20:30 28/01/2008 BBC1

I'm unable to watch it, but I might be able to see it later on the BBC's
iPlayer (if it works).

I doubt they'll mention that most of the problems are caused by
prohibition - if you legalise cocaine the problems will evaporate.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/7200749.stm

-- 
Dr John Watson
Baker Street

Dr John Watson wrote:
> 20:30 28/01/2008 BBC1
>
> I'm unable to watch it, but I might be able to see it later on the
> BBC's iPlayer (if it works).
>
> I doubt they'll mention that most of the problems are caused by
> prohibition - if you legalise cocaine the problems will evaporate.
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/7200749.stm

I am not sure how anyone who has the brains to earn a doctorate, can say 
such a stupid thing. If you legalise Cocaine, you may solve some of the 
problems, you may alleviate others, but the problems will not 'evaporate', 
and you are likely to be left with a whole series of consequential problems.

Gaz

"Gaz"  wrote in message 
news:606l0mF1p8n0sU1@mid.individual.net...
> Dr John Watson wrote:
>> 20:30 28/01/2008 BBC1
>>
>> I'm unable to watch it, but I might be able to see it later on the
>> BBC's iPlayer (if it works).
>>
>> I doubt they'll mention that most of the problems are caused by
>> prohibition - if you legalise cocaine the problems will evaporate.
>>
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/7200749.stm
>
> I am not sure how anyone who has the brains to earn a doctorate, can say 
> such a stupid thing. If you legalise Cocaine, you may solve some of the 
> problems, you may alleviate others, but the problems will not 'evaporate', 
> and you are likely to be left with a whole series of consequential 
> problems.

Honestly, most of the posts by the pro-legalise people provide the best 
arguments for keeping drugs illegal. Drugs obviously don't enhance 
intelligence or reasoning skills.

On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 18:25:17 -0000, Gaz wrote:

> Dr John Watson wrote:
>> 20:30 28/01/2008 BBC1
>>
>> I'm unable to watch it, but I might be able to see it later on the
>> BBC's iPlayer (if it works).
>>
>> I doubt they'll mention that most of the problems are caused by
>> prohibition - if you legalise cocaine the problems will evaporate.
>>
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/7200749.stm
> 
> I am not sure how anyone who has the brains to earn a doctorate

This is usenet, he can claim to be whatever he likes. 

Does it add any credence to his posts? No. 

Does it show him up to be a twonk? Yes.

-- 
the dot wanderer at tesco dot net

On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 18:56:33 GMT, "mentalguy2004" 
wrote:

>Honestly, most of the posts by the pro-legalise people provide the best 
>arguments for keeping drugs illegal. Drugs obviously don't enhance 
>intelligence or reasoning skills. 

And what sort of broken reasoning skills does it take to come to the
conclusion that people who are against the prohibition of drugs take
illegal drugs themselves?

Do you similarly believe that people who are against the prohibition
of abortion have themselves had an abortion?

In fact, it would appear that you have displayed the typical sort of
erroneous logic that prohibitionists habitually use to support their
arguments.

-- 
Cynic

On 28 Jan, 21:29, Cynic  wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 18:56:33 GMT, "mentalguy2004" 
> wrote:

> Do you similarly believe that people who are against the prohibition
> of abortion have themselves had an abortion?

Mentalguy can speak authoritatively on abortion since he is the result
of one.

Svenne

On 28 Jan, 21:17, The Wanderer  wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 18:25:17 -0000, Gaz wrote:
> > Dr John Watson wrote:
> >> 20:30 28/01/2008 BBC1
>
> >> I'm unable to watch it, but I might be able to see it later on the
> >> BBC's iPlayer (if it works).
>
> >> I doubt they'll mention that most of the problems are caused by
> >> prohibition - if you legalise cocaine the problems will evaporate.
>
> >>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/7200749.stm
>
> > I am not sure how anyone who has the brains to earn a doctorate
>
> This is usenet, he can claim to be whatever he likes.
>
> Does it add any credence to his posts? No.
>
> Does it show him up to be a twonk? Yes.

Since Dr John Watson gives his adress as Baker Street it doesn't take
a Sherlock Holmes to figure out the source of his nom de plume.

Which makes you a bit of a twonk.

Svenne

"Cynic"  wrote in message 
news:qsasp359m06smnbaarqanp611dj6o0kof9@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 18:56:33 GMT, "mentalguy2004" 
> wrote:
>
>>Honestly, most of the posts by the pro-legalise people provide the best
>>arguments for keeping drugs illegal. Drugs obviously don't enhance
>>intelligence or reasoning skills.
>
> And what sort of broken reasoning skills does it take to come to the
> conclusion that people who are against the prohibition of drugs take
> illegal drugs themselves?
>
> Do you similarly believe that people who are against the prohibition
> of abortion have themselves had an abortion?
>
> In fact, it would appear that you have displayed the typical sort of
> erroneous logic that prohibitionists habitually use to support their
> arguments.

