On 21 jun, 19:54, Cla...@aol.com (Claude) wrote:
> In article ,
>
>
>
>
>
> dohduh...@yahoo.com (sobriquet) wrote:
> > *From:* sobriquet 
> > *Date:* Sat, 21 Jun 2008 09:58:28 -0700 (PDT)
>
> > On 21 jun, 13:25, Cla...@aol.com (Claude) wrote:
> > > In article ,
> > > drj...@NOSPAM.hotpotmail.com (Dr
>
> > > John Watson) wrote:
> > > > *From:* Dr John Watson 
> > > > *Date:* Wed, 18 Jun 2008 19:08:28 +0100
>
> > > > Noticed at Tue, 17 Jun 2008 21:43:00 +0100: Claude informed us:
>
> > > > > In article ,
> > > > > drj...@NOSPAM.hotpotmail.com (Dr John Watson) wrote:
>
> > > > >> He said there was a human right to use drugs, so long as it
> > > did
> > > > not
> > > > >> negatively impact on the rights of others.
>
> > > > > It does, it impacts on friends, family, employers and society.
>
> > > > So does a jail sentence or a criminal record, more so than an
> > > > occasional
> > > > line or spliff. "Daddy's doing 2 years for buying 10 pills for a
> > > > private
> > > > party, I miss him".
>
> > > > > Harm from drugs legal or illegal, is not just to the user.
> > > > > Therein lies
> > > > > the failure of the so called harm reduction through
> > > legalisation
> > > > > argument.
>
> > > > You've just argued for alcohol and tobacco to be criminalised.
>
> > > > > "Total Harm" increases as overall use of a drug increases.
> > > That
> > > > > is the
> > > > > evidence of the existing legal markets in some drugs.
>
> > > > Is that the depth of your thought? It's a truism.
>
> > > Exactly and it is so obviously true that it is very hard to argue
> > > against. It is a
> > > truism that the legalisation lobby avoid agreeing with. In fact
> > > from Arnold Trebach
> > > and Lethal Needleman down, they avoid it. I am very glad to hear
> > > that you, of all
> > > people, accept it. Great and surprising news.
>
> > It's bullshit perpetuated by prohibitionist nazi scum. Total harm
> > actually went down when alcohol was legalized.
>
> Actually no, check it out. Overall health damage from alcohol was very low under
> prohibition. It is astonishingly low to this day in countries with laws or taboos
> against use, even those that actually produce it.

Sure, if you don't mind living in a fascist police state. I bet total
harm from drug use would
be lower in nazi germany as well, if they had won the war. They love a
clean and neat society
and they will make sure anything undesirable will be eliminated
without a trace, including
crime, homosexuality, political dissent, drug use, etc..

It's not just about overall health damage from alcohol, it's also
about overall damage
from prohibition, both to individual people and to society.
Damage from prohibition includes violent drug gangs, fueled by
enormous profits from the drug trade, that fight turf wars in inner
cities with lots of accidental casualties.
Prohibition sponsors organized crime and that causes problems way
beyond anything the drugs themselves could ever cause. Even if all
drugs were legalized overnight, you'd still have less total harm
because that dramatically reduces state-sponsored organized crime.
Although I still think it's better not to legalize more dangerous
drugs like crack, meth, coke, heroin, etc.. overnight, because it
would probably cause less problems if it was done gradually where
people are learning to cope with that increase in freedom and
responsibility. The bottom line is that healthy adults should always
be free to govern their own body and mind in any open society that
takes human rights seriously.

> You are entitled to your own opinion, not your own facts.
>
>
> > Total harm would go down if cannabis would be legalized, because
> > most
> > of the harm associated with cannabis
> > is caused by prohibition of cannabis rather than cannabis itself.

In article ,
dohduhdah@yahoo.com (sobriquet) wrote:

