🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <afalf206tb@drn.newsguy.com>, nospam@mybox.org says...
> In article <MPG.17826e1e4ff38488989e17@shawnews.vn.shawcable.net>, tnr says...
> >
> >In article <afafg502oe3@drn.newsguy.com>, nospam@mybox.org says...
> >> >You guys aren't fooling anyone bud..... although I have nothing against
> >> >Maryjane..... I just like to think my local MLA/Mayor etc isn't connected to
> >> >outright illicit activity.
> >> 
> >> You'd rather he was involved in graft and fraud, I suppose.
> > 
> >
> >It must be depressing thinking that those are the only two choices.
> 
> 
> You're not seeing the big picture:  

uh huh
 
> Cannabis is "illicit" and illegal because 70+ years of untruthful propaganda

I don't know about Canada but it certainly hasn't 70 years in the US. As 
I recall it was made illegal during the Korean war. The US used to sow 
hemp in rural drainage ditches to prevent erosion.

> have convinced people it hurts people... despite the fact that there's very
> *very* little harm inherent in the use of the stuff.   Almost every single bit
> of the harm in cannabis use or possession is related to it being illegal.

Perhaps there is concern that it will be abused in the same way alcohol 
is abused - smoking an driving for example. This society rarely 
demonstrates an impressive level of maturity so it is not out of line to 
expect problems with legalizing it.

  
> Trade in illicit things involves criminal activity, and violent means are often
> necessary to deal with enforcemment authorities *and* to protect the enormous
> profits demanded by people who risk so much to ply their trade.
> 
> Graft and fraud are "illicit" and illegal because they actully hurt people, in
> and of themselves.
> 
> Which would you rather make legal, a nearly harmless weed, or the theft of
> property and process by fraud and graft?

Why is it I only get those two choices? I'll pick honest government 
without legalized weed.