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

      • [Deactivated] on 26/09/2019 - 12:51
        -5

        They aren't violent when stoned but they are when they have dysfunctional lives and insufficient resources to keep stoning.

        • Bid Sniper on 26/09/2019 - 14:41
          +6

          I know a few functioning smokers and they hold down a job just fine.

          Random stoners on the street get free hugs, Alcoholics think the're 10ft tall, get argo and pick fights because they're *****. Dysfunctional people are dysfunctional and will abuse anything, rather them smoke weed than consume alcohol to self medicate.

          • [Deactivated] on 26/09/2019 - 14:52

            @Bid Sniper: People can be smoke cigarettes and do work.

            Marijuana impairs. If one cannot be productive whilst under the influence, one is at a significantly higher risk of having an affected career.

        • Eeples on 27/09/2019 - 23:05
          +2

          Any links to studies?

          • [Deactivated] on 28/09/2019 - 07:53

            @Eeples: You need studies to show people can get violent when they cannot get what they want?

    • DeafMutePretender on 27/09/2019 - 22:22

      You got downvoted by drug users who want to hang out with you and associate with you.

      • [Deactivated] on 28/09/2019 - 07:56
        +1

        It's the great irony.

        The most judgemental people I have encountered are those who self proclaim to be "non judgemental".

        • Eeples on 29/09/2019 - 09:59
          +1

          Your “to each their own” rings hollow.

          • [Deactivated] on 29/09/2019 - 10:10

            @Eeples: You can do what you want as long as I don't have to pay for it.

            The problem with many people crying for liberty is that they want the freedom to do as the please and still have someone else shoulder the consequence with them.

            I have thus far been consistent - I'm pro liberties as long as it also the individual that bears responsibility.

            My personal preference of who I keep as company is immaterial either way.

            • Eeples on 30/09/2019 - 08:56
              +1

              @[Deactivated]: If you can’t see that you are being judgemental of others by choosing not to hang out with such people then you can’t see it.

              In short, you are valuing their company less. That’s fine live your life how you want just don’t pretend you aren’t being judgemental.

              • [Deactivated] on 30/09/2019 - 09:23

                @Eeples: I am being judgemental. I never did say I wasn't.

                I am not being any more judgemental than anyone else although I am being less pretentious about it.

                I am not being imposing. I am still generally supportive of decriminalization.

                Stop thinking in such binary forms that I must either be rallying behind pot heads or I must be deadly against.

  • SlowCarSlow on 26/09/2019 - 10:40
    +1

    What are their plans for seeing if drivers are under the influence of this drug in a consistent way, similar to how alcohol is using the breathalyzer?

    • SnowDragon on 26/09/2019 - 10:47
      +7

      Ask them if they want some maccas.

      • [Deactivated] on 26/09/2019 - 11:05
        +2

        Or just do the dude test.

        Officer: Duuuuude…

        Stoner's reflex: Duuuuude…

        Yup. Take him away.

    • core101 on 27/09/2019 - 15:01
      +1

      What about an impairment test, scientifically based on real world impairment. There could be countless number of drivers, that take prescription drugs, that may affect their driving ability, but are not screen for by police. As a baseline, researchers could sample hundreds of thousands of drivers from 17-100 years of ages, not under any influence of any drug, to statistically determine a bell curve of legal "safe" drivers. The data can be obtained by creating test devices that police could use on a random stop. They claim reaction is affected, create a reaction timer test. Memory affected, create a matching-tile, Rubik's cube, Tangram square memory test. Vision affected, create a vision test, etc., so all concerns are addressed. So if the stoners test positive in the preliminary test, and secondary impairment tests falls within the bell curve, then they have to be considered as safe as the sample of normal drivers, and released to continue their journey to maccas.

      • [Deactivated] on 28/09/2019 - 08:00
        +1

        You are suggesting the police will need to be qualified to administer and evaluate psychological and physiological tests road side?

        What next? Posties to deliver mail on time!?

        • BooYa on 28/09/2019 - 08:04

          Eh, I'm not too worried about car drivers being high.

