Gang violence does not occur over weed, thats mostly stuff like crack. And you gang violence is far more the result of the poverty and lack of economic and social opportunities in a number of poor neighborhoods than it is over the US's drug policy.

Mikey,

Please stop speaking out of your behind. You don't know what you are talking about here.

Gang violence DOES occur over weed.
Gang violence is NOT confined to... poor neighborhoods.

A place I used to live about 20 years or so ago. A solid middle-class apartment complex in a solid middle-class suburb of Dallas. Two rival gangs of weed sellers had a turf war. And by 'war', I MEAN *WAR*.

1 apartment building (4 units) burned to the ground.
2 apartment buildings (8 units) damaged by fire.
12 vehicles torched and burned.
A good friend of mine (a co-worker) killed by a stray bullet.
A child in the complex killed by a stray bullet.
My cat killed by a stray bullet.

Everything was fine when I left for work that evening (I worked the night shift then).
I returned home to a war zone the next morning.

I moved as soon as possible.

+1 from the Barrio in East Los Angeles where there is less gang violence than the upscale million dollar mansions of Pasadena.

Of course he needs to talk about the violence in South and Central America and Mexico too. I hear London has its problems. Then there are the gangs like ISIL.

+2

gangs such as ISIL are often funded by the illegal drugs trade, and that includes marijuana. I'd rather see it taxed and profits going to schools and drug treatment.

---

Reality Internet Personality

Gang violence does not occur over weed, thats mostly stuff like crack. And you gang violence is far more the result of the poverty and lack of economic and social opportunities in a number of poor neighborhoods than it is over the US's drug policy.

Mikey,

Please stop speaking out of your behind. You don't know what you are talking about here.

Gang violence DOES occur over weed.
Gang violence is NOT confined to... poor neighborhoods.

A place I used to live about 20 years or so ago. A solid middle-class apartment complex in a solid middle-class suburb of Dallas. Two rival gangs of weed sellers had a turf war. And by 'war', I MEAN *WAR*.

1 apartment building (4 units) burned to the ground.
2 apartment buildings (8 units) damaged by fire.
12 vehicles torched and burned.
A good friend of mine (a co-worker) killed by a stray bullet.
A child in the complex killed by a stray bullet.
My cat killed by a stray bullet.

Everything was fine when I left for work that evening (I worked the night shift then).
I returned home to a war zone the next morning.

I moved as soon as possible.

+1 from the Barrio in East Los Angeles where there is less gang violence than the upscale million dollar mansions of Pasadena.

Of course he needs to talk about the violence in South and Central America and Mexico too. I hear London has its problems. Then there are the gangs like ISIL.

---

Gang violence does not occur over weed, thats mostly stuff like crack. And you gang violence is far more the result of the poverty and lack of economic and social opportunities in a number of poor neighborhoods than it is over the US's drug policy.

Mikey,

Please stop speaking out of your behind. You don't know what you are talking about here.

Gang violence DOES occur over weed.
Gang violence is NOT confined to... poor neighborhoods.

A place I used to live about 20 years or so ago. A solid middle-class apartment complex in a solid middle-class suburb of Dallas. Two rival gangs of weed sellers had a turf war. And by 'war', I MEAN *WAR*.

1 apartment building (4 units) burned to the ground.
2 apartment buildings (8 units) damaged by fire.
12 vehicles torched and burned.
A good friend of mine (a co-worker) killed by a stray bullet.
A child in the complex killed by a stray bullet.
My cat killed by a stray bullet.

Everything was fine when I left for work that evening (I worked the night shift then).
I returned home to a war zone the next morning.

I moved as soon as possible.

No, not naïve...

Michel for a 20-25 year old, you possess some fascinating insights into: -

Military Strategy
Military Tactics
Logistics
Politics
Economics
Diplomacy
Psychology
Bureaucracy

We can now add: -
Science
Chemistry
Biology
Medicine

Oh my, why haven't we got the one world government, with Michel as "Supreme Leader"?

The illegal drugs market is what happens when you have pure, unregulated free markets. Because they do not recognise the law, they have no need to abide by it. Which means you end up with 12 year olds selling it in schools. This is a deliberate marketing policy by the drug dealers. At least when it is in the hands of the government rather than unregulated capitalists (i.e. drug dealers)you can ensure that it isn't being directly marketed to kids. Of course if you are buying something relatively harmless such as weed from the same people who sell you heroin, those free market capitalists (drug dealers) are going to have access to those people as potential customers. I am 100% for legalising all drugs for this reason alone. Get it out of the hands of the criminals. Stop ruining people's lives over it, give them access to treatment rather than prisons.

