On Wed, 28 May 2008 12:27:08 +0100, "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, Ditto with smoking.

You would be correct if it were true that prohibition would stop
people using those drugs.  But we know that that is not the case.  The
negative consequences are not prevented by prohibition, they are
exacerbated.  Only the positive aspects (such as tax money and profits
for legitimate business amongst others) are prevented by prohibition.

>> 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.

As I said, I believe that it was the criminal gangs that pushed for
prohibition of some drugs in order to provide another area for them to
move to when they saw that the alcohol market would disappear for
them.  If prohibition of victimless crimes did not exist then there
would *be* no other areas for criminals to move to that was anywhere
close to having the profit opportunities of drugs and similar things.

The profitability stems from the fact that the crimes themselves are
victimless and take money from people who *want* to indulge, which is
completely different to crimes that force people to do things that
they don't want to happen.

Legalise and regulate all victimless crimes such as drugs, gambling
and prostitution, and organised crime is left with very little else to
turn to that stands any chance of being lucrative enough to sustain a
large organisation.

Your statement that "crims are crims" is simplistic and false.  Most
people will do things that they are (1) morally comfortable with and
(2) think they can get away with and (3) is of advantage to them.

Many people deliberately break the speed limit, and so are criminals.
That does not mean that they are scum who are just as likely to commit
other types of crimes.  I suspect that there are many serious
criminals who are happy to sell drugs or operate illegal lotteries,
but would not dream of getting involved with child prostitution.

-- 
Cynic

> You would be correct if it were true that prohibition would stop
> people using those drugs.  But we know that that is not the case.  The
> negative consequences are not prevented by prohibition, they are
> exacerbated.  Only the positive aspects (such as tax money and profits
> for legitimate business amongst others) are prevented by prohibition.

However legalising would condone so will lead to an increase in use.  The 
police would then have to deal with *another* social ill while crims move 
into new areas of criminality leaving the police to deal with that as well.

> Your statement that "crims are crims" is simplistic and false.

Simplistic, yes.  False, no.

> Many people deliberately break the speed limit, and so are criminals.
> That does not mean that they are scum who are just as likely to commit
> other types of crimes.  I suspect that there are many serious
> criminals who are happy to sell drugs or operate illegal lotteries,
> but would not dream of getting involved with child prostitution.

Exactly.  Speeders are speeders, they will always speed.  Drug dealers are 
drug dealers, they will always deal drugs.  Child pimps are child pimps, 
they will always pimp children.  Crims are crims.  People with low moral 
values will always have low moral values no matter what they are involved 
in.

On Thu, 29 May 2008 09:52:32 +0100, "Aidy" 
wrote:

>However legalising would condone so will lead to an increase in use.

Being legal does not equate to condoning an action.  It is legal to
insult shopkeepers and waitresses for no good reason.  It is legal to
pick your nose in public.  It is legal to abstain from washing
yourself.  It is legal to dye your hair bright green.  Yet only a
small percentage of the population avail themselves of those legal
opportunities, because they are *not* generally condoned by our
society.

The canabis experience in Holland would tend to refute your assertion
that lifting prohibition will lead to an increase in drug use.

>> Your statement that "crims are crims" is simplistic and false.

>Simplistic, yes.  False, no.

>> Many people deliberately break the speed limit, and so are criminals.
>> That does not mean that they are scum who are just as likely to commit
>> other types of crimes.  I suspect that there are many serious
>> criminals who are happy to sell drugs or operate illegal lotteries,
>> but would not dream of getting involved with child prostitution.

>Exactly.  Speeders are speeders, they will always speed.

If the only roads they had access to had no speed limit, they would
not be *able* to speed, would they?

> Drug dealers are 
>drug dealers, they will always deal drugs.  Child pimps are child pimps, 
>they will always pimp children.  Crims are crims.  People with low moral 
>values will always have low moral values no matter what they are involved 
>in.

So what happened to all the people who sold illegal butter and
sausages on the black market during the time there was food rationing?
According to you they should still be selling food on the black
market.

-- 
Cynic

> Being legal does not equate to condoning an action.

Making something legal that was once illegal kinda does.

> If the only roads they had access to had no speed limit, they would
> not be *able* to speed, would they?

No, and the roads would be a much more dangerous place with far increased 
numbers of accidents and deaths.

> So what happened to all the people who sold illegal butter and
> sausages on the black market during the time there was food rationing?
> According to you they should still be selling food on the black
> market.

You're focussing (deliberately) on the wrong part of what I said;

"People with low moral values will always have low moral values no matter 
what they are involved in."

Aidy wrote:
>> You would be correct if it were true that prohibition would stop
>> people using those drugs.  But we know that that is not the case.  The
>> negative consequences are not prevented by prohibition, they are
>> exacerbated.  Only the positive aspects (such as tax money and profits
>> for legitimate business amongst others) are prevented by prohibition.
> 
> However legalising would condone so will lead to an increase in use.  The 
> police would then have to deal with *another* social ill while crims move 
> into new areas of criminality leaving the police to deal with that as well.