          I'm more concerned about doctors and nurses, or airplane pilots.

          • [Deactivated] on 28/09/2019 - 08:54

            @BooYa: Nah. I'm good bro.

  • DarthAntz on 26/09/2019 - 11:18
    +5

    Good news. Good because prosecuting users is a waste of time and creates more problems for society than being legal.

    Looks like a trap though, where they can choose to not prosecute an individual under local law, but can choose to prosecute under commonwealth law. Freedom isn't free. Vague laws are vague for a reason.

    Looking at the changes in America in regards to legalisation, all of the power and money has gone to the big earning companies, that have quickly made a monopoly over it. It's had many documented social benefits (Colorado had a reduction in crime, traffic accidents, among other things as a result of legalisation) but the benefits and law are still governed by those set to profit.
    At least the laws in Canberra state you can grow your own for personal use, a carry limit, and it has been passed in good time.

    Good luck and best wishes to the other states set to benefit.

  • Bid Sniper on 26/09/2019 - 11:22
    +4

    Went to a seminar on industrial cannabis manufacturing, huge money (legal) already invested in this industry. Venture capitalists will be getting high on stock prices.

    • myusername on 26/09/2019 - 15:00
      +1

      look at auscann

      you can see the industry is setting up for corruption when you got ex politicians running it. they want to mass cultivate at xmas island

      • Bid Sniper on 26/09/2019 - 15:32
        +2

        All ex politicians end up on boards of shady companies, its the current money under the table arrangement that somehow passes ASIC. Long list of those scumbags from both sides.

        Not surprised they're involved in drugs. I'm sure there will be quid pro quo for rolling out further legalization if thats the case.

        Share price is flat when looking at it surprisingly.

        https://www.asx.com.au/asx/share-price-research/company/AC8

        • StonedWizard on 26/09/2019 - 17:48
          +1

          @Bid Sniper - I wonder why it’s flat, since this would give the company more opportunity to supply areas?

          • Bid Sniper on 26/09/2019 - 17:56
            +1

            @StonedWizard: I think here its for personal use and growing at home. Rather than supply at industrial scale. To me I guess still no prospect for ROI at this stage.

            Still id expect more than a 1% bump up

    • macrocephalic on 27/09/2019 - 14:24
      +6

      Yes. The big tobacco companies are already well poised to cultivate marijuana as soon as it becomes legal in different jurisdictions. They have the farms, the factories, the supply chains, the people to work through the legal process etc.

      As much as I think pot should be legal, we need to be careful that we're not just rewarding the tobacco companies (IMO).

    • FlatulentFrank on 27/09/2019 - 22:49

      Also went to a seminar about this as an investor/employee. Which one did you go?

  • myusername on 26/09/2019 - 14:59
    +4

    politicians gotta look after their kids, can't have their drug addicted kiddies growing up with criminal records

  • Diji1 on 26/09/2019 - 15:02
    +9

    Should be legalised for all use and only regulated to protect minors and users of roads and workplaces.

    A two plant limit is basically pointless and almost as good as just banning it outright. Users will not be able to grow enough for personal use and furthermore those growing from seed or cuttings are too restricted in terms of plant survivability and strain and plant selection for cuttings.

    But I guess it's something.

    I do not want cannabis regulated at all beyond protection issues because it will turn into a tax scam where everybody in the country pays tax for cannabis while the wealthiest people in the country continue paying no tax. For example, this is the case with alcohol and tobacco.

    • macrocephalic on 27/09/2019 - 14:26

      Sure, but you don't have to be a user to grow. If if were legal then I'd be tempted to put some plants in my back yard so my friends could have more if they needed.

    • Bammers on 28/09/2019 - 07:56
      +1

      Last few plants I saw growing had over 8oz p/plant… are you permanently blazed or something as that's a huge amount.

      Whilst I don't agree with limitations if it is legal, i also think 2 plants every 90 days or so is ample.

  • chumlee on 26/09/2019 - 15:33
    -2

    Thankfully it's not going to cut into my meth business.

