In article  "Aidy"  writes:
>> 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). 

Exactly.  That's why people still buy tomatoes and grapes and would buy legal
drugs over illegal drugs in a legal market.

-Pete Zakel
 (phz@seeheader.nospam)

"The care of every man's soul belongs to himself.  But what if he neglect the
 care of it?  Well what if he neglect the care of his health or his estate,
 which would more nearly relate to the state.  Will the magistrate make a law
 that he not be poor or sick?  Laws provide against injury from others; but
 not from ourselves.  God himself will not save men against their wills."

					-Thomas Jefferson

> Exactly.  That's why people still buy tomatoes and grapes and would buy 
> legal
> drugs over illegal drugs in a legal market.

I disagree as I don't think there will be an influx of "respectable people" 
into the drug market if it was legalised.  So the types that want the drugs 
aren't going to be the ones that buy tomatoes and grapes, they'll be the 
kind who steal them.

On Wed, 28 May 2008 09:53:47 +0100, "Aidy" 
wrote:

>> Exactly.  That's why people still buy tomatoes and grapes and would buy 
>> legal
>> drugs over illegal drugs in a legal market.

>I disagree as I don't think there will be an influx of "respectable people" 
>into the drug market if it was legalised.  So the types that want the drugs 
>aren't going to be the ones that buy tomatoes and grapes, they'll be the 
>kind who steal them.

The problem with that view is that it is completely contrary to what
we can *see* happens wrt tobacco and booze.  If you wish to persist in
that argument, you will need to give good reasons why you believe the
market in maijuana, heroin or ecstacy is likely to follow a
significantly different pattern.

-- 
Cynic

>> Exactly.  That's why people still buy tomatoes and grapes and would buy 
>> legal
>> drugs over illegal drugs in a legal market.

In article  "Aidy"  writes:
>I disagree as I don't think there will be an influx of "respectable people" 
>into the drug market if it was legalised.  So the types that want the drugs 
>aren't going to be the ones that buy tomatoes and grapes, they'll be the 
>kind who steal them. 

The majority of illegal drug users today are "respectable people".

And those who steal can be prosecuted for stealing.  It will actually be
easier to apprehend and prosecute criminals with legal drugs since police
won't be wasting their time on simple possession and theft of legal drugs
will be reported to the police, unlike theft of illegal drugs.

-Pete Zakel
 (phz@seeheader.nospam)

"May your Tongue stick to the Roof of your Mouth with the Force of a
 Thousand Caramels."

Aidy wrote:
>> Exactly.  That's why people still buy tomatoes and grapes and would
>> buy legal
>> drugs over illegal drugs in a legal market.
>
> I disagree as I don't think there will be an influx of "respectable
> people" into the drug market if it was legalised.  So the types that
> want the drugs aren't going to be the ones that buy tomatoes and
> grapes, they'll be the kind who steal them.

I resent that, not only is it a slur on otherwise law abiding people but is 
totaly inaccurate and has no basis in reality.

On the other hand, many consider the illict drugs market, as the ever 
decreasing prices would confirm, to  already be virtualy saturated.

Slatts

> I resent that, not only is it a slur on otherwise law abiding people but 
> is totaly inaccurate and has no basis in reality.

No basis in reality?  So you deny most property crime in the UK is to fund 
drug habits?  Do you also deny that it is the lower classes and the 
unemployed involved in benefit fraud and other petty crime that are mainly 
involved in the use of drugs?

> The majority of illegal drug users today are "respectable people".

Source?

> And those who steal can be prosecuted for stealing.  It will actually be
> easier to apprehend and prosecute criminals with legal drugs since police
> won't be wasting their time on simple possession and theft of legal drugs
> will be reported to the police, unlike theft of illegal drugs.

Not in the UK I'm afraid.

On Thu, 29 May 2008 09:44:12 +0100, "Aidy" 
wrote:

>> I resent that, not only is it a slur on otherwise law abiding people but 
>> is totaly inaccurate and has no basis in reality.

>No basis in reality?  So you deny most property crime in the UK is to fund 
>drug habits?  Do you also deny that it is the lower classes and the 
>unemployed involved in benefit fraud and other petty crime that are mainly 
>involved in the use of drugs? 

