Minor corrections sir/ma'am. I did not wish harm on you or your family, merely that you do your job so well in such a case with the stereo typical lawyer lack of morals that it comes back to haunt you to such a level that your family wishes in effect to not being related to you. Also, what you fail to grasp is that I am one of those who wishes to see the law changed BUT as long as the law is the law it needs to be followed and that just because we disagree with it does not make it okay to ignore it. Today, marijuana is illegal and I would happily turn in anyone dealing in the stuff. If tomorrow it is legal then I don't care anymore, it's legal. Does that make sense? Oh and I doubt you actually being a lawyer due to your style of writing. Far to emotional and involved, lacking in the level of professionalism and clarity I've seen and dealt with through 18 years as a federal officer. Plus, you to easily counter yourself rather than laying out and countering my points. You present your evidence but in doing so, such as with the Shafer commission, noting, in your own body of text, that is was a study into THC and its status AS a schedule 1 narcotic and that it RECOMMENDED DECRIMINALIZING it. Thus actually supporting my original points that it was originally made criminal in the 1930s not the 60s and 70s. Points you said were not relevant. I did not say or claim it had not been reviewed since just that that the 30s was when it was made criminal on a national level not in the 60s and 70s as you claimed. So the lack of professionalism in your communications and the fact you left me, a non-lawyer, those kinds of obvious openings is what made me question you actually being a lawyer. Have a wonderful day, may the fleas of a thousand camels infest your private regions and may those enjoying reading our little trades never run out of fresh warm pop-corn.