On May 22, 12:32 pm, "Aidy"  wrote:

> The other thing people are conveniently forgetting here is that while drug
> taking is, on a certain level, a "victimless crime"

It's good to know you've figured that much out.

> the buying of drugs is
> not.  It is the exchange of money that does the damage to society.

How does it damage society? If that damage is due to the money going
into criminal hands, that's a powerful argument for legalizing
drugs ... just as the booze money going into criminal hands during
America's Prohibition was a powerful argument for ending that
substance ban.

In article  "Aidy"  writes:
>> How does it damage society? If that damage is due to the money going
>> into criminal hands, that's a powerful argument for legalizing
>> drugs ... just as the booze money going into criminal hands during
>> America's Prohibition was a powerful argument for ending that
>> substance ban.

>I get what you're saying, but refer you back to the point that if certain 
>drugs are legalised then people will just move onto other/newer drugs that 
>are still illegal and you just go around in circles. 

Under a legalization scenario, there wouldn't be "other/newer drugs that are
still illegal".  That's the point.  The "other/newer drugs" would be legal.
They might be regulated, but they would be legal to possess.

-Pete Zakel
 (phz@seeheader.nospam)

"In the Top 40, half the songs are secret messages to the teen world to
 drop out, turn on, and groove with the chemicals and light shows at
 discotheques."
				-Art Linkletter

> Under a legalization scenario, there wouldn't be "other/newer drugs that 
> are
> still illegal".  That's the point.  The "other/newer drugs" would be 
> legal.
> They might be regulated, but they would be legal to possess.

So you are suggesting that under legalisation I could concoct any chemical 
substance I want and it is instantly "legal"?  Do you seriously think this 
is a good thing or will ever actually happen?

If you say "of course not, it has to be regulated" then I bring you back to 
my original point.  If I want to avoid regulation I simply sell on the black 
market.

On Tue, 27 May 2008 09:58:31 +0100, "Aidy" 
wrote:

>> Under a legalization scenario, there wouldn't be "other/newer drugs that 
>> are
>> still illegal".  That's the point.  The "other/newer drugs" would be 
>> legal.
>> They might be regulated, but they would be legal to possess.

>So you are suggesting that under legalisation I could concoct any chemical 
>substance I want and it is instantly "legal"?  Do you seriously think this 
>is a good thing or will ever actually happen?

>If you say "of course not, it has to be regulated" then I bring you back to 
>my original point.  If I want to avoid regulation I simply sell on the black 
>market. 

Unless it had a hugely different effect to any of the newly legalised
and mass-produced drugs, you would have to sell at a similar price to
those other drugs.  Which means that your profit would not make it
worth while.

Where there is a sufficient variety of a certain type of goods
available legally at a reasonable price, there is no significant
market for illegal goods of the same sort.

-- 
Cynic

> Unless it had a hugely different effect to any of the newly legalised
> and mass-produced drugs, you would have to sell at a similar price to
> those other drugs.  Which means that your profit would not make it
> worth while.

Look at how this g'ment loves to tax essentials and highly desired items 
(fuel, alcohol, tobacco).  Surely by selling your product on the black 
market you could easily undercut "legal" prices and still turn a handsome 
profit.

On Tue, 27 May 2008 11:50:19 +0100, "Aidy" 
wrote:

>> Unless it had a hugely different effect to any of the newly legalised
>> and mass-produced drugs, you would have to sell at a similar price to
>> those other drugs.  Which means that your profit would not make it
>> worth while.

>Look at how this g'ment loves to tax essentials and highly desired items 
>(fuel, alcohol, tobacco).  Surely by selling your product on the black 
>market you could easily undercut "legal" prices and still turn a handsome 
>profit. 

You may be able to do so with *smuggled* goods.  But they would be
subject to the regulation of the country they were legally produced
in.

But you will not see a significant amount of home-grown tobacco or
home-made booze on the black market, despite the fact that those
things are highly taxed and their production is both legal and
reasonably simple.

