People in the UK Are Smart About Hemp

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxgLQ51H5gk

Description:

The British came to their senses about hemp. They didn't rally against it because it was a hit
against the cannabis legalization movement.


This is Why Marijuana Prohibition Continues (1 of 2)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GT0W8d1_kc4

On the pharmaceutical industry's influence. Narrated by Amy Goodman.

Staff at a supermarket in London were confronted by a customer who
complained they sold a bottle of beer to his underage brother. The
supermarket staff then drew their knives and stabbed him to death.

Actually it wasn't in Tescos, it was in the street and the people who
did the stabbing weren't supermarket staff, they were dealers in
non-alcoholic drugs. But the rest of the story is accurate.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8081228.stm

Such are the joys of non-alcoholic drug prohibition.

Svenne

"Svenne"  wrote in message 
news:10ne25lo0a67kjvj3p3juj4e6fo12ci90o@4ax.com...
>
> Staff at a supermarket in London were confronted by a customer who
> complained they sold a bottle of beer to his underage brother. The
> supermarket staff then drew their knives and stabbed him to death.
>
> Actually it wasn't in Tescos, it was in the street and the people who
> did the stabbing weren't supermarket staff, they were dealers in
> non-alcoholic drugs. But the rest of the story is accurate.
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8081228.stm
>
> Such are the joys of non-alcoholic drug prohibition.
>
> Svenne
:-(
Sadly correct.

> Sadly correct.

Rubbish.  As Dr Watson will tell you, most drug users are non-violent and 
most do not commit crimes to fund their habits

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8073659.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/kent/7668240.stm

"Aidy"  wrote in message 
news:A6OdnZqzDpzeabrXnZ2dnUVZ8qKdnZ2d@bt.com...
>> Sadly correct.
>
> Rubbish.  As Dr Watson will tell you, most drug users are non-violent and 
> most do not commit crimes to fund their habits
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8073659.stm
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/kent/7668240.stm
>
He may well say that and I will laugh at him.  People do commit crimes to 
obtain drugs, but perhaps a solution would be to remove the stigma and 
illicit appeal of drugs.  If they were sold in Boots I doubt teens would be 
that interested in them. Many illegal drugs are not that harmful, for 
example, E.  Why not simply allow that to be made and sold by pharma 
companies?

> If they were sold in Boots I doubt teens would be that interested in them.

True.  How many people started smoking at the age of 16+?  The fact that 
something is illegal is always a draw for some people.  You might even say 
it's like a drug.

> Many illegal drugs are not that harmful, for example, E.

Well.....

> Why not simply allow that to be made and sold by pharma companies?

As has been said in the many, many threads already about this that just go 
round in circles (as this one will), if you made all known drugs legal 
they'd simply make more that are illegal (see first point) and you're back 
at square one.  The removal of all restrictions on what to sell the public 
just isn't an option.

"Aidy"  wrote in message 
news:3pWdnaRmM9h1ZbrXnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@bt.com...
>> If they were sold in Boots I doubt teens would be that interested in 
>> them.
>
> True.  How many people started smoking at the age of 16+?  The fact that 
> something is illegal is always a draw for some people.  You might even say 
> it's like a drug.
>
>> Many illegal drugs are not that harmful, for example, E.
>
> Well.....
>
>> Why not simply allow that to be made and sold by pharma companies?
>
> As has been said in the many, many threads already about this that just go 
> round in circles (as this one will), if you made all known drugs legal 
> they'd simply make more that are illegal (see first point) and you're back 
> at square one.  The removal of all restrictions on what to sell the public 
> just isn't an option.
I disagree.  There is a finite number of drugs that can be made that will 
have any interest to a drug user.  If you looked at the whole BNF there will 
only be a few types of drug of interest.  Sure there will be variations on 
that theme but I doubt people would rather use an illegal dealer than drugs 
made by a phara company.

"Aidy"  wrote in message 
news:3pWdnaRmM9h1ZbrXnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@bt.com...
>> If they were sold in Boots I doubt teens would be that interested in 
>> them.
>
> True.  How many people started smoking at the age of 16+?  The fact that 
> something is illegal is always a draw for some people.  You might even say 
> it's like a drug.
>
>> Many illegal drugs are not that harmful, for example, E.
>
> Well.....
>
>> Why not simply allow that to be made and sold by pharma companies?
>
> As has been said in the many, many threads already about this that just go 
> round in circles (as this one will), if you made all known drugs legal 
> they'd simply make more that are illegal (see first point) and you're back 
> at square one.  The removal of all restrictions on what to sell the public 
> just isn't an option.
>
What an utterly ridiculous point of view.

Aidy wrote:
>> If they were sold in Boots I doubt teens would be that interested in them.
> 
> True.  How many people started smoking at the age of 16+? 

Well me for a start.

I still smoke it as often as I did when I started, a few times/year but 
now I wait until I go to BC where even the former head of police and 
very anti-drugs (now turned politician) says "we grow the best damn pot 
in the world". Interestingly he saw the light and is now fully for 
control, taxation and legalization.

Pot accounts for something like 15% of BCs GDP and is great for their 
export figures. BC has a funny attitude to pot it's almost legal and the 
producers are happy to pay tax and are open about their activities so 
long as they don't take the piss.

[anecdote]

Several years ago I was at a rock festival there, and we had a party one 
evening. The local police drove over to have a look at what was going on 
and make sure nothing was too untoward. One of the wags at the party 
decided it would be a good idea to kneel down in front of the cop car 
and roll a spliff using the car headlights (I thought that was taking 
the piss a bit)

"What the hell do you think you're doing?"
"What does it look like?"

I was gob-smacked.

Cop wandered off while the girls danced on his car. Very civillized, 
they asked him first and took their shoes off. Most bizarre party I've 
ever been to.

[/anecdote]

> I doubt people would rather use an illegal dealer than drugs made by a 
> phara company.

So why do so many people buy bootleg cigs?  Bootleg dvds?  Bootleg anything? 
Also getting back to my argument what if they have something the legal 
companies don't?

> What an utterly ridiculous point of view.

If you have nothing to say don't bother posting.

"Aidy"  wrote in message 
news:epGdnWDiBfmumrXXnZ2dnUVZ8nOdnZ2d@bt.com...
>> What an utterly ridiculous point of view.
>
> If you have nothing to say don't bother posting.
>
You hold idiotic beliefs. That's all I have to say to you really. The only 
reason your arguments go around in circles is because you're impervious to 
any sort of reason and logic.

"Aidy"  wrote in message 
news:abSdnTgC189lm7XXnZ2dnUVZ8oGdnZ2d@bt.com...
>> I doubt people would rather use an illegal dealer than drugs made by a 
>> phara company.
>
> So why do so many people buy bootleg cigs?  Bootleg dvds?  Bootleg 
> anything? Also getting back to my argument what if they have something the 
> legal companies don't?
>
Excessive taxation is a form of prohibition. The black market is nothing 
more than a function of the obstacles those in a position to be able to 
place obstacles put in the way of free trade of goods.

On Thu, 4 Jun 2009 17:20:19 +0100, "Aidy"  wrote:

>> Sadly correct.

>Rubbish.  As Dr Watson will tell you, most drug users are non-violent and 
>most do not commit crimes to fund their habits

What a thick cunt you are.

Most drug users are non-violent and most do not commit crimes to fund
their habit. The vastly, overwhelming majority.

Sometimes I really do think that having a turd where your brain should
be is a precondition for being a prohibitionist

Svenne

Svenne wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Jun 2009 17:20:19 +0100, "Aidy"  wrote:
> 
>>> Sadly correct.
> 
>> Rubbish.  As Dr Watson will tell you, most drug users are non-violent and 
>> most do not commit crimes to fund their habits
> 
> What a thick cunt you are.
> 
> Most drug users are non-violent and most do not commit crimes to fund
> their habit. The vastly, overwhelming majority.
> 
> Sometimes I really do think that having a turd where your brain should
> be is a precondition for being a prohibitionist
> 
> Svenne

All depends on what you call 'drug users'. Alcohol drinkers are drug users.

On Thu, 04 Jun 2009 19:55:00 +0100, Scavenger 
wrote:

>Svenne wrote:
>> On Thu, 4 Jun 2009 17:20:19 +0100, "Aidy"  wrote:
>> 
>>>> Sadly correct.
>> 
>>> Rubbish.  As Dr Watson will tell you, most drug users are non-violent and 
>>> most do not commit crimes to fund their habits
>> 
>> What a thick cunt you are.
>> 
>> Most drug users are non-violent and most do not commit crimes to fund
>> their habit. The vastly, overwhelming majority.
>> 
>> Sometimes I really do think that having a turd where your brain should
>> be is a precondition for being a prohibitionist

>All depends on what you call 'drug users'. Alcohol drinkers are drug users.

Alcohol drinkers, pot smokers, cocaine snorters, just about the whole
army of people out there who use recreational substances are
overwhelmingly non-violent.

Svenne

"Scavenger"  wrote in message 
news:h095aj$pi7$1@aioe.org...
> Svenne wrote:
>> On Thu, 4 Jun 2009 17:20:19 +0100, "Aidy"  wrote:
>>
>>>> Sadly correct.
>>
>>> Rubbish.  As Dr Watson will tell you, most drug users are non-violent 
>>> and most do not commit crimes to fund their habits
>>
>> What a thick cunt you are.
>>
>> Most drug users are non-violent and most do not commit crimes to fund
>> their habit. The vastly, overwhelming majority.
>>
>> Sometimes I really do think that having a turd where your brain should
>> be is a precondition for being a prohibitionist
>>
>> Svenne
>
> All depends on what you call 'drug users'. Alcohol drinkers are drug 
> users.
>
Oh God.  Not that one again.

On Thu, 4 Jun 2009 20:03:26 +0100, "Mr X"  wrote:

>> All depends on what you call 'drug users'. Alcohol drinkers are drug 
>> users.

>Oh God.  Not that one again. 

You mean that alcohol drinkers are not drug users?

What a strange thing to assert.

Svenne

"Svenne"  wrote in message 
news:s77g2591cl4kpbftn1466itnc8hsun8vj4@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 4 Jun 2009 20:03:26 +0100, "Mr X"  wrote:
>
>>> All depends on what you call 'drug users'. Alcohol drinkers are drug
>>> users.
>
>>Oh God.  Not that one again.
>
> You mean that alcohol drinkers are not drug users?
>
> What a strange thing to assert.
>
It is just that everyone knows what is meant by drug users in this context.
Such comments add nothing to the discussion and I'd hardly call alcohol a 
great advert for drugs!

"Svenne"  wrote in message 
news:s77g2591cl4kpbftn1466itnc8hsun8vj4@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 4 Jun 2009 20:03:26 +0100, "Mr X"  wrote:
>
>>> All depends on what you call 'drug users'. Alcohol drinkers are drug
>>> users.
>
>>Oh God.  Not that one again.
>
> You mean that alcohol drinkers are not drug users?
>
> What a strange thing to assert.

All genuine Libertarians are fed up to the back teeth of people (claiming to 
be Libertarians themselves) who whine and moan about how the government 
should "clamp down" on drinkers of alcohol, while relaxing the laws on 
cannabis (Cos it makes you chilled out and peaceful, maaaaaaan).
Such childish posturing gives the State carte blanche to clamp down on ALL 
of us.
The true Libertarian position should be that ALL substances be made legal. 
End of.

On Thu, 4 Jun 2009 17:31:44 +0100, "Mr X"  wrote:

>
>"Aidy"  wrote in message 
>news:A6OdnZqzDpzeabrXnZ2dnUVZ8qKdnZ2d@bt.com...
>>> Sadly correct.
>>
>> Rubbish.  As Dr Watson will tell you, most drug users are non-violent and 
>> most do not commit crimes to fund their habits
>>
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8073659.stm
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/kent/7668240.stm

>He may well say that and I will laugh at him.  People do commit crimes to 
>obtain drugs, 

Most drug users do not commit crimes to fund their habit. The
overwhelming majority of drug users do not commit any crimes of any
sort, except in the case of non-alcoholic drug users, whose possession
of drugs is by definition a crime.

Svenne

"Svenne"  wrote in message 
news:ja7g255kcqfobt5ijcp157280na25rotve@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 4 Jun 2009 17:31:44 +0100, "Mr X"  wrote:
>
>>
>>"Aidy"  wrote in message
>>news:A6OdnZqzDpzeabrXnZ2dnUVZ8qKdnZ2d@bt.com...
>>>> Sadly correct.
>>>
>>> Rubbish.  As Dr Watson will tell you, most drug users are non-violent 
>>> and
>>> most do not commit crimes to fund their habits
>>>
>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8073659.stm
>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/kent/7668240.stm
>
>>He may well say that and I will laugh at him.  People do commit crimes to
>>obtain drugs,
>
> Most drug users do not commit crimes to fund their habit. The
> overwhelming majority of drug users do not commit any crimes of any
> sort, except in the case of non-alcoholic drug users, whose possession
> of drugs is by definition a crime.
>
So no drug addict commits any crime to obtain their drugs?

