We can have a healthy debate about our options on cannabis as long as we do not ignore the fact that cannabis is an unhealthy substance. It should be discouraged.

Notice how these types allow talk but hold when it comes to action.

O'Brien's errors in stating the dangers of grass are too numerious to note, but one of his comments on legalization is worth comment:

"Claims that legalisation would end the links with crime are naive. Unless prices are very low, the illegal market would continue to exist."

News flash for Mr. O'Brien: Hemp is cheap. The profit comes from the fact that it is contraband. I find it very unlikely that their would be a market for illegal hemp if it was legal for citizens to grow it. Bootlegging pot would be similar to bootlegging tomatos. A zero profit venture. A waste of time.

We need not engage in speculation here. We have a historical model. When Prohibition was ended in the United States the criminal element was almost entirely eliminated from the business. A few bootleggers still survive to this day, but for the most part the turf wars and the crime associated with the business ended.

Mr.O'Brien is typical of the people on thr prohibitionist side of this debate. They look a couple of studies that suggest some deleterious effects of pot, and without comparing pot to any currently legal substances, they argue for prohibition. The argument is similar to arguing that snack food should be banned because some people over indulge and wind up with heart problems. It is pure stupidity.

The dangers of wearing blinders.

Having read Mr. O'Brien's diatribe, I am struck by a number of inconsistencies.

The most notable being his assertion that the debate about cannabis has been dominated for the last 30 years or more by pro-legalization forces. Nothing could be further from the truth.

In Britain, as in my own country, the drug prohibitionist forces of the government have had access to the taxpayer's money for decades to fund their War on Weed. Much of that bounty is commonly used for what amounts to propaganda in an attempt to dissuade each nation's youth from experimenting with illicit substances. In comparison, many drug law reform advocate groups are operating with little more than comparative pocket change, and thus cannot afford the broad access to the media that the prohibs enjoy. Their voices, all too often, are drowned in the amplified Orwellian sheep-bleat of "Just Say No!"

As can be expected, much of that propaganda cannot face the cold hard light of scientific enquiry; a few years ago, there was a television commercial in the States claiming that the electroencephalogram of a comatose accident victim was actually that of a cannabis user. When this shameful attempt to deceive the public was exposed, the prohib forces quickly removed the commercial from the airwaves...but never made any apologies for their dishonest trickery. Which has certainly done nothing to enhance the government's credibility vis-a-vis illict sunbstances.

Such is the modus operandi of those entrusted to tell the public the truth about cannabis. And the arrogance of those who purport to be acting in our behalf, for our own good.

But when you consider the literal groundswell of the recent move towards changing the cannabis laws in your country, one must ask: are the citizens aware of something that the government is not? Such as the utter pointlessness of condemning large portions of any population to the status of 'criminal' for the possession and consumption of a weed that has caused vastly less damage to society than tobacco? And in the case of many young people of both our nations, that skepticism is based upon actual experience, not supposition...as so much of what the prohibitionists rely upon is.

It would appear that the unwarranted paternalism indicative of our two government's efforts in 'combating' illicit drugs has finally met the average citizen's skepticism in it's efficacy. And given the statements that Mr. O'Brien and his ilk are wont to make, that skepticism is proving, day by day, to be increasingly earned.

I sincerely hope that you of the UK will spearhead the drive towards more sensible laws governing cannabis usage. For if you follow the lead of Uncle Sam's misguided attempts to legislate morality, you've only a cliff-face as your final destination.

Sincerely,
(Me)

Actually, if the sensible people get their way, the profits will go to legal, law-abiding companies - companies on the level with Philip Morris and Budweiser, who never kill anybody... over distribution issues, anyway! AND, the other beneficiary of legal cannabis would be the TAX-MAN. For a plant that costs pennies but is currently priced on a par with gold, there is quite a margin for the tax-man to make a lot of money, once the illegal overhead is out of the way. Plus, the $40 billion the US spends to fight it (not sure about the UK figures) wouldn't have to be spent in the first place, or could be spent focussing the fight on the heroin trade. Talk about a peace dividend!!