-- 
Cynic

> But you will not see a significant amount of home-grown tobacco or
> home-made booze on the black market, despite the fact that those
> things are highly taxed and their production is both legal and
> reasonably simple.

I'd dispute that fags and booze are "reasonably simple" to make yourself. 
Certainly not to a standard that people would want to buy (esp in the case 
of booze).

On May 27, 5:50 am, "Aidy"  wrote:

> > Unless it had a hugely different effect to any of the newly legalised
> > and mass-produced drugs, you would have to sell at a similar price to
> > those other drugs.  Which means that your profit would not make it
> > worth while.
>
> Look at how this g'ment loves to tax essentials and highly desired items
> (fuel, alcohol, tobacco).  Surely by selling your product on the black
> market you could easily undercut "legal" prices and still turn a handsome
> profit.

And yet there is no evidence whatsoever for more than miniscule black
markets in fuel or alcohol ... and black markets in tobacco only in a
few locales where the taxes are well above average. Once again reality
contradicts your self-serving theories.

On May 27, 3:58 am, "Aidy"  wrote:
> > Under a legalization scenario, there wouldn't be "other/newer drugs that
> > are
> > still illegal".  That's the point.  The "other/newer drugs" would be
> > legal.
> > They might be regulated, but they would be legal to possess.
>
> So you are suggesting that under legalisation I could concoct any chemical
> substance I want and it is instantly "legal"?  Do you seriously think this
> is a good thing or will ever actually happen?

That's how it works right now. Unless a law exists that prohibits the
substance, it's legal ... and legislators are not such chemistry
geniuses that they've found a way to write laws concerning not-yet-
synthesized compounds.

> And yet there is no evidence whatsoever for more than miniscule black
> markets in fuel or alcohol ... and black markets in tobacco only in a
> few locales where the taxes are well above average

There is a large black market in fuel and a massive black market in 
cigarettes.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5099794.stm

That is two years old so I imagine the situation is even worse now.

> Once again reality contradicts your self-serving theories.

Once again, you saying something doesn't make it true.

> That's how it works right now.

I meant the sale of it to the public on the mass-market for consumption.

On Tue, 27 May 2008 14:06:37 +0100, "Aidy" 
wrote:

>> But you will not see a significant amount of home-grown tobacco or
>> home-made booze on the black market, despite the fact that those
>> things are highly taxed and their production is both legal and
>> reasonably simple.
>
>I'd dispute that fags and booze are "reasonably simple" to make yourself. 
>Certainly not to a standard that people would want to buy (esp in the case 
>of booze). 

Compared to manufacturing most recreational drugs, they are a doddle.
The only one that comes close is marijuana, and that is similar in
effort to tobacco.

So your point is just as valid wrt other drugs as it is with tobacco
and booze.  Once high quality commercially produced drugs are
available, nobody will want to touch low quality home-made substitutes
any more than they would want to buy prohibition-style bathtub gin
today.

-- 
Cynic

On May 27, 11:50 am, "Aidy"  wrote:

> > And yet there is no evidence whatsoever for more than miniscule black
> > markets in fuel or alcohol ... and black markets in tobacco only in a
> > few locales where the taxes are well above average
>
> There is a large black market in fuel

Evidence?

> and a massive black market in
> cigarettes.
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5099794.stm

I didn't know the Brits were such idiots as to tax a large black
market into existence. In the USA, only New York City (and perhaps a
few others) has been so stupid.

> So your point is just as valid wrt other drugs as it is with tobacco
> and booze.  Once high quality commercially produced drugs are
> available, nobody will want to touch low quality home-made substitutes
> any more than they would want to buy prohibition-style bathtub gin
> today.

But would the "high quality" drugs available legally really be so different 
to what would be available illegally?  Esp when it would probably be half 
the price.

> Evidence?

Why do you make claim after claim yet insist I provide a reference for 
everything I say?  I can't be bothered digging out links for things that are 
commonly known to be true.