On Thu, 4 Jun 2009 20:19:12 +0100, "Chris X" 
wrote:

>
>"Svenne"  wrote in message 
>news:s77g2591cl4kpbftn1466itnc8hsun8vj4@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 4 Jun 2009 20:03:26 +0100, "Mr X"  wrote:
>>
>>>> All depends on what you call 'drug users'. Alcohol drinkers are drug
>>>> users.
>>
>>>Oh God.  Not that one again.
>>
>> You mean that alcohol drinkers are not drug users?
>>
>> What a strange thing to assert.

>All genuine Libertarians are fed up to the back teeth of people (claiming to 
>be Libertarians themselves) who whine and moan about how the government 
>should "clamp down" on drinkers of alcohol, while relaxing the laws on 
>cannabis (Cos it makes you chilled out and peaceful, maaaaaaan).

Who's claimed that?

Some turd brain implied that most drug users commit crimes to fund
their habit. Which is untrue. Most of the adult population uses drugs
because the highly popular substance alcohol is obviously a drug.

If there are links between drugs and crime, the strongest of those
links is prohibition. And strangely enough, most of the users of
prohibited drugs don't commit crimes, either to fund their habit or
for any other reason, apart from the fact that possession of drugs is
a crime in itself.

Svenne

On Thu, 4 Jun 2009 20:17:03 +0100, "Mr X"  wrote:

>
>"Svenne"  wrote in message 
>news:s77g2591cl4kpbftn1466itnc8hsun8vj4@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 4 Jun 2009 20:03:26 +0100, "Mr X"  wrote:
>>
>>>> All depends on what you call 'drug users'. Alcohol drinkers are drug
>>>> users.
>>
>>>Oh God.  Not that one again.
>>
>> You mean that alcohol drinkers are not drug users?
>>
>> What a strange thing to assert.

>It is just that everyone knows what is meant by drug users in this context.
>Such comments add nothing to the discussion and I'd hardly call alcohol a 
>great advert for drugs! 

Alcohol is a great advert for not prohibiting drugs. 

As are all drugs if the issue is looked at rationally.

Svenne

On Thu, 4 Jun 2009 20:25:08 +0100, "Mr X"  wrote:

>
>"Svenne"  wrote in message 
>news:ja7g255kcqfobt5ijcp157280na25rotve@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 4 Jun 2009 17:31:44 +0100, "Mr X"  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Aidy"  wrote in message
>>>news:A6OdnZqzDpzeabrXnZ2dnUVZ8qKdnZ2d@bt.com...
>>>>> Sadly correct.
>>>>
>>>> Rubbish.  As Dr Watson will tell you, most drug users are non-violent 
>>>> and
>>>> most do not commit crimes to fund their habits
>>>>
>>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8073659.stm
>>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/kent/7668240.stm
>>
>>>He may well say that and I will laugh at him.  People do commit crimes to
>>>obtain drugs,
>>
>> Most drug users do not commit crimes to fund their habit. The
>> overwhelming majority of drug users do not commit any crimes of any
>> sort, except in the case of non-alcoholic drug users, whose possession
>> of drugs is by definition a crime.

>So no drug addict commits any crime to obtain their drugs? 

The asssertion was that the vast majority don't.

Svenne

"Svenne"  wrote in message 
news:fn8g255316p5l3o0e5ifjetktmuaul69cv@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 4 Jun 2009 20:25:08 +0100, "Mr X"  wrote:
>
>>
>>"Svenne"  wrote in message
>>news:ja7g255kcqfobt5ijcp157280na25rotve@4ax.com...
>>> On Thu, 4 Jun 2009 17:31:44 +0100, "Mr X"  wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Aidy"  wrote in message
>>>>news:A6OdnZqzDpzeabrXnZ2dnUVZ8qKdnZ2d@bt.com...
>>>>>> Sadly correct.
>>>>>
>>>>> Rubbish.  As Dr Watson will tell you, most drug users are non-violent
>>>>> and
>>>>> most do not commit crimes to fund their habits
>>>>>
>>>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8073659.stm
>>>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/kent/7668240.stm
>>>
>>>>He may well say that and I will laugh at him.  People do commit crimes 
>>>>to
>>>>obtain drugs,
>>>
>>> Most drug users do not commit crimes to fund their habit. The
>>> overwhelming majority of drug users do not commit any crimes of any
>>> sort, except in the case of non-alcoholic drug users, whose possession
>>> of drugs is by definition a crime.
>
>>So no drug addict commits any crime to obtain their drugs?
>
> The asssertion was that the vast majority don't.
>
Really?  I'm sure this is true for most drugs but I'm not sure about drugs 
like heroin or crack.

Mr X wrote:
> "Svenne"  wrote in message 

>> Most drug users do not commit crimes to fund their habit. The
>> overwhelming majority of drug users do not commit any crimes of any
>> sort, except in the case of non-alcoholic drug users, whose possession
>> of drugs is by definition a crime.
>>
> So no drug addict commits any crime to obtain their drugs? 

Was that really a question? The statement "Most drug users do not commit 
crimes to fund their habit" implies that some do. your question was 
irrelevant and kind of stupid.
> 
>

On Thu, 4 Jun 2009 20:43:50 +0100, "Mr X"  wrote:

>
>"Svenne"  wrote in message 
>news:fn8g255316p5l3o0e5ifjetktmuaul69cv@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 4 Jun 2009 20:25:08 +0100, "Mr X"  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Svenne"  wrote in message
>>>news:ja7g255kcqfobt5ijcp157280na25rotve@4ax.com...
>>>> On Thu, 4 Jun 2009 17:31:44 +0100, "Mr X"  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>"Aidy"  wrote in message
>>>>>news:A6OdnZqzDpzeabrXnZ2dnUVZ8qKdnZ2d@bt.com...
>>>>>>> Sadly correct.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Rubbish.  As Dr Watson will tell you, most drug users are non-violent
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> most do not commit crimes to fund their habits
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8073659.stm
>>>>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/kent/7668240.stm
>>>>
>>>>>He may well say that and I will laugh at him.  People do commit crimes 
>>>>>to
>>>>>obtain drugs,
>>>>
>>>> Most drug users do not commit crimes to fund their habit. The
>>>> overwhelming majority of drug users do not commit any crimes of any
>>>> sort, except in the case of non-alcoholic drug users, whose possession
>>>> of drugs is by definition a crime.
>>
>>>So no drug addict commits any crime to obtain their drugs?
>>
>> The asssertion was that the vast majority don't.

>Really?  I'm sure this is true for most drugs but I'm not sure about drugs 
>like heroin or crack. 

The issue is not clear cut or conclusive:

www.drugscope.org.uk/Resources/Drugscope/Documents/PDF/Good%20Practice/controlled%20heroin.pdf

http://tinyurl.com/pqyk4w

"Our findings suggest
that sustained heroin use does not inevitably
lead to dependency, and that dependency will
not always cause users significant problems –
particularly involvement in crime and personal
degeneration. We have demonstrated that, for
some people, using heroin does not strip them
of the ability to make conscious, rational and
autonomous decisions about their drug use. The
descriptions of heroin use presented here
contradict the stereotypes that are to be found in
the media’s treatment of the topic and political
statements about it. They almost certainly
conflict with popular beliefs about the drug."


www.drugscope.org.uk/Resources/Drugscope/Druglink/R/druglink-research-supports-link-between-heroin-use-and-crime.pdf

http://tinyurl.com/qotncq

"The report offers limited support to the
idea that the need to pay for opiates on the
illicit market can elevate the level of
revenue-raising crime. But samples were
small and the response rate poor. As the
researchers admit, much broader-based
sampling would be required to substantiate
the trends they’d observed."

Svenne

On Thu, 4 Jun 2009 18:40:07 +0100, "Aidy"  wrote:

>> I doubt people would rather use an illegal dealer than drugs made by a 
>> phara company.
>
>So why do so many people buy bootleg cigs?  Bootleg dvds?  Bootleg anything?

Because they are cheaper.  The *reverse* is true wrt dillegal drugs.
How much is a heroin fix from a street pusher?  How much is the same
(but safer) fix of prescription morphine from a pharmacy?
 
>Also getting back to my argument what if they have something the legal 
>companies don't? 

Easy.  Don't prohibit *any* recreational drug.  There cannot then ever
be an illegal drug.

-- 
Cynic

"Svenne"  wrote:

>> Most drug users do not commit crimes to fund their habit.

 "Mr X"  replied:

>So no drug addict commits any crime to obtain their drugs? 

There, Ive cut out the middle so that it might be easier to understand
what Svenne said.

As a further clue, I'll add that the English word "most" does not mean
the same as the English word "all"

-- 
Cynic

Cynic wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Jun 2009 18:40:07 +0100, "Aidy"  wrote:
>
>>> I doubt people would rather use an illegal dealer than drugs made
>>> by a phara company.
>>
>> So why do so many people buy bootleg cigs?  Bootleg dvds?  Bootleg
>> anything?
>
> Because they are cheaper.  The *reverse* is true wrt dillegal drugs.
> How much is a heroin fix from a street pusher?  How much is the same
> (but safer) fix of prescription morphine from a pharmacy?
>
>> Also getting back to my argument what if they have something the
>> legal companies don't?
>
> Easy.  Don't prohibit *any* recreational drug.  There cannot then ever
> be an illegal drug.

and what will happen when someone overdoses (on the newly 'legal' drug) and 
the inevitable litigation commences?

Mrcheerful wrote:
> Cynic wrote:
>> On Thu, 4 Jun 2009 18:40:07 +0100, "Aidy"  wrote:
>>
>>>> I doubt people would rather use an illegal dealer than drugs made
>>>> by a phara company.
>>> So why do so many people buy bootleg cigs?  Bootleg dvds?  Bootleg
>>> anything?
>> Because they are cheaper.  The *reverse* is true wrt dillegal drugs.
>> How much is a heroin fix from a street pusher?  How much is the same
>> (but safer) fix of prescription morphine from a pharmacy?
>>
>>> Also getting back to my argument what if they have something the
>>> legal companies don't?
>> Easy.  Don't prohibit *any* recreational drug.  There cannot then ever
>> be an illegal drug.
> 
> and what will happen when someone overdoses (on the newly 'legal' drug) and 
> the inevitable litigation commences? 

Same thing as when they overdoes on paracetamol.
> 
>

On Fri, 05 Jun 2009 00:28:07 +0100, Martin 
wrote:

>> and what will happen when someone overdoses (on the newly 'legal' drug) and 
>> the inevitable litigation commences? 

>Same thing as when they overdoes on paracetamol.

Here's a website that informs young drug takers about the risks
associated with their drug use and how to minimise the risks:

www.youthinformation.com/Templates/Internal.asp?NodeID=90281

Svenne

On Thu, 04 Jun 2009 22:32:43 GMT, "Mrcheerful" 
wrote:

>and what will happen when someone overdoses (on the newly 'legal' drug) and 
>the inevitable litigation commences? 

What happened about all these drug deaths:

"The number of alcohol-related deaths has more than doubled in the
past 16 years. A total of 8,724 people died of conditions such as
alcohol poisoning and liver cirrhosis in 2007."

www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/4359775/Deaths-from-alcohol-abuse-more-than-double-in-16-years-ONS-figures-show.html

http://tinyurl.com/cw2mum

Svenne

On Jun 4, 6:45 am, Svenne  wrote:
> Staff at a supermarket in London were confronted by a customer who
> complained they sold a bottle of beer to his underage brother. The
> supermarket staff then drew their knives and stabbed him to death.
>
> Actually it wasn't in Tescos, it was in the street and the people who
> did the stabbing weren't supermarket staff, they were dealers in
> non-alcoholic drugs. But the rest of the story is accurate.
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8081228.stm
>
> Such are the joys of non-alcoholic drug prohibition.
>
> Svenne

Did you do the stabbing?

On Thu, 4 Jun 2009 22:57:56 -0700 (PDT), Logician
 wrote:

>On Jun 4, 6:45 am, Svenne  wrote:
>> Staff at a supermarket in London were confronted by a customer who
>> complained they sold a bottle of beer to his underage brother. The
>> supermarket staff then drew their knives and stabbed him to death.
>>
>> Actually it wasn't in Tescos, it was in the street and the people who
>> did the stabbing weren't supermarket staff, they were dealers in
>> non-alcoholic drugs. But the rest of the story is accurate.
>>
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8081228.stm
>>
>> Such are the joys of non-alcoholic drug prohibition.

>Did you do the stabbing?

No, I'm not a prohibitionist, I'm against criminal drug gangs and in
favour of proper legal regulation.

