Cannabis Conspiration

[Jeremy]

Well I'm sorry I didn't give the answer you were looking for. I think you misunderstood me though. Everything the video claims may be true; I'm not saying that the overall argument is necessarily true or false; I'm saying that I not going to believe that there is a global conspiracy not to use Cannabis so that 5 or 6 Americans can stay rich is true, unless I see convincing evidence and the way the evidence is presented is not at all convincing. Although it's hard to seperate, the argument for a cause somebody puts forward does not reflect the strength of their cause.

It's entirely possible that cannabis is more environmentally friendly than trees, but the fact that we get our paper from trees probably has nothing to do with the financial desires of 5 or 6 rich Americans from the 1930s. The USA is a very small player in the world paper market. The question that needs to be addressed is why other countries, like China, Australia, Indonesia, Brazil, Uruguay etc. (the some of the biggest paper producing countries off the top of my head) produce paper from wood, and not cannabis.

I don't know about the other countries, but looking at Australia, the obvious reason is because until recently the majority of wood used for paper processing came from native forests. No effort was required to acquire land or grow any crops. The crops already existed, they just needed to cut them down. Many of the countries I mentioned previously are still in the same situation. The reason they don't produce paper from cannabis has absolutely nothing to do with conspiracies or the environment, but it's just the easiest and most cost effective way of producing paper.

As I said before, it also very much depends on the quality of the paper, and how much market there is for that quality of paper. Having also spent time working and living around farms, it's very hard to believe the claim that you can grow cannabis crops on the same land every year. All farmers rotate their crops each year, because repeatedly growing the same crop on the same land destroys the quality of the soil, resulting in land you cannot use for anything.

So if we ignore the documentary, and you want to know my position on cannabis as some kind of environmental solution; I have to say that I have no idea of the facts surrounding cannabis, or the reasons why it's not currently used, so I can't really put forward a meaningful response. It may be more environmentally friendly to grow cannabis crops. It may not. I think it's important to be cautious, and look for trustworthy sources of information; especially when you look at the history of "environmentally friendly crops" such as soy and palm oil. Soy is the favourite product of the new hippies and vegetarians. A significant portion of soy products comes from Brazil, and making space to grow soy is a major driving force in the destruction of the Amazon rainforest. Palm oil is becoming a very popular product, especially for use as a bio-fuel. The destruction of wetlands in Indonesia to grow palm trees for palm oil is one of the biggest producers of green house gasses in the world.

Both those examples demonstrate the complex systems of the world, and the fact that something that appears environmentally friendly actually isn't at all. Vegetarians must feel a great deal of self gratification in eating soy instead of meat, because meat apparently produces so much greenhouse gasses. But actually meat is carbon neutral (because you need to grow feed to feed meat, which takes carbon out of the atmosphere, and then the animals eat it, and release the carbon back into the atmosphere. Only if they were eating feed that wasn't replaced would the system produces a net increase in emissions. If you look at just a cow it produces a lot of emissions, if you look at the system the cow is in, it doesn't, and cannot produce any increase in emissions), while eating soy is not (because large forests, which are massive carbon sinks, are cleared to grow a plant that contains much less carbon; hence massive emissions that are not replaced).

The reality is that we cannot make intuitive decisions based on very small amount of information and be at all sure that we're right. You can claim that I don't have an open mind as much as you like. I say that people who believe propaganda films without attempting to investigate counter claims or the complexity of the situation are very close minded. Probably because you love smoking weed, you think it's a great product, and you were already convinced of this before you watched the video.

I think Dan F had some questions for me, but I'll double post and answer those so things are a little clearer.

[Jeremy]

Decriminilization is hardly a step towards Totalitarianism. Making it perscription only and decriminalizing it for users is a step in the right direction; and users would probably be happy because it would keep the quality of the Ganja high, along with dropping prices (When I say price drops, we're talking 5 dollar Dub's here) and keeping the quality high.

I'm not sure you understand what I'm suggesting. Decriminalisation doesn't mean it would be legal. It would still certainly be illegal to grow or deal marijuana, and that would still be a criminal offence. It would also still be illegal to smoke or possess marijuana but this would be like a traffic offence - you'd just get a fine. People who could demonstrate a serious medical need for the drug could be prescribed it by their doctor. However this certainly would not mean that many people would have legal access to the drug.

