In article , drjohn@NOSPAM.hotpotmail.com (Dr
John Watson) wrote:

> *From:* Dr John Watson 
> *Date:* Sun, 02 Dec 2007 08:52:58 +0000
> 
> Noticed at Sun, 02 Dec 2007 00:28:00 +0000: Claude informed us:
> 
> > Violent criminals have always existed, well before drugs became so
> > ubiquitous. It is a fact that in the 60s and early 70s in the UK 
> > some
> > elements of serious organised crime refused to have anything to 
> > do with
> > drugs trafficking-so the historical evidence is against you. I 
> > suppose
> > you think the "pavement crossers" (bank robbers)with their sawn 
> > off
> > shotguns were non-violent? You get things so wrong it is 
> > difficult to
> > take anything you say very seriously.
> 
> Your straw men show you to be very shallow, Mr Raynes.
> 
> -- 
> Dr John Watson
> Baker Street
> 
> 
Pathetic.
This is what you said:
"Prohibition funds the violent criminal networks. Without prohibition, they
wouldn't exist",

Of course I agree there is /some/ violence associated with /some/ drug distribution.
Your point that the violence would not exist without what you call prohibition, is
plain silly. Overstating your argument. I put up no straw man. I made an
historically accurate point. I can go back even further if you wish and prove you
even more inaccurate on the history of violent crime. I try not to overstate my
arguments which is why I have little to do with the wilder "strong cannabis" claims.
It is a great pity you find it necessary to overstate your case so often.