I have a friend who is out of his head on puff most of the time, and "duhhh 
legalise drugzz and there won't be no problemz" is the type of stupid thing 
he'd say under the influence.

On Jan 28, 6:05 pm, Dr John Watson 
wrote:
> 20:30 28/01/2008 BBC1
>
> I'm unable to watch it, but I might be able to see it later on the BBC's
> iPlayer (if it works).

> I doubt they'll mention that most of the problems are caused by
> prohibition - if you legalise cocaine the problems will evaporate.

And by the same logic, if we were to abolish the ability to own
property theft & burglary crimes would fall to virtually nil - problem
solved!


> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/7200749.stm
>
> --
> Dr John Watson
> Baker Street

On Jan 28, 1:59 pm, "mentalguy2004"  wrote:
> "Cynic"  wrote in message
>
> news:qsasp359m06smnbaarqanp611dj6o0kof9@4ax.com...
>
>
>
> > On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 18:56:33 GMT, "mentalguy2004" 
> > wrote:
>
> >>Honestly, most of the posts by the pro-legalise people provide the best
> >>arguments for keeping drugs illegal. Drugs obviously don't enhance
> >>intelligence or reasoning skills.
>
> > And what sort of broken reasoning skills does it take to come to the
> > conclusion that people who are against the prohibition of drugs take
> > illegal drugs themselves?
>
> > Do you similarly believe that people who are against the prohibition
> > of abortion have themselves had an abortion?
>
> > In fact, it would appear that you have displayed the typical sort of
> > erroneous logic that prohibitionists habitually use to support their
> > arguments.
>
> I have a friend who is out of his head on puff most of the time, and "duhhh
> legalise drugzz and there won't be no problemz" is the type of stupid thing
> he'd say under the influence.

So anyone who says anything your friend says is also on drugs?

In article  "Gaz"  writes:
>Dr John Watson wrote:

>> I'm unable to watch it, but I might be able to see it later on the
>> BBC's iPlayer (if it works).
>>
>> I doubt they'll mention that most of the problems are caused by
>> prohibition - if you legalise cocaine the problems will evaporate.
>>
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/7200749.stm

>I am not sure how anyone who has the brains to earn a doctorate, can say 
>such a stupid thing. If you legalise Cocaine, you may solve some of the 
>problems, you may alleviate others, but the problems will not 'evaporate', 
>and you are likely to be left with a whole series of consequential problems.

You are correct.  But the problems related to cocaine being legal will be
far fewer and more easily manageable than the problems related to cocaine
being prohibited.

-Pete Zakel
 (phz@seeheader.nospam)

    Deep Thoughts by Jack Handey:

    If you go parachuting, and your parachute doesn't open, and your friends
    are all watching you fall, I think a funny gag would be to pretend you
    were swimming.

On 28 jan, 20:59, "mentalguy2004"  wrote:
> "Cynic"  wrote in message
>
> news:qsasp359m06smnbaarqanp611dj6o0kof9@4ax.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 18:56:33 GMT, "mentalguy2004" 
> > wrote:
>
> >>Honestly, most of the posts by the pro-legalise people provide the best
> >>arguments for keeping drugs illegal. Drugs obviously don't enhance
> >>intelligence or reasoning skills.
>
> > And what sort of broken reasoning skills does it take to come to the
> > conclusion that people who are against the prohibition of drugs take
> > illegal drugs themselves?
>
> > Do you similarly believe that people who are against the prohibition
> > of abortion have themselves had an abortion?
>
> > In fact, it would appear that you have displayed the typical sort of
> > erroneous logic that prohibitionists habitually use to support their
> > arguments.
>
> I have a friend who is out of his head on puff most of the time, and "duhhh
> legalise drugzz and there won't be no problemz" is the type of stupid thing
> he'd say under the influence.- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven -
>
> - Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven -

You'd be better off if that 'friend' enjoyed alcohol instead and drunk
himself to death already?

Drug abuse will always be a problem, but we should try to reduce and
prevent it as much as possible with education and regulation. Not with
prohibition, since prohibition only adds to the problems. With
prohibition you get all the same problems with drug abuse and you get
additional problems with organized crime making big bucks from
lucrative drug deals.