Svenne

>>> I doubt people would rather use an illegal dealer than drugs made by a 
>>> phara company.
>>
>> So why do so many people buy bootleg cigs?
>>
> Excessive taxation is a form of prohibition. The black market is nothing 
> more than a function of the obstacles those in a position to be able to 
> place obstacles put in the way of free trade of goods.

However people would *still* take the risk of buying goods from unknown 
sources that could potentially have more damaging affects on their health 
than they foresaw just to get something cheaper.  So again I ask why would 
people not buy bootleg drugs when they buy bootleg cigs?

> Because they are cheaper.

Exactly.  So people *will* risk their health and *will* buy bootleg 
chemicals rather than buy them from official sources just to save money.  So 
you agree with my argument then?  That people *would* buy illegal drugs if 
they are cheaper?

> The *reverse* is true wrt dillegal drugs.

Please stop pushing that argument.  I have already told you on the many 
other threads that you have no evidence to support that argument at all.

> Don't prohibit *any* recreational drug.  There cannot then ever
> be an illegal drug.

Define "recreational drug".  People use horse tranquilizers as recreational 
drugs so under your system should we be able to buy them over the counter? 
Is that what you *really* think?  That just because someone can use 
something to give them a buzz it should be made available regardless of the 
consequences of malicious use?  Regardless of consequences of interaction 
with other drugs that you might not be aware of as you are not a trained 
pharmacist?  Weak argument.  Very, very weak.

> You hold idiotic beliefs.

As do you.

Doesn't seem we have any more to say on the matter.

"Aidy"  wrote in message 
news:A6OdnZqzDpzeabrXnZ2dnUVZ8qKdnZ2d@bt.com...
>> Sadly correct.
>
> Rubbish.  As Dr Watson will tell you, most drug users are non-violent and 
> most do not commit crimes to fund their habits
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8073659.stm
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/kent/7668240.stm

BTW in case any of you are too stupid to work it out....that was sarcasm :)

On Thu, 04 Jun 2009 22:32:43 GMT, "Mrcheerful" 
wrote:

>> Easy.  Don't prohibit *any* recreational drug.  There cannot then ever
>> be an illegal drug.
>
>and what will happen when someone overdoses (on the newly 'legal' drug) and 
>the inevitable litigation commences? 

That's a *good* effect.  There will no longer be the monetry incentive
for criminals to develop or manufacture drugs.  It will almost all be
carried out by legitimate companies, like tobacco and alcohol is
today.  Who *can* be sued if they are irresponsible and make drugs
that are too dangerous, and so they won't do so.

The criminal gangs who are presently making drugs, and the pushers who
"cut" and adulterate them don't care if the occasional customer is
killed by their product.

-- 
Cynic

On 2009-06-05, Aidy  wrote:

> Define "recreational drug".  People use horse tranquilizers as recreational 
> drugs so under your system should we be able to buy them over the counter? 
> Is that what you *really* think?  That just because someone can use 
> something to give them a buzz it should be made available regardless of the 
> consequences of malicious use?  Regardless of consequences of interaction 
> with other drugs that you might not be aware of as you are not a trained 
> pharmacist?  Weak argument.  Very, very weak. 

Do you *really* think you own other people's bodies? That you can run their
lives better than they can?


-- 
                    http://hyperangry.blogspot.com/
       [email me, if you must, at huge {at} huge (dot) org <dot> uk]

On Fri, 5 Jun 2009 10:01:51 +0100, "Aidy"  wrote:

>>>> I doubt people would rather use an illegal dealer than drugs made by a 
>>>> phara company.
>>>
>>> So why do so many people buy bootleg cigs?
>>>
>> Excessive taxation is a form of prohibition. The black market is nothing 
>> more than a function of the obstacles those in a position to be able to 
>> place obstacles put in the way of free trade of goods.
>
>However people would *still* take the risk of buying goods from unknown 
>sources that could potentially have more damaging affects on their health 
>than they foresaw just to get something cheaper.  So again I ask why would 
>people not buy bootleg drugs when they buy bootleg cigs? 

The bootleg cigs and booze are made by reputable companies, not
backstreet growers and brewers.  The smugglers selling them are not
adding foreign substances to the products to bulk it out.  The goods
are not of unknown composition and strength.

Do not confuse legitimate goods that people are avoiding paying tax on
with goods that are completely prohibited.  They are two completely
different types of black market.

-- 
Cynic

> The bootleg cigs and booze are made by reputable companies, not
> backstreet growers and brewers.

Oh dear.  Protip: research what you're talking about before spewing your 
views on the internet.

> Do you *really* think you own other people's bodies?

No, but the g'ment has a duty of care to its citizens.  That includes not 
only saving people from themselves, but more importantly saving them from 
the malicious acts of others.  It is why there is gun and knife control, and 
why they don't want you getting your hands on certain things.

On Fri, 5 Jun 2009 10:07:31 +0100, "Aidy"  wrote:

>> Because they are cheaper.

>Exactly.  So people *will* risk their health and *will* buy bootleg 
>chemicals rather than buy them from official sources just to save money.  So 
>you agree with my argument then?  That people *would* buy illegal drugs if 
>they are cheaper?

The only way that home-made drugs could be sold more cheaply than
mass-produced drugs is if the government deliberately negated the
beneficial effect of removing prohibition by imposing ridiculous
amounts of taxation on the drugs.  Even then, if they were available
in continental Europe more cheaply, the same as booze and ciggies,
people would use that as their bootleg source rather than backstreet
producers.  In addition, criminal gangs in such a situation would be
more likely to get their supply by stealing legal stocks of the drug
than by manufacturing it.  Breaking into a shop or warehouse is
easier, cheaper and less risky than sourcing the raw materials and
setting up a manufacturing plant.

As proof, you only need to look at whether there is any significant
dealing in home-grown tobacco or home-made booze.  The only black
market in such goods worth bothering about is in smuggled and stolen
goods that have been produced by a legitimate factory, with an
extremely minor amount of trade in counterfeit goods that have
nevertheless been produced to a reasonable standard - in most cases it
is a legal brand that has been re-labelled to make out it is a more
expensive brand.

-- 
Cynic

On Fri, 5 Jun 2009 10:11:35 +0100, "Aidy"  wrote:

>> Rubbish.  As Dr Watson will tell you, most drug users are non-violent and 
>> most do not commit crimes to fund their habits

>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8073659.stm
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/kent/7668240.stm

>BTW in case any of you are too stupid to work it out....that was sarcasm :) 

Sarcasm must be untrue and/or exaggerated.  Your statement was simple
fact, with the exception of people who use the legal drug alcohol,
which sees a sizeable minority of users becoming violent under its
influence, though it would still be true to say that *most* users are
non-violent.

-- 
Cynic

On 2009-06-05, Aidy  wrote:
>> Do you *really* think you own other people's bodies?
>
> No, 

Liar.

> but the g'ment has a duty of care to its citizens.

No it doesn't.

> That includes not 
> only saving people from themselves, but more importantly saving them from 
> the malicious acts of others.  It is why there is gun and knife control, and 
> why they don't want you getting your hands on certain things. 

And you think *other* people have whacko views. Sheesh.


-- 
                    http://hyperangry.blogspot.com/
       [email me, if you must, at huge {at} huge (dot) org <dot> uk]

On 5 June, 12:16, "Aidy"  wrote:
> > Do you *really* think you own other people's bodies?
>
> No, but the g'ment has a duty of care to its citizens.  That includes not
> only saving people from themselves, but more importantly saving them from
> the malicious acts of others.  It is why there is gun and knife control, and
> why they don't want you getting your hands on certain things.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harm_principle

The object of this Essay is to assert one very simple principle, as
entitled to govern absolutely the dealings of society with the
individual in the way of compulsion and control, whether the means
used be physical force in the form of legal penalties, or the moral
coercion of public opinion. That principle is, that the sole end for
which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in
interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-
protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully
exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will,
is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral,
is not sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or
forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will
make him happier, because, in the opinion of others, to do so would be
wise, or even right... The only part of the conduct of anyone, for
which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the
part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right,
absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is
sovereign.

"Aidy"  wrote in message 
news:MIqdnTJOufY7Y7XXnZ2dnUVZ8rOdnZ2d@bt.com...
>> Do you *really* think you own other people's bodies?
>
> No, but the g'ment has a duty of care to its citizens.  That includes not 
> only saving people from themselves, but more importantly saving them from 
> the malicious acts of others.  It is why there is gun and knife control, 
> and why they don't want you getting your hands on certain things.
>
Idiotic beliefs.

"Aidy"  wrote in message 
news:tZ6dnde-YosffbXXnZ2dnUVZ8tudnZ2d@bt.com...
>> You hold idiotic beliefs.
>
> As do you.
>
> Doesn't seem we have any more to say on the matter.
>
Speak for yourself mucker. I have plenty to say about vindictive drug 
warriors and their irrational and illogical demonic fantasies.

"Aidy"  wrote in message 
news:2NWdnXoGOPPOfbXXnZ2dnUVZ8hadnZ2d@bt.com...
>> Because they are cheaper.
>
> Exactly.  So people *will* risk their health and *will* buy bootleg 
> chemicals rather than buy them from official sources just to save money. 
> So you agree with my argument then?  That people *would* buy illegal drugs 
> if they are cheaper?
>
So do people often by booze from illegal alcohol dealers?  Or by 
perscription meds from an illegal chemist?

On Fri, 5 Jun 2009 18:16:22 +0100, "Mr X"  wrote:

>
>"Aidy"  wrote in message 
>news:2NWdnXoGOPPOfbXXnZ2dnUVZ8hadnZ2d@bt.com...
>>> Because they are cheaper.
>>
>> Exactly.  So people *will* risk their health and *will* buy bootleg 
>> chemicals rather than buy them from official sources just to save money. 
>> So you agree with my argument then?  That people *would* buy illegal drugs 
>> if they are cheaper?

>So do people often by booze from illegal alcohol dealers?  Or by 
>perscription meds from an illegal chemist? 

The odd one or two might, if they can find some backstreet bathtub gin
distillery or a demented chemist brewing up prescription medicines in
his attic, a difficult  thing to do in a legal market. Most people
would prefer to pay a bob or two extra for the real deal from a
reputable supplier.

But if some old bloke making illicit paracetamol in his shed in the
Outer Hebrides is found, I suppose in Aidy's deranged world this would
be taken as vindication of his argument. 

Svenne

"Aidy"  wrote in message 
news:QtWdnbWQ8qnVfLXXnZ2dnUVZ8oGdnZ2d@bt.com...
> "Aidy"  wrote in message 
> news:A6OdnZqzDpzeabrXnZ2dnUVZ8qKdnZ2d@bt.com...
>>> Sadly correct.
>>
>> Rubbish.  As Dr Watson will tell you, most drug users are non-violent and 
>> most do not commit crimes to fund their habits
>>
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8073659.stm
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/kent/7668240.stm
>
> BTW in case any of you are too stupid to work it out....that was sarcasm 
> :)
>
You're too stupid to understand it isn't.

As for the links, maybe if the criminal justice system spent more of it's 
time pursuing and prosecuting real criminals instead of wasting precious 
resources trying to service a completely failed, idiotic drug policy that 
targets otherwise law abiding citizens and only creates more crime, then the 
links you kindly provided would be far less likely to happen.

Huge wrote:
> On 2009-06-05, Aidy  wrote:
>>> Do you *really* think you own other people's bodies?
>>
>> No,
>
> Liar.
>
>> but the g'ment has a duty of care to its citizens.
>
> No it doesn't.
>
>> That includes not
>> only saving people from themselves, but more importantly saving them
>> from the malicious acts of others.  It is why there is gun and knife
>> control, and why they don't want you getting your hands on certain
>> things.
>
> And you think *other* people have whacko views. Sheesh.

It's the old :  "I know what I'm doing but everyone else is an idiot and 
needs protecting," argument.

Slatts

Aidy wrote:
<SNIP>>
> As has been said in the many, many threads already about this that
> just go round in circles (as this one will), if you made all known
> drugs legal they'd simply make more that are illegal (see first
> point) and you're back at square one.  The removal of all
> restrictions on what to sell the public just isn't an option.

Bit short on logic that one - If all drugs are legal how can "more" be 
illegal?
Everything is legal unless it is made illegal.
For example LSD was legal when invented and only made illegal in 1967.

Or are you one of those who advocate that everything is illegal until it is 
specifically permitted by the state?


Slatts

Mr X wrote:
<SNIP>>>

> So no drug addict commits any crime to obtain their drugs?

The point is that it is very rare for addicts of very addictive drugs to 
commit crimes to buy their drugs, if those drugs are not prohibited by law. 
For example tobacco is more addictive than diamorphine yet how often does 
one hear of tobacco addicts funding their habit from crime?
Again when diamorphine was legal there were not reports of addicts funding 
their habit from crime.
Logic therefore dictates that the common feature is that it is the drugs 
illegality that causes the addict to commit crime.