Though, it's funny that for someone whose aim is to lower the amount of Marijuana smoked in the populace (Despite as you say, smoking "once a month" yourself, but that's different because you're totally in control of your habit) I can say that you're "reasonable enough" sounding plan here would probably backfire on you, and lead to more frequent Marijuana use. Shit, I wonder how many college kids would be changing their degree's to Pharmacy if your plan actually came through. The amount of Marijuana in the market would quadruple.

In many countries around the world, marijuana is already prescribed for medical reasons; usually as a anaesthetic for cancer patients so we can easily evaluate the success of that plan already (which is that it doesn't increase illicit marijuana usage at all). I also think I should point out that I said I smoked less than once a month, not once a month. I'm sure you can see that there's a massive difference between those two statements. For example in 2007 I smoked weed a total of 3 times over the course of the year.

So my question is: Do you hyper-Centralizer's actually think about the convoluted policie's you implement- or is it all about how the words look against the paper?

That's a hilarious term to give to me "hyper-Centralizer." Given that the policy I'm suggesting (decriminalisation and approval of medical marijuana) is already in practice around the world, I was actually basing my policy on the actual outcomes that have been noted from those two policies; ie. decriminalisation massively reduces crime and saves huge amounts of money (not just the specific drug crime that is now no longer a crime, but many other crimes as well). It also keeps people out of jail, which also saves a great deal of money. These statements aren't what I think would happen, but actually what's been observed happening around the world. Approval of medical marijuana does not increase the use of recreational marijuana at all, and it apparently helps relieve the pain of people with very serious often fatal illnesses.

Also, as addicts of OxyCodin, Vicodin, Percocet, Xanax, Valium, Librium, Ritalin, Dexedrine, and Meridia know, Pharmascists' are eeeeasily the largest drug dealers in this country. And, as addicts of these drugs also can tell you, there are always plenty of corrupted Pharmacists willing to make an absolutely stunning financial gain by selling these to the street dealers, or by just pushing them relentlessly on to normal patrons for even the silliest of conditions.

Sure, but this is a problem with the regulation of pharmacies, not a problem with the issue at hand at all. I also suspect it's mainly an American issue, rather than a global issue. In any event, at the moment medical marijuana isn't available through pharmacies in most countries; patients are just given the right to grow a few plants for their own use.

I have no doubt, Jeremy, that you have no problem with these "expert", licensed Pharmacist's having access to this wide array of drugs with a sweeping range of effects. I'll take this opinion, despite it's senselessness, because not only did you prescripe it to the situation in writing, but you also offered your briliant view that flooding the market with a high quality, inexpensive product as a way to stimmy marijuana use.

At no point did I suggest that the market be flooded, or that such a policy would flood the market. What I suggested, was that the policy of allowing people with serious illnesses to smoke or otherwise ingest marijuana without being punished for it, which is a policy many countries around the world have, is a good one. We can, and indeed people have, easily investigate those countries to see if there was any change in marijuana usage after those policies were introduced, and we see very clearly that there was basically no change, because people dying of cancer, who feel better smoking weed were prepared to break the law anyway. All that has changed is that now they don't get needlessly punished for doing what they were doing before.


I have a question for you Dan. Do you actually have any idea of the facts surrounding this issue? Have you done any research? From your posts, it sounds like you had no idea that many countries have decriminalised the crime of possession or use of drugs, the effects that have been observed as a result of this, the concept of decriminalisation, or medical marijuana, the fact that many countries allow it and the observed facts in those countries. I'm also not sure how carefully you read my previous posts.


It's hilarious that you state;

Weed should certainly be legal. Anyone who deabtes otherwise is leaning towards Totaltarianism

followed by;

Decriminilization is hardly a step towards Totalitarianism.

While your second statement is absolutely correct, I think the contradiction is fairly obvious. Parking on footpaths is decriminalised as well.

[BainbridgeShred]

I'm not sure you understand what I'm suggesting.

I'm not sure you understand what I am evidencing. I'm not sure you understand how certain markets work, and that you're ideas are better suited to internet forums than to real world practacability.

Decriminalisation doesn't mean it would be legal. It would still certainly be illegal to grow or deal marijuana, and that would still be a criminal offence. It would also still be illegal to smoke or possess marijuana but this would be like a traffic offence - you'd just get a fine. People who could demonstrate a serious medical need for the drug could be prescribed it by their doctor. However this certainly would not mean that many people would have legal access to the drug.