	Experience in the Netherlands and in Switzerland refutes your
idea of an increase in use.  Some alcohol users might even abandon alcoholic
beverages for cannabis.  Heroin users in Switzerland show that legal users
seek help to get off the drug more often.
> 
>> Your statement that "crims are crims" is simplistic and false.
> 
> Simplistic, yes.  False, no.

	Oh totally false.  Most of the Prohibition Era Alcohol supply criminals either 
retired, went into politics or went into legitimate alcohol distribution with 
the overseas contacts they had made to supply good booze to the elite boozers. 
The Mafia though resisted at first going into drug distribution but a younger 
hungrier generation prevailed when the numbers game, extortion/protection racket 
and prostitution did not yeild the vast profits
they wanted to accrue.

>> Many people deliberately break the speed limit, and so are criminals.
>> That does not mean that they are scum who are just as likely to commit
>> other types of crimes.  I suspect that there are many serious
>> criminals who are happy to sell drugs or operate illegal lotteries,
>> but would not dream of getting involved with child prostitution.
> 
> Exactly.  Speeders are speeders, they will always speed.  Drug dealers are 
> drug dealers, they will always deal drugs.  Child pimps are child pimps, 
> they will always pimp children.  Crims are crims.  People with low moral 
> values will always have low moral values no matter what they are involved 
> in. 
	What total nonsense you relentlessly preach.  Calvinist!

	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.

On Thu, 29 May 2008 14:14:23 +0100, "Aidy" 
wrote:

>> Being legal does not equate to condoning an action.

>Making something legal that was once illegal kinda does.

With the emphasis being on "kinda".  Any such effect can easily be
offset by the right sort of propaganda ^H^H information.

>> If the only roads they had access to had no speed limit, they would
>> not be *able* to speed, would they?

>No, and the roads would be a much more dangerous place with far increased 
>numbers of accidents and deaths.

Really?  You better explain that to the Germans and the people on the
IoM.

>> So what happened to all the people who sold illegal butter and
>> sausages on the black market during the time there was food rationing?
>> According to you they should still be selling food on the black
>> market.

>You're focussing (deliberately) on the wrong part of what I said;

So you recognise that at least part of what you said is incorrect.

>"People with low moral values will always have low moral values no matter 
>what they are involved in."

Morality is a set of *subjective* values.  One man's "low morals" is
another man's imperative, and his "high morals" is "weakness".

A large number of moral values that we hold dear are luxuries that can
be held only by those who can afford them.  I am quite certain that
you would not hesitate to steal if you or your close family were
starving and there was no other practical way to obtain food.

-- 
Cynic

> Really?  You better explain that to the Germans and the people on the
> IoM.

If *we* got rid of speed limits it would be a disaster.  Germany (despite 
not having no-limits like people think) has a very different driving culture 
to us.  As for IoM I think I'm right in saying that they don't have m/ways, 
only roads where you can only go so fast, so have natural limits.

> So you recognise that at least part of what you said is incorrect.

Yes, the bits about speeders always being speeders etc was obviously 
incorrect due to the issue you pointed out.  I find it rather sad that you 
had to point out the obvious as if it won you some kind of "point".

> Morality is a set of *subjective* values.  One man's "low morals" is
> another man's imperative, and his "high morals" is "weakness".

As I said....people of "low morals" will always be people of "low morals" 
(except for the very rare number of people that manage to turn their lives 
around, and the people who undergo brain surgery or have accidents that 
massively alter their personalities....better get that in as you're after 
every point you can get)

> A large number of moral values that we hold dear are luxuries that can
> be held only by those who can afford them.  I am quite certain that
> you would not hesitate to steal if you or your close family were
> starving and there was no other practical way to obtain food.

Interesting.  Whenever I use an analogy such as "if you want drugs legalised 
cos many do it then why not legalise murder and rape" I am shot down by 
people like yourself who ignore the point and say my analogy is incorrect as 
drug taking is nothing like rape and murder.  Yet when it servers *your* 
interests you employ the same analogies.

So on that note I will refuse to address the above point and will simply say 
"stealing to feed your starving family is nothing like stealing someone's 
car to sell for drug money".

See, works both ways.

> Experience in the Netherlands and in Switzerland refutes your
> idea of an increase in use.

I wouldn't dwell on the point, I'm not suggesting mass increase, but a few 
people who would do drugs if it wasn't for fear of the legal repurcusions 
would probably now try it.  I'm certainly not predicting masses of people 
turning to drugs overnight.

> Oh totally false.  Most of the Prohibition Era Alcohol supply criminals 
> either retired, went into politics or went into legitimate alcohol 
> distribution with the overseas contacts they had made to supply good booze 
> to the elite boozers.

Source?

On Thu, 29 May 2008 17:19:01 +0100, "Aidy" 
wrote:

>> Really?  You better explain that to the Germans and the people on the
>> IoM.
>
>If *we* got rid of speed limits it would be a disaster.  Germany (despite 
>not having no-limits like people think) has a very different driving culture 
>to us.  As for IoM I think I'm right in saying that they don't have m/ways, 
>only roads where you can only go so fast, so have natural limits.

