In article  "Aidy"  writes:

>What evidence do you have that drugs would be cheaper if legal?

The fact that legal pharmaceutical cocine is about 100 times cheaper than
illegal cocaine.  The fact that legal pharmaceutical heroin is about 100 times
cheaper than illegal heroin.

>Maybe more heroin addicts commit crime to find their habit because they are 
>more likely to be of low moral fibre in the first place?  And less able to 
>hold down a proper, steady job? 

Contradicted by trials in Germany where they gave heroin addicts access to
pharmaceutical heroin at cost and clean needles at cost and a safe place to
inject, and a significant proportion were able to hold down jobs while being
addicts.

And the ones who didn't get jobs cost the government far less than those on
the street.

-Pete Zakel
 (phz@seeheader.nospam)

"The country couldn't run without prohibition.  That is the industrial fact."

					-Henry Ford

"Pete nospam Zakel"  wrote in message 
news:4a41245b$1@news.cadence.com...

> The fact that legal pharmaceutical cocine is about 100 times cheaper than
> illegal cocaine.  The fact that legal pharmaceutical heroin is about 100 
> times
> cheaper than illegal heroin.

I've already thrashed this out at length with Cynic.  You'll just have to 
trust me that I'm right.

> Contradicted by trials in Germany where they gave heroin addicts access to
> pharmaceutical heroin at cost and clean needles at cost and a safe place 
> to
> inject, and a significant proportion were able to hold down jobs while 
> being
> addicts.

Selling the Big Issue is not a job.

> And the ones who didn't get jobs cost the government far less than those 
> on
> the street.

And the people not addicted to smack in the first place?  How much were they 
costing?

On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 09:47:41 +0100, "Aidy" 
wrote:

>> Contradicted by trials in Germany where they gave heroin addicts access to
>> pharmaceutical heroin at cost and clean needles at cost and a safe place 
>> to
>> inject, and a significant proportion were able to hold down jobs while 
>> being
>> addicts.
>
>Selling the Big Issue is not a job.

A comment that shows just how hopelessly misinformed you are.

-- 
Cynic

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/sussex/8116146.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8114618.stm

First off it's funny how people only care when attractive people die :)

But I digress...

In the many "all drugs should be legal" threads on here I have stipulated to 
some derision that if one drug is made legal then new drugs will simply come 
along to take their place as for many it is the "illegal" aspect that has 
the draw.

So "don't make any drugs illegal" is the solution, and the above case 
reflects all the issues here quite well.  You can't simply make all things 
legal....things have to be tested so that the dangers are known and 
understood to the people taking them.  Here we have a perfect example of 
someone taking a substance that probably won't have killed her, but mixed 
with alcohol had an affect I'm sure she wasn't aware of.

You can't suggest that if all drugs are legal all issues are known, because 
if all drugs are legal then any "new" substance can go instantly "to market" 
before the possible dangers are known and communicated.

If a drug's side affects etc are known to someone and that someone still 
chooses to take it that's a different matter - you'll never stop harmful 
substances and you'll never stop people taking things that might kill them. 
But if "all is legal" then what is to stop these drugs going from the lab to 
the people with nothing being known about them?  You could say that it is 
still up to the person involved if they want to ingest an unknown substance 
without knowing the dangers...however again getting back to something I said 
on another thread; dangerous substances *intended* for the public are often 
dyed or odorised or have a taste added so they can't be taken unawares.  If 
all drugs are legal then there is a chance that versions of these drugs in 
their "pure" form (such as this one) would be used instead of "shop bought" 
tainted versions.  You could argue further that if someone still wants to 
take an unknown substance knowing the above then let them....sure, everyone 
is free to make their own choices.  But should a civilised society actually 
*promote* such behaviour?  Where we make things and give them to the public 
without telling them it could kill them or without caring that it might?  It 
has been done in the past for sure, and history has always looked back very 
harshly.

To sum up...making *current* "recreational drugs" legal won't work as new 
ones will come along to take their place.  You can't make "all drugs" legal 
as new ones that are potentially lethal could come along and be given to the 
public with no knowledge of their direct affects or their side affects. 
People can always exercise free choice, you'll never stop that, you'll never 
stop people taking substances with very little knowledge of what they're 
taking.  It just shouldn't be promoted or encouraged by any civilised 
society.

On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 12:51:58 +0100, "Aidy" 
wrote:

>To sum up...making *current* "recreational drugs" legal won't work as new 
>ones will come along to take their place.  You can't make "all drugs" legal 
>as new ones that are potentially lethal could come along and be given to the 
>public with no knowledge of their direct affects or their side affects. 
>People can always exercise free choice, you'll never stop that, you'll never 
>stop people taking substances with very little knowledge of what they're 
>taking.  It just shouldn't be promoted or encouraged by any civilised 
>society.

You can have the same regulations as are true of *any* commodity that
is designed to be imbibed.

-- 
Cynic

I saw the thread title, and thought they were going to ban alcohol.

