In article <Mzf3j.40314$JA1.22617@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
ghost@attic.info (Janitor of Lunacy) wrote:

> *From:* "Janitor of Lunacy" 
> *Date:* Wed, 28 Nov 2007 15:12:44 GMT
> 
> "mentalguy2004"  wrote in message 
> news:Ggf3j.35673$ib1.6345@newsfe3-win.ntli.net...
> >
> > "Janitor of Lunacy"  wrote in message 
> > news:_7f3j.40308$JA1.31900@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> >>
> >> "mentalguy2004"  wrote in message 
> >> news:YVe3j.35670$ib1.35315@newsfe3-win.ntli.net...
> >>>
> >>> "Janitor of Lunacy"  wrote in message 
> >>> news:sPe3j.138456$7_4.105257@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> >>>>
> >>>> "mentalguy2004"  wrote in message 
> >>>> news:X0e3j.50552$T8.36821@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "Dr John Watson"  wrote in 
> message >>>>> news:5r581mF12k2p3U1@mid.individual.net...
> >>>>>> Noticed at Wed, 28 Nov 2007 10:48:48 +0000: mentalguy2004 
> informed >>>>>> us:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> "Dr John Watson"  wrote in 
> message
> >>>>>>> news:5r4om5F12s3c5U1@mid.individual.net...
> >>>>>>>> That's 136 people whose lives have been damaged, by the 
> immoral >>>>>>>> drug laws,
> >>>>>>>> far more than they would have been by cannabis.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Also, 980 people (7.5%) were found not guilty.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> 
> http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2007-11-26a.166841.h
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Yes, people shouldn't be punished for breaking laws they 
> don't agree >>>>>>> with.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The law has no place in deciding what an adult does with his 
> own >>>>>> body,
> >>>>>> especially where the substance in question is safer than 
> most legal
> >>>>>> substances.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Which "legal substances" would they be?
> >>>>
> >>>> er, alcohol, nicotine?
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> I'd agree about alcohol. But I'm not convinced that nicotine 
> causes >>> long-term psychoses. Maybe it would be better to say 
> "cannabis may be >>> safer than alcohol" rather than "cannabis is 
> FAR safer than MOST legal >>> substances". Bit misleading.
> >>
> >> I was replying to "especially where the substance in question is 
> safer >> than most legal substances"
> >> specifically in relation to relative costs to society caused by 
> >> use/misuse/abuse of those substances.
> >>
> >> Sorry if that wasn't clear.
> >
> > Are there any definitive statistics on the costs to society of 
> > various legal/illegal substances? I'm not disputing your opinion, 
> > but I'd have thought that mental-health care and joblessness due 
> > to apathy linked to cannabis use would be significant.
> 
> Well, I'm no expert on health-care economics, but I would imagine 
> that costs to the NHS alone as a result of drunk-driving, 
> Friday/Saturday night fights and lung cancer far outweigh those 
> from use of cannabis, on numbers of participants alone.
> 
> I'm sure the stats are out there but I already have enough research 
> on my plate. You are welcome to try and find stats on costs due to 
> cannabis use, but I really doubt they exist, simply because there 
> aren't enough such cases to be statistically significant. Sure, 
> cannabis use *may* be associated with mental problems, but so is 
> alcohol use, but I'm not sure these would be reported in the stats 
> primarily as mental health problems or substance abuse problems.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
It is a curious argument that because two drugs (alcohol& tobacco) cause
immense personal and social harm (even though we have some social
controls on them), society should seek to level the playing field for all
other possible harmful substances. It is a perverted logic if ones wish
is a reduction in "total harm".