Such is the case in many American cities already, particuliarly the one I live in, Seattle. Possesion of Marijuana is fined on the same level of a jay-walking offense. People with a medical need are granted access to the drug. Despite this, Marijuana trafficing is still a "problem" in Seattle. Walking through very public parts of Seattle though, (Pike's Place, Pioneer Square, ALL of Broadway, Numerous Bus Stops) it is very easy to notice weed dealers there 7 days a week. Not crack dealers, meth dealers, opiate dealers, pill dealers. Weed dealers. Walking through Seattle you usually pick up the smell of weed 4-5 times in a given trip through down town.

In many countries around the world, marijuana is already prescribed for medical reasons; usually as a anaesthetic for cancer patients so we can easily evaluate the success of that plan already (which is that it doesn't increase illicit marijuana usage at all). I also think I should point out that I said I smoked less than once a month, not once a month. I'm sure you can see that there's a massive difference between those two statements. For example in 2007 I smoked weed a total of 3 times over the course of the year.

America is another such country in a lot of States. Also, how often you smoke weed is pretty irrelevent in light of the fact that you do smoke weed. Sorry for misquoting you.

There are studies that show Decriminilization doesn't raise illegal usage. Again like I said earlier, Decriminilization is not something I'm against. It is a step in the right direction. So far I have nothing to disagree with you on really. Decriminilization doesn't signifigantly seem to raise or lower use. Expecting it to would be silly, but I'm not sure that's your posistion.

That's a hilarious term to give to me "hyper-Centralizer." Given that the policy I'm suggesting (decriminalisation and approval of medical marijuana) is already in practice around the world, I was actually basing my policy on the actual outcomes that have been noted from those two policies; ie. decriminalisation massively reduces crime and saves huge amounts of money (not just the specific drug crime that is now no longer a crime, but many other crimes as well). It also keeps people out of jail, which also saves a great deal of money. These statements aren't what I think would happen, but actually what's been observed happening around the world. Approval of medical marijuana does not increase the use of recreational marijuana at all, and it apparently helps relieve the pain of people with very serious often fatal illnesses.

Good, great, grand, wonderful. Medical marijuana is pretty available in the US, and you can even get it legally despite whether or not your state has passed a law legalizing it. The question I had was whether or not you want to keep Marijuana or Marinol on stock in Pharmacie's everywhere, or whether it should be stocked in labratory's and colleges.

Sure, but this is a problem with the regulation of pharmacies, not a problem with the issue at hand at all. I also suspect it's mainly an American issue, rather than a global issue.

Lol, Pharmacist's dealing drugs is an "American issue". Go back to the co-op dude, you need as much collective help as you can get.

Saying Pharmacist's being involved in the drug trade is strictly an American issue shows that your knowledge in this area ("Certain markets" was the term I used earlier) is limited. There is an amazing wealth of information out there about how soon, prescription drug trafficking and abuse will outstrip illicit drug use. This is something the United Nations is watching very closely.

So Jeremy, when a topic is out of your league, dont' even venture there. Trying to pass something like this off as an American issue, is basically to say that it is something that only America cares or is doing anything about. Obviously this must be the case, because if someone as well informed as you wouldn't know it as an Australian, and someone so poorly informed such as myself as an American would know it... Well... Do you understand what I'm suggesting now?

In any event, at the moment medical marijuana isn't available through pharmacies in most countries; patients are just given the right to grow a few plants for their own use.

Alright, this is really what I wanted to know. Because if you support putting actual bud or Marinol in pharmacie's, you would certainly see a world wide increase in the availability of Marijuana, meaning also a drop in prices. Pharmacist's making an extra buck is a world wide phenomenon (I call it a phenomenon, when really it's good financial sense) most people just don't know or care because they aren't addicts or profiteer's of prescription drugs.

At no point did I suggest that the market be flooded, or that such a policy would flood the market. What I suggested, was that the policy of allowing people with serious illnesses to smoke or otherwise ingest marijuana without being punished for it, which is a policy many countries around the world have, is a good one. We can, and indeed people have, easily investigate those countries to see if there was any change in marijuana usage after those policies were introduced, and we see very clearly that there was basically no change, because people dying of cancer, who feel better smoking weed were prepared to break the law anyway. All that has changed is that now they don't get needlessly punished for doing what they were doing before.

No, you didn't suggest that the market would be flooded. But it would be the sum of your plan to put weed in Pharmacie's. The same has been true for any other legal drug pushed through the pill makers, and weed is the same case. As I've said earlier, putting weed in Pharmacie's across the country (Across ANY country with a signifigant amount of weed smokers in its current population) would lead to an increase in use, and a dropping in price.