Oh please, don't be naive. For one, the very fact that something is illegal represents a massive barrier to both the dealers and the buyers. There is a social stigma to using it because its illegal, there is a social stigma to selling it because its illegal. Selling it comes with a wide number of risks such as imprisonment or death which again, create another barrier to entry. Finally, even if you don't care about any of those things, you still need certain contacts to get the stuff before you can sell it, which requires connections, which are not always easy to come by. Completely legalize it and you remove all those barriers. Oh sure, at first there will be rules about marketing, just like technically you are not allowed to market alcohol and cigarettes to kids either. Guess what, kids still drink themselves into a coma and they start smoking at 12. And then when it turns out the narcotics business is big business, and the original dealers turned legal turn into massive corporations and organize their own lobbies, how much of those initial rules designed to 'protect' people will remain in effect?

And sure, legalize all the hard drugs as well. The stuff that once you take one hit gets you instantly addicted for life. The stuff that messes with your brain to such a degree that within a very short time you are simply incapable of working a job, which leads to poverty which leads to crime as those peoples sole reason to exist starts to center around getting their next hit. Yes, sure, dont put them in jail, but put them in a treatment center. And then when they are clean and they walk out, they find that they can get their smack right in a shop at the corner of their street. Relapse triggers everywhere!

It happens here in Vancouver. The medical dispensaries have a range of products that you don't have to smoke. The product is tested and will not contain contaminants such as mould and toxic chemicals. When people are forced to buy weed on the unregulated free market (i.e. from drug dealers) they cannot be sure of what it is exactly they are buying or what conditions it was produced in (i.e. was it grown by slaves? Is the money being used to fund terrorism?)

Yes because thats whats important here. Not that you are freely selling an addictive drug mixed in with candy, but that said addictive drug is 'fair trade'. Even so, this isn't thought through. Fair trade drugs will have a higher cost associated to them, thus giving illegal drug dealers a significant portion of their market back, where they can peddle junk that will rot your brain but at least give you a decent high for a fraction of the cost. Problem not solved, just pushed underground.

Aside from that, decriminalizing selling weed would produce the same effect.

I think you are underestimating the availability of drugs even when it is illegal. Anyone who wants to get weed (including 12 year olds) can get it delivered to their door. By legalising it you can drive the illegal dealers out of business by undercutting them and providing a better quality product. Then it becomes much easier to keep it out of the hands of children and ensure that people who do need the medical properties (which are pretty much accepted as real and have been for some time) can get the proper dose and safe dose.

Again, decriminalizing produces the same effect as in that it undercuts illegal dealers (and again, that only happens to a limited degree). And how exactly is making it legal going to keep it out of the hands of children? Thats just wishful thinking. Oh sure, they can't just buy it in a store, but the same is true for alcohol and tobacco and kids still manage to get their hands on that as well. The very fact that 12 year olds wanna try out weed means that there is going to remain a black market for drugs that caters to 12 year olds.

Compared to nasty drugs such as tobacco and alcohol, marijuana is a much safer drug. This is a fact and is not in dispute by anyone in the scientific community. There are no recorded deaths from Marijuana and its use is prolific.

That bull is what makes pot so dangerous. Everyone keeps hearing from people like you and Glen that pot is supposedly risk free. That you can't get addicted to it and that its safer than alcohol. Yes, its safer than alcohol, but that doesn't mean its safe. Just a little less risky. Its still going to rot your brain away if you use it to often. Its true that you cant get addicted to it physically, but you conveniently forget about the mental addiction. And it is addictive. But hey, keep telling people that its not, lure them into a false sense of safety and you allow and enable the unsafe usage of pot. You people make it dangerous.

Should people drive while stoned? Absolutely not, no more than they should while drunk or texting. However, I am not hearing any demands to outlaw alcohol or phones.

A stupid argument for the same reason as when pro gun people yell that 'knives and cars are also dangerous but no one is saying we should ban those'. Come to think of it, Im pretty sure that argument would not fly if this was a debate about guns, but now you use it when its about something you actually like yourself? Double standards much?

