Maybe I'll speak to the issue of prohibition and whether that increases harms.
Dr. Le Foll nicely pointed out that of the folks that try cannabis, only about 10% go on to become addicted to it or dependent on it. That's much lower than with tobacco, which is about 30% to 32%, and alcohol, which is between 15% and 20%.
Alcohol and tobacco are licit; they're legal substances that have regulation. I think one of the problems with cannabis’ being illegal and a prohibition approach is that in order to get cannabis, which you know, as I said, has modest harm, essentially exposes people to other illicit drugs and other illicit drug circles, which, you know, leads to crime and other harms. Oftentimes, when you see people who use cannabis as their prime drug, the trouble they get into is where they get exposed to those circles and try other, harder drugs, like cocaine, heroin, etc. It's been called a “gateway drug”, which has come under some fire, but I think it does speak to this issue. It questions how a prohibition strategy is actually doing useful things.
The experiments around the world where they've removed prohibitions have not let to the bad outcomes that have been thought to be associated with that.