Cannabis: We can shut up, toe the line, be vilified, or not be reported at all
When President Obama commented that he thought cannabis was likely less dangerous than alcohol it generated headlines around the world. Why?
Cannabis is a relatively harmless therapeutic and recreational drug. It has been studied more exhaustively than any other therapeutic substance on earth. In recorded history there is not a single documented case of a person dying from cannabis toxicity. Last year, in Australia, there were no deaths attributed primarily to the use of cannabis. In 2014, the year that Obama publicly observed that cannabis is likely less dangerous than alcohol, there had been no deaths solely attributable to cannabis use in the US, or Australia, or the known universe.
In Australia, in 2014, there were more than five-and-a-half-thousand deaths caused directly by excess alcohol consumption. There were at least one-hundred-and-sixty-thousand hospitalizations directly attributed to abusing alcohol. Moreover, we are all aware that this is the case. Even if we do not know the precise death and injury toll, most everyone in our modern western society, regardless of their personal position or individual opinion, lives in an environment where there are alcoholic vagrants on the street. It is a sad fact of life. But there are no ‘cannabis vagrants’. In fact, such a proposition seems more than a tad silly.
In this manner, the personal experience of all the inhabitants of the western world is that cannabis is a relatively harmless therapeutic herb and recreational drug. Which makes it illuminating to consider precisely why President Obama’s comments were considered newsworthy.
President Obama spoke a simple truth that publicly contradicted ‘the big lie’. Which is that cannabis must always be typified as a ‘dangerous’ drug. The observation was considered newsworthy because it fails to adhere to one of the principal rules regarding talking about cannabis. A rule that is policed by all the right-wing media guardians, as well as the supine ‘progressive’ media outlets.
The rule that Obama broke was that cannabis must not be compared and contrasted with any other substance. It must be discussed in absolute and isolated terms. ‘CANNABIS IS DANGEROUS’ the right wing declare, and the perfectly pliant mainstream simply agree. (After all, everything and anything can be dangerous.) Medicinal cannabis (of course) is acceptable, but only because it is strictly regulated. Because big penalties apply to protect the Australian public against the scourge of cannabis being freely available, it is acceptable.
Yet journalists do not ask ‘why’ we are being protected, or from what particular harms. They removed all penalties attaching to cannabis in Thailand and the place seems to be booming, and despite searching high and low for any sort of a harm attaching to this free availability of cannabis, even the police and magistrates that I asked were unable to identify any particular harm.
Journalists also fail to ask why we aren’t being protected from even more dangerous things in a similar fashion? The discussion of cannabis and the potential harms that attach to its use never seem to contextualise the discussion by noting that fifty people die from a deliberate overdose of paracetamol each year in this country (and at least three times that number are hospitalized). Nor do they observe that even if cannabis was freely available – in huge piles in the street – it would not lead to the death of anyone as it is impossible to kill yourself by overdosing on cannabis. Unlike almost every other therapeutic substance (and many commonly available foodstuffs) cannabis is entirely non-toxic.
But even more startling, this ignorance also extends to all substances that have been deemed illegal by the authorities, regardless of its danger or actual toxicity. Cannabis is equated with methamphetamine and other dangerous illegal narcotics – even though nobody dies from the abuse of cannabis. Yet the largely mythical harms associated with cannabis are never equated with the toll directly levied on society by the abuse of alcohol. Even when considering actually dangerous illicit substances these comparisons are largely avoided, as they serve to illustrate that the current war on drugs is not just utterly illogical and irrational, it is utterly nonsensical.
Consider that in 2011, at the height of the amphetamine boom in Australia, there were one hundred and one methamphetamine related fatalities, every one of which was widely reported. Yet when the statistics are closely and impartially considered, during the whole of amphetamine craze there were at least fifty-five fatalities associated directly with the abuse of alcohol for every one death due to amphetamine overdose. Also consider that in 2011 almost twice as many people died from either a deliberate overdose or the incidental abuse of paracetamol as died from amphetamine abuse. So, in summary, in 2011, in Australia, there was one death from the abuse of methamphetamine for every fifty-five deaths from abusing alcohol, many more people died as a direct result of abusing paracetamol than died from abusing ‘ice’, and still nobody died from using cannabis.