Oh but okay, so why can't we ban alcohol and phones? Well for phones the usage of it far outweighs the negative side effects. As for alcohol, well they tried remember? Didn't work so well. We don't ban alcohol because its practically impossible to do so.

Either legalise weed, or stop being so hypocritical and ban tobacco and alcohol which are far worse. Or have we forgotten what happened when America had prohibition? Pretty much the same thing we have now with drug prohibition. Gang violence and control of the business.

Gang violence does not occur over weed, thats mostly stuff like crack. And you gang violence is far more the result of the poverty and lack of economic and social opportunities in a number of poor neighborhoods than it is over the US's drug policy. Again, don't be naive to think that gang violence will magically disappear if weed gets legalized, or if indeed all drugs are legalized. The only thing it will reduce is the strain on the prison system which is overflowing with people caught on possession. Which I agree, would be a good thing. But you could achieve the same effect by simply decriminalizing it.

It is clear to me that you are the one that is naive if you really are so totally unaware how easy it is to get hold of pot. Both when I was in London it was ridiculously easy and here it is even easier, mostly because Vancouver is world renowned for the quality of the pot grown here. Its won awards.

The data is simply not in about the long term effects of pot use, mainly because most people don't go around admitting that they smoke it on a regular basis.

As to your concern over the addiction of other, more harmful drugs. I worked for the UK anti-drugs co-ordinator for a while and go to read quite a few reports on it. The one that did it for me was the one that pointed out that before Heroin was criminalised there were around 60 registered addicts in the whole UK. That number soared once it was was made illegal.

Make all drugs legal. Educated people on the risks of the harmful ones and give them access to treatment.

If you think there is actual hard evidence that pot is more dangerous than eating a high fat diet, post it here.

---

Reality Internet Personality

LOL. That tonnage has it's usage especially if one tote's up in my cab & they're not wearing a seatbelt. Come to think of it, I need a new windscreen.

The illegal drugs market is what happens when you have pure, unregulated free markets. Because they do not recognise the law, they have no need to abide by it. Which means you end up with 12 year olds selling it in schools. This is a deliberate marketing policy by the drug dealers. At least when it is in the hands of the government rather than unregulated capitalists (i.e. drug dealers)you can ensure that it isn't being directly marketed to kids. Of course if you are buying something relatively harmless such as weed from the same people who sell you heroin, those free market capitalists (drug dealers) are going to have access to those people as potential customers. I am 100% for legalising all drugs for this reason alone. Get it out of the hands of the criminals. Stop ruining people's lives over it, give them access to treatment rather than prisons.

Oh please, don't be naive. For one, the very fact that something is illegal represents a massive barrier to both the dealers and the buyers. There is a social stigma to using it because its illegal, there is a social stigma to selling it because its illegal. Selling it comes with a wide number of risks such as imprisonment or death which again, create another barrier to entry. Finally, even if you don't care about any of those things, you still need certain contacts to get the stuff before you can sell it, which requires connections, which are not always easy to come by. Completely legalize it and you remove all those barriers. Oh sure, at first there will be rules about marketing, just like technically you are not allowed to market alcohol and cigarettes to kids either. Guess what, kids still drink themselves into a coma and they start smoking at 12. And then when it turns out the narcotics business is big business, and the original dealers turned legal turn into massive corporations and organize their own lobbies, how much of those initial rules designed to 'protect' people will remain in effect?

And sure, legalize all the hard drugs as well. The stuff that once you take one hit gets you instantly addicted for life. The stuff that messes with your brain to such a degree that within a very short time you are simply incapable of working a job, which leads to poverty which leads to crime as those peoples sole reason to exist starts to center around getting their next hit. Yes, sure, dont put them in jail, but put them in a treatment center. And then when they are clean and they walk out, they find that they can get their smack right in a shop at the corner of their street. Relapse triggers everywhere!

It happens here in Vancouver. The medical dispensaries have a range of products that you don't have to smoke. The product is tested and will not contain contaminants such as mould and toxic chemicals. When people are forced to buy weed on the unregulated free market (i.e. from drug dealers) they cannot be sure of what it is exactly they are buying or what conditions it was produced in (i.e. was it grown by slaves? Is the money being used to fund terrorism?)

Yes because thats whats important here. Not that you are freely selling an addictive drug mixed in with candy, but that said addictive drug is 'fair trade'. Even so, this isn't thought through. Fair trade drugs will have a higher cost associated to them, thus giving illegal drug dealers a significant portion of their market back, where they can peddle junk that will rot your brain but at least give you a decent high for a fraction of the cost. Problem not solved, just pushed underground.