Slatts

"JohnR"  wrote in message 
news:4a294740$0$5170$386c845@unlimited.newshosting.com...

> Idiotic beliefs.

Not my beliefs at all, just stating facts.  As I said to Cynic, it's why we 
have laws at all.

"Cynic"  wrote in message 
news:obvh2595p50r82qd7mi5qn84fp5amdj7j4@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 5 Jun 2009 10:07:31 +0100, "Aidy"  wrote:
>
>>> Because they are cheaper.
>
>>Exactly.  So people *will* risk their health and *will* buy bootleg
>>chemicals rather than buy them from official sources just to save money. 
>>So
>>you agree with my argument then?  That people *would* buy illegal drugs if
>>they are cheaper?
>
> The only way

<snip>

Yeah, but people *will* ignore the potential health risks to get cheap 
stuff.  Right?

> So do people often by booze from illegal alcohol dealers?  Or by 
> perscription meds from an illegal chemist?

People do often buy bootleg booze and meds from unauthorised sources, yes.

"Sla#s"  wrote in message 
news:h0gorg$st2$1@localhost.localdomain...
> Aidy wrote:
> <SNIP>>
>> As has been said in the many, many threads already about this that
>> just go round in circles (as this one will), if you made all known
>> drugs legal they'd simply make more that are illegal (see first
>> point) and you're back at square one.  The removal of all
>> restrictions on what to sell the public just isn't an option.
>
> Bit short on logic that one - If all drugs are legal how can "more" be 
> illegal?

I said all *known* drugs.  If all *known* drugs are made legal then new 
drugs that are not currently known will be invented.  It's obvious your 
drug-addled brain can't keep up with the grown-ups.

"Sla#s"  wrote in message 
news:h0gp6k$t2d$1@localhost.localdomain...
> Logic therefore dictates that the common feature is that it is the drugs 
> illegality that causes the addict to commit crime.

That's not logical at all.  Why would a drug being illegal cause the addict 
to commit crime regardless of the cost?  Would it not be fairer to say that 
people who use illegal drugs are generally of a lower moral fibre so have 
less qualms funding their habit by crime?  And your view that addicts rarely 
commit crime to find their habit is staggering naivety.

> Sarcasm must be untrue and/or exaggerated.

I see what you did there.

On 2009-06-08, Aidy  wrote:
>
> "Cynic"  wrote in message 
> news:obvh2595p50r82qd7mi5qn84fp5amdj7j4@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 5 Jun 2009 10:07:31 +0100, "Aidy"  wrote:
>>
>>>> Because they are cheaper.
>>
>>>Exactly.  So people *will* risk their health and *will* buy bootleg
>>>chemicals rather than buy them from official sources just to save money. 
>>>So
>>>you agree with my argument then?  That people *would* buy illegal drugs if
>>>they are cheaper?
>>
>> The only way
>
><snip>
>
> Yeah, but people *will* ignore the potential health risks to get cheap 
> stuff.  Right? 

So what?


-- 
                    http://hyperangry.blogspot.com/
       [email me, if you must, at huge {at} huge (dot) org <dot> uk]

On 2009-06-08, Aidy  wrote:
>> So do people often by booze from illegal alcohol dealers?  Or by 
>> perscription meds from an illegal chemist?
>
> People do often buy bootleg booze and meds from unauthorised sources, yes. 

So what?


-- 
                    http://hyperangry.blogspot.com/
       [email me, if you must, at huge {at} huge (dot) org <dot> uk]

On 2009-06-08, Aidy  wrote:
>
> "Sla#s"  wrote in message 
> news:h0gorg$st2$1@localhost.localdomain...
>> Aidy wrote:
>> <SNIP>>
>>> As has been said in the many, many threads already about this that
>>> just go round in circles (as this one will), if you made all known
>>> drugs legal they'd simply make more that are illegal (see first
>>> point) and you're back at square one.  The removal of all
>>> restrictions on what to sell the public just isn't an option.
>>
>> Bit short on logic that one - If all drugs are legal how can "more" be 
>> illegal?
>
> I said all *known* drugs.  If all *known* drugs are made legal then new 
> drugs that are not currently known will be invented. 

Sigh.

> It's obvious your 
> drug-addled brain can't keep up with the grown-ups. 

'Ad hominem'


-- 
                    http://hyperangry.blogspot.com/
       [email me, if you must, at huge {at} huge (dot) org <dot> uk]

On 2009-06-08, Aidy  wrote:
> "Sla#s"  wrote in message 
> news:h0gp6k$t2d$1@localhost.localdomain...
>> Logic therefore dictates that the common feature is that it is the drugs 
>> illegality that causes the addict to commit crime.
>
> That's not logical at all.  Why would a drug being illegal cause the addict 
> to commit crime regardless of the cost?  Would it not be fairer to say that 
> people who use illegal drugs are generally of a lower moral fibre

So, you're arrogant as well as dumb?


-- 
                    http://hyperangry.blogspot.com/
       [email me, if you must, at huge {at} huge (dot) org <dot> uk]

> You're too stupid to understand it isn't.

I think *I* know when *I* am being sarcastic.  Now how about this "Who's 
who" of your typical drug user;

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/8087850.stm

Violence: check
Guns: check
Socially deprived area: check
Cannabis users: check

"Huge" <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote in message 
news:7942ntF1p2m7jU4@mid.individual.net...

> So what?

My original point was that if the g'ment did sanction the sale of certain 
drugs through proper channels that people would still turn to illegal 
dealers.  Cynic et al disagreed, however they are now agreeing that people 
*will* buy from illegal sources if the drugs are cheaper.

"Huge" <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote in message 
news:7942q8F1p2m7jU6@mid.individual.net...

> 'Ad hominem'

So what?

"Aidy"  wrote in message 
news:Y7qdnV1ox7f7TLHXnZ2dnUVZ8gKdnZ2d@bt.com...
>
> "Sla#s"  wrote in message 
> news:h0gorg$st2$1@localhost.localdomain...
>> Aidy wrote:
>> <SNIP>>
>>> As has been said in the many, many threads already about this that
>>> just go round in circles (as this one will), if you made all known
>>> drugs legal they'd simply make more that are illegal (see first
>>> point) and you're back at square one.  The removal of all
>>> restrictions on what to sell the public just isn't an option.
>>
>> Bit short on logic that one - If all drugs are legal how can "more" be 
>> illegal?
>
> I said all *known* drugs.  If all *known* drugs are made legal then new 
> drugs that are not currently known will be invented.  It's obvious your 
> drug-addled brain can't keep up with the grown-ups.
>
Something sure is obvious, to everyone but you.

"Huge" <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote in message 
news:7942rcF1p2m7jU7@mid.individual.net...
> On 2009-06-08, Aidy  wrote:
>> "Sla#s"  wrote in message
>> news:h0gp6k$t2d$1@localhost.localdomain...
>>> Logic therefore dictates that the common feature is that it is the drugs
>>> illegality that causes the addict to commit crime.
>>
>> That's not logical at all.  Why would a drug being illegal cause the 
>> addict
>> to commit crime regardless of the cost?  Would it not be fairer to say 
>> that
>> people who use illegal drugs are generally of a lower moral fibre
>
> So, you're arrogant as well as dumb?
>
>
It's a classic prohibitionist trait.

"Aidy"  wrote in message 
news:osqdndiHbK_1SLHXnZ2dnUVZ8mWdnZ2d@bt.com...
>> You're too stupid to understand it isn't.
>
> I think *I* know when *I* am being sarcastic.  Now how about this "Who's 
> who" of your typical drug user;
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/8087850.stm
>
> Violence: check
> Guns: check
> Socially deprived area: check
> Cannabis users: check
>
Prohibition: check
Criminal: check
>
>
You really are struggling. What relevance does the possession of cannabis 
have to the crime being reported?

Are you suggesting smoking a joint makes people want to go out and acquire 
guns, ammunition?

Are you suggesting smoking a joint makes people want to go out and attempt 
to kidnap and murder people?

Prohibition is the background to stories like this, that's the only reality.

I'm suggesting you're incapable of applying any logic and reason to 
anything.

"JohnR"  wrote in message 
news:4a2cdbae$0$11801$516ef42@unlimited.newshosting.com...
> Are you suggesting smoking a joint makes people want to go out and acquire 
> guns, ammunition?
>
> Are you suggesting smoking a joint makes people want to go out and attempt 
> to kidnap and murder people?

No.  I am suggesting that people with low moral values are the type who also 
use illegal drugs, and it is a far cry from the picture being painted by the 
pro-stoner lobby.

On Mon, 8 Jun 2009 09:52:53 +0100, "Aidy"  wrote:

>> Bit short on logic that one - If all drugs are legal how can "more" be 
>> illegal?
>
>I said all *known* drugs.  If all *known* drugs are made legal then new 
>drugs that are not currently known will be invented.  It's obvious your 
>drug-addled brain can't keep up with the grown-ups. 

Easy to fix that one - simply refrain from making the new drugs
illegal.

There - that was easy, wasn't it?

-- 
Cynic

"Aidy"  wrote in message 
news:V86dnS9UbIw3QLHXnZ2dnUVZ8sqdnZ2d@bt.com...
>
> "JohnR"  wrote in message 
> news:4a2cdbae$0$11801$516ef42@unlimited.newshosting.com...
>> Are you suggesting smoking a joint makes people want to go out and 
>> acquire guns, ammunition?
>>
>> Are you suggesting smoking a joint makes people want to go out and 
>> attempt to kidnap and murder people?
>
> No.  I am suggesting that people with low moral values are the type who 
> also use illegal drugs, and it is a far cry from the picture being painted 
> by the pro-stoner lobby.
>
All I'm getting from the posts you make is that you imagine anyone who uses 
the drugs you disapprove is a scumbag right?

"Cynic"  wrote in message 
news:1fop259hut1lguvpi1crbtadtpjeaq0ttg@4ax.com...
> There - that was easy, wasn't it?

So you don't mind that anyone can buy over the counter drugs that could kill 
you, that could be used to spike women's drinks and rape them?  You don't 
mind that anyone can buy drugs to easily pollute water supplies and kill 
people?  You really don't mind anyone being able to buy anything they want? 
That's your idea of society is it?

On 8 June, 11:38, "Aidy"  wrote:
> "Cynic"  wrote in message
>
> news:1fop259hut1lguvpi1crbtadtpjeaq0ttg@4ax.com...
>
> > There - that was easy, wasn't it?
>
> So you don't mind that anyone can buy over the counter drugs that could kill
> you, that could be used to spike women's drinks and rape them?  You don't
> mind that anyone can buy drugs to easily pollute water supplies and kill
> people?  You really don't mind anyone being able to buy anything they want?
> That's your idea of society is it?

The problem with your approach, is it is symptom-led, not disease-led,
and therefore leads to stupid laws, which just erode *everybodys*
respect for larrunorder.

People can *already* buy toxic chemicals, which would pollute a water
supply and kill people. Pesticides. Household cleaners. Are you going
to ban them ?

Drugs which can be used for nefarious purposes, spiking drinks, *are*
illegal. But they still get used, so banning them wasn't effective
anyway. So why should a ban on any new drug be any more effective ?

And what do you do when a scientist cooks up a new (so therefore
unlegislated agains) drug ? Sure, you can try and ban "any drug which
may be used to spike drinks", but vague definitions like that would
cause no end of legal headaches. And it would not be lost on the press
that there is a certain irony in making it illegal to spike a
substance which can cause paralysis, memory loss, and aid rape with a
substance which can cause paralysis, memory loss and aid rape.

By the way, what was the headline on todays Daily Mail ?

"Aidy"  wrote in message 
news:J6Odnd0x_MSkd7HXnZ2dnUVZ8q2dnZ2d@bt.com...
>
> "Cynic"  wrote in message 
> news:1fop259hut1lguvpi1crbtadtpjeaq0ttg@4ax.com...
>> There - that was easy, wasn't it?
>
> So you don't mind that anyone can buy over the counter drugs that could 
> kill you, that could be used to spike women's drinks and rape them?  You 
> don't mind that anyone can buy drugs to easily pollute water supplies and 
> kill people?  You really don't mind anyone being able to buy anything they 
> want? That's your idea of society is it?
>
Your delusion is that prohibition actually prevents these things when in 
actual fact it simply piles on more costs, crime, corruption and misery to 
any situation that would have existed without the failed policy being there.

On Mon, 8 Jun 2009 11:38:48 +0100, "Aidy"  wrote:

>> There - that was easy, wasn't it?

>So you don't mind that anyone can buy over the counter drugs that could kill 
>you, that could be used to spike women's drinks and rape them?

Why should I?  You can already do so in any off-licence and public
house.

>  You don't 
>mind that anyone can buy drugs to easily pollute water supplies and kill 
>people?

Huh?  It would take a heck of a lot of recreational drug to pollute a
water supply.  Perhaps you are thinking of agricultural and industrial
chemicals that have *always* been freely available without licence or
prescription in bulk quantities that *could* pollute an entire water
supply.

