Seems that cannabis grown by the Canadian government isn't up to snuff. The terminally-ill recipients are not entirely satisfied:

Ingrates.

Hat tip: Commonsense and Wonder.

It seems that the Telegraph has a "mole". How else can one explain the following words in an editorial:

"Most of the young men who carry and use guns in Britain are consumers or dealers in drugs. In that sense, any crime in which they carry a gun is therefore "drug-related", to use the fashionable term. But it would be more accurate to say the crime is "drug law-related". If drugs were not criminalised, dealers would not need to carry guns any more than brewers or distillers would feel the need to be armed today."

Peter Cuthbertson has replied to me. Obviously his views are rather more subtle than I first thought.

What he seems to be saying is that although in principle he is in favour of drugs legalisation, at present society is in such a morally degenerate state that the consequences of a free market in drugs would be very severe indeed.

He says he wants to avoid the drugs debate which is fine by me because in fact he has initiated an entirely new one - on timing.

I have to confess that I have never really felt that there is much question about it - freedom now. But maybe there are elements of freedom that ought to be delayed. I don't think drugs is one of them but certainly when it comes to road privatisation I think things would have to be thought about. I would certainly not like see people being prevented from going outside their front door.

The reason I think drugs should be relegalised now and in one go is not because I don't think people will do some pretty stupid things - they will. My belief is that after a brief period of madness responsibility will prevail - not least because the pool of irresponsible people will have been diminished.

There is also a tactical reason. I think it is far better to get all the pain over at once. The long the pain goes on the easier it is for wishy-washy politicians to put spanners in the works.

I have one other quibble. He describes illegal drugs as "wicked". To my mind "wicked" is an adjective which can only apply to a being capable of moral choice.

Seeing as no one else is going to reply to Peter Cuthbertson I suppose I'll have to do it myself.

Cuthbertson mentions the case of a grandfather who overdosed on Ecstasy and died. His view is that this proves the case for the continuation of a ban on all drugs.

This is a truly bizarre claim (sorry Peter). This man died taking illegal drugs. The ban did not save him. This is the regime you support - not me. There are thousands like him every year who die as a consequence of taking illegal drugs.

Now, it is difficult to get into Peter Cuthbertson's way of thinking not least because he doesn't state it. Does he think that the situation will be worse if drugs were relegalised? I find it difficult to imagine how it could be. First of all the criminal element gets eliminated at a stroke. So, we can look forward to a radical reduction in crime. Secondly, the quality of drugs will be improved once they are legalised. After all, how many of us die from dodgy beer or cigarettes. Thirdly, relegalisation will allow entrepreneurs to sell weaker and safer versions. Instead of heroin many will try opium. Instead of cocaine many will try it in leaf form - just like the Amazonian Indians.

This is not to deny that some people will do some pretty stupid things. Some people will become addicts - just as they do now. Some people will overdose - just as they do now. The argument for freedom is not that things will be perfect merely that they will be less imperfect.

The freedom to take drugs has once again come under attack from conservatives and once again the question is being asked: Where are the libertarians?

Today's attack came from Stephen Pollard who claims that cannabis is not necessary for medical purposes. This is the latest in a series of articles which have included pieces in The Edge and Conservative Commentary.

These have yet to elicit any response from any libertarian. This has led to speculation that many think there is no case to answer.

Top Tories, Peter Cuthbertson and Iain Murray have joined forces to have a go at the libertarians. The tag team owes its origins to stories claiming that cannabis is bad for you. Reacting to the news Murray said: err, nothing while his partner in purity, Cuthbertson also said nothing.

Viewers are advised that CrozierVision will be bringing you live (well, cryogenically preserved) and exclusive(ish) action from this clash of the titans. We will bring you every blow, every slam and every knee in the groin... just as soon as the Tee-total Two come up with an argument.

Long live Elvis - Samizdata
Ian slams music biz - Samizdata
Oldie (46) joins up - The Captain
The Army of the future - Mr Happy?
Concern has been expressed for The Captain's health after he said nice things about Alistair Cooke
Cannabis "immoral" - Conservative Commentary
Sarandon - brains made out of meat substitute - Tim Blair
US government killed US Airways - More Room throughout Coach