Aside from that, decriminalizing selling weed would produce the same effect.

I think you are underestimating the availability of drugs even when it is illegal. Anyone who wants to get weed (including 12 year olds) can get it delivered to their door. By legalising it you can drive the illegal dealers out of business by undercutting them and providing a better quality product. Then it becomes much easier to keep it out of the hands of children and ensure that people who do need the medical properties (which are pretty much accepted as real and have been for some time) can get the proper dose and safe dose.

Again, decriminalizing produces the same effect as in that it undercuts illegal dealers (and again, that only happens to a limited degree). And how exactly is making it legal going to keep it out of the hands of children? Thats just wishful thinking. Oh sure, they can't just buy it in a store, but the same is true for alcohol and tobacco and kids still manage to get their hands on that as well. The very fact that 12 year olds wanna try out weed means that there is going to remain a black market for drugs that caters to 12 year olds.

Compared to nasty drugs such as tobacco and alcohol, marijuana is a much safer drug. This is a fact and is not in dispute by anyone in the scientific community. There are no recorded deaths from Marijuana and its use is prolific.

That bull is what makes pot so dangerous. Everyone keeps hearing from people like you and Glen that pot is supposedly risk free. That you can't get addicted to it and that its safer than alcohol. Yes, its safer than alcohol, but that doesn't mean its safe. Just a little less risky. Its still going to rot your brain away if you use it to often. Its true that you cant get addicted to it physically, but you conveniently forget about the mental addiction. And it is addictive. But hey, keep telling people that its not, lure them into a false sense of safety and you allow and enable the unsafe usage of pot. You people make it dangerous.

Should people drive while stoned? Absolutely not, no more than they should while drunk or texting. However, I am not hearing any demands to outlaw alcohol or phones.

A stupid argument for the same reason as when pro gun people yell that 'knives and cars are also dangerous but no one is saying we should ban those'. Come to think of it, Im pretty sure that argument would not fly if this was a debate about guns, but now you use it when its about something you actually like yourself? Double standards much?

Oh but okay, so why can't we ban alcohol and phones? Well for phones the usage of it far outweighs the negative side effects. As for alcohol, well they tried remember? Didn't work so well. We don't ban alcohol because its practically impossible to do so.

Either legalise weed, or stop being so hypocritical and ban tobacco and alcohol which are far worse. Or have we forgotten what happened when America had prohibition? Pretty much the same thing we have now with drug prohibition. Gang violence and control of the business.

Gang violence does not occur over weed, thats mostly stuff like crack. And you gang violence is far more the result of the poverty and lack of economic and social opportunities in a number of poor neighborhoods than it is over the US's drug policy. Again, don't be naive to think that gang violence will magically disappear if weed gets legalized, or if indeed all drugs are legalized. The only thing it will reduce is the strain on the prison system which is overflowing with people caught on possession. Which I agree, would be a good thing. But you could achieve the same effect by simply decriminalizing it.

Everybody agrees that driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol is not only unlawful, it is also morally wrong, and many innocent people get killed each year because of it. The main thrust of this thread was the use of cannabis for recreational reasons, which we seem to be getting away from.

I will make no judgement upon that use of cannabis, if you want to use it, and it works for you, I have no problem with it. I personally have never used it, and do not feel the need to.

Very good points to raise. However, your remarks begs the question: -

9th Feb 2014

Why was that stomped on, yet this one was not? As you the OP has openly stated - Recreational Reasons.

I will emphasise this again & wonder if the question will ever be answered!

If one cannot comment on the past & present, what hope is there for the future?

However, I am not hearing any demands to outlaw alcohol or phones.

in terms of alcohol we have now banned any shops from selling alcohol at below cost price. But there will always be a black market as there was in the prohibition days in America. Personally I would ban the sale of Tennants Extra which all the Alki's and winos drink, perhaps it might stop them congregating on street corners down from off licences, and in local parks. But it won't happen.

In terms of using mobile phones while driving, there are new laws mobiles, but it is almost unenforceable because people have to be seen to be physically doing it by a police officer. But the deterrent effect is still there. Although from what I can see on the UK roads, it is having very little effect, if any.

Everybody agrees that driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol is not only unlawful, it is also morally wrong, and many innocent people get killed each year because of it. The main thrust of this thread was the use of cannabis for recreational reasons, which we seem to be getting away from.