Yet the sad sting in this tail is that Obama was misquoted. One sentence from this interview was lifted and used to depict President Obama as being ‘soft on drugs’. When the actual interview is considered in its entirety then it is obvious that Obama is actually doing his best to hew to the corporate line. He describes cannabis use as ‘bad habit and a vice, not very different from the cigarettes that I smoked as a young person up through a big chunk of my adult life,’ before going on to add (seemingly accidentally and unthinkingly) that ‘I don’t think it is more dangerous than alcohol’.
Yet as soon as he notes that he is on thin ice, Obama at once slides back to addressing the topic as a civil rights matter, and turns to discussing the disproportionate numbers of black and Latino arrests for pot, and noting that ‘middle-class kids don’t get locked up for smoking pot, and poor kids do’. Which all serves to underline the totalitarian nature of the ‘dangerous drug’ media narrative. Even the coolest President of the US has to toe this corporate media line. Even the President of the US is well aware that he has to be ‘careful’ when discussing these matters. If a politician accidentally says anything that is remotely truthful – they are toast. Every mainstream media outlet in the known universe will instantly label them as ‘soft on drugs’. Every politician knows that this is the case.
Thus, in Australia, cannabis will always be described as a dangerous drug. Full stop. It is a firm rule. If you want to say different (even if you are a politician) you can’t. Cannabis is dangerous and must not be compared and contrasted with any other substance. Full stop.
We have a ‘free press’ in this country. We are all free to shut up, toe the line, be vilified, or not be reported.
Have a nice day.
Like what we do at The AIMN?
You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.
Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!
Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.
You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969
10 comments
Login here Register here-
Canguro -
New England Cocky -
Bob Fordham -
Keitha Granville -
Teiresias -
Harry Lime -
Roswell -
New England Cocky -
Clakka -
Brad
Return to home pageGiven that ignorance is a default human condition, given that America successfully demonised and illegalised cannabis after the ending of the prohibition era due to the obsessive behaviour of Harry Anslinger and his need to do something after the repeal of the Prohibition Act; given the subsequent pressure that that country then applied to the rest of the planet to similarly illegalise all forms of narcotics and stimulants, whatever their historic status… with ignorance often being the driving force behind these restrictive programs, it’s little wonder that we’ve ended up with the complex mess that we have, along with an uninformed and relatively disinterested political class who’ve been comfortable playing the Laura Norder card for ever and a day.
The fact that countries like Portugal, Uruguay, Thailand (although under its new government is ‘reconsidering’) along with many states within the USA have decriminalised cannabis doesn’t seem to get a look in here in Australia; the fact that that’s the case and nobody’s seriously discussing the absurdity of the paradoxical obviousness that decriminalisation does not lead to societal breakdown or even in an upsurge of users is glaring testament to the head in the sand drop dead ignorance that takes precedence over an intelligent and sympathetic approach to the fact of the matter that’s been at the heart of human behaviour for millennia; that we like to take substances to change our state of consciousness… we always have, we always will, as it comes with the condition of being human.
Funny (peculiar, not haha) how we can observe other creatures in the animal kingdom getting high and say, ‘oh look, there’s a reindeer eating Amanita muscaria‘, or ‘oh look, there’s a chimpanzee eating Psilocybe mushrooms,’ and then don’t think twice about it, but should a human dare to do the same, well fuck, lock him up, throw the book at him, call him a disgrace to society, call him a criminal. It’s so utterly stupid and beneath contempt how dumb people can be, and particularly those who are in postions of power and carry the capacity to monitor and manage the behaviour of others.
Legalising Recreational Cannabis has proven financially beneficial for the about 20 US states that have de-criminalised & regulated quality plus distribution. We are Talking BILLIONS here.
Perhaps a feral Parliament could bite the bullet and legislate quality & distribution in Australia, with the proceeds of regulation & excise being returned to under-funded hospitals.
🌿🌿🌿Cannabis Is and What It Is Not!🌿🌿🌿
yes NEC, exactly. Why are we not making this a profitable industry – there are certainly plenty of experienced growers out there !
It should be legalised, regulated and taxed like any other commodity, and then all the effort on drugs can be directed to the dangerous ones – heroin, meth, ecstacy etc.
Meanwhile in the real world we allow anyone to consume alcohol (yes, kids can do it with ease) and to smoke cigarettes (yes they do that too) and we watch people dying.
Dumb as.
I looked at “cannabis in the human body” and found The National Institute on Drug Abuse and it told me even some vaporizers use a liquid marijuana extract. I will not be going out of my way to find natural green cannabis. I would prefer carrots, garlic, ginger, coriander, garam masala, tomatoes,spinach, beans, pumpkin…not so much cannabis or marijuana extract.
