XPost: uk.rec.drugs.cannabis, uk.politics.drugs, uk.legal   
   From: pxhxz@cadence.com   
      
   In article <75ggjaF1819imU1@mid.individual.net> "Iain"  writes:   
   >"Dr John Watson"  wrote in message   
   >news:75ge6kF1882ihU1@mid.individual.net...   
   >   
   >>> A significant number of people are able to smoke marijuana with no   
   >>> apparant   
   >>> adverse affects.  It is the very few who are affected where the concern   
   >>> lies.   
   >>   
   >> So they criminalise the vast majority who are unaffected.   
      
   >I suppose it would be useful if those who did have a propensity to a   
   >psychosis could be diagnosed.  But I understand the situation is that they   
   >can't, and those who are affected can suffer a very significant and   
   >debilitating degradation of their life, where treatment can last for   
   >decades.   
   >   
   >Maybe if those could be distinguished from the rest, there would be a valid   
   >argument for general legalisation because those would be able to be   
   >protected.  But it seems they cannot.  So how else can they be protected?   
      
   A certain number of people are susceptable to alcoholism and even one drink   
   can trigger the mental response that leads them into it.   
      
   Should we ban alcohol because of that?   
      
   Banning something because it might harm a few people is not a good idea   
   because you harm far more people by banning the substance than you help   
   by banning it.   
      
   -Pete Zakel   
    (phz@seeheader.nospam)   
      
   "USER n.: A programmer who will believe anything you tell him."   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)