>  You really don't mind anyone being able to buy anything they want? 
>That's your idea of society is it? 

Yup.  With a very few exceptions it is indeed the type of society I
want.  Or at least allow people to *sell* what they want.  I would not
want legislation that forced people to sell.

Would you rather want DIY stores closed down because they sell items
that can kill and maim?

-- 
Cynic

"Jethro"  wrote in message 
news:a03bfa3d-9d7b-46f8-a4e4->

> People can *already* buy toxic chemicals, which would pollute a water
> supply and kill people.

Yes they can but it still makes things better that certain items are not as 
easy to come by.  You also have to remember that some harmful things in 
products the consumer can buy are "tainted" deliberately to make malicious 
use harder (they have dyes, odours and tastes added so you can't be unaware 
of their presence) yet the same chemicals in other forms may not have these 
contaminates added.

> Drugs which can be used for nefarious purposes, spiking drinks, *are*
> illegal. But they still get used, so banning them wasn't effective
> anyway.

Not 100%, no, but you'd be naive to think that would be the case.  You can't 
deny that it has helped reduce *some* related crime though.

> And what do you do when a scientist cooks up a new (so therefore
> unlegislated agains) drug ? Sure, you can try and ban "any drug which
> may be used to spike drinks", but vague definitions like that would
> cause no end of legal headaches

That's my point.  You can't have a cart blanche legislation to allow "all" 
drugs, and if you drew up legislation that tackles known drugs what do you 
do with newly invented ones?  It's one of the reasons removing the ban on 
certain drugs will be hard to make work.

> By the way, what was the headline on todays Daily Mail ?

I don't know.  If you visit their website you could probably find out.

"Cynic"  wrote in message 
news:7l0q25d9nvcnupm2tspquud2pvkgf0g32r@4ax.com...

> Yup.  With a very few exceptions it is indeed the type of society I
> want.

You mean you think you want.  Like people thought they wanted a Labour 
g'ment, only now it's too late.

On 8 June, 14:00, "Aidy"  wrote:
> "Jethro"  wrote in message
>
> news:a03bfa3d-9d7b-46f8-a4e4->
>
> > People can *already* buy toxic chemicals, which would pollute a water
> > supply and kill people.
>
> Yes they can but it still makes things better that certain items are not as
> easy to come by.  You also have to remember that some harmful things in
> products the consumer can buy are "tainted" deliberately to make malicious
> use harder (they have dyes, odours and tastes added so you can't be unaware
> of their presence) yet the same chemicals in other forms may not have these
> contaminates added.
>
> > Drugs which can be used for nefarious purposes, spiking drinks, *are*
> > illegal. But they still get used, so banning them wasn't effective
> > anyway.
>
> Not 100%, no, but you'd be naive to think that would be the case.  You can't
> deny that it has helped reduce *some* related crime though.
>
> > And what do you do when a scientist cooks up a new (so therefore
> > unlegislated agains) drug ? Sure, you can try and ban "any drug which
> > may be used to spike drinks", but vague definitions like that would
> > cause no end of legal headaches
>
> That's my point.  You can't have a cart blanche legislation to allow "all"
> drugs, and if you drew up legislation that tackles known drugs what do you
> do with newly invented ones?  It's one of the reasons removing the ban on
> certain drugs will be hard to make work.

Did you know, that if you remove traffic lights, then generally (in
the absence of any other road design factors) accidents *fall* at that
spot ? However, by your logic, every side road, and meeting of roads
(including peoples driveways) should be festooned with traffic lights.

One of the reasons why I dislike your approach, is that it is
completely subverting peoples judgement. OK, so far so good. But when
this happens people start *expecting* the state to spoon-feed them.
Before you know it, you have people suing the government because
someone should have told them water was wet, and fire hot.

If the state treats people like little kids, then don't complain when
you get a society which *acts* like little kids. You can't have it
both ways. If you want a society where people take responsibilty for
their actions, then give them the power to make their own decisions.

"Jethro"  wrote in message 
news:162bacd2-b4d5-490b-b98f-

> Did you know, that if you remove traffic lights, then generally (in
> the absence of any other road design factors) accidents *fall* at that
> spot ?

And when helments on motorcycles became mandatory, injuries from bike 
crashes rose.  When seatbelts became mandatory injuries from car crashes 
rose.  I fail to see your point.  Do you want us to go back to not wearing 
seatbelts because on the face of it the statistics seem odd?

> One of the reasons why I dislike your approach, is that it is
> completely subverting peoples judgement. OK, so far so good. But when
> this happens people start *expecting* the state to spoon-feed them.
> Before you know it, you have people suing the government because
> someone should have told them water was wet, and fire hot.

I agree, but also look at it like this.  People sue taboacco manufacturers 
(successfuly?) and sue McDonalds because they are fat.  Legalise drugs and 
you sanction them and people will be suing the g'ment cos they are junkies. 
Granted if it stops them burgling my house then fair enough...but their 
compo won't last long.

"Aidy"  wrote in message 
news:05-dnVlA3o3mibDXnZ2dnUVZ8tqdnZ2d@bt.com...
> "Jethro"  wrote in message 
> news:162bacd2-b4d5-490b-b98f-
>
>> Did you know, that if you remove traffic lights, then generally (in
>> the absence of any other road design factors) accidents *fall* at that
>> spot ?
>
> And when helments on motorcycles became mandatory, injuries from bike 
> crashes rose.  When seatbelts became mandatory injuries from car crashes 
> rose.  I fail to see your point.  Do you want us to go back to not wearing 
> seatbelts because on the face of it the statistics seem odd?
>
>> One of the reasons why I dislike your approach, is that it is
>> completely subverting peoples judgement. OK, so far so good. But when
>> this happens people start *expecting* the state to spoon-feed them.
>> Before you know it, you have people suing the government because
>> someone should have told them water was wet, and fire hot.
>
> I agree, but also look at it like this.  People sue taboacco manufacturers 
> (successfuly?) and sue McDonalds because they are fat.  Legalise drugs and 
> you sanction them and people will be suing the g'ment cos they are 
> junkies. Granted if it stops them burgling my house then fair enough...but 
> their compo won't last long.
>
>
Why do you care?

If they are sueing McDonalds, a Tobacco Manufacturer, a Cannabis 
Manufacturer or a Pep pill manufacturer that is their problem not yours.

I suspect you don't care and all you really want is the power and control to 
dictate people what they should and shouldn't be doing, it makes your life 
worth living.

On 8 June, 14:39, "Aidy"  wrote:
> "Jethro"  wrote in message
>
> news:162bacd2-b4d5-490b-b98f-
>
> > Did you know, that if you remove traffic lights, then generally (in
> > the absence of any other road design factors) accidents *fall* at that
> > spot ?
>
> And when helments on motorcycles became mandatory, injuries from bike
> crashes rose.  When seatbelts became mandatory injuries from car crashes
> rose.  I fail to see your point.  Do you want us to go back to not wearing
> seatbelts because on the face of it the statistics seem odd?

So you would rather have *more* accidents, in order to comply with a
law ? That appears to be your stance, but I am wary of putting words
into your mouth. (Bear in mind that the declassification of cannabis
led to a *fall* in its use. Interestingly enough, by reclassifying it,
this government clearly demonstrated that the UKs drug policy is not
intended to *reduce* drug usage. Just make it profitable enough for
the agencies concerning in policing it).

>
> > One of the reasons why I dislike your approach, is that it is
> > completely subverting peoples judgement. OK, so far so good. But when
> > this happens people start *expecting* the state to spoon-feed them.
> > Before you know it, you have people suing the government because
> > someone should have told them water was wet, and fire hot.
>
> I agree, but also look at it like this.  People sue taboacco manufacturers
> (successfuly?) and sue McDonalds because they are fat.  Legalise drugs and
> you sanction them and people will be suing the g'ment cos they are junkies.
> Granted if it stops them burgling my house then fair enough...but their
> compo won't last long.

People are free to sue private companies all they wish, I was talking
about the *state*.

At the end of the day, the authoritarian approach (yours) seems to
achieve roughly the same as a libertarian approach, except at a
greater cost.

Since you don't like evidence and statistics, it would be pointless of
me to mention that the Metropolitan Police "drug squad" in 1961
comprised of two officers, and the nationally there were less that 300
heroin addicts. But then, of course, heroin was legal ...

"JohnR"  wrote in message 
news:4a2d1928$0$1300$176eb22@unlimited.newshosting.com...

> Why do you care?

I was merely replying to the OP's argument.  Obviously I don't personally 
care as I don't run any of those companies.

"Jethro"  wrote in message 
news:bb050e02-62fd-4548-822e-

> So you would rather have *more* accidents, in order to comply with a
> law ?

I was just pointing out that statistics don't tell the whole story. 
Injuries *rose* because before the law those injuries were fatalities. 
Again your point RE the traffic lights.  Accidents may fall but the stats 
don't tell the whole story...the fall in accidents will be bacause of 
decrease in traffic speed and flow.  A big price to pay.  I was just 
pointing out that it was a silly analogy to use.

> Bear in mind that the declassification of cannabis
> led to a *fall* in its use.

That's to be expected.

> and the nationally there were less that 300
> heroin addicts. But then, of course, heroin was legal ...

Maybe that's down to the recording methods?  Too many variables to tell. 
Amsterdam has a lax drug policy and they still have a heroin problem.  Not 
*officially*....of course.

"Aidy"  wrote in message 
news:GZGdnc6QidiKkbDXnZ2dnUVZ8vGdnZ2d@bt.com...
> "Cynic"  wrote in message 
> news:7l0q25d9nvcnupm2tspquud2pvkgf0g32r@4ax.com...
>
>> Yup.  With a very few exceptions it is indeed the type of society I
>> want.
>
> You mean you think you want.  Like people thought they wanted a Labour 
> g'ment, only now it's too late.
>
The centre (influenced heavily by the media propaganda machine) determine 
which political party is elected and it would be far more accurate to say 
those with no strong party political affiliation were steered towards 
deciding they simply didn't want a Tory government any more.

Aidy wrote:
> "Sla#s"  wrote in message
> news:h0gorg$st2$1@localhost.localdomain...
>> Aidy wrote:
>> <SNIP>>
>>> As has been said in the many, many threads already about this that
>>> just go round in circles (as this one will), if you made all known
>>> drugs legal they'd simply make more that are illegal (see first
>>> point) and you're back at square one.  The removal of all
>>> restrictions on what to sell the public just isn't an option.
>>
>> Bit short on logic that one - If all drugs are legal how can "more"
>> be illegal?
>
> I said all *known* drugs.  If all *known* drugs are made legal then
> new drugs that are not currently known will be invented.  It's
> obvious your drug-addled brain can't keep up with the grown-ups.

OK I guess I have to accept you are a bit slow on comprehension...
I will repeat it in words of few syllables.

If all drugs were made legal then all drugs would be legal.

Basic logic:
If 'all' are legal and there are 'X' in number, then 'X+1" would still 
encompass the term "all".

As for the word "known" - if it is "unknown" then it is unknown. However as 
soon as it is known then it is known and thus would be a "known drug".

Slatts

Aidy wrote:
> "Cynic"  wrote in message
> news:1fop259hut1lguvpi1crbtadtpjeaq0ttg@4ax.com...
>> There - that was easy, wasn't it?
>
> So you don't mind that anyone can buy over the counter drugs that
> could kill you, that could be used to spike women's drinks and rape
> them?  You don't mind that anyone can buy drugs to easily pollute
> water supplies and kill people?  You really don't mind anyone being
> able to buy anything they want? That's your idea of society is it?

One can obtain many drugs that do this already and society seems to be able 
to handle it OK.

Many very easily obtained chemicals can kill a human stone dead in minutes 
both natural and manufactured. I have many of them in my garden, kitchen 
cabinet and at work.
As for date rape, as has been said many times by those in the know the best 
date drug of all time is alcohol. The police say use of illict chemicals is 
very rare. (8 cases in 1800+ claims tested over 5 years*).

You are very fond of scare tactics aren't you?

Slatts
*
http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0379073808003575

Aidy wrote:
<SNIP>?
> And your view that addicts rarely commit crime to find their habit is
> staggering naivety.

Naive perhaps but how does that stop it being true?
Drug addict arrests for crime to pay for drugs was almost nonexistent in the 
'50s and '60s. Because they could get their heroin from Boots.

Slatts

"JohnR"  wrote in message 
news:4a2d2fd5$0$25661$b26e172@unlimited.newshosting.com...

> The centre (influenced heavily by the media propaganda machine) determine 
> which political party is elected and it would be far more accurate to say 
> those with no strong party political affiliation were steered towards 
> deciding they simply didn't want a Tory government any more.

At the risk of getting off topic, the only reason any g'ment is ever elected 
in this country is because people no longer want the one they have.  Maybe 
at some point people will grasp that the new g'ment they seek are no 
different from the one they want to get rid of.

