Col,
Why do you believe that it should be the State’s business what individuals choose to use on their own property?
Why would cannabis have to be treated differently than other substances like tobacco and alcohol?
Why is it OK to have alcohol advertised especially on sport venues, which are visited by children?
Why should we have double standards?

“And there is no evidence that its legalization would reduce its use.”
Actually, there is evidence that the decriminalisation of cannabis does not lead to an increase of use.
http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=3383

U.S. studies
“Findings from dozens of government-commissioned and academic studies published over the past 25 years overwhelmingly affirm that liberalizing marijuana penalties does not lead to an increase in marijuana consumption or affect adolescent attitudes toward drug use.
Since 1973, 12 state legislatures -- Alaska, California, Colorado, Maine, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, New York, North Carolina, Ohio and Oregon -- have enacted versions of marijuana decriminalization.”

International Studies.
"The Dutch experience, together with those of a few other countries with more modest policy changes, provides a moderately good empirical case that removal of criminal prohibitions on cannabis possession (decriminalization) will not increase the prevalence of marijuana or any other illicit drug; the argument for decriminalization is thus strong."

And according to Drug and Alcohol Services Council of South Australia:
“In the context of a society which is increasingly well informed about the risks associated with drug use in general, a move toward more lenient laws for small scale cannabis offenses, such as the CEN [decriminalization] system, will not lead to increased cannabis use."

“Trading in a drug which induces paranoia is a heinous act. ”
There is evidence of some correlation, but there’s no proven causal link.
The media hasn’t been clear on that, but if you go to the research papers there is no researcher that came to the conclusion that cannabis actually causes psychological disorders.
They do think that it may cause psychological problems for users who were already predisposed anyway.

Even so, why is it not a heinous act to trade in alcohol and tobacco?

I have tried pot back in my 20's, on at least two occasions and must admit that although it gave me a buzz at the time I have had no interest in it in more than 20 years however, I was at a new years party last/this year and a joint was being handed around and I almost took a drag but thought, no this isn't for me.

Funny thing was that while driving home I was stopped at an RBT (without drug testing involved) and I got to think, What would have happened if I had taken a drag and then been tested for drugs.

Would I have tested positive?

If so, how would I have felt being branded as a 'druggie' when I simply only took one drag in 20 + years.

I feel this is proof that the random drug testing may well be flawed as hypothetically I could have been branded as a drug user.

This may be off topic but is an interesting point I think!

Cevilia “Why would cannabis have to be treated differently than other substances like tobacco and alcohol?”

Why ask about cannabis?

Why not ask about heroin?

The same rules apply.

Why should heroin be any different to tobacco or alcohol?

Tobacco and Alcohol can both kill us, just like heroin.

I was a pack a day smoker for 25 years, went cold turkey to give in up.

I am an occasional drinker, never had a problem saying no and these days through personal choice, drink very modestly indeed.

As I stated recently on another thread, the opium trade into China resulted in an estimate of 1 in four male Chinese being addicted to opium by 1904.

Heroin is more addictive than opium. Meth-amphetamine is more addictive than heroin.

I know one family where one son was murdered by a cannabis induced schizophrenic and the other is on a downward cycle into drug and alcohol abuse, to the point he has recently been kicked out because his parents feel unsafe with his paranoid outbursts of violence and abuse. He is going to do it tough. He has no job and no real interest in getting one.

“Hitting bottom” is not far away.

So when you can get heroin or cannabis legalized then I will accept it as fact.

Maybe we should make ecstasy and meth-amphetamine legal as well?
After all they are just farm chemicals. battery acid and a few more niceties cooked up in a cesspool somewhere by a dirty biker, as well as paranoia, a couple of years on crank and your skull starts to cave in to.

May be dump 3 times more taxes into medicare. Let the doctors have the funds needed to institutionalize the landslide of junkies who will arrive with the legalization of these substances?

Or maybe the sane ones among us, who do not abuse ourselves will get sick of seeing our taxes, facilities and taxpayer funded services flushed down the toilet to support junkies and crack addicts and decide, the better option is just to ‘terminate the junkies’ on their first public hissing fit.

Doesn't look like it's the junkies who are having "public hissing fits" around here :)

"Terminate" the junkies, apply the "ultimate sanction" to marijuana dealers. I think Col's been reading too much Stalin and Lenin.

Either that or he's really a Dalek :P

ROFL… a Dalek :)

I’m pleased to see that most posters, including Col, agree with the author that cannabis should be part of our palliative armoury.

Col,
“Why ask about cannabis?”
Why not?
Cannabis is, after all, the topic of this article and I’m searching for the lone lurking logical argument that may be able to convince me that cannabis should not be decriminalised.
You can’t be reasonably be against the decriminalisation of cannabis without coming up with a logical reason for it.
Slippery-slope arguments are not logical arguments.
And the connections you make between cannabis and other drugs doesn’t make sense because they are in a different class (class A). Cannabis is a class C drug.

Not that I agree with the classification used- it needs an update.
I happen to have found an article about this and you might want to look at it to discover that the recent classification doesn’t make much sense.

Col, seriously, if you support the fact that alcohol and tobacco are legal, then it makes no logical sense to be against legalisation of a drug that is less harmful.

It would make sense to be against drugs that are more harmful than alcohol and tobacco, but it makes no sense to be against less harmful drugs.

For example…
Less harmful than alcohol and tobacco are: Cannabis, LSD, and Ecstasy.

More harmful than tobacco and alcohol are: Ice, Heroin, and Cocaine.

If these figures are correct and there’s a consensus on this new classification, then it makes sense to either legalise all drugs that are as harmful as and less harmful than alcohol and tobacco OR ban tobacco and alcohol along with drugs in the same category and over.
I support the former :)

Why would we want double standards for no other reasons than historical and hysterical ones?

If I had to pick an argument against the legalisation of drugs, then it would be one that rehctub addressed: There is no proper test yet for checking cannabis intoxication while driving.
I'd like to see more research on this.

Oops, I forgot to include the link.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/5230006.stm#drugs
“The designation of drugs in classes A, B and C should be replaced with one more closely reflecting the harm they cause.”