and beauty twice. And threw up the other times, and had no effect.
            I tried mixing my own from ingredients I could get from the site, and it didn't work.

          • [Deactivated] on 12/10/2019 - 23:59

            @metaverse: Happy birthday ;-)
            https://www.greenleaflegalherbalhighs.com/product-page/ayah-…
            Try copy/paste if link doesn't work.

        • Cave Fire on 26/09/2019 - 21:01
          +3

          Oh god…. There's nothing called modified LSD lol. If you are that clueless you should not be giving out recommendations. Please do not order drugs or herbals off the net! You are begging to be experimented with.

          • [Deactivated] on 26/09/2019 - 21:01
            -1

            @Cave Fire: You missed the point.
            Example. Pegasus I am guessing IS modified LSD. But these places usually don't tell you what is in there products. So I researched and tried two products that are similar, and that's my best guess.

            I am not recommending anybody do anything. I'm just generously telling the questioner what I've found so far works for me.

            Stop being a spoiled brat, I don't want your flac dude.
            Ask nicely.

            • PotsyMcGoon on 26/09/2019 - 21:09

              @[Deactivated]: "My best guess" is not going to cop it when some kid buys this stuff on your recommendation and has a seizure!

              Educate yourself: https://adf.org.au/drug-facts/synthetic-cannabis/

            • Cave Fire on 26/09/2019 - 21:29
              +1

              @[Deactivated]: I'm 34, usually when someone is trying to deceive you, a little of truth comes out in what they are saying eg "spoilt brat". Your knowledge of chemistry is less than what a first year organic Chem student, maybe even what some year 12 students would know.

              • [Deactivated] on 26/09/2019 - 21:45

                @Cave Fire: You anticipate I give a damn about your narrow minded, and dictatorial opinion.
                You are mistaken. So goodbye for good.

                I answered 'Adz81's question, that's all that's important to me here.
                You and your haters can continue your neighborhood watch attack mentality, but love prevails still for many, not for you, but for the rest of us.

              • [Deactivated] on 13/10/2019 - 00:11

                @Cave Fire: Did I say I was a chemistry expert? No! I'm a computer scientist, and mainly focused on physics through my adult life. Chemistry I regret didn't interest me much at school anymore than genetics, as I think they are both examples of current era, high level distorted view of underlying sub-quantum reality. Eventually AI, quantum thought computing, and an understanding of human perception limitations, will lead to overwriting most of our human scientific knowledge.

          • PotsyMcGoon on 26/09/2019 - 21:08
            -1

            @Cave Fire: Thank you!

            If you knew anything about what you were talking about you would know that "Modified LSD" "Infused in herb" is simply untested synthetic cannibinoids manufactured in China

            • [Deactivated] on 26/09/2019 - 21:12
              -2

              @PotsyMcGoon: Well then I must be wrong.
              As I have tried them personally. Written and asked the company. They didn't answer.
              I am telling the questioner my opinion.
              You people need to talk directly to god to get your standard of answers.
              I'm only human, sorry.

          • [Deactivated] on 10/10/2019 - 15:16

            @Cave Fire: Yes there is, what are you on. Try accepting trump, you might feel better :-)

        • [Deactivated] on 26/09/2019 - 21:17

          Enjoy.

    • PotsyMcGoon on 26/09/2019 - 21:04
      +8

      Please educate yourself and refrain from linking sites selling what appear to be synthetic cannabinoids.

      This is NOT modified LSD. LSD cannot be infused with herbs and smoked.

      LSD and it's analogues are typically laid on paper tabs. Even then, drugs sold as modified LSD (NBOME) are extremely dangerous.

      These synthetic cannabinoids have been known to be fatal in some individuals and psychosis inducing.

      Hugely irresponsible to promote these without any verification on what they are exactly.

      I would exercise extreme caution with these products. Just because they are legal does not mean they're safe.

        • PotsyMcGoon on 26/09/2019 - 21:19
          +4

          Do as you wish, just don't be irresponsible and feed people patently misleading and dangerous information.

          More information on synthetic cannabinoids can be found here:

          https://adf.org.au/drug-facts/synthetic-cannabis/

          • [Deactivated] on 26/09/2019 - 21:20
            -7

            @PotsyMcGoon: RUOK?

          • [Deactivated] on 26/09/2019 - 22:27

            @PotsyMcGoon: I agree. Mr U said:
            "This is mild and harmless afaik"
            … based on his own one-off anecdotal experience. I hope no-one takes what he wrote seriously or as any kind of vouching for safety.

            Personally I'm in favour of legalisation of most drugs, but the whole point is it should make it safer and more predictable. Taking the advice of a clearly biased stranger over the internet is really not a good idea.

            • HighAndDry on 27/09/2019 - 09:58
              +2

              @[Deactivated]: While I don't condone his answers, "afaik" means exactly what you're accusing them of…

        • Revrnd on 28/09/2019 - 23:43
          -1

          And if/when you flip your lid and cause injury or death to someone else.. who's going to be the one suffering? Who'll be the one to blame?