    May be better as i can get new clientele that want something stronger than weed as they move up the drug taking chain

    • t_c on 26/09/2019 - 16:54
      +2

      Pm sent

    • hawkeye on 26/09/2019 - 18:19
      +1

      You'll be able to monopolize selling Christmas snow cone starter pipes semi legal.

  • Herbse on 26/09/2019 - 15:47
    +9

    What a catch 22..

    Weed is legal
    Have to visit Canberra for it..

    🤔

    • Gauntlet on 26/09/2019 - 16:17

      Right!? 😬

    • hetzjagd on 27/09/2019 - 02:38
      +2

      Too cool for Canberra yet not cool enough to be able to score freaking weed in your own city eh?

    • eskylidder on 27/09/2019 - 23:49

      this is the best comment here - its a trap!!!

  • DBBROS on 26/09/2019 - 17:14
    -7

    Having seen a lot of people with withdrawals and how bad the stuff is to people in the long term especially for those who have a history of mental illness, there is no way that I would support the use of cannabis

    • nomoneynoproblems on 26/09/2019 - 20:54
      +13

      Having seen a lot of people with withdrawals and how bad the stuff is to people in the long term especially for those who have a history of mental illness, there is no way that I would support the use of Alcohol.

    • vikvance on 27/09/2019 - 08:05
      +3

      Having seen a lot of people with withdrawals and how bad the stuff is to people in the long term especially for those who have a history of mental illness, there is no way that I would support the use of cannabis

      The anti-depressants happily prescribed by psychiatrists, have far far worse side effects & withdrawal issues, compared to cannabis.

      • trongy on 27/09/2019 - 08:39
        +1

        I think to to calculate the overall benefit of a drug you need to subtract the harms of from side effects from the positive beneficial effects of the drug.

        If an anti-depressant prevents someone from committing suicide or other self-harm then it's super valuable, even after subtracting the harm from side effects. An anti-depressant that lets someone return to work instead of becoming long term unemployed or enables someone to care for their children without harming them could also be quite valuable and worth enduring the side effects.

      • jc123 on 27/09/2019 - 22:39
        +1

        Unless you're a psychiatrist, or a pharmacist, I would refrain from such a blanket statement. You're comparing apples to oranges.
        All drugs, prescribed, natural or otherwise (including paracetamol) can have significant side-effects, and depending on use and the person's biology and dosage.
        There are many classes of anti-depressants, and they are effective for a certain population with biological depression. No one would take it recreationally. But yes, careful use is required (see serotonin syndrome)
        Cannabis is used recreationally, and medically for certain purposes. However, I'd venture to say that cannabis is strongly not recommended in those with history of psychosis/schizophrenia. Schizophrenia/psychotic illnesses are very debilitating.

    • Cusack on 27/09/2019 - 20:43
      +1

      Interested to hear your thoughts on alcohol? Should that be banned also? Coz alcohol is actually worse than cannabis at all levels.

    • FlatulentFrank on 27/09/2019 - 22:40

      That's factually incorrect and you should reflect on what you saw and what the probable outcome is. Cannabis is not biologically addictive, you CANNOT withdrawal from it. The body doesn't go into red alert when long term users kick the habit. You are either a troll or misinformed of "a lot of people" and the substances they were addicted to.

    • Eeples on 27/09/2019 - 23:11

      What are these people’s names?

  • Munr00 on 26/09/2019 - 17:38
    +2

    Im pleasantly surprised by the positivity and progressiveness in the comments. This is a health issue not a legal one.

  • smpantsonfire on 26/09/2019 - 18:25

    You can't buy it or sell it, seeds and all. Sooo, getting it is still illegal isn't it?

    • Cluster on 26/09/2019 - 20:37

      If people can grow their own plants then surely the seeds are legal too? Or maybe people will have to buy seedlings from Bunnings :-)

      • smpantsonfire on 26/09/2019 - 22:51

        They are legal, but it is still illegal to buy or sell cannabis.

        • macrocephalic on 27/09/2019 - 14:28

          I'm sure some community NFP will offer free seeds for those who want them.