I will make no judgement upon that use of cannabis, if you want to use it, and it works for you, I have no problem with it. I personally have never used it, and do not feel the need to. Whether or not it should be de-criminalised and its use made legal, is up to the individual countries concerned. It seems to have worked in the Netherlands, I don't know if it would be as successful elsewhere.

It is widely known on here what I did before I drove trucks for living, but to remind you, I drove trains.

Did not know that. When you ass-u-me people know facts you don't say .....

That's funny seeing as it was mentioned on several threads, one of them being the PTSD thread itself.

Then again, I must write myself a 1000 lines...

...Do not assume people can read (Must be the pot they're using).

there you go ass-u-me-ing again that everyone has no life and reads every one of your posts in every thread.

---

Best post so far on this thread.

Oh ok i have no view on that . That's for you lot to sort out . Legalizing it in my view doesn't mean it will be sold every where which some have suggested .

I don't think it should be sold everywhere any way and i have trouble understanding the argument of decriminalizing it against legalizing it sounds to me like a bit of trying to have it both ways .

Well there are only a few places that have actually legalized it instead of just decriminalized. And in those places you do see that they actually try to sell as much as possible of it.

That already happens in places where it is illegal.

Look the problem with legalizing it is that you put the entire business chain of weed in the hands of capitalist who have a profit motive. That profit motive will drive them to maximize sales as much as they can.

The illegal drugs market is what happens when you have pure, unregulated free markets. Because they do not recognise the law, they have no need to abide by it. Which means you end up with 12 year olds selling it in schools. This is a deliberate marketing policy by the drug dealers. At least when it is in the hands of the government rather than unregulated capitalists (i.e. drug dealers)you can ensure that it isn't being directly marketed to kids. Of course if you are buying something relatively harmless such as weed from the same people who sell you heroin, those free market capitalists (drug dealers) are going to have access to those people as potential customers. I am 100% for legalising all drugs for this reason alone. Get it out of the hands of the criminals. Stop ruining people's lives over it, give them access to treatment rather than prisons.

Maximizing sales means you want to sell it to as many people as possible, and that means advertisement and creating a wide range of products in which you include pot. So rather than just selling pot for people to put in bongs or smoke in joint, you are also going to make other products that contain it. You can see it clearly happening in Colorado.

It happens here in Vancouver. The medical dispensaries have a range of products that you don't have to smoke. The product is tested and will not contain contaminants such as mould and toxic chemicals. When people are forced to buy weed on the unregulated free market (i.e. from drug dealers) they cannot be sure of what it is exactly they are buying or what conditions it was produced in (i.e. was it grown by slaves? Is the money being used to fund terrorism?)

When you only decriminalize the sale, possession and consumption of weed, you contain the profit motive. You severely limit the way you can sell weed, you keep the prices artificially high as production is still illegal and you keep the use of it pushed into some uncomfortable corner where a lot of people are not comfortable of going, thus erecting barriers for use. At the same time, people who still want their joints can still get them and it doesn't place much of a strain on the justice system. I think its a much better way of preventing the massive adoption of weed as some socially acceptable form of mood relief, like alcohol is today, but at the same time give people the freedom to make that decision for themselves.

I think you are underestimating the availability of drugs even when it is illegal. Anyone who wants to get weed (including 12 year olds) can get it delivered to their door. By legalising it you can drive the illegal dealers out of business by undercutting them and providing a better quality product. Then it becomes much easier to keep it out of the hands of children and ensure that people who do need the medical properties (which are pretty much accepted as real and have been for some time) can get the proper dose and safe dose.

Compared to nasty drugs such as tobacco and alcohol, marijuana is a much safer drug. This is a fact and is not in dispute by anyone in the scientific community. There are no recorded deaths from Marijuana and its use is prolific.

Should people drive while stoned? Absolutely not, no more than they should while drunk or texting. However, I am not hearing any demands to outlaw alcohol or phones.

Either legalise weed, or stop being so hypocritical and ban tobacco and alcohol which are far worse. Or have we forgotten what happened when America had prohibition? Pretty much the same thing we have now with drug prohibition. Gang violence and control of the business.

---

Reality Internet Personality

Chris Philip Morris said the same thing over here but they either dropped there threats or it was thrown out . I think the Gov used the argument of public health and the cost to Medicare .

