[Acrylic-bob]

I rather feel that I should add a codicil or qualifier to statements I made earlier in this thread. My advocacy of the decriminalisation of controlled substances is predicated on a general move towards a society where the individual takes responsibility for the whole of his or her life, and where the intrusion of the state into the lives of citizens is reduced to the absolute practical minimum.

This is not an easy path to take, but I do feel that it is the only realistic path for a stable and balanced society. In the case of those partial to indulgence in what are at present controlled substances, the information is out there for you to make an informed choice. Whether you choose to take the opportunity to study the effects of your chosen poison or ignore the advice offered must be your choice and your choice alone; as also must be the acceptance of the consequences of your choices, whatever they may be.

I see it as the state's role to enable its citizens, not control them. Consequently, under such a system any illness resulting from free choice would not be treated by the NHS in the way it is now, but would rather entail additional charges for whatever treatment was deemed appropriate.

In short: the dumping of the nanny state would mean greater freedoms but it would also mean that nanny would no longer be there to kiss and make it better when it all goes wrong.

I hope I have made that clearer.