    • ruddiger7 on 27/09/2019 - 08:26

      Not if you found it

  • frewer on 26/09/2019 - 21:46
    +2

    Legalise or not? Medical or recreational? Commercialised or personal only? Limits/restrictions?

    Legalise Medical weeds for Commercialized and personal with certain restrictions.

  • [Deactivated] on 26/09/2019 - 21:57
    +1

    OPs name checks out.

  • max2million on 27/09/2019 - 00:34
    +14

    How's this for a concept: let people do what they want as long as they don't hurt others.

    You can't claim banning it is for public benefit. I'd be more likely to incur medical expenses if I were an enthusiastic adult skate boarder. I'd be more likely to get in a car accident if I were eating a burger while driving. The pearl clutching moralising of some people…

    Alcohol and sugar do a lot of damage, ban them too?

    • stickyfingers on 27/09/2019 - 01:49
      +2

      How's this for a concept: let people do what they want as long as they don't hurt others.

      That seems to be a common opinion. Funny though how the people who think most opposite to the general public are the ones who end up making the rules…

      • lltravel on 27/09/2019 - 08:59
        +2

        it's because all the people that make the laws are backed by religion and have very old ways of thinking.

        Just look at all the muppets who questioned the ceo of google. They have no idea how technology works

    • dufflover on 27/09/2019 - 18:33

      let people do what they want as long as they don't hurt others.

      Because I think you know as well as everyone else that they won't take responsibility for their actions if they do hurt others or themselves. And with the ACT being huge fans of pill testing they obviously aren't thinking along the lines of people taking responsibility for their own actions.

  • AncientWisdom on 27/09/2019 - 01:13
    +4

    We have sovereign right over our own consciousness.

    It's a good thing some governments are beginning to clue in 👍🏽

    • [Deactivated] on 27/09/2019 - 10:35

      We have sovereign right over our own consciousness.

      Not if progressing technologies such as those stemming from mkultra, become a tool of government control. I hope it's just fantasy.

  • Croupier on 27/09/2019 - 06:20
    +1

    So I grow 2 plants, harvest and dry it, end up with a pound of weed, cops kick down my door and arrest me?

    • [Deactivated] on 27/09/2019 - 10:37

      Or you just ate all but 1 gram, and federal law kicks in. Might as well be fully illegal.

  • leiiv on 27/09/2019 - 12:31

    A better world only needs two criminal laws (punishable by jail time): violence and stealing. The rest can go to civil or go to hell.

    • Hughesyboy on 27/09/2019 - 13:37

      What about merging without using a blinker?

      • Hughesyboy on 27/09/2019 - 13:38
        +1

        Wait, definitely belong in hell.

  • Sage on 27/09/2019 - 13:06
    +1

    I don't understand how it's both legal and illegal, that just doesn't make sense.

    • Pantagonist on 27/09/2019 - 14:30
      +1

      Under ACT law it's legal within the prescribed definitions.
      Under Commonwealth (Federal) law it's not legal.

      Police officers are able to lay charges under Commonwealth law if they choose to.

      In reality no police officer is going to charge a person found with a bit of weed with a Federal offence.

      Cannabis has been decriminalized in the ACT since 2004, which essentially means possession of a small amount has been treated more like a minor traffic infringement than a criminal offence. This recent reform basically removes the fines and other penalties that used to apply if you were caught with the drug.

      On a related note, good luck to anyone who want to try and grow good quality cannabis without a hydroponic setup (which is not allowed under the new laws) in Canberra, especially during winter.

      Honestly, this "reform" is more about optics and politics rather than any real change to the way things currently operate.

  • furyou on 27/09/2019 - 14:23

    Wasn't it legal before in ACT and NT?
    Or sth else?

    • macrocephalic on 27/09/2019 - 14:30

      I think it might have been decriminalised - i.e. it was illegal, but you wouldn't get a criminal conviction for small quantities. You could still be arrested, taken to court, and fined though.

      (correct me if I'm wrong)

    • Pantagonist on 27/09/2019 - 14:31
      +1

      Decriminalized in the ACT and WA in 2004.

      WA re-criminalized it in 2011.

