[bryony]

...
I personally distinguish between my perceived duties to society, and my duties to various levels of government administration. I don't react well to governments and bureaucracies which take the attitude that rather than being there to serve us, we are their indentured servants with a duty to them to maximize our ability to generate taxes and minimize demands on their services, nor to government departments and professionals who take the attitude that their services are good for us so more of their services will be better for us (my rant )

AP

"Experience is what you have just after you needed it most"

I have no time for politicians of any persuasion and dislike any form of big government, so we are in full agreement there.

Unfortunately, they have effectively taken over control of scientific orthodoxy, much like the church in the time of Galileo, so it is very difficult to make decisions on the basis of informed choice. There are so many conflicting opinions put forward by vested interests(including governments) on what is safe or not.

e.g.#1 It is not safe to diet by restricting carbohydrates.
For me, anyway, it is much safer than anything else.

e.g.#2 The world is warming and it is all due to mankind over producing CO2
but. The world hasn't warmed measurably for over 10 years but CO2 has been ramping continuously

On the other hand, I get a flu vaccination every year, as recommended, because I am in an "at-risk" category.

Also, I make sure that meat is pasteurised before I eat it, to avoid dangerous pathogens.

So, I have four examples of government orthodoxy. Two I find reliable, two not so much. What clue does that give you on the safety of pot?

If it helps, or confuses even more, there are factions in the UK government parties who want to legalise it - but only so they don't have to bother with the criminal aspects of it, i.e. saving the cost of detection, imprisonment and so on. And of course there is the opportunity to tax the sale of it. But how does this help the victim?

B.