Okay, GUEST, I recognize that your comment was not aimed at me. I think, though, that you are assuming too much in aiming it at Ellenpoly as well. As far as I know she's a pretty smart person with her own life well under control and she is notably addicted to only this: reading books. :-)

If a law is in fact unenforcable in the broad sense and cannot stop people from privately exercising free choice IN their own privacy...what use is it? I am in favour of a law restricting the SALE of marijuana and hash...just not a law attacking the user, that's all. The (heavy) user is not the problem, he/she is the recipient of the problem...otherwise known as "the victim".

I do not favour laws which target victims. Remember...they used to put poor people in jail for debt at one time (read Dicken's novels). Once in jail they, of course, were basically unable to get OUT of debt and they rotted there in total despair and usually died there. This was another case of a law which was attacking a social problem in entirely the wrong way.

I think that the reason you, GUEST, want the law to go after the victim of marijuana is because you are personally afraid of marijuana. I am not. It's not something that scares me in the least (having been around hundreds of casual users who were totally harmless people for years and years), but draconian laws and drug dealers both worry me considerably. They are both dangerous to ordinary people.

Do you understand my position on that? I'd like to know if you do.