> I didn't know the Brits were such idiots as to tax a large black
> market into existence.

So you're not British?  You don't live in the UK?

On May 27, 12:50 pm, "Aidy"  wrote:

> > Evidence?
>
> Why do you make claim after claim

What claims have I made and not backed up?

> yet insist I provide a reference for
> everything I say?

False: I had to go back only to earlier this morning to find something
you said that I didn't challenge in my reply: "Look at how this g'ment
loves to tax essentials and highly desired items (fuel, alcohol,
tobacco)."

> I can't be bothered digging out links for things that are
> commonly known to be true.

You don't know what's "commonly known to be true".

> > I didn't know the Brits were such idiots as to tax a large black
> > market into existence.
>
> So you're not British?  You don't live in the UK?

Nope ... this thread has from its inception been posted to the
geographically-nonspecific group talk.politics.drugs.

On May 27, 12:48 pm, "Aidy"  wrote:

> > So your point is just as valid wrt other drugs as it is with tobacco
> > and booze.  Once high quality commercially produced drugs are
> > available, nobody will want to touch low quality home-made substitutes
> > any more than they would want to buy prohibition-style bathtub gin
> > today.
>
> But would the "high quality" drugs available legally really be so different
> to what would be available illegally?

Yes: "dozens of people have died and thousands more have been
hospitalized after drinking bootleg liquor laced with brake fluid,
lighter fuel, disinfectants and other poisonous agents." -
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/01/AR2006110103047.html

Noticed at Tue, 27 May 2008 14:06:37 +0100: Aidy informed us:

>> But you will not see a significant amount of home-grown tobacco or
>> home-made booze on the black market, despite the fact that those
>> things are highly taxed and their production is both legal and
>> reasonably simple.
> 
> I'd dispute that fags and booze are "reasonably simple" to make yourself. 
> Certainly not to a standard that people would want to buy (esp in the case 
> of booze).

Home brewed booze is easy to make as good, or better, than pub grog. The
only difficult part of making tobacco is the curing.

-- 
Dr John Watson
Baker Street

Noticed at Tue, 27 May 2008 09:00:04 -0700: M_P informed us:

> That's how it works right now. Unless a law exists that prohibits the
> substance, it's legal ... and legislators are not such chemistry
> geniuses that they've found a way to write laws concerning not-yet-
> synthesized compounds.

They have in the UK. The contents of PIHKAL and TIHKAL and all
analogues are all class A.

-- 
Dr John Watson
Baker Street

M_P wrote:
> On May 27, 11:50 am, "Aidy"  wrote:
> 
>>> And yet there is no evidence whatsoever for more than miniscule black
>>> markets in fuel or alcohol ... and black markets in tobacco only in a
>>> few locales where the taxes are well above average
>> There is a large black market in fuel
> 
> Evidence?
> 
>> and a massive black market in
>> cigarettes.
>>
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5099794.stm
> 
> I didn't know the Brits were such idiots as to tax a large black
> market into existence. In the USA, only New York City (and perhaps a
> few others) has been so stupid.

Well, it has to be done because of the cost of helping you Yanks out 
with your world domination game.

-- 
Moving things in still pictures!

On Tue, 27 May 2008 18:48:27 +0100, "Aidy" 
wrote:

>> So your point is just as valid wrt other drugs as it is with tobacco
>> and booze.  Once high quality commercially produced drugs are
>> available, nobody will want to touch low quality home-made substitutes
>> any more than they would want to buy prohibition-style bathtub gin
>> today.
>
>But would the "high quality" drugs available legally really be so different 
>to what would be available illegally?

Absolutely it would!  About the same diffrerence as between
commercially produced spirits and moonshine.

The biggest differences are consistent strength and purity.  The
biggest danger with street drugs is that the user has no idea what
dose s/he is getting, and the fact that they are often "cut" with
dangerous adulterants.  In the case of intravenous drugs, insoluble
adultarants clog capilliaries and lead to many health problems that
are nothing to do with the pure drug.