The most dangerous thing about cannabis to law makers is that it’s bad for your election prospects,and worse still, it might open voters minds to the the bullshit piled daily onto them by all those vested interests.The so called ‘war on drugs’ has been a waste of money and resources and an abject failure.Our politicians remain in thrall to corporates,media trash, timidity and lack of courage.The wave of change, which is already on the way, will sweep these fools out of the way.Pissweak.
Doesn’t quite compute with the extreme danger of climate change and the consequent tsunami of climate refugees.Is anyone in our government not comatose?Yeah,it’s a rhetorical question.
I’ve seen a lot of lives destroyed (or ended) because of alcohol.
I’ve not seen one destroyed because of marijuana.
@ Keitha Granville: Alcohol over-consumption and any nicotine consumption by smoking causes more health problems AND SOCIAL PROBLEMS that any other two sickness initiators in modern society.
.
@ Harry Lime: The ”War on Drugs” has created a bureaucracy that seeks to maintain itself regardless of its meaningless relevance. For too long there have been too many police interests in illicit drug distribution, so with gutless pollies unwilling to take a principled stand based on the available evidence, sadly there is unlikely to be any meaningful change in government policy to benefit Australian voters.
Having been in excruciating pain, and diagnosed with a serious illness, whilst treatment was underway, I was prescribed opioids for elimination of pain. I hated the opioids. Being an ex-hippie, I knew quite a bit about all ‘recreational drugs’. The prescribers told me nothing about the risks and highly addictive nature of the opioids. They were not very effective as pain relievers. A month or so later, they told me I was using them too much – what irony and gall, when they had not prescribed dosage or limitations.
I spoke to a close friend ‘in the know’. They told me of the dangers of the opioids and implored me to get off them promptly. The next day I ‘cold turkeyed’. They sent e a ‘gift’. In the meantime my specialist when I told him I had completely stopped the opioids, said I could get by on paracetamol – no more than 2 every 6 hours – didn’t touch the sides of the pain.
The gratis ‘gift’ arrived in the mail …. (medically certified) 1 small eye-dropper bottle of 3% THC, 3% CBD, and 1 x larger bottle of 3% CBD only – for both 3 drops under the tongue ea 12 hrs as needed. The latter bottle (3% CBD) was provided only because use of the other with THC if driving and drug tested would see you off the road, license good-bye, and before the courts.
However, the 3% THC 3% CBD model absolutely annihilated the pain. I used it with no noticeable side effects until empty (about 2 months) until such time as the illness-specific treatment took effect (and also my 2 broken ribs had healed). I told my specialist, and he said, “Good”. I asked him why he had not prescribed it, and he said that especially for specialists, the heat of the politics about it (within the health industry and otherwise) were risky and restrictive. I pointed out that that the regional health authority had a web page about its use and potential for prescription. He was incredulous, and asked me if I could send him the URL – which I did. I note that the ravages of my illness could return.
There are literally hundreds of various cannabis based suppliers of product for medical therapy, but they are not allowed to advertise (one has to know where to look – and it’s tedious). I lot of doctor-prescribed cannabis therapeutic treatment is $235 (say for 1-2 months) and is not PBS available.
The entire (mythic-driven alarmist) system is ludicrous, and only encourages corruption and profiteering, at the expense of those needing care. I especially feel for those children, like epileptics and others with no viable alternatives, who, along with their families, are exposed to such cruel ludicrousness.
Interesting story Clakka. My first thought as to why cannabis is so regulated is that it’s natural. That must really make Big Pharma reps fully pist-off, just like an angry bigot in a tiny town, or a bogan racist in a big city hurling abuse at a FN footballer.
Dr Rima Laibow has some insights:
Bolstering Profits of Pharmaceutical Industry
“The more natural health products people use, the fewer drugs they use. Millions are turning to natural health. Big Pharma fears this as it would diminish profits. Codex is designed to protect Big Pharma profits by eliminating natural health products and treatments. Health food stores and wellness companies would be hit hard.”
Codex Alimentarius is Unscientific
“Codex is unscientific because it classifies nutrients as toxins and uses “Risk Assessment” to set ultra low so-called “safe upper limits” for them. Risk Assessment is a branch of Toxicology, the science for assessing toxins. The proper science for assessing nutrients is Biochemistry. Codex does not use biochemistry.”