On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 12:51:58 +0100, "Aidy" 
wrote:

>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/sussex/8116146.stm
>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8114618.stm
>
>First off it's funny how people only care when attractive people die :)
>
>But I digress...
>
>In the many "all drugs should be legal" threads on here I have stipulated to 
>some derision that if one drug is made legal then new drugs will simply come 
>along to take their place as for many it is the "illegal" aspect that has 
>the draw.

As an addition to my other followup, you no doubt are aware that the
drug in question is not sold as a drug, but is sold as a cleaning
product.  It is then misused.

If you propose banning all substances that are able to be misused as a
drug, it would have some quite damaging consequences.  We would need
to ban *everything* that could produce a "high" or has a mind-altering
effect.  Many common solvents, including petrol, can and have been
misused to "get high".  There have been several people killed due to
deliberately inhaling petrol fumes (and even drinking the stuff).

I think you would agree that banning the sale and production of petrol
would cause a heck of a lot more problems than it solved.  Mind you,
the same is true of *all* drug prohibition, so you might get your way
and see a "war on petrol" being waged some time in the future.

Incidentally, the "drug" under discussion is a substance that *very*
few people were aware of yesterday.  It is described in the news
reports in terms that will make it very attractive for a sizeable
portion of the population - especially teenagers.  I note that Sky
News even showed a demonstration of how to order this presently legal
substance in bulk from a web site - including the prices (IIRC £17.50
per litre - which is many thousands of "doses").  I have no doubt that
sales of the substance - which is typically advertised as a cleaning
product for the removal of graffiti and similar - will have reached an
all-time high by now, and by the end of the coming weekend there will
be many thousands of teens who will have tried the drug who otherwise
would never have known it existed.

Completely irresponsible reporting IMO.

-- 
Cynic

"Cynic"  wrote in message 
news:c4644599rloufg17ajui0vhae79gmrtcht@4ax.com...

> As an addition to my other followup, you no doubt are aware that the
> drug in question is not sold as a drug, but is sold as a cleaning
> product.  It is then misused.

As many drugs are.

> If you propose banning all substances that are able to be misused as a
> drug, it would have some quite damaging consequences.  We would need
> to ban *everything* that could produce a "high" or has a mind-altering
> effect.  Many common solvents, including petrol, can and have been
> misused to "get high".  There have been several people killed due to
> deliberately inhaling petrol fumes (and even drinking the stuff).

And they can be tampered with to at least let people know they are not for 
human consumption.  If you smelled a bottle of water, turps, bleach and 
petrol you'd be under no allusions which was to be consumed.

As much as morphine isn't "banned" it is controlled.  Solvents are 
controlled but not in any particularly robust way.

> I think you would agree that banning the sale and production of petrol
> would cause a heck of a lot more problems than it solved.

If you want to sniff petrol or even sniff glue then be my guest.  You 
obviously didn't fully absorb the points in my post.

> Completely irresponsible reporting IMO.

Tut tut....not looking to control the free press are you?

"Jethro"  wrote in message 
news:b4774f92-c5df-4092-bcff-9e927d2fd827@e20g2000vbc.googlegroups.com...
>I saw the thread title, and thought they were going to ban alcohol.

That's why it put "party drug" in quotes.  If it was talking about alcohol 
the title would be

Call for swift PARRRRRTAAAAAAAAYYYYY drug ban.

"Aidy"  wrote in message 
news:CpidnfOGes_Djt_XnZ2dnUVZ8m6dnZ2d@bt.com...
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/sussex/8116146.stm
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8114618.stm
>
> First off it's funny how people only care when attractive people die :)
>
> But I digress...
>
> In the many "all drugs should be legal" threads on here I have stipulated 
> to some derision that if one drug is made legal then new drugs will simply 
> come along to take their place as for many it is the "illegal" aspect that 
> has the draw.
>
> So "don't make any drugs illegal" is the solution, and the above case 
> reflects all the issues here quite well.  You can't simply make all things 
> legal....things have to be tested so that the dangers are known and 
> understood to the people taking them.  Here we have a perfect example of 
> someone taking a substance that probably won't have killed her, but mixed 
> with alcohol had an affect I'm sure she wasn't aware of.
>
> You can't suggest that if all drugs are legal all issues are known, 
> because if all drugs are legal then any "new" substance can go instantly 
> "to market" before the possible dangers are known and communicated.
>
> If a drug's side affects etc are known to someone and that someone still 
> chooses to take it that's a different matter - you'll never stop harmful 
> substances and you'll never stop people taking things that might kill 
> them. But if "all is legal" then what is to stop these drugs going from 
> the lab to the people with nothing being known about them?  You could say 
> that it is still up to the person involved if they want to ingest an 
> unknown substance without knowing the dangers...however again getting back 
> to something I said on another thread; dangerous substances *intended* for 
> the public are often dyed or odorised or have a taste added so they can't 
> be taken unawares.  If all drugs are legal then there is a chance that 
> versions of these drugs in their "pure" form (such as this one) would be 
> used instead of "shop bought" tainted versions.  You could argue further 
> that if someone still wants to take an unknown substance knowing the above 
> then let them....sure, everyone is free to make their own choices.  But 
> should a civilised society actually *promote* such behaviour?  Where we 
> make things and give them to the public without telling them it could kill 
> them or without caring that it might?  It has been done in the past for 
> sure, and history has always looked back very harshly.
>
> To sum up...making *current* "recreational drugs" legal won't work as new 
> ones will come along to take their place.  You can't make "all drugs" 
> legal as new ones that are potentially lethal could come along and be 
> given to the public with no knowledge of their direct affects or their 
> side affects. People can always exercise free choice, you'll never stop 
> that, you'll never stop people taking substances with very little 
> knowledge of what they're taking.  It just shouldn't be promoted or 
> encouraged by any civilised society.
>
>
What new drug Aidy?
What promotion and encouragement?

