[tacticalogic]

"Our mandate was a broad one, covering, for example, the nature and scope of use, the effects of the drug, the relationship of marihuana use to other behavior and the efficacy of existing law.

Okay, I stand corrected. That was part of the mandate. What is your opinion on judgements made on the efficacy of an existing law given little or no historical background to base that determination on, and by what standard do issues of efficacy render questions of constitutionality moot?

[tacticalogic]

While we're at it, if the report was so supportive of the WoD, why were they so quick to reject the conclusions and recommendations?