You are twisting your argument.  In context, the words "speed limit""
quite obviously referred to a legal, man-made limit, not a "natural"
limit.

>> So you recognise that at least part of what you said is incorrect.

>Yes, the bits about speeders always being speeders etc was obviously 
>incorrect due to the issue you pointed out.  I find it rather sad that you 
>had to point out the obvious as if it won you some kind of "point".

That's because your sweeping generalisations ignore the many "obvious"
exceptions.

>> Morality is a set of *subjective* values.  One man's "low morals" is
>> another man's imperative, and his "high morals" is "weakness".

>As I said....people of "low morals" will always be people of "low morals" 
>(except for the very rare number of people that manage to turn their lives 
>around, and the people who undergo brain surgery or have accidents that 
>massively alter their personalities....better get that in as you're after 
>every point you can get)

But the people who *you* have labelled as having "low morals" may not
be anything of the kind when viewed by a person with different
standards.  (that's *different*.  Not better, not worse, just
different).
>
>> A large number of moral values that we hold dear are luxuries that can
>> be held only by those who can afford them.  I am quite certain that
>> you would not hesitate to steal if you or your close family were
>> starving and there was no other practical way to obtain food.

>Interesting.  Whenever I use an analogy such as "if you want drugs legalised 
>cos many do it then why not legalise murder and rape" I am shot down by 
>people like yourself who ignore the point and say my analogy is incorrect as 
>drug taking is nothing like rape and murder.  Yet when it servers *your* 
>interests you employ the same analogies.

Exactly - and in both cases the analogy is correct.

>So on that note I will refuse to address the above point and will simply say 
>"stealing to feed your starving family is nothing like stealing someone's 
>car to sell for drug money".

That was in fact rather my point.  A change in perspective can change
a value-system on its head.

-- 
Cynic

On Thu, 29 May 2008 17:23:20 +0100, "Aidy" 
wrote:

>> Experience in the Netherlands and in Switzerland refutes your
>> idea of an increase in use.
>
>I wouldn't dwell on the point, I'm not suggesting mass increase, but a few 
>people who would do drugs if it wasn't for fear of the legal repurcusions 
>would probably now try it.  I'm certainly not predicting masses of people 
>turning to drugs overnight.

Good you realise that.  And the few people who become addicted as a
result of legalisation will be more than offset by the thousands of
existing addicts who will then be able to become productive members of
society, and the thousands who will not be harmed by impure backstreet
drugs.

Not to mention all the other advantages that have been pointed out on
numerous occasions - not least of which will be a huge reduction in
crime for the double reason that druggies won't need to commit crime,
and huge amounts of police resources presently spent in chasing drugs
will be freed to tackle the remaining crimes that are not
drug-related.

-- 
Cynic

Aidy wrote:
>> Experience in the Netherlands and in Switzerland refutes your
>> idea of an increase in use.
>
> I wouldn't dwell on the point, I'm not suggesting mass increase, but
> a few people who would do drugs if it wasn't for fear of the legal
> repurcusions would probably now try it.  I'm certainly not predicting
> masses of people turning to drugs overnight.

It is worth noting that cannabis use decreased when it was moved down to 
Class C.

>> Oh totally false.  Most of the Prohibition Era Alcohol supply
>> criminals either retired, went into politics or went into legitimate
>> alcohol distribution with the overseas contacts they had made to
>> supply good booze to the elite boozers.
>
> Source?

Any history book of the period!
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/25/books/review/25prial.html
Look up  Aristotle Onassis and Joseph Kennedy!


Slatts

Aidy wrote:
>> Experience in the Netherlands and in Switzerland refutes your
>> idea of an increase in use.
> 
> I wouldn't dwell on the point, I'm not suggesting mass increase, but a few 
> people who would do drugs if it wasn't for fear of the legal repurcusions 
> would probably now try it.  I'm certainly not predicting masses of people 
> turning to drugs overnight.
> 
>> Oh totally false.  Most of the Prohibition Era Alcohol supply criminals 
>> either retired, went into politics or went into legitimate alcohol 
>> distribution with the overseas contacts they had made to supply good booze 
>> to the elite boozers.
> 
> Source?
> 
> 
	Kennedy family history.  I think you may have heard of them?


	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.

Noticed at Thu, 29 May 2008 14:14:23 +0100: Aidy informed us:

> "People with low moral values will always have low moral values no matter 
> what they are involved in."

Morals are subjective - my moral values very likely differ from yours.
That doesn't make mine lower than yours (or vice-versa), just different.

I don't think it immoral to take currently illegal drugs, I think the law
is immoral. I do think it immoral to sell any drugs (legal or illegal) to
children.

-- 
Dr John Watson
Baker Street

Noticed at Thu, 29 May 2008 18:58:38 +0100: Sla#s informed us:

> It is worth noting that cannabis use decreased when it was moved down to 
> Class C.

In the interests of accuracy, I'll point out that the decrease in cannabis
use started before reclassification. It started about the time the
downgrade was announced.

I expect the fall is now reversing, as the upgrade has been announced (but
not enacted).

-- 
Dr John Watson
Baker Street