> *From:* sobriquet 
> *Date:* Sat, 21 Jun 2008 12:32:10 -0700 (PDT)
> 
> On 21 jun, 19:54, Cla...@aol.com (Claude) wrote:
> > In article 
> > 
> ,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > dohduh...@yahoo.com (sobriquet) wrote:
> > > *From:* sobriquet 
> > > *Date:* Sat, 21 Jun 2008 09:58:28 -0700 (PDT)
> >
> > > On 21 jun, 13:25, Cla...@aol.com (Claude) wrote:
> > > > In article ,
> > > > drj...@NOSPAM.hotpotmail.com (Dr
> >
> > > > John Watson) wrote:
> > > > > *From:* Dr John Watson 
> > > > > *Date:* Wed, 18 Jun 2008 19:08:28 +0100
> >
> > > > > Noticed at Tue, 17 Jun 2008 21:43:00 +0100: Claude informed 
> > us:
> >
> > > > > > In article ,
> > > > > > drj...@NOSPAM.hotpotmail.com (Dr John Watson) wrote:
> >
> > > > > >> He said there was a human right to use drugs, so long as 
> > it
> > > > did
> > > > > not
> > > > > >> negatively impact on the rights of others.
> >
> > > > > > It does, it impacts on friends, family, employers and 
> > society.
> >
> > > > > So does a jail sentence or a criminal record, more so than 
> > an
> > > > > occasional
> > > > > line or spliff. "Daddy's doing 2 years for buying 10 pills 
> > for a
> > > > > private
> > > > > party, I miss him".
> >
> > > > > > Harm from drugs legal or illegal, is not just to the user.
> > > > > > Therein lies
> > > > > > the failure of the so called harm reduction through
> > > > legalisation
> > > > > > argument.
> >
> > > > > You've just argued for alcohol and tobacco to be 
> > criminalised.
> >
> > > > > > "Total Harm" increases as overall use of a drug increases.
> > > > That
> > > > > > is the
> > > > > > evidence of the existing legal markets in some drugs.
> >
> > > > > Is that the depth of your thought? It's a truism.
> >
> > > > Exactly and it is so obviously true that it is very hard to 
> > argue
> > > > against. It is a
> > > > truism that the legalisation lobby avoid agreeing with. In 
> > fact
> > > > from Arnold Trebach
> > > > and Lethal Needleman down, they avoid it. I am very glad to 
> > hear
> > > > that you, of all
> > > > people, accept it. Great and surprising news.
> >
> > > It's bullshit perpetuated by prohibitionist nazi scum. Total 
> > harm
> > > actually went down when alcohol was legalized.
> >
> > Actually no, check it out. Overall health damage from alcohol was 
> > very low under
> > prohibition. It is astonishingly low to this day in countries 
> > with laws or taboos
> > against use, even those that actually produce it.
> 
> Sure, if you don't mind living in a fascist police state. I bet 
> total
> harm from drug use would
> be lower in nazi germany as well, if they had won the war. They 
> love a
> clean and neat society
> and they will make sure anything undesirable will be eliminated
> without a trace, including
> crime, homosexuality, political dissent, drug use, etc..
> 
> It's not just about overall health damage from alcohol, 
One step at a time. It is a standard but bad, debating tactic to change your
argument when proved wrong.

Do you agree this point of yours was totally wrong?
INSERT>
harm actually went down when alcohol was legalized.
END INSERT>







it's also
> about overall damage
> from prohibition, both to individual people and to society.
> Damage from prohibition includes violent drug gangs, fueled by
> enormous profits from the drug trade, that fight turf wars in inner
> cities with lots of accidental casualties.
> Prohibition sponsors organized crime and that causes problems way
> beyond anything the drugs themselves could ever cause. Even if all
> drugs were legalized overnight, you'd still have less total harm
> because that dramatically reduces state-sponsored organized crime.
> Although I still think it's better not to legalize more dangerous
> drugs like crack, meth, coke, heroin, etc.. overnight, because it
> would probably cause less problems if it was done gradually where
> people are learning to cope with that increase in freedom and
> responsibility. The bottom line is that healthy adults should always
> be free to govern their own body and mind in any open society that
> takes human rights seriously.
> 
> > You are entitled to your own opinion, not your own facts.
> >
> >
> > > Total harm would go down if cannabis would be legalized, because
> > > most
> > > of the harm associated with cannabis
> > > is caused by prohibition of cannabis rather than cannabis 
> > itself.
>

Claude wrote:
> In article ,
> Do you agree this point of yours was totally wrong?
> INSERT>
> harm actually went down when alcohol was legalized.
> END INSERT>

There is evidence that the rate of cirrhosis reduced during prohibition[1].
There were quite a few deaths and even more cases of blindness and paralysis 
from adulterated liquor though.[2] It's far from clear that the total harm 
from alcohol went down during prohibition.

The rate of cirrhosis is back down to around prohibition levels now 
whilst the rate of death, blindness and paralysis from adulterated liquor 
is around zero. It looks like education works as well as prohibition.

There is evidence that the homicide rate went up during alcohol 
prohibition. It also went up in the 1970-1990 period when they started 
enforcing drug prohibition more stringently.

See a pattern there?