>>Those same people usually want tobacco advertising banned, but they are anxious to make it easier to smoke a mixture of tobacco and cannabis.<<

Until the cannabis laws are changed, I support any punitive measures against the tobacco or alcohol companies. Hypocrites! And yes, get rid of the tobacco advertising. At least until you're willing to accept cannabis advertising. And who said we wanted to smoke tobacco in with our newly legalized cannabis?? I hate to ask it, but what's this guy been smoking?

>>Not only that, they seem to assume that those of us who oppose legalising cannabis must be social Neanderthals. <<

First of all:
I do not understand why otherwise sensible people want
to make it easier to smoke cigarettes that can damage our
physical and mental health and make profits for crooks

Because these people have made a reasoned analysis of the
absurdity of so-called drug "crimes" and realised that they
are inconsistent with the 'free society' concept.
I, for my part do not understand why otherwise sensible
people want to inflict severe damage on the mental and
physical health of ordinary people by subjecting them to
the trauma of arrest and prosecution for mere personal
habits. And tell me exactly how legalisation advocates are
in favour of the current control of the cannabis trade by
crooks?

Well, like it or not, I do not want British cities to be
like Amsterdam, with coffee shops selling cannabis cake, a
magnet for the drug takers of Europe who think social
tolerance also extends to openly shooting up heroin in the
parks.

Well, like it or not, I much prefer the model used in
Amsterdam to the current UK situation, with alcohol as the
prevelant social drug and a magnet for the thugs and
louts of Europe who think social tolerance extends to openly
swilling 14 pints of lager and breaking the legs of anybody
who so much as glances at them.

I could go on all day, but you get the idea.
Before I sign off, a quick word from our sponsor...

Mike O'Brien's "Spliffs Are Bad For You, It's Official" was one of the most astute pieces of propaganda I have ever seen. In it, he managed to rehash virtually every discredited myth and outright lie ever told about
marijuana.

Those who wish to avail themselves of the facts should look at the internet websites cannabisnews.com, mapinc.org, and drugsense.org. These sites contain factual information, not propaganda.

To those of you who are against cannabis legalization in the UK, I offer you a warning: do not allow your nation to get bogged down in lies and propaganda as we have in the United States. There are half a million people in jail in my country on drug charges. Most of them are black. Most
of them are there for marijuana.

Do not end up like this. People like myself are working to open the eyes of the misinformed. It is a long and difficult task. However, we will not give up hope, particularly when we can see European nations beginning to
realize that more and more prison cells are not a reasonable solution to any problem. It only makes things worse in the long run.

Legalize cannabis in the UK. Send a message to the world that what you do with your body is no business of any government.

It is not so much that ... It is more that you come off as callous fascists, basically.

The case for a ban on cannabis must rest squarely on the dangers of cannabis itself.

No, puppy-dog. It rests on your ability to EXPLICITLY justify JAIL and PRISON for cannabis users. You can't. Cannabis users don't deserve JAIL. Case closed.

The fact that prohibitionists consistently and studiously avoid the issue of JAIL speaks volumes. This joker did it again. There is a reason for that.

. . . Never forget, folks: JAIL. PRISON. Rub their fascist little noses in it. Make them justify jail for cannabis smokers. Bring up the issue of jail every chance you get. Don't assume that everyone knows about jail and are being 'polite' not to mention jail. Remind them, over and over.

Indeed, Doug and DCP, it's clear that the antis are
circling their wagons in the UK. The slight whiff of panic
is immensely gratifying to me.

Practically every factual assertion O'Brien makes about
cannabis is false. He tosses off incredible reefer
madness but doesn't back up any of it. For example:

There is clear evidence that excessive use can
damage mental health and create long-term learning
difficulties.

What evidence? Some of the most intelligent
and learned people use cannabis regularly.

All the antis have at their disposal are empty slanders.
They couldn't possibly be more rhetorically outgunned.
We are winning.

This shows that the entire logic behind the "war" is built on the clay feet of misrepresentation and fear.

What? The advocates of the WoD have dominated the discussion forever. It is only in the last few weeks that we ahve heard a few brave voices talking about legalization. I guess even a few was too many for some people so they start crying that the dread legalizers are everywhere, and us poor people who stand for keeping drugs out of the hands of children are not being heard. Give me a break.