You are trying to say that in limited cases, where Medical Marijuana has been distributed or starter plants given out, that there has been no rise in illicit use. This, I will admit is true. Studies show it. However, that is a much lesser beast than stocking it in Pharmacie's across the country, and to do so would lead-for the 15th time-to increased quality of product and much cheap prices per gram. This isn't such a bad thing in my opinion, but for someone like Jeremy who wants to see Marijuan use curtailed, it'd be absolutely retarded. That is what I meant when I asked, "Do you actually think through the effects of your convoluted solutions to problems, or is it all about how the words look against the paper?". Apparently though, you truely do believe that your plan would to curtail Marijuana use while also opening it up to people with viable Medical problems.

Classic case of trying to have your cake and eat it too.

[Jeremy]

I always find it tedious to deal with these topics when people start quoting responses to posts without posting the post. I know I do it too, and it makes the discussion annoying.

So I just wanted to make a couple of short clarifying posts, and I may respond in greater detail later on.


1. I've never claimed that decriminalisation would reduce marijuana usage. I think I stated, or certainly will now, treating drug addicts and users as criminals does not reduce marijuana usage either. Decriminalising marijuana can be seen to have the effect of reducing crime and saving the government money in reduced legal costs and reducing pressure from the courts. When I see reducing crime, I don't mean that the crime of "possession of weed" is no longer reported, I mean that people who go to jail (for any crime) are much more likely to commit further crime, than people who do not go to jail. So by not sending people to jail for drug offences, they are less likely to commit other crimes later on.

2. When I stated "I suspect this is mainly an American issue," I meant exactly what I said. Notice the difference in meaning between "I suspect" and "I know." I don't know what the procedures are in America. In Australia there is a very highly regulated system, such that authorities are aware of exactly how much of all prescription drugs a pharmacist has, and also how many prescriptions they fill. Thus the issue of "corrupt pharmacists" is non existent. I don't know how the rest of the world works, and I'm sure there are some less regulated countries, but certainly many that are at least as controlled as Australia. I'm sure you don't know the details in other countries either, so I think the concern you raised is one you see in your own country, not one that you personally notice in many countries.

In any event, this point had nothing to do with the discussion, and the fact that you attack this point, even though I pointed that out, and it's obvious, is interesting. In most countries, certainly in Australia, pharmacies don't sell marijuana.

3. To answer your question. No, I don't support medical marijuana being sold in pharmacies, and certainly not schools or libraries or colleges etc.

I'll repeat again my stance. I support the decriminalisation of the possession in reasonable quantities and the usage of recreational drugs. If warranted, I support the usage of recreational drugs in treating medical conditions.

[Jeremy]

I'm not sure you understand what I am evidencing. I'm not sure you understand how certain markets work, and that you're ideas are better suited to internet forums than to real world practacability.

Of course it's important to note that my position is the same position that many countries currently hold and practice. While your position Dan, is a position that no country in the world holds or practices. No doubt the numerous developed countries that have decriminalised recreational drug use and do allow people to use recreational drugs for medical conditions are as unaware of how certain markets work as I am. It's interesting that there are no countries as enlightened about how the world works as you are.

[james_dean]

Reading Dan repeat over and over again how marijuana in pharmacies would flood the market, despite the fact that Jeremy in no way ever suggested this, was the most annoying experience I've had all week...



I also agree that making criminals of drug users is absurd and a detriment to society.

[slapdash21]

drugs good.

[BainbridgeShred]

James, you'll have to be more clear. Are you saying just because Jeremy' says it wouldn't flood the markets mean its true? Or are you saying that Jeremy never suggested putting drugs in Pharmacie's? Do you think everything that comes out of Jeremy's mouth is fact?

[Jeremy]

What I'm saying is that the policy of decriminalisation and allowing people with genuine medical reasons to use marijuana, as practised in many countries around the world; including, as you stated, the USA, is a good policy. It's important to note that such a policy has not resulted in pharmacies "flooding the market" at all in those countries. FACT

[Jeremy]

The size code on this forum is slightly different to my own forum. I meant to finish off that last post like this.


FACT

[james_dean]

OK, on second reading that is a rather ambiguous sentence. Still fairly obvious though.

I mean that Jeremy never suggested putting marijuana in pharmacies. And, frankly, why on earth would you assume that's what he meant when (as far as I know) that is not practiced anywhere in the world, but what he meant is practiced widely, even where you live?