"Sla#s"  wrote in message 
news:h0k14u$spm$1@localhost.localdomain...

> OK I guess I have to accept you are a bit slow on comprehension...

"Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will 
believe it"
- Adolf Hitler

> If all drugs were made legal then all drugs would be legal.

I refer you to my previous post where you made the exact same point, however 
I am not going to repeat myself to you.

"Sla#s"  wrote in message 
news:h0k20v$t02$1@localhost.localdomain...
> One can obtain many drugs that do this already and society seems to be 
> able to handle it OK.

True, as I said in another post of course you can't eliminate harm, that's 
silly.  However in some instances it is good to reduce the chances of it.

"Sla#s"  wrote in message 
news:h0k2ea$t6d$1@localhost.localdomain...
> Aidy wrote:

> Drug addict arrests for crime to pay for drugs was almost nonexistent in 
> the '50s and '60s. Because they could get their heroin from Boots.

Your soundbites betray the real story.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4647018.stm

Aidy wrote:
> "Sla#s"  wrote in message
> news:h0k14u$spm$1@localhost.localdomain...
> 
>> OK I guess I have to accept you are a bit slow on comprehension...
> 
> "Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually
> they will believe it"
> - Adolf Hitler

I refer you to your earlier childish insult.

>> If all drugs were made legal then all drugs would be legal.
> 
> I refer you to my previous post where you made the exact same point,
> however I am not going to repeat myself to you.

Thank you.

Slatts

Aidy wrote:
> "Sla#s"  wrote in message
> news:h0k2ea$t6d$1@localhost.localdomain...
>> Aidy wrote:
>
>> Drug addict arrests for crime to pay for drugs was almost
>> nonexistent in the '50s and '60s. Because they could get their
>> heroin from Boots.
>
> Your soundbites betray the real story.
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4647018.stm

I take it you did not read the article then?
Where does it say there was a huge aqusisitional crime wave when it was 
legal.

BTW I do not believe we should return to a totaly free market as in the 
1800s but to a same level as alochol. I admit I would also prefer that drugs 
stronger than alochol such as speed, cocaine and diamorphine would require a 
licence to purchase.

Slatts

Aidy wrote:
> "JohnR"  wrote in message
> news:4a2cdbae$0$11801$516ef42@unlimited.newshosting.com...
>> Are you suggesting smoking a joint makes people want to go out and
>> acquire guns, ammunition?
>>
>> Are you suggesting smoking a joint makes people want to go out and
>> attempt to kidnap and murder people?
>
> No.  I am suggesting that people with low moral values are the type
> who also use illegal drugs, and it is a far cry from the picture
> being painted by the pro-stoner lobby.

From your perspective then any illegal activity is committed by those "with 
low moral values"!
Tell that to Emily Pankhurst, Oskar Schindler, The Vietnam protesters, etc.
If laws are unjust or arbitrary and the laws against drug use are, it is the 
duty of very citizen to resist them.

Slatts

"Sla#s"  wrote in message 
news:h0m4sp$j3j$2@localhost.localdomain...
> I take it you did not read the article then?
> Where does it say there was a huge aqusisitional crime wave when it was 
> legal.

The reasons why not were explained in the article.  Which *you* clearly 
didn't read.  Or maybe you just didn't understand it.  I guess that's your 
brain on drugs....

"Sla#s"  wrote in message 
news:h0m5n3$ltl$1@localhost.localdomain...

> From your perspective then any illegal activity is committed by those 
> "with low moral values"!
> Tell that to Emily Pankhurst, Oskar Schindler, The Vietnam protesters, 
> etc.

I see your point.  I have to admit I had missed the connection between 
someone who saved thousands of Jews being murdered by the nazis and some 
drop-out who wants to use my tax money to get high on drugs rather than get 
a job, then rob my house for more drug money when his benefits run out. 
Silly me.

"Aidy"  wrote in message 
news:-JednbazL9iDDLLXnZ2dnUVZ8sidnZ2d@bt.com...
>
> "Sla#s"  wrote in message 
> news:h0m5n3$ltl$1@localhost.localdomain...
>
>> From your perspective then any illegal activity is committed by those 
>> "with low moral values"!
>> Tell that to Emily Pankhurst, Oskar Schindler, The Vietnam protesters, 
>> etc.
>
> I see your point.  I have to admit I had missed the connection between 
> someone who saved thousands of Jews being murdered by the nazis and some 
> drop-out who wants to use my tax money to get high on drugs rather than 
> get a job, then rob my house for more drug money when his benefits run 
> out. Silly me.
>
Remove prohibition and the house burglary is removed from the equation. 
Along with all the tax payments you happily make to Power and Control inc. 
to fund their idiotic paramilitary failure without end against some 
citizens. Then there is all the criminality, violence, corruption and 
squalor and the countless other adverse effects prohibition imposes on any 
drug problem in society that would otherwise exist without it.

On 10 June, 11:55, "Aidy"  wrote:
> "Sla#s"  wrote in message
>
> news:h0m5n3$ltl$1@localhost.localdomain...
>
> > From your perspective then any illegal activity is committed by those
> > "with low moral values"!
> > Tell that to Emily Pankhurst, Oskar Schindler, The Vietnam protesters,
> > etc.
>
> I see your point.  I have to admit I had missed the connection between
> someone who saved thousands of Jews being murdered by the nazis and some
> drop-out who wants to use my tax money to get high on drugs rather than get
> a job, then rob my house for more drug money when his benefits run out.
> Silly me.

No, the point was to say of anything "it's illegal, so it must be bad"
is to trust the lawgivers with moral neutrality. In 1966 homosexuality
was illegal. In 1968 it wasn't. What changed to make it less or more
harmful ?

"JohnR"  wrote in message 
news:4a2f9af9$0$16266$386e9d2@unlimited.newshosting.com...
> Remove prohibition and the house burglary is removed from the equation.

A point that everyone tries to push forward but has not been proven.

> Then there is all the criminality, violence, corruption and squalor and 
> the countless other adverse effects prohibition imposes on any drug 
> problem in society that would otherwise exist without it.

If the fact that skag costs £100 instead of £10 causes all of that crime 
then is it really a substance we want the masses hooked on?  Do you 
seriously believe the price difference between cigs and heroin is enough to 
turn people into a life of habitual crime and there are no other facts 
involved?  Rubbish.

"Jethro"  wrote in message 
news:e2581a21-a825-46dc-ba4e->

> No, the point was to say of anything "it's illegal, so it must be bad"

So what you're saying is that he was putting words into my mouth and 
constructing straw-man arguments?  Geez...I wouldn't want you defending *me* 
in court if that's your idea of a valid defence.

"Aidy"  wrote in message 
news:mY6dnepJmdyHP7LXnZ2dnUVZ8l-dnZ2d@bt.com...
> "JohnR"  wrote in message 
> news:4a2f9af9$0$16266$386e9d2@unlimited.newshosting.com...
>> Remove prohibition and the house burglary is removed from the equation.
>
> A point that everyone tries to push forward but has not been proven.
>
>> Then there is all the criminality, violence, corruption and squalor and 
>> the countless other adverse effects prohibition imposes on any drug 
>> problem in society that would otherwise exist without it.
>
> If the fact that skag costs £100 instead of £10 causes all of that crime 
> then is it really a substance we want the masses hooked on?
>
There in lies your delusion. The blind assumption that prohibition is 
holding back a tidal wave of drug abuse and somehow preventing an apocalypic 
end to society as we know it is a fantasy you and all prohibitionists hold. 
All the evidence from the real world sources there are on the matter 
indicate clearly it makes very little difference to use patterns and in some 
cases removing prohibtion actually reduces usage and certainly improves the 
situation for those who are using.
>
>  Do you seriously believe the price difference between cigs and heroin is 
> enough to turn people into a life of habitual crime and there are no other 
> facts involved?  Rubbish.
Not entirely sure what you're even trying to say here.

"JohnR"  wrote in message 
news:4a2fa48b$0$16252$386e9d2@unlimited.newshosting.com...

> There in lies your delusion. The blind assumption that prohibition is 
> holding back a tidal wave of drug abuse

Kindly don't tell me what I believe.  Your problem is that you agree that 
black people should not be allowed to vote.

Do you see what I did there?

"Aidy"  wrote in message 
news:OKudnbShF8e2OLLXnZ2dnUVZ8iqdnZ2d@bt.com...
> "JohnR"  wrote in message 
> news:4a2fa48b$0$16252$386e9d2@unlimited.newshosting.com...
>
>> There in lies your delusion. The blind assumption that prohibition is 
>> holding back a tidal wave of drug abuse
>
> Kindly don't tell me what I believe.  Your problem is that you agree that 
> black people should not be allowed to vote.
>
> Do you see what I did there?
>
Make a valid point Aidy, your views and arguments have no logic or reason 
behind them.

Just admit you are a hater and can't ever accept that some people will use 
some drugs you disapprove.

On 10 June, 13:10, "Aidy"  wrote:
> "Jethro"  wrote in message
>
> news:e2581a21-a825-46dc-ba4e->
>
> > No, the point was to say of anything "it's illegal, so it must be bad"
>
> So what you're saying is that he was putting words into my mouth and
> constructing straw-man arguments?  Geez...I wouldn't want you defending *me*
> in court if that's your idea of a valid defence.

OK, then why do you disapprove of the linking of (say) Emily Pankhurst
and someone who smokes a cannabis cigarette ?

In your repeated postings you have made it crystal clear that there is
only one way for anyone to live, and that's the Aidy way. It's a
little like Simon says, but without the fun. You make no concessions
to anyone elses point of view (since they are wrong anyway), and when
people have the timerity to suggest them, you resort to fictions and
slurs.

It reminds me of arguing with a teacher ... whatever the merits of the
case, the teacher is always right.

It may come a surprise to you, but not all those advocating a more
liberal drug regime are actually interesting in using them at all.
They are just sick of spending billions a year directly (and more than
that indirectly) on a system which has done nothing in any way, shape
or form to reduce the amount of drugs on the streets, or the harm they
do.

If you don't believe that prohibition doesn't address the problem,
then listen carefully when the government, or police, are trying to
highlight the "success" of this operation, or that policy. I have
never heard "deaths from drugs" used as measure. Nor "reduction in
registered addicts". However I have heard "kilos of heroin" and
"numbers of arrests" used to demonstrate "success".

If you support a system which regards seizing *more* of a substance
each year as a success, then you should hardly be surprised when
strangely, each year, *more* substance is seized.

Luckily, in the grand scheme of things, your views, as are mine, are
totally irrelevant. Neither of us will ever have a say in formulating
any aspect of any policy that any government wants to pursue.

Enjoy your life.

Good grief!

Has Aidy completely lost it?

-- 
Dr John Watson
Baker Street

On Wed, 10 Jun 2009 16:15:10 +0100, Dr John Watson
 wrote:

>Good grief!
>
>Has Aidy completely lost it?

I don't think he ever had it.

Svenne

Aidy wrote:
> "Sla#s"  wrote in message
> news:h0m4sp$j3j$2@localhost.localdomain...
>> I take it you did not read the article then?
>> Where does it say there was a huge aqusisitional crime wave when it
>> was legal.
>
> The reasons why not were explained in the article.  Which *you*
> clearly didn't read.  Or maybe you just didn't understand it.  I
> guess that's your brain on drugs....

I read the whole story and several others about the even earlier "Great 
Binge" and there was no evidence of any huge aqusisitional crime wave.

And does everyone who disagrees with you have to be on drugs, an 
unsubstantiated ad hominem?

Slatts

Aidy wrote:
> "JohnR"  wrote in message
> news:4a2f9af9$0$16266$386e9d2@unlimited.newshosting.com...
>> Remove prohibition and the house burglary is removed from the
>> equation.
>
> A point that everyone tries to push forward but has not been proven.
>
>> Then there is all the criminality, violence, corruption and squalor
>> and the countless other adverse effects prohibition imposes on any
>> drug problem in society that would otherwise exist without it.
>
> If the fact that skag costs £100 instead of £10 causes all of that
> crime then is it really a substance we want the masses hooked on?

If heroin was legal at that price would you use it?

Slatts

"Sla#s"  wrote in message 
news:h0onup$1tv$1@localhost.localdomain...
> I read the whole story and several others about the even earlier "Great 
> Binge" and there was no evidence of any huge aqusisitional crime wave.

Then you read but you didn't comprehend.

Aidy wrote:
> "Sla#s"  wrote in message
> news:h0onup$1tv$1@localhost.localdomain...
>> I read the whole story and several others about the even earlier
>> "Great Binge" and there was no evidence of any huge aqusisitional
>> crime wave.
>
> Then you read but you didn't comprehend.

No - I read, comprehend but don't assume without evidence.

Perhaps you could point out where you believe it - or any other article 
about that era - said it caused an aqusisitional crime wave.