Logical fallacy.  If it is the case that most property crime is
committed by people who take illegal drugs, it does not follow that
most people who take illegal drugs commit crime.

It's amazing how many people are unable to understand that simple
logic.

But you also make another error in assuming that it is mainly the poor
and unemployed who are involved in drugs.  They are probably at the
most risk of being caught, but there are a heck of a lot of very
wealthy professional people who take illegal drugs - obviously they
can afford to do so and therefore are able to take less risk securing
a supply.  Stockbrokers, doctors, lawyers, pop stars ...

-- 
Cynic

> Logical fallacy.  If it is the case that most property crime is
> committed by people who take illegal drugs, it does not follow that
> most people who take illegal drugs commit crime.

Staw-man argument.  I didn't say that most people who take illegal drugs 
commit crime.

> But you also make another error in assuming that it is mainly the poor
> and unemployed who are involved in drugs.

It is mainly the poor and unemployed involved in all crime.  Are you 
suggesting drugs are somehow different?

On Thu, 29 May 2008 11:19:01 +0100, "Aidy" 
wrote:

>> Logical fallacy.  If it is the case that most property crime is
>> committed by people who take illegal drugs, it does not follow that
>> most people who take illegal drugs commit crime.
>
>Staw-man argument.  I didn't say that most people who take illegal drugs 
>commit crime.
>
>> But you also make another error in assuming that it is mainly the poor
>> and unemployed who are involved in drugs.
>
>It is mainly the poor and unemployed involved in all crime.

That depends entirely on the type of crime in question.

>suggesting drugs are somehow different?

No, just that it is not one of the crimes that attract a
disproportionate proportion of poor people.

-- 
Cynic

Aidy wrote:
>> Logical fallacy.  If it is the case that most property crime is
>> committed by people who take illegal drugs, it does not follow that
>> most people who take illegal drugs commit crime.
> 
> Staw-man argument.  I didn't say that most people who take illegal drugs 
> commit crime.
> 
>> But you also make another error in assuming that it is mainly the poor
>> and unemployed who are involved in drugs.
> 
> It is mainly the poor and unemployed involved in all crime.  Are you 
> suggesting drugs are somehow different?
> 
> 
	Funny that. In the  USA it is mainly rich people who keep
stealing poor people's money or property under color of law.  They
don't do it to pay for their drugs either nor do the well off get
prosecuted very often for their drug use.  Usually they end up
in rehabilitation "clinics" until the self-destructive celebrities
have been rehabbed several times.  Then they draw terms in the
better class of jail(gaol) where they can be protected from damage
by the worst sort of thugs whether prison guard(correctional officers)
or inmates

	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.

Aidy wrote:
>> Logical fallacy.  If it is the case that most property crime is
>> committed by people who take illegal drugs, it does not follow that
>> most people who take illegal drugs commit crime.
> 
> Staw-man argument.  I didn't say that most people who take illegal
> drugs commit crime.

Yes you did!

>>" So the types that want the drugs ...they'll be the 
>> kind who steal them."

Slatts

Aidy wrote:
>> The majority of illegal drug users today are "respectable people".
>
> Source?

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/282/14/1320
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080514111721.htm
Marajuana users..." ... were predominantly middle class and worked in the 
retail and service industries, in communications, as white-collar employees, 
or as health-care and social workers. "

>
>> And those who steal can be prosecuted for stealing.  It will
>> actually be easier to apprehend and prosecute criminals with legal
>> drugs since police won't be wasting their time on simple possession
>> and theft of legal drugs will be reported to the police, unlike
>> theft of illegal drugs.
>
> Not in the UK I'm afraid.

Source?

Slatts

In article ,
 "Aidy"  wrote:

> > I resent that, not only is it a slur on otherwise law abiding people but 
> > is totaly inaccurate and has no basis in reality.
> 
> No basis in reality?  So you deny most property crime in the UK is to fund 
> drug habits?  Do you also deny that it is the lower classes and the 
> unemployed involved in benefit fraud and other petty crime that are mainly 
> involved in the use of drugs? 

I thought that most property crime was done by men in suits.

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