On 28 jan, 21:57, Tommo  wrote:
> On Jan 28, 6:05 pm, Dr John Watson 
> wrote:
>
> > 20:30 28/01/2008 BBC1
>
> > I'm unable to watch it, but I might be able to see it later on the BBC's> > iPlayer (if it works).
> > I doubt they'll mention that most of the problems are caused by
> > prohibition - if you legalise cocaine the problems will evaporate.
>
> And by the same logic, if we were to abolish the ability to own
> property theft & burglary crimes would fall to virtually nil - problem
> solved!
>

Not the same logic because there is a difference between criminalizing
people
for actions that primarily affect themselves (like using or abusing
drugs) and
criminalizing people for actions that primarily affect others (like if
you take away
other possessions).

We need a government to ensure people respect each others rights and
we don't need a nanny government that protects adults against
themselves.

On one account the logic is rather similar though, because if we would
abolish copyright that would solve a lot of problems, because
'stealing information' doesn't involve taking away information (but
merely copying and sharing information).
This would free up lot's of resources so the police could focus on
real crimes like shoplifting, burglary, rape, murder, etc.. instead of
wasting resources on an increasingly unrealistic goal of effectively
trying to prevent people from sharing information.
Once we can copy physical things like a car or a computer as easily as
a software package we can indeed abandon the whole notion of property.

>
>
> >http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/7200749.stm
>
> > --
> > Dr John Watson
> > Baker Street- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven -
>
> - Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven -

Pete nospam Zakel wrote:
> In article  "Gaz"
>  writes:
>> Dr John Watson wrote:
>
>>> I'm unable to watch it, but I might be able to see it later on the
>>> BBC's iPlayer (if it works).
>>>
>>> I doubt they'll mention that most of the problems are caused by
>>> prohibition - if you legalise cocaine the problems will evaporate.
>>>
>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/7200749.stm
>
>> I am not sure how anyone who has the brains to earn a doctorate, can
>> say such a stupid thing. If you legalise Cocaine, you may solve some
>> of the problems, you may alleviate others, but the problems will not
>> 'evaporate', and you are likely to be left with a whole series of
>> consequential problems.
>
> You are correct.  But the problems related to cocaine being legal
> will be
> far fewer and more easily manageable than the problems related to
> cocaine being prohibited.
>
> -Pete Zakel

Possibly so.... But cocaine, is largely a 'party' drug, taken by people on a 
recreational basis, of course, you will alwyas have the ones who take to 
much on to regular a basis. But it has nowhere near the potency of Crack or 
Heroine. I would suggest it is possible to live a normal life while taking 
Cocaine occasionally, and it might be argued that taking heroine in a 
controlled environment and dosage, the same could be said. But Crack is 
different, crack is really bad shit, it doesnt take prisoners, it doesnt 
take casual users. Once you are on it, you are not going to come off it of 
your own free will, and you are not going to be able to live anything like a 
productive life.

Gaz

Gaz

On 28 jan, 23:55, "Gaz"  wrote:
> Pete nospam Zakel wrote:
> > In article  "Gaz"
> >  writes:
> >> Dr John Watson wrote:
>
> >>> I'm unable to watch it, but I might be able to see it later on the
> >>> BBC's iPlayer (if it works).
>
> >>> I doubt they'll mention that most of the problems are caused by
> >>> prohibition - if you legalise cocaine the problems will evaporate.
>
> >>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/7200749.stm
>
> >> I am not sure how anyone who has the brains to earn a doctorate, can
> >> say such a stupid thing. If you legalise Cocaine, you may solve some
> >> of the problems, you may alleviate others, but the problems will not
> >> 'evaporate', and you are likely to be left with a whole series of
> >> consequential problems.
>
> > You are correct.  But the problems related to cocaine being legal
> > will be
> > far fewer and more easily manageable than the problems related to
> > cocaine being prohibited.
>
> > -Pete Zakel
>
> Possibly so.... But cocaine, is largely a 'party' drug, taken by people on a
> recreational basis, of course, you will alwyas have the ones who take to
> much on to regular a basis. But it has nowhere near the potency of Crack or
> Heroine. I would suggest it is possible to live a normal life while taking> Cocaine occasionally, and it might be argued that taking heroine in a
> controlled environment and dosage, the same could be said. But Crack is
> different, crack is really bad shit, it doesnt take prisoners, it doesnt
> take casual users. Once you are on it, you are not going to come off it of> your own free will, and you are not going to be able to live anything like a
> productive life.
>
> Gaz
>
> Gaz

How about meth? If you want to wreck your life, what would be the
shortest route,
a crack or meth habit?

But still, I think people should ultimately be free to use crack and
meth, just like they should be free to kill themselves or do other
destructive things to themselves. Ultimately people ought to govern
over their own body and mind and all we can do is educate them to
ensure they take responsible decisions regarding their lifestyle.