  • Corrugated Ironman on 27/09/2019 - 14:36
    +1

    Any good “Deals” though?

    • pikapika on 27/09/2019 - 17:08

      Keep searching OzBargain for that ;)

  • kolorijo on 27/09/2019 - 15:24

    Time to look for property in ACT.

  • syousef on 27/09/2019 - 20:01

    Corruption follows where state and federal laws are in conflict.
    If the powers that be want to prosecute, they'll go by the federal law.
    If the powers that be want to excuse, they'll cite the state law.
    Lawyers will have a field day.

  • meowbert on 27/09/2019 - 20:56
    -6

    Sounds like a dumb idea! Hopefully they re-criminalise (?) it shortly, then arrest all the dope heads.

  • Insision on 27/09/2019 - 21:36

    Now all the politician ll go high & make some new rules for othr🤣😂😂

  • DeafMutePretender on 27/09/2019 - 22:18
    -4

    I don't care if you do drugs, but I don't trust drug users with, well… anything.

    People who openly do drugs are very helpful. They might as well be holding a sign that says "I am a very reliable and trustworthy person (/sarcasm)"

    • FlatulentFrank on 27/09/2019 - 22:44

      So what's the theory behind such an opinion.

      I wanna know how your mind came up with drugs = no trust…all bad & no help.

      Does that mean everyone that doesn't do drugs = good & always helpful? What if the drug is legalised? e.g caffeine

      • DeafMutePretender on 30/09/2019 - 22:04

        I wanna know how your mind came up with drugs = no trust…all bad & no help.

        My judgment of a person depends on what they say and what they do. If they are an open and proud pothead, then that's just one of the many factors I would (negatively) judge them on. If they are a particularly vocal and strong drug user, then I would guess that they are the sort of personality that shirks responsibility and the type of person that avoids reality.

        I also have a fairly low opinion of people who have tattoos. I think a human body is a temple and tattoos are desecration. Naturally, drug users, tattoos and degenerate personalities are a very common combination.

        Does that mean everyone that doesn't do drugs = good & always helpful?

        A person who doesn't do drugs is someone that meets my baseline level of respect/non-respect. I have neither a positive nor negative view of them, just a neutral one. However, a loud and proud drug user steps below that line. Every extra factor will only make the situation worse (EG. tattoos, potty-mouth, bright neon hair etc).

        My opinion is the same for legal drugs like alcohol and beer, whether they're avoiding reality by drowning their sorrows in a pint of beer or whether they're setting loose their inhibitions by losing control of their anger. In the case of smokers, I'll naturally avoid them due to the scent of smoke so smokers only have themselves to blame if non-smokers remove themselves from the active smoker's vicinity. Smokers also often represent another personality flaw: lack of control and addiction.

        So if I was to trust a random stranger with my wallet, my child, or my life, and without knowing anything else about them, I would generally choose the non-drug user over the drug user. Similar to how if a woman is walking in a dark alley with a man behind her, she would be more alert and careful than if it was a woman walking in a dark alley with a another woman behind her. Anything else is suicidal for the sake of political correctness.

        Some societies are drug friendly. Some societies are drug unfriendly (Asian countries etc). Neither society is right or wrong. They just have different views on drugs. If a pro-drug Westerner were to proclaim his view as 100% objectively moral, then that's just a form of supremacy. In the case of imperial Britain and China, white supremacy. Maybe it's the death penalty anti-drug countries that are right?

        Nevertheless, that is just my opinion and my opinion does not violate the rights of others. Drug users can continue to do drugs and I'll continue to disassociate myself from them.

        • macrocephalic on 02/10/2019 - 12:38
          +1

          Old man yells at clouds - gotcha.