[1] http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/miron.prohibition.alcohol
[2] http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/database/article_display.cfm?HHID=441

On 24 jun, 10:48, Cla...@aol.com (Claude) wrote:
> In article ,
>
>
>
>
>
> dohduh...@yahoo.com (sobriquet) wrote:
> > *From:* sobriquet 
> > *Date:* Sat, 21 Jun 2008 12:32:10 -0700 (PDT)
>
> > On 21 jun, 19:54, Cla...@aol.com (Claude) wrote:
> > > In article
>
> > ,
>
> > > dohduh...@yahoo.com (sobriquet) wrote:
> > > > *From:* sobriquet 
> > > > *Date:* Sat, 21 Jun 2008 09:58:28 -0700 (PDT)
>
> > > > On 21 jun, 13:25, Cla...@aol.com (Claude) wrote:
> > > > > In article ,
> > > > > drj...@NOSPAM.hotpotmail.com (Dr
>
> > > > > John Watson) wrote:
> > > > > > *From:* Dr John Watson 
> > > > > > *Date:* Wed, 18 Jun 2008 19:08:28 +0100
>
> > > > > > Noticed at Tue, 17 Jun 2008 21:43:00 +0100: Claude informed
> > > us:
>
> > > > > > > In article ,
> > > > > > > drj...@NOSPAM.hotpotmail.com (Dr John Watson) wrote:
>
> > > > > > >> He said there was a human right to use drugs, so long as
> > > it
> > > > > did
> > > > > > not
> > > > > > >> negatively impact on the rights of others.
>
> > > > > > > It does, it impacts on friends, family, employers and
> > > society.
>
> > > > > > So does a jail sentence or a criminal record, more so than
> > > an
> > > > > > occasional
> > > > > > line or spliff. "Daddy's doing 2 years for buying 10 pills
> > > for a
> > > > > > private
> > > > > > party, I miss him".
>
> > > > > > > Harm from drugs legal or illegal, is not just to the user.
> > > > > > > Therein lies
> > > > > > > the failure of the so called harm reduction through
> > > > > legalisation
> > > > > > > argument.
>
> > > > > > You've just argued for alcohol and tobacco to be
> > > criminalised.
>
> > > > > > > "Total Harm" increases as overall use of a drug increases.
> > > > > That
> > > > > > > is the
> > > > > > > evidence of the existing legal markets in some drugs.
>
> > > > > > Is that the depth of your thought? It's a truism.
>
> > > > > Exactly and it is so obviously true that it is very hard to
> > > argue
> > > > > against. It is a
> > > > > truism that the legalisation lobby avoid agreeing with. In
> > > fact
> > > > > from Arnold Trebach
> > > > > and Lethal Needleman down, they avoid it. I am very glad to
> > > hear
> > > > > that you, of all
> > > > > people, accept it. Great and surprising news.
>
> > > > It's bullshit perpetuated by prohibitionist nazi scum. Total
> > > harm
> > > > actually went down when alcohol was legalized.
>
> > > Actually no, check it out. Overall health damage from alcohol was
> > > very low under
> > > prohibition. It is astonishingly low to this day in countries
> > > with laws or taboos
> > > against use, even those that actually produce it.
>
> > Sure, if you don't mind living in a fascist police state. I bet
> > total
> > harm from drug use would
> > be lower in nazi germany as well, if they had won the war. They
> > love a
> > clean and neat society
> > and they will make sure anything undesirable will be eliminated
> > without a trace, including
> > crime, homosexuality, political dissent, drug use, etc..
>
> > It's not just about overall health damage from alcohol,
>
> One step at a time. It is a standard but bad, debating tactic to change your
> argument when proved wrong.
>
> Do you agree this point of yours was totally wrong?
> INSERT>
> harm actually went down when alcohol was legalized.
> END INSERT>
>

No of course not! Why do you think they ended prohibition of alcohol?!
Because it was working
so good at reducing total harm associated with alcohol use?

They started prohibiting alcohol to reduce total harm associated with
alcohol use and quickly
found out that prohibition just made things worse, so they decided to
repeal that flawed policy and legalize
alcohol again for adults.

But they didn't learn from their mistakes, because they continued this
flawed policy on other drugs like cannabis, even though at the time
they started prohibiting cannabis, this law had little to do with any
associated harm with cannabis use.

The bottom line is that prohibition didn't work for alcohol and there
is no reason to expect it to work for any other drugs, especially
drugs that involve less associated harm than alcohol, like cannabis.

Claude wrote:
<SNIP>> 
> Do you agree this point of yours was totally wrong?
> INSERT>
> harm actually went down when alcohol was legalized.
> END INSERT>
> 

No. That was the point of refering to "The Solari Index".

Slatts