          The person who used it, the person who sold it? or both.

          I know if harm came to someone I loved due to someone else's dug use, no amount of "sorry" will do.

  • mjuice7 on 26/09/2019 - 07:37
    +9

    remember kids, only dopes smoke dope.

    • navyskies on 26/09/2019 - 08:05

      thanks gramps!

      g-go Hilary!

    • AustriaBargain on 27/09/2019 - 16:00

      Willie Nelson gets blitzed every day and he’s doing okay.

    • mjuice7 on 28/09/2019 - 07:40

      fret not kids. lmao. maybe a smiley or a wink wink nod nod was in order.😂

  • jimbobaus on 26/09/2019 - 08:05
    +4

    I have no issue with legalisation
    but it should not be allowed to be smoked in the street or public areas.
    As someone who is actually allergic and has a very bad reaction just from being around it it would be an absolute nightmare.

    Saying that, i do not ever see it being legal to smoke etc it in the street.
    Even Amsterdam has laws which makes public use illegal.

    • dogboy on 26/09/2019 - 09:24
      +4

      So shouldn't this also apply to cigerettes? You can smoke on the street in Canada no worries.

      • jimbobaus on 26/09/2019 - 09:27
        +11

        Yes it should.
        I am a smoker.. and i do not smoke while walking around in public.
        I am in the minority sadly.. i like the Tokyo system.. illegal to smoke on street but plenty of designated areas for smokers to use.

        AND…
        my friend was saying some cities in Canada are in process of passing by-laws outlawing smoking it in the streets

        • idonotknowwhy on 28/09/2019 - 11:20

          I am a smoker.. and i do not smoke while walking around in public.

          You're awesome, thanks man!

        • OzJD on 29/09/2019 - 14:03

          I'm guessing you haven't been to Tokyo… While there's smoking areas, many of them are open in the middle of the street.

          A bunch also close at certain times, and many people just smoke wherever they want.

          Oh. And smoking in hotels, restaurants, some shops, etc. Is very common!

          I'm a smoker, but I'd much prefer people smoke anywhere in the street than in a restaurant etc. (The smoking vs non smoking areas are not really divided)

          • jimbobaus on 29/09/2019 - 18:12

            @OzJD: Actually lived in Tokyo for 3 years and was there two weeks ago.

            smoking in restaurants is now being made illegal and is phasing out. McDonald’s etc have already implemented no smoking in Their restaraunts (due to olympics is why law was changed)

            Yes they are open in middle of the street but they are designated so people mostly smoke there.
            In my 3 years living in Tokyo I rarely saw anyone smoking on the street unless in a designated area.
            The only smoking areas that close are inside centres which are also Closed so no reason to be open.

            Almost every hotel is now smoke free. All will be by jan 1
            Bars are smoke free or will be by jan 1
            Things are changing and it is by far better than here that’s for sure.

    • [Deactivated] on 26/09/2019 - 11:01
      -6

      When taken in context of Australia, I agree.

      Imagine a stoner getting injured in public or walking into traffic… tax payer burden. Couldn't care less if tax payers aren't involved.

      • jimbobaus on 26/09/2019 - 11:05

        If they legalise it they would also have to take the test off the drug buses.. cause how can u legalise something but not be allowed to drive at all (i know alcohol is the same but there is a legal limit)

        • [Deactivated] on 26/09/2019 - 11:06
          +3

          It's pretty simple. It is legal but not before or when operating heavy machinery or vehicles.

          I don't think there's a problem there.

          • jimbobaus on 26/09/2019 - 11:08
            +1

            @[Deactivated]: Yeah but problem is the residual… those tests come back positive 2 days after since you used.
            It would be a legal minefield imho

            • [Deactivated] on 26/09/2019 - 11:10

              @jimbobaus: Easily fixable. The legality will revolve around the objective tests just as drinking is.

              I drive better at 0.1 BAC (maybe…) but if I am caught at 0.05, I'm still done.

              Same thing will apply to dope. Someone can claim that it is no longer active but if according to tests, it is still detectable, they're done.

              • EightImmortals on 26/09/2019 - 14:20
                +1

                @[Deactivated]: AFAIK that is only determined by a blood test these days? Maybe they have invented a better test already? All I know is that the saliva tests can give false positives either way, long LONG after the effects of the plant have worn off.

                • [Deactivated] on 26/09/2019 - 14:36

                  @EightImmortals: No idea either. I haven't partaken for too long to be interested in the technicalities.

                  Either way, the biggest problem isn't going to be the traffic testing. It is going to be access to "disadvantaged" groups including drop kicks.

                  • EightImmortals on 26/09/2019 - 15:04
                    +1

                    @[Deactivated]: "access"? Maybe I misunderstand but wouldn't the 'dropkicks' be the ones growing their own thereby depriving dealers of money and cops of wasting time?