>  Esp when it would probably be half the price. 

What would be half the price?  Street drugs?  It will not be possible
to come close to making small back-kitchen quantities as cheaply as
they can be mass-produced on a commercial scale.  The only thing that
could possibly make street drugs cheaper is if the legal drugs were to
be taxed at a level that artificially made them more expensive.  But
that would be a stupid move that stands a good chance of negating the
benefits of legalising them in the first place.  And it would not have
that effect if other countries with lower tax also legalised the
drugs.  In that case it would simply encourage smuggling, as it has
with tobacco.

-- 
Cynic

On Tue, 27 May 2008 19:52:39 +0100, Dr John Watson
 wrote:

>>> But you will not see a significant amount of home-grown tobacco or
>>> home-made booze on the black market, despite the fact that those
>>> things are highly taxed and their production is both legal and
>>> reasonably simple.
 
>> I'd dispute that fags and booze are "reasonably simple" to make yourself. 
>> Certainly not to a standard that people would want to buy (esp in the case 
>> of booze).

>Home brewed booze is easy to make as good, or better, than pub grog.

But how much is available illegally on the black market?

> The only difficult part of making tobacco is the curing.

It's no more difficult than brewing your own beer, and the equipment
needed is no more expensive.  The biggest difference is the long time
between planting and smoking, with the consequence that you are
unlikely to be able to produce sufficient quantities to last between
batches.

-- 
Cynic

Noticed at Wed, 28 May 2008 00:11:57 +0100: Cynic informed us:

> On Tue, 27 May 2008 19:52:39 +0100, Dr John Watson
>  wrote:
> 
>>>> But you will not see a significant amount of home-grown tobacco or
>>>> home-made booze on the black market, despite the fact that those
>>>> things are highly taxed and their production is both legal and
>>>> reasonably simple.
>  
>>> I'd dispute that fags and booze are "reasonably simple" to make yourself. 
>>> Certainly not to a standard that people would want to buy (esp in the case 
>>> of booze).
> 
>>Home brewed booze is easy to make as good, or better, than pub grog.
> 
> But how much is available illegally on the black market?

Not a lot, if any. I've frequently been given some by home-brewing friends.

>> The only difficult part of making tobacco is the curing.
> 
> It's no more difficult than brewing your own beer, and the equipment
> needed is no more expensive.  The biggest difference is the long time
> between planting and smoking, with the consequence that you are
> unlikely to be able to produce sufficient quantities to last between
> batches.

It's far easier to pop to the supermarket for smokes and booze than to
wait weeks or months for home produced.

-- 
Dr John Watson
Baker Street

> In that case it would simply encourage smuggling, as it has
> with tobacco.

Exactly, yet the g'ment still tax to the hilt on booze on fags.

> Nope ... this thread has from its inception been posted to the
> geographically-nonspecific group talk.politics.drugs.

*rolls eyes*

Well it all makes perfect sense now.  Of the three groups this is posted to, 
only one is geo non-specific, the other are UK related.

On Tue, 27 May 2008 17:50:45 +0100, "Aidy" 
wrote:

>> And yet there is no evidence whatsoever for more than miniscule black
>> markets in fuel or alcohol ... and black markets in tobacco only in a
>> few locales where the taxes are well above average
>
>There is a large black market in fuel and a massive black market in 
>cigarettes.

*Smuggled* products, not home-made products.  A black market that is
entirely the product of a disproportionate tax level.

Smuggling does not cause the social problems that prohibition causes -
you do not have dangerous adulterated tobacco or fuel, and you do not
see turf wars or enormous profits for those selling them.

And you do not see large amounts of crime committed by the customers
in order to get the money to pay for them.

-- 
Cynic

On Tue, 27 May 2008 18:50:28 +0100, "Aidy" 
wrote:

>> Evidence?
>
>Why do you make claim after claim yet insist I provide a reference for 
>everything I say?  I can't be bothered digging out links for things that are 
>commonly known to be true.