"Gaz"  wrote in message news:606l0mF1p8n0sU1@mid.individual.net...
> Dr John Watson wrote:
> > 20:30 28/01/2008 BBC1
> >
> > I'm unable to watch it, but I might be able to see it later on the
> > BBC's iPlayer (if it works).
> >
> > I doubt they'll mention that most of the problems are caused by
> > prohibition - if you legalise cocaine the problems will evaporate.
> >
> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/7200749.stm
>
> I am not sure how anyone who has the brains to earn a doctorate, can say
> such a stupid thing.

Or say such a smart and obvious thing.

> If you legalise Cocaine, you may solve some of the
> problems, you may alleviate others, but the problems will not 'evaporate',
> and you are likely to be left with a whole series of consequential problems.

First of all, these are the problems that would disappear or not have
appeared in the first place, if there had been no 'war on drugs'.

1) No cartels.

Just as the War On Drugs created the Kali and other cartels in
South America, where they have taken over parts of the
government, and where their networks are a potential
source for terrorism and have corrupted legitimate leftwing
movements like FARC - the War On Alcohol is what created
the Mafia. In other words, these moralistic crusades have
created organized crime.

2) Record levels of incarceration of drug users.

The US is now incarcerating people for drug offenses,
at a level only seen in totalitarian regimes like the Soviet Union
and China. There is a massive cost to society, in having
millions of citizens go through the brutalizing penal
system. Millions of people now can no longer vote
(perverting the democratic process as an expression
of the 'vox populi', which is supposed to give legitimacy
to our government). Millions of people are now exposed
to prison culture, which they bring with them into society
when they get out. Incarceration breaks up families,
tears children from their mothers arms and puts them into
'foster homes'.

3) Prohibition generates procurement crimes (real crimes).

When drugs are so expensive that ordinary people can
barely afford them, they have to make up the money
somehow. The favorite ways of doing that are:

- prostitution
- muggings
- burglaries
- car theft

Whenever you hear of a string of burglaries in a
neighborhood, you are not talking about someone
who just discovered the joys of kleptomania. You
are talking about a (heroin) junkie who is trying
to get cash for his habit. If heroin was provided to
addicts at the cost of production, there would be
a massive decrease in the amount of crime. Heroin
addicts by the way, are no longer trying to get high.
They are running ahead of going 'cold turkey'. It is
not a drug anyone should do on a daily basis - in
fact, any opium derivative should only be used in
cases of acute physical pain.

Alternatively...

What is the cost of buying (cheap) cocaine. And
I'm not talking about weed, which is as harmless
as anything can get.

- You age quicker
This is the most dramatic effect of cocaine that I
have seen. It is right up there with crystal meth,
for releasing those 'free radicals'.

- It gets you 'up'

I don't like that kind of high/buzz. I also don't like
the fact that it is a synthetic substance. Some people
do. I guess I like things more mellow than that.

- You can get addicted

Of course you can. Which is why you should do WEED.

Basically, there are few highs you can get that aren't
covered by weed, mushrooms, lsd (an ergot/fungus derivative),
ayahuasca, dmt and ibogaine.

So why go to the chemicals, when everything you could
possibly need is in nature? And by the way, none of those
drugs are addictive, especially none of the psychedelic ones.

What it is far more important to understand, is that there
are addictive personalities. Some people get addicted
to chocolate chip cookies. But then it is also important
to distinguish a 'craving' (which varies in strength from
individual to individual) from physical withdrawal
symptoms, such as from heroin.

The War On Drugs cannot exist without massive
lies and deceptions, and if a fraction of the money
was available for information and treatment, most
of these problems would disapppear.

However, the real secret is... that the political
will to redirect priorities from punishment to
prevention is not there.

The issue is always couched as - they are criminals,
lock them up!

But if you talk about prevention and treatment, the
response is - they're not sick, they're just morally weak,
they should learn to fend for themselves!

So, we have a 'War On Drugs'. Another war of choice.

Even though everyone knows no such an undertaking
can ever be won. And why people talk about a 35-year
old policy of drug legalisation in Amsterdam as 'an experiment'.

If only the effectiveness of  the 39-year-old 'War On Drugs'
was held to similarly rigorous standard.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/7200749.stm

I saw little in the programme that couldn't be blamed on prohibition. 100
years ago, when Conan Doyle was writing the Sherlock Holmes stories,
Holmes uses cocaine. There was no trail of blood between Colombia and
Holmes' 7% solutions.

Prohibition seems ineffective, even with the severe penalties just for
possession (7 years jail, unlimited fine), the programme claimed 800,000
UK users.

The programme seemed to accept that cocaine must be an illicit drug, there
was no discussion of why this must be so.

