Dear Editor: Wallace Gilby Craig, in his argument for marijuana prohibition, puts together a conflicted and torturous piece of prose, which, in my experience, is a common result when trying to lump pot in with harder drugs. Without going into a detailed rebuttal, suffice it to say that the profound difference between, say, pot and crack is blindingly obvious to anyone who has ever had exposure to the two. Suggesting the policy responses to recreational marijuana use and hard drug addiction should be the same is ideological drivel. [continues 54 words]
Fortunately, Canadians have moved the level of debate on marijuana past the sophistry put forward by UN bureaucrat Antonia Maria Costa. His entire argument is farcical. Many Canadians have tried this "dangerous" drug at one time or another and the vast majority of them have found it to be pretty much innocuous. Most people just outgrow it. Those that don't, don't die from it and don't kill for it. There are a lot of very pressing issues in the world right now. Pot isn't one of them. Adam La Rusic, Vancouver [end]