I know that smuggled tobacco is fairly widely available, but I have
not heard of anyone selling black market fuel.

-- 
Cynic

> I know that smuggled tobacco is fairly widely available, but I have
> not heard of anyone selling black market fuel.

I was mainly referring to people using red diesel when they shouldn't (and 
also the removal of the dye and selling on of the fuel).

> *Smuggled* products, not home-made products.  A black market that is
> entirely the product of a disproportionate tax level.

You're talking like you think the g'ment aren't going to tax the sh1t out of 
drugs if they are legalised.  We must assume the g'ment's taxation 
philosophy will apply.

> Smuggling does not cause the social problems that prohibition causes

It robs the g'ment of billions of pounds that could be used to improve 
services and cut taxes.  So while not having the direct affect that 
"prohibition" causes, it still has an affect.

> And you do not see large amounts of crime committed by the customers
> in order to get the money to pay for them.

Is that down to the fact that the goods are smuggled, or cos the goods we're 
talking about are booze and fags?  Almost all property crime in this country 
is drug related.  Are you suggesting that if drugs were legal that would 
stop overnight?  People go on about hot fags are more addictive than heroin, 
but when was a house last burgled to pay for 20 B&H?  Or cars stolen, people 
mugged, items shop lifted etc?

On Wed, 28 May 2008 11:24:19 +0100, "Aidy" 
wrote:

>> *Smuggled* products, not home-made products.  A black market that is
>> entirely the product of a disproportionate tax level.
>
>You're talking like you think the g'ment aren't going to tax the sh1t out of 
>drugs if they are legalised.  We must assume the g'ment's taxation 
>philosophy will apply.
>
>> Smuggling does not cause the social problems that prohibition causes
>
>It robs the g'ment of billions of pounds that could be used to improve 
>services and cut taxes.  So while not having the direct affect that 
>"prohibition" causes, it still has an affect.

Ummm - prohibition robs the government of even *more* tax as obviously
no tax whatsoever is collected on sales of illegal drugs.  So even if
they were taxed at a low level after legalisation it would result in a
gain for the government.  So you are making an argument to end
prohibition.

>> And you do not see large amounts of crime committed by the customers
>> in order to get the money to pay for them.

>Is that down to the fact that the goods are smuggled, or cos the goods we're 
>talking about are booze and fags?

Because they are legal.

>  Almost all property crime in this country 
>is drug related.  Are you suggesting that if drugs were legal that would 
>stop overnight?

Yes - just as it did with booze in the US after prohibition was
lifted.  Unfortunately by that time it had created a large criminal
organisation that was delighted to switch their attentions toward
other things that were prohibited.  In fact I have a suspicion that
the drug prohibition was actually pushed by the criminal organisations
that needed something to fill the vacuum after alcohol prohibition was
lifted.  Prohibition *causes* crime.

>  People go on about hot fags are more addictive than heroin, 
>but when was a house last burgled to pay for 20 B&H?  Or cars stolen, people 
>mugged, items shop lifted etc? 

Exactly.  You are making another excellect argument to legalise drugs
so that they become equally innocuous to society as a whole.

-- 
Cynic

> Ummm - prohibition robs the government of even *more* tax as obviously
> no tax whatsoever is collected on sales of illegal drugs.

Obviously.

> So you are making an argument to end prohibition.

No, I'm not. The social ills it would cause would probably outweigh the 
benefits of tax via legalisation. Look at alcohol. Do you think society 
actually profits from all the taxes it raises? All the violent crime etc it 
causes is far more detrimental than the money it raises, Ditto with smoking.


> Yes - just as it did with booze in the US after prohibition was
> lifted.