[sniikeri]

Tobacco and alcohol are legal drugs in most of the western countries. I don't know about other countries, but here in Finland alcohol plays a part in
- 61-75 % of all the homicides
- 71-78 % of all the attempted homicides
- 71-73 % of all the assaults and batteries
- 50 % of all the robberies.
(1995-2000, Ministry of Justice, Finland

Police catches 22,000 drunken drivers yearly. In 2003 1,283 Finns died from alcohol poisonings or illnesses. These numbers may sound like no big deal: note that there are only five million people in Finland. Alcohol is the most common cause of death among the 15-64-year-old Finns.

I want you to think about this. If our authorities and community are this deeply in trouble with alcohol, what do you think legalizing cannabis (as a drug) would cause?

Certainly the consumption would increase, and a lot. Do you believe that the society can afford legalizing it? Because I don't.

Weed should certainly be legal. Anyone who deabtes otherwise is leaning towards Totaltarianism

To work a society needs a social contract, according to which both the government and the citizens have not only rights, but also duties. Keeping weed illegal protects also those who don't smoke it.
If we followed your logic, we should also decriminalize homicides, as they usually can't be prevented and sometimes the guilty gets away with it.
Actually, the whole social contract should be abolished as all the societies are more or less totalitarian! This would directly lead to social darwinism, which doesn't differ that much from totalitarianism.

drugs good.

Seriously, this is one of most idiotic posts made in the modified history.

[Frank_Sinatra]

To work a society needs a social contract, according to which both the government and the citizens have not only rights, but also duties. Keeping weed illegal protects also those who don't smoke it.
If we followed your logic, we should also decriminalize homicides, as they usually can't be prevented and sometimes the guilty gets away with it. Actually, the whole social contract should be abolished as all the societies are more or less totalitarian! This would directly lead to social darwinism, which doesn't differ that much from totalitarianism.

Your analogy is unsound. The obvious distinction is the harm inflicted upon another by the choice I make. Homicide very clearly harms another. The harm caused to others by me smoking pot is a lot less clear. I don't want to argue that there is no harm to others inherent in the use of marijuana - from personal experience I can admit that smoking weed has caused some amount of harm to my interpersonal relationships. And it is detrimental to your health, physically and mentally, proportionate to the degree you indulge.

The strongest argument for legalization, in my opinion, is that the harm caused by the criminilazation of marijuana is greater than the harm caused by the usage of marijuana. I happen to agree with this argument.

For a lot of people the greatest potential harm from marijuana is the risk of getting caught and facing a number of harms created by the legal system. For instance, college students in the US risk losing all of their federal financial college assistance for being caught with any amount of any drug. I think everyone should understand how heavy of a penalty this is, how much it can change someone's life for the worse.
Even if you aren't in college, a drug conviction can be far more detrimental to your life than just the inherent harm from smoking pot. It can become harder to get a job, or even be considered for some jobs, in the years immediately following a drug conviction - of course it depends on the job, and the state, and other circumstances.
For others, a potential harm from marijuana involves selling it. They risk prison time for trafficking, or street violence, or getting caught up in other seedy circumstances which could harm them. Legalizing marijuana and bringing it into a regulated environment, and taking most of the trade off the streets, would create a safer environment for a lot of people.

Not only is your analogy between smoking pot and homicide unsound, your analogy between smoking pot and drinking alcohol is also a stretch (though admittedly better than the analogy to homicide). Alcohol degrades your motor skills and judgement to a degree that marijuana does not. The degree is so significant that in my opinion you can't put them in the same category in terms of likelihood of causing harm to others. Although I won't go so far as to say marijuana can't be a factor in causing others harm.

Alcohol is far more harmful - to a person's mental and physical health, to their relationships, and to others around them in terms of physical harm - than marijuana. And yet alcohol is legal. So are cigarettes, and they are also tremendously harmful to a person's health. To me that is another critical distinction, and to my mind the question is how can alcohol & cigarettes be legal while marijuan isn't, considering the relative level of harm or risk of harm one undertakes by consuming any of these substances?

[Frank_Sinatra]

Another point I meant to make - everyone in the US is harmed by the way we enforce drug laws. We are spending billions of dollars every year on enforcement, incarceration, and foreign military/eradication aid to select governments around the world. That money is a tremendous lost opportunity for all of us who live in the US. We could either keep it in our own pockets and spend it or save it according to what we need or want personally, or we could use it on programs with a greater positive result. If marijuana were legal then of course there would be taxes, and that's additional tax revenue that we are all missing out on.

