I don't suppose others will have been confused (witness Dianavan's point: "...if they would make it legal to grow and possess, it would take a big swipe out of organised crime"), but for Georgiansilver's benefit I will just re-explain the third paragraph of my earlier post. I was pointing out that the criminalisation of drugs has very unpleasant consequences, exactly as prohibition did in an earlier age. He should know this from his police experience.

Maybe Strolling Johnny has let emotion cloud his judgment, but he seems to have confused the issue of criminalisation with the issue of drugs abuse. There is no inconsistency in opposing the first and wanting to discourage the second. They are separate issues, as his own family experience demonstrates. For the fact is that his son got himself into a mess even though what he claims to have been the so-called gateway drug was criminalised.

Johnny should face the simple (and I would have thought unarguable) fact that many people experiment with pot, or for that matter use it regularly long-term, without ever going where his son went. And for people like his son - ie those who, for whatever reason, need protection or support - the outlawing of cannabis is of no help.

Johnny's family experience is obviously an unhappy one, but it is no basis on which to frame laws that affect everyone. In a few days' time a pal will be staying who has smoked pot regularly for at least 35 years. It has caused him no problems and he has caused no-one else any problems in all those years. Face it Johnny: criminalising him or his suppliers doesn't help your son one bit.