Hi Alex,
 Thanks for your reply.
 >  AF>  I get the sneaky feeling that you misunderstood or misinterpreted
 >  AF> my former reply to your post. Marijuana..to me...is an evil..and
 >  AF> only hempseed (very nutritious) and hemp textiles (extremely
 >  AF> healthy  and long-lasting) are beneficial to humans.
 > Why do you consider marijuana to be an evil?
 Any substance...either natural or artificial..which intereferes
 with rather than promoting body functions (IOW any substance which
 is not merely nutritious) is not conducive to good health and
 well being (i.e. whether addictive or not) and can thus merely
 "treat" some symptom rather than initiate a body cure.
  >>  Unlike tobacco and alcohol, which are legal,
 >> the federal government classifies marijuana as a Schedule I
 >> substance -- equivalent to heroin, and people are sentenced to >> prison 
for decades and have their property confiscated by the
 >> government for growing or possessing less than a pound of it.
 >  AF>  Here I would agree that it is useless to jail any junkies
 > Since we were talking about marijuana, and I understand "junky"
 > to be synonymous with "addict", are you suggesting that marijuana
 > is addictive?
 Whether one is addicted to a drug or whether one takes it on a
 regular basis wuthout becoming addicted is irrelevant. Anybody
 who needs any drug (sleeping pills etc. included) on a regular
 basis could be termed a "junky". Drinking a bottle of whisky a day
 without being an alcoholic is just as damaging to the body as an
 alcoholic doing the same thing.
  (>  AF> ...I am of the opinion that all  drugs
 >  AF> are both dangerous and an answer to nothing
 > Why do you believe that all drugs are both dangerous and an
 > answer to nothing?
 Becuse they do not address the underlying problem..i.e. the
 cause (i.e. why the person thinks he or she needs to take the drug
 in the first place).
 >  AF>  but that these
 >  AF> self-same drugs should be legalized and thus made cheaper to  stamp
 >  AF> out both the criminal activities of the pushers and the  junkies.
 >  AF> As to the junkies themselves, they should not be
 >  AF>  treated as criminals but allowed to "go to pot" ('scuse the pun)
 >  AF> or cure themselves under their own steam (natural selection)  and
 >  AF> out of their own pockets..as the case may be. Drugtaking  is a
 >  AF> self-inflicted injury which should cost the state (and  hence the
 >  AF> non-drugtaking population) absolutely nothing. The  Dutch have
 >  AF> taken the first step in this direction and are
 >  AF>  achieving remarkable results.
 > What is referred to as "drug-related" crime should more accurately
 > be referred to as "prohibition-related" crime.  Then it would be
 > easier to implement the sensible solution you suggest.  Would you
 > apply this same solution across-the-board to all people who undertake
 > behaviors that increase risk of injury or ill health, such as poor
 > eating habits and inadequate exercise?
 There could be a case for this seeing that most people today are
 made aware by the media that they may be eating wrong and ignoring
 good exercise. The health insurance companies are also debating
 whether to differentiate (smokers as against non-smokers etc. etc.).
 Mandatory health insurance contributions such as here in Germany
 (where health costs are spiralling) are merely so high because
 the lowest common denominator (i.e. all those people..the majority
 still..who leave their health to the docs rather than taking on
 the responsibility themselves) is used as the basis for calculations.
 >> Prohibition has helped government grow, become more powerful,
 >> and been very lucrative for it.  Consequently, there is a
 >> substantial interest in demonizing marijuana and other substances.
 >  AF>  I would totally disagree that prohibition helps a government grow
 >  AF> and become more powerful. It merely breeds people like 'ol Al
 >  AF> Capone and his mob.
 > Prohibition naturally raises prices of things people demand, thereby
 > encouraging lawbreaking for profit.  But, in the U.S.A. prohibition
 > has also increased the power and size of government in terms of
 > an expanded military, expanded and new police agencies, more prisons,
 > and the erosion of civil rights and civil liberties in the name of
 > fighting the crime created by prohibition.
 Then we here must be doing something wrong....i.e. despite the same
 prohibition we do not have either enough police or enough prisons
 or even enough judges even for the crimes not associated with
 drug use. This is because a lot of people have legal insurance
 and drown the courts and overtax the police with petty, stupid
 complaints (mostly against neighbours). In addition, we lack a
 National Guard which does not have to concern itself with things
 like traffic offences and noise complaints etc..
 Best regards,
 Alan
--- GEcho 1.00
---------------