I don't know much about prohibition but the little reading I did doesn't 
back that up. Obviously a lot of crime stops when prohibition stops, but the 
criminals just move to other areas. As I've said elsewhere in this 
thread...one of my concerns is that if drugs are legalised then the drug 
dealers will just shift their efforts to new drugs, stronger drugs, or just 
other areas of criminality. This is what happened with prohibition, so why 
wouldn't it happen if we legalise drugs? Crims are crims, they're just scum. 
Drug dealers don't deal drugs cos they are philanthropists filling a void in 
the market. If their trade is taken they will move to other crime.

Cynic wrote:
> On Tue, 27 May 2008 18:50:28 +0100, "Aidy" 
> wrote:
> 
>>> Evidence?
>> Why do you make claim after claim yet insist I provide a reference for 
>> everything I say?  I can't be bothered digging out links for things that are 
>> commonly known to be true.
> 
> I know that smuggled tobacco is fairly widely available, but I have
> not heard of anyone selling black market fuel.
> 

	No but used vegetable oil to be turned into bio-diesel fuel is
being stolen in the SF Bay Area.  Also vehicles with large fuel tanks
whether gasoline or diesel are suffering theft by drilling into the
tank to steal the fuel.  And our diesel prices are less than half the
  UK prices.  I think that fuel is a bit bulky to be smuggled and black
marketed at a high markup as can be done with drugs.  Someone might
be able to steal fuel with a tap on a refinery pipeline but that is
the worst case I can think of.  The vehicle tank thefts are very
expensive though as tank repair can cost the price of a tank of
fuel or more.

	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.

bobbie sellers wrote:
><SNIP>
>...  Someone might
> be able to steal fuel with a tap on a refinery pipeline but that is
> the worst case I can think of.  

Or you could just smash a hole in the pipeline and scoop up the spilt oil!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/6209845.stm

Slatts

Aidy wrote:
<SNIP>

>... Almost all property
> crime in this country is drug related.  Are you suggesting that if
> drugs were legal that would stop overnight?  

Prehaps not overnight but in general yes - The Swiss have proved that.
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/317/7164/1011
http://www.drugpolicy.org/library/tlcnr.cfm

Slatts

On May 28, 6:27 am, "Aidy"  wrote:
> > Ummm - prohibition robs the government of even *more* tax as obviously
> > no tax whatsoever is collected on sales of illegal drugs.
>
> Obviously.
>
> > So you are making an argument to end prohibition.
>
> No, I'm not. The social ills it would cause would probably outweigh the
> benefits of tax via legalisation. Look at alcohol. Do you think society
> actually profits from all the taxes it raises? All the violent crime etc it
> causes is far more detrimental than the money it raises,

Substance bans increase violence while reducing revenue.

> Ditto with smoking.

Smoking causes violent crime?

> > Yes - just as it did with booze in the US after prohibition was
> > lifted.
>
> I don't know much about prohibition but the little reading I did doesn't
> back that up. Obviously a lot of crime stops when prohibition stops, but the
> criminals just move to other areas.

The big profit margins are in consensual "crimes" like drugs and
prostitution ... and criminals can't create a demand for them, so they
are hampered when any sort of prohibition stops.

On May 28, 3:55 am, "Aidy"  wrote:

> > Nope ... this thread has from its inception been posted to the
> > geographically-nonspecific group talk.politics.drugs.
>
> *rolls eyes*
>
> Well it all makes perfect sense now.  Of the three groups this is posted to,
> only one is geo non-specific, the other are UK related.

And from that follows what?

> And from that follows what?

That it is completely useless discussing the social impact of legalising 
drugs when we live in different societies that operate in different ways.

> Smoking causes violent crime?

Another issue that proves the useless nature of us discussing this issue. 
*IN THE UK* people who smoke cigarettes put a massive strain on the NHS - 
the government funded national health service. If you smoke 40 a day and get 
cancer then the tax payer pays for your treatment. You don't have such a 
system in the US so don't understand the issues I am talking about. The NHS 
spends huge amounts of money tending to people with self-inflicted health 
problems from smoking, alcohol and drugs.  Also if you are rendered 
unemployable from your self-inflicted habits then the g'ment pays you even 
more to keep you on benefit.  Seriously, you Americans have no idea how 
f**ked up and unbalanced this country is.

