"Nanny's reasoning is a tad "wobbly", here's a few reasons why:1 She assumes that drug taking equates to addiction, ignoring the fact that there are thousands who use drugs in clubs every Friday and Saturday who are not addicted, nor will ever become addicted.2 Nanny also ignores the fact that caffeine, fags and booze are also addictive and potentially dangerous drugs; yet they are legal.3 Nanny is worried that legalisation would "confuse" her healthy living message.4 I note with a degree of disbelief, that Nanny feels it may be difficult to tax drugs. Since when has the complexity of tax legislation ever stopped her before from taxing something?5 There is an undercurrent of wishful thinking in Nanny's note that she would very much like to ban booze and fags as well.6 Nanny states that legalisation would lead to a substantial increase in use. On what empirical evidence is this assertion based?7 Nanny is worried that if other countries don't follow suit, in legalising drugs, then this country would become a shopping paradise for drugs dealers. Is that not for the customs officials of other countries to worry about?Is it not ironic that the leader of the "free world" and, allegedly, the leader and chancellor plus others in another country have used class A drugs yet continue to deny others the right to abuse their bodies in the same way?Drugs were banned in the early 20th century because the "morality movement" managed to gain the upper hand in the legislative process. Had events continued in their favour booze would have also been banned here, as it was in the USA.We have this hypocritical duality of legislation (legal drugs vs illegal ones) because a single issue pressure group got their way, and the government has not got the political interest nor guts to reverse the situation (bad laws once enacted are very difficult to overturn).Be warned, if Nanny had her way she would ban booze and fags as well!This policy is failing and will continue to fail."