-- 
Dr John Watson
Baker Street

Noticed at Mon, 28 Jan 2008 18:25:17 +0000: Gaz informed us:

> Dr John Watson wrote:
>> 20:30 28/01/2008 BBC1
>>
>> I'm unable to watch it, but I might be able to see it later on the
>> BBC's iPlayer (if it works).
>>
>> I doubt they'll mention that most of the problems are caused by
>> prohibition - if you legalise cocaine the problems will evaporate.
>>
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/7200749.stm
> 
> I am not sure how anyone who has the brains to earn a doctorate, can say 
> such a stupid thing. If you legalise Cocaine, you may solve some of the 
> problems, you may alleviate others, but the problems will not 'evaporate', 
> and you are likely to be left with a whole series of consequential problems.

I don't claim that cocaine use is without problems - look at Amy
Whitehouse. I do claim that the problems caused by prohibiting a desired
substance outweigh the problems the substance causes.

> Gaz
-- 
Dr John Watson
Baker Street

Noticed at Mon, 28 Jan 2008 19:29:07 +0000: Cynic informed us:

> And what sort of broken reasoning skills does it take to come to the
> conclusion that people who are against the prohibition of drugs take
> illegal drugs themselves?

I have tried cocaine, about 3 times in the late 1980s. It's crap. It made
my nose hurt until the anaesthetic effect kicked in, then it felt like my
head was going to explode. Fortunately, it only lasts about 10 minutes.
Why anyone would spend ££££s on it is beyond me. But they do.

-- 
Dr John Watson
Baker Street

Noticed at Mon, 28 Jan 2008 19:59:31 +0000: mentalguy2004 informed us:

> I have a friend who is out of his head on puff most of the time, and "duhhh 
> legalise drugzz and there won't be no problemz" is the type of stupid thing 
> he'd say under the influence.

What do your boozing friends say? "What you looking at, you fucker?"
before giving you a Glasgow kiss?

What do your fag smoking friends say? "Cough wheeze" before spitting out
half a cancerous lung on your face?

If prohibition is such a good idea, it is your duty as an honest citizen
to turn your friend into the police so he can be "helped". Make sure you
wait until re-reclassification, because then he'll get 5 years jail,
instead of the 2 as now.

-- 
Dr John Watson
Baker Street

Noticed at Mon, 28 Jan 2008 11:42:25 -0800: tvaerskaegg informed us:

> On 28 Jan, 21:17, The Wanderer  wrote:
>> On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 18:25:17 -0000, Gaz wrote:
>> > Dr John Watson wrote:
>> >> 20:30 28/01/2008 BBC1
>>
>> >> I'm unable to watch it, but I might be able to see it later on the
>> >> BBC's iPlayer (if it works).
>>
>> >> I doubt they'll mention that most of the problems are caused by
>> >> prohibition - if you legalise cocaine the problems will evaporate.
>>
>> >>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/7200749.stm
>>
>> > I am not sure how anyone who has the brains to earn a doctorate
>>
>> This is usenet, he can claim to be whatever he likes.
>>
>> Does it add any credence to his posts? No.
>>
>> Does it show him up to be a twonk? Yes.
> 
> Since Dr John Watson gives his adress as Baker Street it doesn't take
> a Sherlock Holmes to figure out the source of his nom de plume.

I chose this nom de plume with good reason - Holmes took cocaine and opium
and Dr Watson was always warning him about the effects. However, they were
legal and the mafia weren't involved in the supply.

> Which makes you a bit of a twonk.
> 
> Svenne
-- 
Dr John Watson
Baker Street

Noticed at Mon, 28 Jan 2008 12:57:47 -0800: Tommo informed us:

> And by the same logic, if we were to abolish the ability to own
> property theft & burglary crimes would fall to virtually nil - problem
> solved!

Cocaine use is a vice - not a natural crime as there is no victim. Theft
is not a vice it is a crime - there is an unwilling participant.

-- 
Dr John Watson
Baker Street

On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 at 18:56:33, mentalguy2004  wrote in 
uk.legal :
>>>
>>> I doubt they'll mention that most of the problems are caused by
>>> prohibition - if you legalise cocaine the problems will evaporate.
>>>
>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/7200749.stm
>>
>> I am not sure how anyone who has the brains to earn a doctorate, can say
>> such a stupid thing. If you legalise Cocaine, you may solve some of the
>> problems, you may alleviate others, but the problems will not 'evaporate',
>> and you are likely to be left with a whole series of consequential
>> problems.
>
>Honestly, most of the posts by the pro-legalise people provide the best
>arguments for keeping drugs illegal. Drugs obviously don't enhance
>intelligence or reasoning skills.
>
You seem to be assuming that all pro-legalization people are on drugs 
themselves?
-- 
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham

On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 at 19:59:31, mentalguy2004  wrote in 
uk.legal :

>
>"Cynic"  wrote in message
>news:qsasp359m06smnbaarqanp611dj6o0kof9@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 18:56:33 GMT, "mentalguy2004" 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Honestly, most of the posts by the pro-legalise people provide the best
>>>arguments for keeping drugs illegal. Drugs obviously don't enhance
>>>intelligence or reasoning skills.
>>
>> And what sort of broken reasoning skills does it take to come to the
>> conclusion that people who are against the prohibition of drugs take
>> illegal drugs themselves?
>>
>> Do you similarly believe that people who are against the prohibition
>> of abortion have themselves had an abortion?
>>
>> In fact, it would appear that you have displayed the typical sort of
>> erroneous logic that prohibitionists habitually use to support their
>> arguments.
>
>I have a friend who is out of his head on puff most of the time, and "duhhh
>legalise drugzz and there won't be no problemz" is the type of stupid thing
>he'd say under the influence.

