A few things were interesting in this article:
- the statistics on how few pot-smokers are caught (what's the point of punishing a few stragglers when the herd runs on ahead?)
- the idea that because the government has relaxed its rules, people assume the drug isn't as dangerous as it might be [but only because they've been trained to think that what the government disallows, is dangerous, and what it allows, isn't -- something that should have been thought of earlier!]
- the suggestion that there should be a marketing (propaganda) campaign to "inform" people of how dangerous the drug is: note that the idea of decreasing use is spoken of immediately after, not as an afterthought, but as a causal, intentional thing. Informing and convincing are separate ideas!
- a worst-case story about how bad the drug can be (while also implying that there were plenty of other things going on, including other drugs, stresses, etc.) If a single sob story, or even statistics about how dangerous something can be, were really all that convincing, don't you think people would have given up alcohol long ago? Has anyone considered that some people make use of these drugs knowing full-well, at least inasmuch as a non-medical-practioner could be expected to, the effects? "I would not make the same choice you have made, therefore you are wrong."

Yeah, I'm done making a blog entry of this. Just pisses me off...