    • Cusack on 28/09/2019 - 07:45
      +3

      There are many professionals using cannabis (teachers, surgeons, pilots, etc). But yeah you're right in your baseless judgement (/sarcasm)

      • AncientWisdom on 01/10/2019 - 12:29
        +2

        Would be hilarious if he was ever to be in the situation where his life is saved by (shock! horror!) a drug using person such as a fireman, surgeon or a farmer…

        • DeepHorizon on 02/10/2019 - 14:22
          +2

          "Can I please have a firefighter without tattoos free me from this crashed vehicle?"
          "You're bleeding out"
          "From my non-tattooed body, yes. You might want to be quick"

  • FlatulentFrank on 27/09/2019 - 23:01
    +1

    I believe the proof we've seen with Canada and other US states (that are similar to Aus) prove that it reduces opiate addiction, crime and death. Had a surprising number of users over 50+ with medicinal applications (look up Parkinson's disease, pain associated illnesses) in Washington with kids moving away from it once it was legal.

    The answer is clear as day, anyone willing to form such a strong opinion should at least owe it to themselves to research it a tad. It turned me from a hippy hating devils lettuce angry idiot to a informed person that's made significant money from the research conducted and investments abroad (die to it's application)

    someone I personally know, this medication saved their sons life and his constant seizures. They still have to buy it illegally just so their boy can stop seizuring and enjoy a quality of life.

    It's all about experience, once you see a tired loving mother break down because she's doing something illegal for the medical benefit of her child. It really gives perspective on it all. It's clearly a benefit to many in society and reduces the illegal drug trade and provides more back in taxes to society. It's such a simple answer and we've got many places we can learn how to regulate it properly.

    • Eeples on 27/09/2019 - 23:15
      -4

      This law has nothing to do with medical marijuana.

      • FlatulentFrank on 27/09/2019 - 23:36
        +2

        Merely applying a real world case where the medical benefit has relevance to access (which is still bloody difficult)

        Being able to cultivate at home or buy from reputable source with full legalisation is better. It's extremely difficult even though it's technically legal for medical. Not that you know or care to understand.

        Also recognition of its recreational benefits…thanks for picking one element of a complete comment and downvoting it! Really contributes to the discussion!

        • Eeples on 29/09/2019 - 09:16

          Perhaps you have intentionally misunderstood.

          Medical marijuana has been legal in the ACT since 2016.

          This new legislation is not for the children; making it about that is clear misrepresentation; and emotive.

          If there is a problem with the 2016 legislation this is not the best way to fix it.

    • frewer on 28/09/2019 - 10:10
      +1

      I couldnt agree more with what you said there. Let's hope the big pharma doesnt involve in this one … this time

  • eskylidder on 27/09/2019 - 23:45
    +4

    Australia is yet to be progressive for such a 'new' country with an excellent quality of life? Yes, just like alcohol and tobacco if citizens choose to do it - than they can. I want their tax dollars rather than a neighbour junkie. I would much rather a stoner thats a threat to cake rather than a drunktard thats likely to be violent.

    • Cusack on 28/09/2019 - 07:35
      +6

      The difference between alcohol and weed…. 5 drunk guys will start a fight, 5 stoned guys will start a band.

      • FlatulentFrank on 28/09/2019 - 09:00
        +2

        Sadly it's true, it highlights the effects of both drugs and behaviours being situated at opposite ends of the spectrum.

        That's why I find it so hard to understand how people could be so judgemental towards something that's clearly beneficial to members of society.

        • Cusack on 28/09/2019 - 10:29
          +2

          Decades of marketing and brainwashing. I fell for it also I'm embarrassed to say.

          • [Deactivated] on 29/09/2019 - 10:19

            @Cusack: Now you're falling for marketing on the other end of the spectrum.

            Alcohol being bad doesn't make weed a benefit to society. We're not being given an ultimatum to have alcohol or weed in circulation.

            Anything that impairs may make the most responsible of us lapse in judgement. After all, lapse in judgement is exactly why people partake.

            Neither should be banned but you are now perpetuating more fallacy.

  • mrblu on 28/09/2019 - 14:51

    I personally like weed but I think it's careless to allow young adults to consume it. There is still growing researching showing negative causes, plus the human brain really doesn't stop developing until around 25yo.

    I really think there should be more drug education so people can make more informed decisions.

    • AncientWisdom on 01/10/2019 - 12:40

      I agree with you, and the solution IMO is legalise it and then do much better in truthful drug education.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join