those on the cusp will be effected greatly by any drugs, it is just thay marajuana is the scapegoat becuase it is readily available.

Marajuana is prevalent in society, moreso than people think.

It is bad, can have dire effects for some, yet some seem to be not effected and use it for recreational purposes.

Either way, it is bad. But it should be decriminalised, the state should grow it and keep its strength at safeish levels, make it available like smoking so the massive industry is shut down.

It can be worth almost as much an ounce as gold, and it grows on trees. Being tough will not change anything, just like any addiction. it just drives them underground more, and makes them smarter.

It is like cigarettes, it is a smoke, so it should be governed by the same tough laws with licences to grow it, make it heavily taxed and assist with the prevention by warnings.

Chop Chop.

Agreed inform, not the nanny state the new right so derides (exceptions when suited to their purpose, tell the truth but lie about Iraq and prevaricate about West papua, the ethnicity of Indonesians!)
Yes information and warning similar perhaps to warning of the youth's need for fast motor cars. (never fostered by industry? No better not put an exclamation mark see other post!) Yes a particular view of morality, viewing drugs and sex Unless married, as evil the lilkely view of the new right. Useless and corrupting of officials as well, fills the jails but boy don't the moralists feel good?
How damaging to society and why do people use drugs? Some quoted data shows a sharp rise in Thatcher England. True or just another debating point? Heroin of great purity can it is claimed be used for a very long time, addictive yes harmful yes but the individual still able to function as a member of society, apparently.
So yes inform warn and decriminalise after all harm to ourselves is an element of our freedom if the choice is rational. Ah you saw Rational don't I mean informed? No the thrust is to ask what is rational and then examine externalities for there effect if figures for Thatcher and figures on relative increase in use are true what drives this "rational" choice. A love of pleasure? If so then is it morally correct to deny the experience? The lofty self elevating speech of the politician is that to be subject to jail term it is presumably pleasurable or is it a necessary duty? If the latter truth and responsible presentation of facts might aid the claim.
No better not. I was going to ask is not religion in a somewhat similar category to drugs?

There must be sanctions against the growing, supplying and even use of cannabis while there is still a chance of keeping it away from young people who are yet to try it.

When the use of any substance reaches the addictive stage, however, criminal sanctions are not the answer. Addicts are the only people who really know what it is like to be addicted and, unless they wish to throw off that addiction, no law or coercion will make one iota of difference, and there does not seem to be a place for governments in the problem. Witness the stupidity of trying to stamp out addiction to petrol sniffing with the introduction of Opal petrol. If the sniffers want to sniff petrol, they will find the real thing somewhere, just as with alcoholics, hard-drug and cannabis addicts.

How hard did many of us find giving up cigarettes? How many times did we try and fail? The only way with any drug, is to get rid of it. ‘Harm reduction’ and education is a waste of time. It is doubtful if tobacco and alcohol would be allowed if they were introduced today.

The author uses statistics to claim addiction percentages. For instance, only about 10% of those who try cannabis will become addicted. Oh yeah? What about all the users who fell outside the surveys? It’s a bit like the old chestnut that 1 in 10 drinkers are alcoholics. This is based only on those who present as alcoholics. The figures could be much different if some of these ‘social’ drinkers and wine ‘buffs’ stopped taking their one or two drinks per day and kidding themselves that they didn’t need their drug of choice.

All drugs, including alcohol (which does more harm than hard drugs, and costs the community much more) should be treated in the same way as tobacco, and their users made aware that there is something wrong with anyone who needs them.

Here is a novel approach. Let us satisfy left and right; meet at the interface of communion. Discard the bread and wine as the celebrating medium, and pass around the bong. Goodness-me, the mind boggles. Then again, there could be an outcry from the conservative alcoholic set.

Personnel freedom, personnel choice, personnel responsibility, all drugs should be legal. Doing so would stop 50% plus of crime. Why should smokes and drink be legal they are just as bad for you.

"This is based only on those who present as alcoholics". Not so. It's a statistical measure. Researchers don't find shabby winos and compare their numbers to the general population; they take surveyed results from an anonymous group (including boozehounds, tee-totallers, and wine buffs), then compare the "drinks per day/week" stated with the medical threshold for alcoholism. That's what makes it science and not moralism.

Only the size of the sample group or an erroneus definition of addiction would skew the results.

And be careful not to confuse people who need drugs with people who simply like them.