Slatts

Aidy wrote:
> "Sla#s"  wrote in message
> news:h0k20v$t02$1@localhost.localdomain...
>> One can obtain many drugs that do this already and society seems to
>> be able to handle it OK.
>
> True, as I said in another post of course you can't eliminate harm,
> that's silly.  However in some instances it is good to reduce the
> chances of it.

Which drug prohibition has rampantly failed to achieve!
Look at the example of alcohol prohibition. That is exactly the reason the 
eighteenth amendment was repealed.

Slatts

"Sla#s"  wrote in message 
news:h0rclo$rb9$2@localhost.localdomain...
> Perhaps you could point out where you believe it - or any other article 
> about that era - said it caused an aqusisitional crime wave.

Perhaps you should point out where I said that it did?  As I said....you 
read, but you don't comprehend.

"Sla#s"  wrote in message 
news:h0rvst$1hm$1@localhost.localdomain...
> Aidy wrote:
>> "Sla#s"  wrote in message
>> news:h0k20v$t02$1@localhost.localdomain...
>>> One can obtain many drugs that do this already and society seems to
>>> be able to handle it OK.
>>
>> True, as I said in another post of course you can't eliminate harm,
>> that's silly.  However in some instances it is good to reduce the
>> chances of it.
>
> Which drug prohibition has rampantly failed to achieve!

In your opinion.  More people use legal drugs than illegal ones after all.

Aidy wrote:
> "Sla#s"  wrote in message
> news:h0rvst$1hm$1@localhost.localdomain...
>> Aidy wrote:
>>> "Sla#s"  wrote in message
>>> news:h0k20v$t02$1@localhost.localdomain...
>>>> One can obtain many drugs that do this already and society seems to
>>>> be able to handle it OK.
>>> 
>>> True, as I said in another post of course you can't eliminate harm,
>>> that's silly.  However in some instances it is good to reduce the
>>> chances of it.
>> 
>> Which drug prohibition has rampantly failed to achieve!
> 
> In your opinion.  More people use legal drugs than illegal ones after
> all. 

How could that be a reason for continued prohibition? 
Just because a majority approve of something does not make it right. 
Slavery, women's suffrage, racism, religion etc.

Slatts

Aidy wrote:
> "Sla#s"  wrote in message
> news:h0rclo$rb9$2@localhost.localdomain...
>> Perhaps you could point out where you believe it - or any other
>> article about that era - said it caused an aqusisitional crime wave.
>
> Perhaps you should point out where I said that it did?  As I
> said....you read, but you don't comprehend.


To my post about the lack of a huge aqusisitional crime wave:
"Drug addict arrests for crime to pay for drugs was almost nonexistent in 
the
'50s and '60s. Because they could get their heroin from Boots."

You responded:
"Your soundbites betray the real story."

Slatts

"Sla#s"  wrote in message 
news:h0u4v0$oes$1@localhost.localdomain...

> How could that be a reason for continued prohibition?

Eh?  I said that prohibition works as less people take illegal drugs than 
legal ones.  I don't know why you would ask the above question in response.

> Just because a majority approve of something does not make it right.

And just because the minority approve does not make it right either.

"Sla#s"  wrote in message 
news:h0u55v$ok0$1@localhost.localdomain...
> Aidy wrote:
>> "Sla#s"  wrote in message
>> news:h0rclo$rb9$2@localhost.localdomain...
>>> Perhaps you could point out where you believe it - or any other
>>> article about that era - said it caused an aqusisitional crime wave.
>>
>> Perhaps you should point out where I said that it did?  As I
>> said....you read, but you don't comprehend.
>
>
> To my post about the lack of a huge aqusisitional crime wave:
> "Drug addict arrests for crime to pay for drugs was almost nonexistent in 
> the
> '50s and '60s. Because they could get their heroin from Boots."
>
> You responded:
> "Your soundbites betray the real story."

Pointless reply.  Now do as I asked and tell me where I said it caused an 
"aqusisitional crime wave" or admit you read but do not comprehend.

Noticed at Wed, 17 Jun 2009 10:01:43 +0100: Aidy informed us:

> "Sla#s"  wrote in message 
> news:h0u4v0$oes$1@localhost.localdomain...
> 
>> How could that be a reason for continued prohibition?
> 
> Eh?  I said that prohibition works as less people take illegal drugs than 
> legal ones.  I don't know why you would ask the above question in response.

And in Holland, for example, where cannabis is quasi-legal, even less
people use it than here. When cannabis became class C, use fell. I have
every expectation that use is now rising again, since re-reclassification.

That should not overly concern anyone, as long as the use of alcohol falls
in proportion.

>> Just because a majority approve of something does not make it right.
> 
> And just because the minority approve does not make it right either.
-- 
Dr John Watson
Baker Street

"Aidy"  wrote in message 
news:Cs2dnd4sNKplLaXXnZ2dnUVZ8v6dnZ2d@bt.com...
> "Sla#s"  wrote in message 
> news:h0u4v0$oes$1@localhost.localdomain...
>
>> How could that be a reason for continued prohibition?
>
> Eh?  I said that prohibition works as less people take illegal drugs than 
> legal ones.  I don't know why you would ask the above question in 
> response.
>
>> Just because a majority approve of something does not make it right.
>
> And just because the minority approve does not make it right either.
>
But it's right to violently persecute a sizeable minority simply because 
they choose the wrong plant to get intoxicated?

Just admit you are a hater and can never accept that some people will choose 
to use some drugs that you have been brainwashed to disapprove.

"Dr John Watson"  wrote in message 
news:79ruthF1sa0ojU1@mid.individual.net...

> And in Holland, for example, where cannabis is quasi-legal, even less
> people use it than here. When cannabis became class C, use fell. I have
> every expectation that use is now rising again, since re-reclassification.

The problem here is that it is hard to get accurate stats on these things. 
The method of counting who takes what will have a limited catchment area, 
and it is that area you are monitoring and not the overall population.

"JohnR"  wrote in message 
news:4a38c8d2$0$22523$336e962@unlimited.newshosting.com...

> Just admit you are a hater

Is it taking one to know one?  You seem quite full of vitriol yourself, much 
more so than I.  Maybe you should have a "spliff" and "chill out"?

Aidy wrote:
> "Dr John Watson"  wrote in message 
> news:79ruthF1sa0ojU1@mid.individual.net...
>
>> And in Holland, for example, where cannabis is quasi-legal, even less
>> people use it than here. When cannabis became class C, use fell. I have
>> every expectation that use is now rising again, since re-reclassification.
>
> The problem here is that it is hard to get accurate stats on these things. 

So how do you know that "prohibition is working" then?

> The method of counting who takes what will have a limited catchment area, 
> and it is that area you are monitoring and not the overall population. 

I thought they use the BCS for estimating the number of cannabis users. 
Which would give a fairly accurate measure (or at least produce results 
which would be comparable over the years).

What method do they use and what is the "catchment area"?

"Ollie Clark"  wrote in message 
news:slrnh3i1cq.7ok.usenet@greedy.zen175545...
> So how do you know that "prohibition is working" then?

That's a leading question, you'd first have to define "working".

Aidy wrote:
> "Ollie Clark"  wrote in message 
> news:slrnh3i1cq.7ok.usenet@greedy.zen175545...
>> So how do you know that "prohibition is working" then?
>
> That's a leading question, you'd first have to define "working". 

I'm using your definition. In Message-ID: 
 you said "Eh?  I said that 
prohibition works as less people take illegal drugs than legal ones."

If you're saying the stats for the number of drugs users are worthless 
then you don't know that prohibition is working. If you know that 
prohibition is working according to your definition of working, then 
the stats aren't worthless. You can't have it both ways.

"Ollie Clark"  wrote in message 
news:slrnh3i5nh.7uk.usenet@greedy.zen175545...

> I'm using your definition.

If that's the definition you're using then I know it is working from 
anecdotal evidence.  I don't know anyone that doesn't drink or smoke cigs 
but I know very few people who take drugs.  If that is representative of the 
whole population then one could safely assume that more people take legal 
drugs than illegal drugs.  I guess I should add a caveat here in that I am a 
gainfully employed member of the public so it's natural that I'm less likely 
to come into contact with people who take drugs.  If I was unemployed 
parasite or an habitual criminal I'm sure it would be a different story.

Or can only pro-stoners use anecdotal evidence?

"Aidy"  wrote in message 
news:Ea2dnVz7le-nZ6TXnZ2dnUVZ8vudnZ2d@bt.com...
> "Ollie Clark"  wrote in message 
> news:slrnh3i5nh.7uk.usenet@greedy.zen175545...
>
>> I'm using your definition.
>
> If that's the definition you're using then I know it is working from 
> anecdotal evidence.  I don't know anyone that doesn't drink or smoke cigs 
> but I know very few people who take drugs.

And that's exactly like saying "I know very few people who are homosexual". 
You are probably the sort of person whom others wouldn't confide in - or 
they'd expect antagonism from you if they did.

>  If that is representative of the whole population then one could safely 
> assume that more people take legal drugs than illegal drugs.  I guess I 
> should add a caveat here in that I am a gainfully employed member of the 
> public so it's natural that I'm less likely to come into contact with 
> people who take drugs.

Illogical.

>  If I was unemployed parasite or an habitual criminal I'm sure it would be 
> a different story.
>
> Or can only pro-stoners use anecdotal evidence?
>
>

"The Todal"  wrote in message 
news:79ucgoF1sl86pU1@mid.individual.net...

> And that's exactly like saying "I know very few people who are 
> homosexual". You are probably the sort of person whom others wouldn't 
> confide in - or they'd expect antagonism from you if they did.

Sorry...I forgot that anecdotal evidence is only valid if used as a pro-drug 
argument.  I forgot that you can't even make a simple, commonly-held 
assertion on here such as more people using legal drugs than illegal drugs. 
Maybe I should waste 5 mins of my time doing some basic research to post 
just for you to say my sources are not valid?

["Followup-To:" header set to uk.politics.drugs.]
Aidy wrote:
> "Ollie Clark"  wrote in message 
> news:slrnh3i5nh.7uk.usenet@greedy.zen175545...
>
>> I'm using your definition.
>
> If that's the definition you're using then I know it is working from 
> anecdotal evidence.

I see.

> I don't know anyone that doesn't drink or smoke cigs 
> but I know very few people who take drugs.

I don't know anyone who takes heroin so does that mean noone takes it?

I know several people who don't drink or smoke. I'd say 5% of the people 
I know. Therefore 5% of the population don't drink or smoke?

> If that is representative of the 
> whole population then one could safely assume that more people take legal 
> drugs than illegal drugs.

I'll give you that actually but you haven't based it on any evidence. 

However, are the drugs legal because lots of people use them or do lots 
of people use them because they're legal?

Given tobacco is more harmful and addictive than heroin[1], I'd say it's 
the former (they're legal because they're popular). Prohibiting them
would cause more problems than it solved. When it's a small minority, 
it's easy to persecute them. If it's a large percentage of the population 
then it's far more difficult.

> I guess I should add a caveat here in that I am a 
> gainfully employed member of the public so it's natural that I'm less likely 
> to come into contact with people who take drugs.  If I was unemployed 
> parasite or an habitual criminal I'm sure it would be a different story.

I'm gainfully employed too. I know very few people who have told me that 
they take illegal drugs. I wouldn't really expect them to tell me just as 
I wouldn't expect anyone to tell me they went out mugging or avoided tax.

I'd expect even fewer people to tell you they take illegal drugs as you 
clearly have a huge problem with illegal drug users.

You wouldn't know that you'd come into contact with someone who uses 
illegal drugs unless they told you. 

> Or can only pro-stoners use anecdotal evidence?

Anyone can use it, it's just not very convincing. If you're tring to 
have a debate then you should use hard evidence. Peer reviewed studies 
if you're claiming a drug has some physiological or psycological effect. 
Statistically sound studies if you're trying to claim some numbers or a 
trend.

BTW, if you think I'm a "pro-stoner" you're mistaken. I think legalising 
it would cause less harm but I wouldn't encourage anyone to take it. I 
think cigarettes should be legal too but I certainly wouldn't encourage 
anyone to smoke.

[1] http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=NHfY55o02IEC&pg=PA42&lpg=PA42&dq=ACMD+drug+harm+table&source=bl&ots=--NYgOm91T&sig=jp8CuX5luHLP50Sq8Foy0hMbFc4&hl=en&ei=PBM6SrT-DZG8jAfk2bz-DQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#PPA47,M1

[2] http://management.silicon.com/smedirector/0,39024679,11034877,00.htm

["Followup-To:" header set to uk.politics.drugs.]
Aidy wrote:
> "The Todal"  wrote in message 
> news:79ucgoF1sl86pU1@mid.individual.net...
>
>> And that's exactly like saying "I know very few people who are 
>> homosexual". You are probably the sort of person whom others wouldn't 
>> confide in - or they'd expect antagonism from you if they did.
>
> Sorry...I forgot that anecdotal evidence is only valid if used as a pro-drug 
> argument.  I forgot that you can't even make a simple, commonly-held 
> assertion on here such as more people using legal drugs than illegal drugs. 
> Maybe I should waste 5 mins of my time doing some basic research to post 
> just for you to say my sources are not valid? 

