@AC: re @Too many self-interested people
>By the way, I am well aware of UK geography and customs.
Surprised at that, you seem to think Tunbridge Wells is full of pot heads..
>I am, as you may have guessed, old enough to have experienced the early 1970s, including
>the student scene in London.
Didn't seem to mess you up too much? Or were you protected by your puritanical streak?
>At the most elementary level, our freedom is compromised by sanctions against theft, murder, rape etc
No, no ,no those are all offensive against other people. Society doesn't protect me
against robbing my self, I can throw money away freely.
>If society as a whole judges that drug use has too high a cost to bear, then hard luck;
Quite right, the law is the law and should be obeyed, we are still free to complain about it though.
> Consider moving to somewhere that has a different view, Columbia or somewhere.
Or Holland? It's really very nice there.
>The consumers tend to be unaware of or ignore the risks to and effects on themselves and others
This would be better corrected by suitable information at the point of purchase, something that won't happen with prohibition.
>Comparing the dangers of mountain climbing or skiing or jogging or even dancing
>vigorously (all of which I do) shows the sheer unawareness of the proponents and the
> insularity and desparation of their thinking and experience.
I must be very unaware of it, I know many people who partake a little and don't seem unaware or desperate, you yourself reckon you did in the '70s, I even know people who work in drug addict outreach programs who smoke a little. They seem very normal.
The fact is that many more people are hurt in dangerous sports - with a similar participation level - than from cannabis smoking, that's with the questionable hygiene of the supply chain as well. The safety argument is weak.
>(The strange "produce & spread" argument) e.g., whatever software you like or drive as fast
>as you like (because you know you are a wonderful driver in all circumstances)
Actually you can produce and spread any software you want provided it doesn't harm other people. Ditto driving as fast as you want on a race track is permitted.
There's no argument that there's a time and place for these things.
Have you considered the crime associated with the current supply chain?
The costs, damage, pain and suffering associated with that?
>It is no good saying that these substances have no effect
No one is saying that. They're saying they don't make you mad.
>I find that those proposing absolute freedom to grow, buy, or sell drugs are extraordinarily
>puritan, intolerant and closed in these things
What purity do they seek?
What is it they don't tolerate?
What argument will they not listen to? (Apart from that weirdo who winds people up in pubs)
The drugs are bad m'kay.. approach is only going to push people to cross a criminal boundary will create further problems eroding respect for the law.