If you'd permit, just very briefly.
I think the question posed by Dr. Fry is quite relevant, actually. There are a number of truisms and policies that we live with in the alcohol world that never seem to translate into the cannabis world. One is the greater the availability, the greater the use, the greater the harm. Public health deals with this in alcohol all the time, and yet we don't seem to want to apply the same to cannabis at times. I think we need to look at the issue of availability and its use, and therefore the harms and certainly whatever scheme allows for that to be more prevalent.
I think the issue of medicinal use and benefits, and its application to recreational use is a bit of a confound. I think simply because a substance has a particular benefit, it doesn't necessarily mean that we wish to promote it or make it available in a legal structure. I think the committee's report on prescription drugs states that quite clearly.
I think there's also an important element to say that alcohol and tobacco are different in the sense that, in a black market, it's much easier to produce cannabis at home than it would be for alcohol or tobacco. That notion of just because we were to regulate it, there would no longer be that black market at home, is perhaps underestimating the ability of this particular product to be manufactured that way.