                    • [Deactivated] on 26/09/2019 - 17:43

                      @EightImmortals: Think of the gambling industry.

                      Legalizing gambling removes dodgy underground gambling dens but it increases the number of patrons hence bigger market for loan sharks.

                      We try to reduce the appeal of loan sharks by providing personal loans but debt collectors hurt people's feelings.

                      • EightImmortals on 26/09/2019 - 18:06

                        @[Deactivated]: I suspect your average cannabis user has a bit more nouse about those things that your average gambler though. :)
                        And either way those kinds of issues only effect people who have some kind of problem in that area. Most of us can go to a casino with 100 bux and walk out without losing any more (or when we are ahead). Just as most drug users (of any variety) are not addicts and don't 'need' a fix every day. And cannabis even addictive in that way (unless you mix it with tobacco then you get a nicotine addiction). So I don;t see the new law being of much effect in that context.

                        • [Deactivated] on 26/09/2019 - 18:45

                          @EightImmortals: That's true, I don't care what someone else wants to do but like the gambler with an addiction, tax payers pay for their broken thumbs and legs, and whatever social help it is they come to expect.

                          I couldn't care less if a junkie wants to OD on pesticides but tax payer money gets involved to keep these delightful people away from their own self inflicted death.

                          • EightImmortals on 27/09/2019 - 07:23
                            +3

                            @[Deactivated]: I see your point but on the VERY long list of how taxpyer money is spent with contempt then people with the addictions is the least of my objections. :)

                            • [Deactivated] on 27/09/2019 - 07:31
                              +1

                              @EightImmortals: Sure but new this one is new so this one gets attention +1.

                              • EightImmortals on 27/09/2019 - 07:35

                                @[Deactivated]: :) I'm sure it will eventually move to a tax-positive proposition at some point. That way they can spend the revenue earned on treating those who need help the most, you know, just like they always do. :)

              • abuch47 on 27/09/2019 - 20:28

                @[Deactivated]: cannabis can stay detectable for as little as couple hours but upto a month.

                • [Deactivated] on 27/09/2019 - 20:52

                  @abuch47: … and?..

                  • trapper on 08/10/2019 - 16:52

                    @[Deactivated]: As you well know obesity has a far higher cost to the taxpayer than any amount of stoner injuries.

                    So shouldn't we be putting the fatties in jail instead of the stoners? ;)

                    • [Deactivated] on 08/10/2019 - 16:53

                      @trapper: Nah. They take up too much space.

                      • trapper on 08/10/2019 - 16:59

                        @[Deactivated]: Not for long on 1000 calories a day.

                        • [Deactivated] on 08/10/2019 - 17:03

                          @trapper: They are what they eat. They may eat the other fatties.

      • AustriaBargain on 27/09/2019 - 16:02
        +2

        Healthcare is so cheap per capita here precisely because taxpayers were involved every step of the way. It’s cheaper to insure everyone for everything.

        • [Deactivated] on 27/09/2019 - 17:08

          Too much internet for one day.

    • AustriaBargain on 27/09/2019 - 16:00
      +1

      Should we be making laws around your allergies?

  • jjjaar on 26/09/2019 - 08:26

    adults in the ACT will be able to grow two cannabis plants each

    I read up to four plants per household as a maximum.

    • ruddiger7 on 27/09/2019 - 08:21
      +1

      Yep, 2 as an individual with a maximum of 4 per household.

  • EightImmortals on 26/09/2019 - 08:55
    +15

    Now if only some other states follow suite we can put all those coppas to work stopping real crimes. :)
    Imagine how not prosecuting minor victimless infringements will free up the court system too.

    • ruddiger7 on 27/09/2019 - 08:21
      +5

      Yep and not ruining peoples lives over being caught with a herb.

      • EightImmortals on 27/09/2019 - 08:33
        +12

        Was reading an article the other day about a guy who got caught with 25gm of old dried mushrooms in a roadside stop. Apparently he had prior minor usage charges but had been clean for a year or two and mushrooms were stuffed into an old sports bag and forgotten about. So here is this guy who has harmed no one, was not under the influence of anything, he hadn't stolen or damaged anyone's property, he hadn't defrauded anyone etc. This guy now faces 25 YEARS!!!!! in gaol. To get the equivalent sentence you would have to have over 250gms of heroin or other dangerous drugs. You only get a couple of years for murdering someone these days. Did he get caught in China, or Indonesia or one of the other despotic regimes? Nope, this was in NSW. Don't tell me we don't need legislative reform now.

  • Fredfloresjr on 26/09/2019 - 09:17

    happy days

  • [Deactivated] on 26/09/2019 - 09:59

    To each their own. I will admit to previous drug use and existing occasional alcohol partaking but people who cultivate a lifestyle requiring regular chemical mental augmentation are people I'll keep minimal association with.

    • Bid Sniper on 26/09/2019 - 11:23
      +18

      Honestly, I prefer stoners than alcoholics. Stoners dont get violent.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join