Do you think we'd have *less* crime if alcohol & tobacco were illegal 
then?

In the case of the former, we have undeniable proof that that the 
converse is true!
-- 
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham

On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 19:59:31 GMT, "mentalguy2004" 
wrote:

>> In fact, it would appear that you have displayed the typical sort of
>> erroneous logic that prohibitionists habitually use to support their
>> arguments.

>I have a friend who is out of his head on puff most of the time, and "duhhh 
>legalise drugzz and there won't be no problemz" is the type of stupid thing 
>he'd say under the influence. 

He might also say things like, "duhhh - I'm hungry."

What on Earth do you believe that little gem adds to the agrument?

-- 
Cynic

sobriquet wrote:
> On 28 jan, 23:55, "Gaz"  wrote:
>> Pete nospam Zakel wrote:
>>> In article  "Gaz"
>>>  writes:
>>>> Dr John Watson wrote:
>>
>>>>> I'm unable to watch it, but I might be able to see it later on the
>>>>> BBC's iPlayer (if it works).
>>
>>>>> I doubt they'll mention that most of the problems are caused by
>>>>> prohibition - if you legalise cocaine the problems will evaporate.
>>
>>>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/7200749.stm
>>
>>>> I am not sure how anyone who has the brains to earn a doctorate,
>>>> can say such a stupid thing. If you legalise Cocaine, you may
>>>> solve some of the problems, you may alleviate others, but the
>>>> problems will not 'evaporate', and you are likely to be left with
>>>> a whole series of consequential problems.
>>
>>> You are correct. But the problems related to cocaine being legal
>>> will be
>>> far fewer and more easily manageable than the problems related to
>>> cocaine being prohibited.
>>
>>> -Pete Zakel
>>
>> Possibly so.... But cocaine, is largely a 'party' drug, taken by
>> people on a recreational basis, of course, you will alwyas have the
>> ones who take to much on to regular a basis. But it has nowhere near
>> the potency of Crack or Heroine. I would suggest it is possible to
>> live a normal life while taking Cocaine occasionally, and it might
>> be argued that taking heroine in a controlled environment and
>> dosage, the same could be said. But Crack is different, crack is
>> really bad shit, it doesnt take prisoners, it doesnt take casual
>> users. Once you are on it, you are not going to come off it of your
>> own free will, and you are not going to be able to live anything
>> like a productive life.
>>
>> Gaz
>>
>> Gaz
>
> How about meth? If you want to wreck your life, what would be the
> shortest route,
> a crack or meth habit?
>
> But still, I think people should ultimately be free to use crack and
> meth, just like they should be free to kill themselves or do other
> destructive things to themselves. Ultimately people ought to govern
> over their own body and mind and all we can do is educate them to
> ensure they take responsible decisions regarding their lifestyle.

But could we accept seeing so many drugged out people freely walking around, 
or even having an a drug hang out place next door? I am not sure we are able 
to accept the consequences of making drugs legal...

Gaz

On Jan 29, 7:38 am, "Gaz"  wrote:
> sobriquet wrote:
> > On 28 jan, 23:55, "Gaz"  wrote:
> >> Pete nospam Zakel wrote:

> >>> You are correct. But the problems related to cocaine being legal
> >>> will be
> >>> far fewer and more easily manageable than the problems related to
> >>> cocaine being prohibited.
>
> >> Possibly so.... But cocaine, is largely a 'party' drug, taken by
> >> people on a recreational basis, of course, you will alwyas have the
> >> ones who take to much on to regular a basis. But it has nowhere near
> >> the potency of Crack or Heroine. I would suggest it is possible to
> >> live a normal life while taking Cocaine occasionally, and it might
> >> be argued that taking heroine in a controlled environment and
> >> dosage, the same could be said. But Crack is different, crack is
> >> really bad shit, it doesnt take prisoners, it doesnt take casual
> >> users. Once you are on it, you are not going to come off it of your
> >> own free will, and you are not going to be able to live anything
> >> like a productive life.
>
> > How about meth? If you want to wreck your life, what would be the
> > shortest route,
> > a crack or meth habit?
> >
> > But still, I think people should ultimately be free to use crack and
> > meth, just like they should be free to kill themselves or do other
> > destructive things to themselves. Ultimately people ought to govern
> > over their own body and mind and all we can do is educate them to
> > ensure they take responsible decisions regarding their lifestyle.
>
> But could we accept seeing so many drugged out people freely walking around,

How many? We seem to be able to stand seeing boozers freely walking
around ... and if we decide we can't, it'll be much easier to induce
them to stay indoors than it's been to try to eliminate drugs.

