Col,

I am trying to decipher your lengthy rants, I think you are saying that if a person develops psychosis as a result of smoking cannibis, they only have themselves to blame.

Hmmmmm

I guess that means an alcoholic is at fault for taking that first drink, that they should've known beforehand they would turn into a demented, brain damaged cretin and, therefore, should be punished.

Is that what you mean?

That people who develop mental illnesses should be punished if they do any risky activity that might result in illness or disablement?

Your partner will be run off her tiny little feet.

PS

Brevity indicates a clarity of mind and detachment from the emotive, suggest you do ease off the turps.

And here is a link to further expert support of the harm minimisation approach:

http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/story.html?id=684231

The article ends with this comment:

"If only more of us were willing to change our positions based on evidence, we might finally begin to make progress against this terrible affliction called drug addiction."

This raises the question of what evidence would change your opinion, Col? For example, if a heroin injection trial were shown to have benefits to the community and addicts above those of other management strategies, would you support the adoption of heroin injection programs?

When you have seen hands cut off in presses from lack of concentration, staff not turning up on mondays after a heavy weekend on both legal and illegal drugs; staff develop permanent medical conditions from continual use of drugs, persons imprisoned for dealing drugs it is time to look for a new work force. China at least delivers on time quality products to fulfil demands with no insurance claims.

Fester, Nice links. Thanks.

Fractelle “I am trying to decipher your lengthy rants,”

They are not that difficult, for anyone who can manage words of more than two syllables.

As for rants, well what you think of as ‘reason’ is something completely lacking is underlying logic, so it is easy to conclude, what real people consider ‘reason’ appears like ‘rants’ to you.

“I guess that means an alcoholic is at fault for taking that first drink,”

More importantly, he is also responsible for taking his last one.

And “deciphering” what I wrote also depends on reading all the words.

As I wrote “Cannabis alone and also cannabis in combination with alcohol”

Try to read all the words fractelle

Like you said “Brevity indicates a clarity of mind and detachment from the emotive, suggest you do ease off the turps.”

I guess avoiding some of the words adds to your “brevity”,

( turps might be you alcohol of choice it should suit you, it is after all cheap but It is not mine.)

As for detachment from the emotive, I did not think I was being emotional but maybe early psychosis makes you hypersensitive to every nuance, it seems that way.

“That people who develop mental illnesses should be punished if they do any risky activity that might result in illness or disablement”

You have that arse about face.

The point is

“people who engage in risky activities, fully aware they are exposing themselves to serious and permanent mental illness, should not be cosseted, recognised or rewarded for their stupidity”

Their action could invalidate any insurance policy which they carried or disqualify them from obtaining the everyday insurance we use as security.

If they fail to consider their own health, why should I give a rats, beyond seeking to protect the rest of us from the burden the stupid place upon our tax funded services, including possible the cost of their incarceration.

Like I said a few posts ago “Volenti non fit injuria” it is a long standing maxim all who want to play with their own wellbeing need to consider(google it for translation)

I think Col is too proud to change his mind. That's all it is. I have changed my mind before Col it's not so bad.