> Prehaps not overnight but in general yes - The Swiss have proved that.
> http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/317/7164/1011
> http://www.drugpolicy.org/library/tlcnr.cfm

That's just diverting the issue.  Methadone is worth *more* than heroin 
(again I'm talking UK here).  Druggies get their methadone, sell it and use 
the money to buy heroin lol.  The interesting issue here, though, is that 
the people who seek out methadone are a different type of person that seeks 
heroin.  The "respectable person" drug user that has been mentioned 
elsewhere, the type of drug user that probably doesn't turn over houses to 
feed his habit.

Noticed at Thu, 29 May 2008 10:05:06 +0100: Aidy informed us:

> 
>> Prehaps not overnight but in general yes - The Swiss have proved that.
>> http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/317/7164/1011
>> http://www.drugpolicy.org/library/tlcnr.cfm
> 
> That's just diverting the issue.  Methadone is worth *more* than heroin 
> (again I'm talking UK here).  Druggies get their methadone, sell it and use 
> the money to buy heroin lol.  The interesting issue here, though, is that 
> the people who seek out methadone are a different type of person that seeks 
> heroin.  The "respectable person" drug user that has been mentioned 
> elsewhere, the type of drug user that probably doesn't turn over houses to 
> feed his habit.

You didn't read those articles, did you? They give addicts heroin - not
methadone.

-- 
Dr John Watson
Baker Street

> You didn't read those articles, did you? They give addicts heroin - not
> methadone.

And methadone also (at least the bit I did read said so :) )

Noticed at Thu, 29 May 2008 12:04:47 +0100: Aidy informed us:

>> You didn't read those articles, did you? They give addicts heroin - not
>> methadone.
> 
> And methadone also (at least the bit I did read said so :) )

I have never understood why they get heroin addicts also addicted to
methadone, which is a more dangerous drug.

-- 
Dr John Watson
Baker Street

In article ,
 "Aidy"  wrote:

> > *Smuggled* products, not home-made products.  A black market that is
> > entirely the product of a disproportionate tax level.
> 
> You're talking like you think the g'ment aren't going to tax the sh1t out of 
> drugs if they are legalised.  We must assume the g'ment's taxation 
> philosophy will apply.
> 
> > Smuggling does not cause the social problems that prohibition causes
> 
> It robs the g'ment of billions of pounds that could be used to improve 
> services and cut taxes.  So while not having the direct affect that 
> "prohibition" causes, it still has an affect.
> 
> > And you do not see large amounts of crime committed by the customers
> > in order to get the money to pay for them.
> 
> Is that down to the fact that the goods are smuggled, or cos the goods we're 
> talking about are booze and fags?  Almost all property crime in this country 
> is drug related.  Are you suggesting that if drugs were legal that would 
> stop overnight?  People go on about hot fags are more addictive than heroin, 
> but when was a house last burgled to pay for 20 B&H?  Or cars stolen, people 
> mugged, items shop lifted etc? 

If tobacco were illegal, that would happen.

-- 
What is done in the heat of battle is (normatively) judged
by different standards than what is leisurely planned in
comfortable conference rooms.

On May 29, 2:46 am, "Aidy"  wrote:

> > > Well it all makes perfect sense now.  Of the three groups this is posted to,
> > > only one is geo non-specific, the other are UK related.
>
> > And from that follows what?
>
> That it is completely useless discussing the social impact of legalising
> drugs when we live in different societies that operate in different ways.

Not only are no two societies identical, but each society changes from
one day to the next. Unless you want to adopt the position that we
therefore can't know anything about the future of any society, the
burden is on you to demonstrate that the differences between the USA
and UK are so great as to make e.g. the USA's experience with
Prohibition utterly irrelevant to the UK. It seems clear to me that
when it comes to basic human phenomena like the desire for mind
alteration and the response to incentives, the USA and UK are more
alike than different.