In response to Kathy Gyngell: The Times gets hooked on Colorado’s disastrous experiment with pot, Kentish1996 wrote:
Many proponents of cannabis legalisation state that if we already have legal tobacco and alcohol then we should also have legal cannabis because cannabis is safer than both.
Even if that is true, and it makes the bold assumption that cannabis consumption will not balloon rapidly after legalisation, why do we want to have our communities dealing with 3 legalised pollutants rather than the current 2?
The only answer I’ve seen provided for that question is the pipe dream that people will magically stop drinking and smoking and just stick to the green stuff. It’s as if they’ve never actually met pot smokers. They all drink alcohol too. No-one drops drinking as a result of getting access to cannabis. And if they did smoke tobacco before they’ll continue to smoke tobacco, often mixing it in with their cannabis.
The chanting in the press for legalisation is simply a front for junkies to get their fix easier, dealers to be able to sell stronger strains easier, and megacorp to sell us another poison marketed with sexed-up packaging and braindead politicians singing their praises.