[Jeremy]

Despite popular belief, people who drive while under the influence of marijuana are a very real danger in having an accident; completely comparable with alcohol.

http://www.nida.nih.gov/Infofacts/driving.html

Marijuana is also very toxic, smoking it is 5 times worse for your lungs than smoking cigarettes.

http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/story/0 ... 48,00.html

http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stor ... 992551.htm


Even if we accept the assumption that alcohol and tobacco are more of a risk for individuals or societies than marijuana (and I'd love to see a source on that claim), that's not evidence that we should legalise marijuana, it's evidence that we should outlaw alcohol and tobacco. Of course that's never going to happen in the near future, because we live in a democracy, and all the people who enjoy drinking and are addicted to smoking really will vote on those issues. However with the growing awareness of the dangers of tobacco, we're definitely seeing a slow erosion of tobacco rights, to the extent that it's easy to imagine a time in a few generations from now when the number of smokers is so small, it will be possible to outlaw the substance.

[Bringerofpie]

Proof that smoking is bad (at least in the U.S.): http://www.cancer.org/docroot/PED/conte ... Cancer.asp

[Frank_Sinatra]

Despite popular belief, people who drive while under the influence of marijuana are a very real danger in having an accident; completely comparable with alcohol.

I never said it was safe to smoke and drive, in fact I was going to mention that I'd been in cars driven by stoned people who obviously were too impaired to drive, but it was kind of a tangent.

Marijuana is also very toxic, smoking it is 5 times worse for your lungs than smoking cigarettes.

Again, I didn't dispute that Marijuana is harmful to an individual's health.

Even if we accept the assumption that alcohol and tobacco are more of a risk for individuals or societies than marijuana (and I'd love to see a source on that claim),

Oh god... your favorite game. This claim is based upon a course I took from a professional psychologist who worked with drug and alcohol addicted people. His opinion - alcohol and tobacco are both more harmful, and more addictive than marijuana by a mile. And alcohol (in his opinion, based on decades of experience) is easily the most destructive drug in terms of effect to society. He was basing this off of actual patterns of use - i.e. cigarette smokers tend to smoke a pack a day or more, while pot smokers don't tend to smoke 20 joints a day. So while an individual joint is more harmful than an individual cigarette, in the real world an average cigarette smoker is doing more harm to themselves than an average pot smoker. Of course there are exceptions to the rule if you feel the need to play that game.

that's not evidence that we should legalise marijuana, it's evidence that we should outlaw alcohol and tobacco.

Well, that's your opinion about how much responsibility the government has for saving us from ourselves.

Personally, I don't think the government should be taking harm reduction nearly that far. Its a pretty trivial thing, in terms of priorities that a government has, if I decide to smoke a joint, listen to some music, rock out in my boxers in the kitchen while I take a frozen pizza out of the fridge but forget to turn on the oven, eat a bag of potato chips, and then go to bed. I think I should have that right. I think I should be able to go down to the corner store and buy a joint and get things kicked off legally, without the risk of legal harm to myself.

At some level you need to come to terms with the chaos of any social group, and acknowledge that every little problem can't be controlled or prevented. Sure there's a possibility that I turn the oven on, forget about it, and the building explodes. There's a possibility that I can do that even without smoking marijuana. You can only manage risk of harm so much.

Which goes back to the main point of my post, which I don't think you ever responded to: the efforts to reduce the use of marijuana are themselves a greater harm than the inherent harm of using the drug.

[Jeremy]

A couple of points;

1. My post was not a direct response to yours, but just a response to the general trend of the discussion. I think sniikeri brought up alcohol. If you take the time to read my post, you'll see that I never claimed to be refuting anything you said, so of course you're right when you say "I never said..." but equally, I never said that you did, and it seems entirely rational to post about the risks of marijuana, when that's the very topic being discussed.


2. The role of governments is to make society function at its best. Not to protect people from themselves. Obviously people are party of society, and it's not in societies best interests if we all sit at home eating corn chips and watching surreal French cinema while munted.

[james_dean]

Which goes back to the main point of my post, which I don't think you ever responded to: the efforts to reduce the use of marijuana are themselves a greater harm than the inherent harm of using the drug.

uhhh, is it just me, or is this the same thing jeremy is saying??

[Frank_Sinatra]

Nope, you're right. I had to reread some of the earlier posts.