c4054da3   
   XPost: uk.politics.misc, uk.legal, alt.psychology   
   XPost: alt.politics.liberalism   
   From: john.jsm@gmail.com   
      
   On Apr 9, 2:56 pm, GB  wrote:   
   > On 09/04/2013 14:49, saracene wrote:   
   >   
   > >> As it happens, I am not a prohibitionist. That's because I recognise   
   > >> idiocy when I see it. Likewise, I recognise the idiocy of you suggesting   
   > >> that you ought to be able to do whatever you want.   
   >   
   > > I didn't say that I should be. I should be able to smoke cannabis   
   > > though. It's basic, like freedom of thought/   
   >   
   > Look, I'm just working myself up into a decent rant here, and now you   
   > are upsetting the apple cart by pointing out that we agree. :)   
   >   
   > Actually, you and the government are in total agreement up to a point.   
   > You agree that there ought to be limits on your freedom. Those limits   
   > ought to reflect potential harm, both to yourself and others. So, what   
   > you actually disagree with the government about is the degree of harm   
   > cannabis does.   
      
   Politics is only the art of the possible. The government is   
   constrained by the need not to offend the hysterical Americans, long   
   stuck on prohibition.  and by bigoted and ignorant elements of British   
   public opinion  of which Mel is such a fine representative.  I   
   disagree with government policy on the weight that they attach to   
   personal freedom as against 'harm'. I take it they would never want to   
   resort back to burning heretics however much damage to individual and   
   society heresy was alleged to cause.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)