You watch if your gov does use a bit of common sense (Finally remembered how to spell it ) Phillip Morris and the other lot will drop there threats and back down they even used the argument of intellectual property rights for there brands as a threat but i'm thinking that was thrown out of court or something . Hope you gov has the cojones to go ahead with it as it does work now young people don't think it's cool and only 11% can even name a brand , down from 25% only in 2 years so it does work .

It's mainly us old timers to stubborn to stop now that still smoke

any way night all very late so catch you's all tomorrow

---

Some interesting reading for those defending the use of drugs.

Drugged driving

Twice as likely to cause crash

Drugs & Driving

A review of evidence

Fatal crashes involving pot tripled in US

Norway sets the pace...

Tested - Norwegian style

The Netherlands serves as excellent proof that yes, the majority of people are perfectly capable of making the right decisions when you treat them like adults. Just look at the statistics. Decriminalized weed and we have some of the lowest rates of drug addiction and drug criminality in Europe. And I think actually very few Dutch people really use weed on a regular basis.

Ok I accept that it seems to have worked in the Netherlands, but aren't you falling into the trap of saying that, OK so it worked for us, ergo, it must work for other countries. I'm not sure you can predict that.

Full legalization happened in Uruguay. I think they are the first and only country that has ever done that so far. After that you have some American states that legalized it to some degree. I think most other countries with relaxed soft drugs policies have simply decriminalized it to some extend.

So just the one country and a handful if US States then. Bearing in mind of course that a large chunk of South America is funded by illegal drugs. S America drugs

But aren't you rather blithely assuming that the majority of people have the ability to make rational decisions for themselves?

The Netherlands serves as excellent proof that yes, the majority of people are perfectly capable of making the right decisions when you treat them like adults. Just look at the statistics. Decriminalized weed and we have some of the lowest rates of drug addiction and drug criminality in Europe. And I think actually very few Dutch people really use weed on a regular basis.

Can you give some examples please.

Full legalization happened in Uruguay. I think they are the first and only country that has ever done that so far. After that you have some American states that legalized it to some degree. I think most other countries with relaxed soft drugs policies have simply decriminalized it to some extend.

Over here in the UK Glenn, we are also having laws brought in to restrict the way that sales of cigarettes and also alcohol happen.

Cigarettes

Since 1st October 2007 it is illegal to sell tobacco products to anyone under 18 years of age – this includes cigarettes, cigars, roll-your-own and pipe tobacco as well as cigarette rolling papers. Selling any of these products to someone under 18 years of age could result in a fine of £2,500.

In March 2011, the Coalition Government committed itself to holding a public consultation on tobacco packaging. This was due to take place in spring 2012. In November 2013, the British Government announced an independent review of cigarette packaging in England, amid calls for action to discourage young smokers.

In August 2014 Philip Morris International foreshadowed legal action against the UK Government if it introduced plain packaging. In a submission to the government, Philip Morris International said it would seek compensation running into "billions of pounds," if the proposed legislation went ahead.

Alcohol

The ban on shops and supermarkets selling alcohol below cost price came into force on 28 May 2014. Non-compliance with the ban will be an offence under the 2003 Licensing Act for the person making the sale and, on conviction, could result in up to six months’ imprisonment and/or a fine of up to £20,000.

Below cost price

Neither tobacco nor cigarettes would ever be banned in practice it would just simply never happen, but the UK Surgeon-General has said with the backing of many organisations, that drinking alcohol and smoking cigarettes are harmful to health. Therefore it has been a government decision, following on from Australia's lead, to make it "more difficult" for people to obtain the products, without going as far as banning them.

There are figures somewhere that list the amount it costs the NHS to treat patients with lung and other diseases due to smoking. There are other figures regarding the number of teenage drunks treated in the average A&E over weekends for alcohol abuse. All that has necessarily to be balanced against Government responsibility and Civil Liberty. Nobody ever pretends that will be an easy path.

but at the same time give people the freedom to make that decision for themselves.

But aren't you rather blithely assuming that the majority of people have the ability to make rational decisions for themselves?

That's an arrogant statement to make. Are you blindly stating that the majority are dumb? You been smoking something yourself?

but at the same time give people the freedom to make that decision for themselves.

But aren't you rather blithely assuming that the majority of people have the ability to make rational decisions for themselves?

Well there are only a few places that have actually legalized it instead of just decriminalised

Can you give some examples please.