What point are you trying to make?

As far as I understood, you were saying the prohibition works because 
more people take legal drugs than illegal ones.

That doesn't follow because when all these drugs were legal, less people 
still took them than the currently legal drugs.

"Ollie Clark"  wrote in message
news:slrnh3k6ei.2pt.usenet@greedy.zen175545...

> Anyone can use it, it's just not very convincing.

Doesn't say much for the pro-stoner lot when the only argument they seem to
have is based around prohibition.  All pure anecdotal evidence.  Not very
convincing, eh?

*smirk*

"Ollie Clark"  wrote in message 
news:slrnh3k6ei.2pt.usenet@greedy.zen175545...

> Anyone can use it, it's just not very convincing.

Doesn't say much for the pro-stoner lot when the only argument they seem to 
have is based around prohibition.  All pure anecdotal evidence.  Not very 
convincing, eh?

*smirk*

Aidy wrote:
> "Ollie Clark"  wrote in message 
> news:slrnh3k6ei.2pt.usenet@greedy.zen175545...
>
>> Anyone can use it, it's just not very convincing.
>
> Doesn't say much for the pro-stoner lot when the only argument they seem to 
> have is based around prohibition.  All pure anecdotal evidence.  Not very 
> convincing, eh?

Sorry, did you have a point?

Anecdotal evidence isn't convincing. On any side of any debate.

> BTW, if you think I'm a "pro-stoner" you're mistaken. I think legalising
> it would cause less harm but I wouldn't encourage anyone to take it. I
> think cigarettes should be legal too but I certainly wouldn't encourage
> anyone to smoke.

Indeed, I believe this is a major factor behind the UKs increasingly
hysterical shriek on cannabis ... and it's something which can only
work in FAVOUR of liberalisation ... the fact that there are people
who opposed prohibition, who clearly are not opposed for their *own*
interests. Whereas you will never find the converse (a drug-user who
is in favour of prohibition).

It's easy for Aidy to dismiss the anti-prohibition argument when it
appears to be peddled by smack heads. But when police, politicians and
economists make the same case, it weakens his opposition ...

Jethro wrote:
>
>> BTW, if you think I'm a "pro-stoner" you're mistaken. I think legalising
>> it would cause less harm but I wouldn't encourage anyone to take it. I
>> think cigarettes should be legal too but I certainly wouldn't encourage
>> anyone to smoke.
>
> Indeed, I believe this is a major factor behind the UKs increasingly
> hysterical shriek on cannabis ... and it's something which can only
> work in FAVOUR of liberalisation ... the fact that there are people
> who opposed prohibition, who clearly are not opposed for their *own*
> interests. Whereas you will never find the converse (a drug-user who
> is in favour of prohibition).

Indeed. In fact it seems like the only people who are in favour of 
prohibition are rabid anti-drug warriors who ignore any facts. It's
like some sort of religion. To be fair to them, there has been a few 
decades of anti-drug propaganda so it's understandable that the 
uncritical mind will swallow it.

I used to be strongly in favour of drug prohibition. Then I read some 
scientific studies.

> It's easy for Aidy to dismiss the anti-prohibition argument when it
> appears to be peddled by smack heads. But when police, politicians and
> economists make the same case, it weakens his opposition ...

Oi, don't lump me in with police, politicians and economists! ;-)

On 2009-06-18, Ollie Clark  wrote:

> I used to be strongly in favour of drug prohibition. Then I read some 
> scientific studies.

All people have to do is look at Portugal.

Of course, the fascists then switch arguments to say that Portugal is not
representative.

-- 
                    http://hyperangry.blogspot.com/
       [email me, if you must, at huge {at} huge (dot) org <dot> uk]

"Aidy"  wrote in message 
news:FoCdnYkl3fcrgKfXnZ2dnUVZ8i-dnZ2d@bt.com...
> "Ollie Clark"  wrote in message 
> news:slrnh3k6ei.2pt.usenet@greedy.zen175545...
>
>> Anyone can use it, it's just not very convincing.
>
> Doesn't say much for the pro-stoner lot when the only argument they seem 
> to have is based around prohibition.  All pure anecdotal evidence.  Not 
> very convincing, eh?
>
> *smirk*
>
You're such a lightweight, the only issue with currently illicit drug crime 
is prohibition. Criminalise a medical problem and it becomes more than a 
medical problem. Doesn't say much for the Pro-crime lot when the only 
argument they have is based on demonic fantasy, vindictive persecution and 
hatered.

What exactly is your point?

Prohibition does absolutely nothing but make matters much worse than they 
would otherwise be and as much as it pains you there is plenty real evidence 
to support that. The weight of numbers in support of the fact prohibition is 
a failure simply overwhelms your pathetic ramblings. That you have no 
interest in those facts or statistics says a great deal, all you're doing is 
trolling for the sake of pointless argument.

Just admit you're a hater Aidy.

"Aidy"  wrote in message 
news:7omdneLH4rCNU6XXnZ2dnUVZ8qKdnZ2d@bt.com...
> "JohnR"  wrote in message 
> news:4a38c8d2$0$22523$336e962@unlimited.newshosting.com...
>
>> Just admit you are a hater
>
> Is it taking one to know one?  You seem quite full of vitriol yourself, 
> much more so than I.  Maybe you should have a "spliff" and "chill out"?
>
Perhaps I should, that you feel superior, self righteous and smug is your 
problem.

What I want to know is why you think persecuting me for making that decision 
and seeking to punish me is wise.

"JohnR"  wrote in message 
news:4a3a6258$0$5952$796edc2@unlimited.newshosting.com...
> What I want to know is why you think persecuting me for making that 
> decision and seeking to punish me is wise.

Because you are funding organised crime and accelerating the general decline 
of society.

Aidy wrote:
> "JohnR"  wrote in message 
> news:4a3a6258$0$5952$796edc2@unlimited.newshosting.com...
>> What I want to know is why you think persecuting me for making that 
>> decision and seeking to punish me is wise.
>
> Because you are funding organised crime 

Not necessarily. He could grow it himself or buy it off someone who grows 
it themself.

If it were legal then he could buy it from a legal shop who bought it 
off a legal company.

Prohibition means that if you do want to buy cannabis, you are forced to 
try to find someone who grows it on a small scale, or buy it from 
organised criminals. Prohibition /helps/ organised crime. Surely that's 
a bad thing? 

> and accelerating the general decline 
> of society. 

In what way?

Does someone having a beer accelerate the "general decline of society" 
as well?

I understand that you don't like illegal drugs. I'm not sure if you like 
legal ones or not.

I'm just not sure why you care whether other people use them.

If they steal to get money for drugs, lock them up for stealing. If they 
mug someone to get money for drugs, lock them up for mugging. If they 
shoot someone for selling drugs on their patch, lock them up for murder. 

If they buy some drugs with money they've legally earned, who cares? If 
they set up shop to sell drugs to willing people, who cares?

"Ollie Clark"  wrote in message 
news:slrnh3kr3h.5kv.usenet@greedy.zen175545...
> Not necessarily. He could grow it himself or buy it off someone who grows
> it themself.

*yawn*

> Prohibition means ....

As I said to Cynic, your deluded beliefs are irrelevant. He posted a 
question and I gave him the answer.

> Does someone having a beer accelerate the "general decline of society"
> as well?

Depends. Did you buy it from a shop or from someone who is using the money 
to fund serious and violent crimes?

> If they steal to get money for drugs, lock them up for stealing.

I suppose the best response to asinine comments must come from an ass;

"I would sooner have had no tail and no flies"

Aidy wrote:
> "Ollie Clark"  wrote in message 
> news:slrnh3kr3h.5kv.usenet@greedy.zen175545...
>> Not necessarily. He could grow it himself or buy it off someone who grows
>> it themself.
>
> *yawn*

No comment so I guess you agree.

>> Prohibition means ....
>
> As I said to Cynic, your deluded beliefs are irrelevant. He posted a 
> question and I gave him the answer.
>
>> Does someone having a beer accelerate the "general decline of society"
>> as well?
>
> Depends. Did you buy it from a shop or from someone who is using the money 
> to fund serious and violent crimes?

I'd probably buy my beer from a small local brewery. If I wanted cannabis, 
I'd probably grow some myself or buy it off someone who grew it.

Does my beer accelerate the "general decline of society"? Does the 
cannabis?

>> If they steal to get money for drugs, lock them up for stealing.
>
> I suppose the best response to asinine comments must come from an ass;

You're going to have to explain why you think it's asinine. As you've 
pointed out, my comprehension of you isn't that good.

"Ollie Clark"  wrote in message 
news:slrnh3lk5f.6dd.usenet@greedy.zen175545...

> I'd probably buy my beer from a small local brewery. If I wanted cannabis,
> I'd probably grow some myself or buy it off someone who grew it.
>
> Does my beer accelerate the "general decline of society"? Does the
> cannabis?

When you have to focus on the exceptions to prove your argument surely you 
know you've failed?

>>> If they steal to get money for drugs, lock them up for stealing.
>>
>> I suppose the best response to asinine comments must come from an ass;
>
> You're going to have to explain why you think it's asinine. As you've
> pointed out, my comprehension of you isn't that good.

Sorry, I forgot you were a stoner so shouldn't have quoted from a book as 
you've probably never read one.  When the donkey asked why he had a tail he 
was told that it was to swat away flies.  He replied that he'd rather have 
no tail and no flies.  In other words, rather than having the problem and 
the solution would it not be better to just not have the problem?  So rather 
than having people steal money for drugs then locking them up would it not 
be better if they just never stole in the first place?

Aidy wrote:
>
> Sorry, I forgot you were a stoner so shouldn't have quoted from a book as 
> you've probably never read one.

I've already said I wouldn't recommend people use cannabis. That extends 
to myself.

I thought it was "stoners" who were meant to have the bad memory.

You seem to incapable of reading or comprehending simple facts so there's 
no point discussing anything with you.

*plonk*

"Ollie Clark"  wrote in message 
news:slrnh3vavf.34r.usenet@greedy.zen175545...

> *plonk*

That's right little man, run away.

"Aidy"  wrote in message 
news:Q8adnUjTnbryAN3XnZ2dnUVZ8lCdnZ2d@bt.com...
> "Ollie Clark"  wrote in message 
> news:slrnh3vavf.34r.usenet@greedy.zen175545...
>
>> *plonk*
>
> That's right little man, run away.
>
Aidy you're such a knobhead, that reply paints the ideal picture of just 
what a cock you are. He just strolled away shaking his head as so many 
others do after realising you're just a childish troll.

"JohnR"  wrote in message 
news:4a40bc66$0$19763$366e932@unlimited.newshosting.com...

> Aidy you're such a knobhead, that reply paints the ideal picture of just 
> what a cock you are. He just strolled away shaking his head as so many 
> others do after realising you're just a childish troll.

So "plonk" me too.

JohnR wrote:
>
> "Aidy"  wrote in message 
> news:Q8adnUjTnbryAN3XnZ2dnUVZ8lCdnZ2d@bt.com...
>> "Ollie Clark"  wrote in message 
>> news:slrnh3vavf.34r.usenet@greedy.zen175545...
>>
>>> *plonk*
>>
>> That's right little man, run away.
>>
> Aidy you're such a knobhead, that reply paints the ideal picture of just 
> what a cock you are. He just strolled away shaking his head as so many 
> others do after realising you're just a childish troll. 

There's just no point in discussing anything with someone who reads:

"I wouldn't recommend anyone takes cannabis." and understands from that:

"I am a stoner."

He's either a troll or has some serious mental problems. Either way it's 
like arguing with a two year old.

"Ollie Clark"  wrote in message 
news:slrnh41lud.i2h.usenet@greedy.zen175545...
> JohnR wrote:
>>
>> "Aidy"  wrote in message
>> news:Q8adnUjTnbryAN3XnZ2dnUVZ8lCdnZ2d@bt.com...
>>> "Ollie Clark"  wrote in message
>>> news:slrnh3vavf.34r.usenet@greedy.zen175545...
>>>
>>>> *plonk*
>>>
>>> That's right little man, run away.
>>>
>> Aidy you're such a knobhead, that reply paints the ideal picture of just
>> what a cock you are. He just strolled away shaking his head as so many
>> others do after realising you're just a childish troll.
>
> There's just no point in discussing anything with someone who reads:
>
> "I wouldn't recommend anyone takes cannabis." and understands from that:
>
> "I am a stoner."
>
> He's either a troll or has some serious mental problems. Either way it's
> like arguing with a two year old.
>
Indeed.