> or even having an a drug hang out place next door?

Criminalization increases the number of "drug hang out places" ...
they help users locate the goods they can't get in the legal market.

> I am not sure we are able to accept the consequences of making drugs legal...

I am sure we are unable to accept the consequences of keeping drugs
illegal.

On 29 jan, 14:38, "Gaz"  wrote:
> sobriquet wrote:
> > On 28 jan, 23:55, "Gaz"  wrote:
> >> Pete nospam Zakel wrote:
> >>> In article  "Gaz"
> >>>  writes:
> >>>> Dr John Watson wrote:
>
> >>>>> I'm unable to watch it, but I might be able to see it later on the
> >>>>> BBC's iPlayer (if it works).
>
> >>>>> I doubt they'll mention that most of the problems are caused by
> >>>>> prohibition - if you legalise cocaine the problems will evaporate.
>
> >>>>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/7200749.stm
>
> >>>> I am not sure how anyone who has the brains to earn a doctorate,
> >>>> can say such a stupid thing. If you legalise Cocaine, you may
> >>>> solve some of the problems, you may alleviate others, but the
> >>>> problems will not 'evaporate', and you are likely to be left with
> >>>> a whole series of consequential problems.
>
> >>> You are correct. But the problems related to cocaine being legal
> >>> will be
> >>> far fewer and more easily manageable than the problems related to
> >>> cocaine being prohibited.
>
> >>> -Pete Zakel
>
> >> Possibly so.... But cocaine, is largely a 'party' drug, taken by
> >> people on a recreational basis, of course, you will alwyas have the
> >> ones who take to much on to regular a basis. But it has nowhere near
> >> the potency of Crack or Heroine. I would suggest it is possible to
> >> live a normal life while taking Cocaine occasionally, and it might
> >> be argued that taking heroine in a controlled environment and
> >> dosage, the same could be said. But Crack is different, crack is
> >> really bad shit, it doesnt take prisoners, it doesnt take casual
> >> users. Once you are on it, you are not going to come off it of your
> >> own free will, and you are not going to be able to live anything
> >> like a productive life.
>
> >> Gaz
>
> >> Gaz
>
> > How about meth? If you want to wreck your life, what would be the
> > shortest route,
> > a crack or meth habit?
>
> > But still, I think people should ultimately be free to use crack and
> > meth, just like they should be free to kill themselves or do other
> > destructive things to themselves. Ultimately people ought to govern
> > over their own body and mind and all we can do is educate them to
> > ensure they take responsible decisions regarding their lifestyle.
>
> But could we accept seeing so many drugged out people freely walking around,
> or even having an a drug hang out place next door? I am not sure we are able
> to accept the consequences of making drugs legal...
>
> Gaz

So you'd rather have armed drug gangs fighting turf wars in the local
neighborhood than an occasional dazed and confused but otherwise
fairly harmless drug abuser?
Besides, legalizing all drugs doesn't necessarily imply a complete
lack of regulations. You can register addicts and treat them like sick
people which they basically are if they want to quit their drug habit
and they can't. Besides, you can also make it as unglamorous as
possible by educating people and showing how the quality of your life
is affected when you get addicted to a destructive habit like meth or
crack use to discourage it as much as possible. But that doesn't mean
you have to criminalize users. I think it's realistic to strive to
prevent and reduce drug use as much as possible via education and
regulation, rather than prohibition, where the bottom line is that
people are free to destroy their life if they insist but providing
help for them to get rid of their habit if they should desire to do
so.
You can offer help to addicts, but you can't force them to get clean
in my opinion if they are not motivated to kick their habit.
Drug abuse is a medical problem and should be treated like such,
similar to people who have an unhealthy diet or unhealthy lifestyle
(like having unprotected sex or lack of regular exercise). There is no
need to demonize or criminalize unhealthy lifestyles.

Noticed at Tue, 29 Jan 2008 13:38:12 +0000: Gaz informed us:

> But could we accept seeing so many drugged out people freely walking
> around, or even having an a drug hang out place next door? I am not sure
> we are able to accept the consequences of making drugs legal...

I've got a drug hang out place, not next door, but 200m away across the
road. It's called The Metropolitan Bar. In fact, I'm going for a pint
there shortly.

I'll only have two pints, so I shouldn't be drugged out too much that I
freely walk into a tourist on the way home.


> Gaz

-- 
Dr John Watson
Baker Street

"Dr John Watson"  wrote in message 
news:6086dbF1ph4vgU1@mid.individual.net...
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/7200749.stm
>
> I saw little in the programme that couldn't be blamed on prohibition. 100
> years ago, when Conan Doyle was writing the Sherlock Holmes stories,
> Holmes uses cocaine. There was no trail of blood between Colombia and
> Holmes' 7% solutions.
>
> Prohibition seems ineffective, even with the severe penalties just for
> possession (7 years jail, unlimited fine), the programme claimed 800,000
> UK users.
>
> The programme seemed to accept that cocaine must be an illicit drug, there
> was no discussion of why this must be so.

The BBC isn't interested in questioning its own viewpoint.

On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 09:14:18 +0100, "5trfg6h7"
 wrote:


>What it is far more important to understand, is that there
>are addictive personalities. Some people get addicted
>to chocolate chip cookies. But then it is also important
>to distinguish a 'craving' (which varies in strength from
>individual to individual) from physical withdrawal
>symptoms, such as from heroin.

Withdrawal symptoms from chocolate are horrendous. It's probably one
of the most addictive substances in the universe.




--

Mike wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 09:14:18 +0100, "5trfg6h7"
>  wrote:
> 
> 
>> What it is far more important to understand, is that there
>> are addictive personalities. Some people get addicted
>> to chocolate chip cookies. But then it is also important
>> to distinguish a 'craving' (which varies in strength from
>> individual to individual) from physical withdrawal
>> symptoms, such as from heroin.
> 
> Withdrawal symptoms from chocolate are horrendous. It's probably one
> of the most addictive substances in the universe.

	Only because it tastes so good at least the bitter-sweet 72%
cocoa solids Pound Plus bar from Trader Joe's.

    later
    bliss -- C  O C O A  Powered... (at california dot com)

--
bobbie sellers - a retired nurse in San Francisco

     "It is by will alone I set my mind in motion.
     It is by the beans of cocoa that the thoughts acquire speed,
     the thighs acquire girth, the girth become a warning.
     It is by theobromine alone I set my mind in motion."
        --from Someone else's Dune spoof ripped to my taste.

"TD"  wrote in message news:fnpp6g$r96$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk...
>
> "Dr John Watson"  wrote in message
> news:6086dbF1ph4vgU1@mid.individual.net...
> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/7200749.stm
> >
> > I saw little in the programme that couldn't be blamed on prohibition. 100
> > years ago, when Conan Doyle was writing the Sherlock Holmes stories,
> > Holmes uses cocaine. There was no trail of blood between Colombia and
> > Holmes' 7% solutions.
> >
> > Prohibition seems ineffective, even with the severe penalties just for
> > possession (7 years jail, unlimited fine), the programme claimed 800,000
> > UK users.
> >
> > The programme seemed to accept that cocaine must be an illicit drug, there
> > was no discussion of why this must be so.
>
> The BBC isn't interested in questioning its own viewpoint.

That is the problem I have with them. On the one hand, they
want to make a program about an obviously topical issue,
namely drugs. On the other hand, they don't want to be seen
as 'promoting drugs'.

The problem is with the way they interpret that - any positive
side to drugs is swept under the carpet. Which is why they
never record a true history of Rock & Roll. Their programs
are always about the music, but with the sex and drugs written out.

I don't know if you caught the Lise Doucet program on the
BBC World Service, but in it they played Eric Clapton's
'Cocaine'. But with the words 'she's alright (x3)... Cocaine' left out.

Lise Doucet even said "cocaine and shampoo", instead of
cocaine and champaign. (Afraid of being sued by the
champaign industry? Glamorising cocaine? The prohibitionist
mindset is puzzling.)

The truth is there must be more songs about drugs than anyone can count.

They didn't clearly distinguish the problems caused by
the substance itself, and the problems caused by
prohibition.

Personally, I think a lot of the negative side effects from
cocaine come from the way it is turned from coca leaf
into cocaine hydrochloride.

From a health point of view, lots of nasty chemicals are
used in it's production, and I'm sure that cocaine users
get a lot of those into their system, alongside with the
cocaine itself.

> Personally, I think a lot of the negative side effects from
> cocaine come from the way it is turned from coca leaf
> into cocaine hydrochloride.
>
> From a health point of view, lots of nasty chemicals are
> used in it's production, and I'm sure that cocaine users
> get a lot of those into their system, alongside with the
> cocaine itself.

Like this: 
http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediaselector/check/player/nol/newsid_6270000/newsid_6277200?redirect=6277261.stm&news=1&bbram=1&nbram=1&bbwm=1&nbwm=1