Go ahead make it illegal - that'll get it all the promotion and 
encouragement it could ever need to become a much greater problem than the 
insignificant one it is now.

On 24 June, 13:33, Cynic  wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 12:51:58 퍝, "Aidy" 
> wrote:
>
> >http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/sussex/8116146.stm
> >http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8114618.stm
>
> >First off it's funny how people only care when attractive people die :)
>
> >But I digress...
>
> >In the many "all drugs should be legal" threads on here I have stipulated to
> >some derision that if one drug is made legal then new drugs will simply come
> >along to take their place as for many it is the "illegal" aspect that has
> >the draw.
>
> As an addition to my other followup, you no doubt are aware that the
> drug in question is not sold as a drug, but is sold as a cleaning
> product.  It is then misused.
>
> If you propose banning all substances that are able to be misused as a
> drug, it would have some quite damaging consequences.  We would need
> to ban *everything* that could produce a "high" or has a mind-altering
> effect.  Many common solvents, including petrol, can and have been
> misused to "get high".  There have been several people killed due to
> deliberately inhaling petrol fumes (and even drinking the stuff).
>
> I think you would agree that banning the sale and production of petrol
> would cause a heck of a lot more problems than it solved.  Mind you,
> the same is true of *all* drug prohibition, so you might get your way
> and see a "war on petrol" being waged some time in the future.
>
> Incidentally, the "drug" under discussion is a substance that *very*
> few people were aware of yesterday.  It is described in the news
> reports in terms that will make it very attractive for a sizeable
> portion of the population - especially teenagers.  I note that Sky
> News even showed a demonstration of how to order this presently legal
> substance in bulk from a web site - including the prices (IIRC £17.50
> per litre - which is many thousands of "doses").  I have no doubt that
> sales of the substance - which is typically advertised as a cleaning
> product for the removal of graffiti and similar - will have reached an
> all-time high by now, and by the end of the coming weekend there will
> be many thousands of teens who will have tried the drug who otherwise
> would never have known it existed.
>
> Completely irresponsible reporting IMO.
>
> --
> Cynic

I think you'll find it hit the spot exactly. Now there will loads of
outraged parents (think of the children) who can insist their MP "does
something" which will mean the police and home office have another
excuse to ask Aidy to pay more tax.

Trebles all round !

"Cynic"  wrote in message 
news:01544558plbd0o3f16h6cuvv714peq07eh@4ax.com...

> You can have the same regulations as are true of *any* commodity that
> is designed to be imbibed.

We usually do and drugs should be no different.  You can go to a supermarket 
and buy any crisps you want safe in the knowledge that there isn't a certain 
flavour that will kill you if you eat it but the g'ment don't know nor care 
to tell you.  Even items with nut products or contamination are now 
identified for those with nut allergies (and before you ask....yes, putting 
"warning contains nuts" on a bag of nuts is just stupid).  So why the g'ment 
should ignore this and say "unless it's for recreational purposes...then we 
don't care what you eat, even if it kills you, in fact we'll even sell it to 
you.  Not only do we not know if it will kill you we have no knowledge on 
what it will do to your health, your mental health or if it is addictive".

"Aidy"  wrote in message 
news:v4ydnS6Ka_Aevd_XnZ2dnUVZ8mydnZ2d@bt.com...
> "Cynic"  wrote in message

>> If you propose banning all substances that are able to be misused as a
>> drug, it would have some quite damaging consequences.  We would need
>> to ban *everything* that could produce a "high" or has a mind-altering
>> effect.  Many common solvents, including petrol, can and have been
>> misused to "get high".  There have been several people killed due to
>> deliberately inhaling petrol fumes (and even drinking the stuff).

And getting back to the original point...the dangers of those items are 
known to the manufacturers and the public and are well communicated.  You 
would get no such controls over "straight to market" drugs.

"JohnR"  wrote in message 
news:4a42212d$0$11263$156eb02@unlimited.newshosting.com...

> What new drug Aidy?
> What promotion and encouragement?
>
> Go ahead make it illegal - that'll get it all the promotion and 
> encouragement it could ever need to become a much greater problem than the 
> insignificant one it is now.

I'm not talking about this specifically, I'm using this example to highlight 
an on-going issue.  This is just one case...in a few months there will be 
something else and so on.  Some drugs will be the abuse of existing 
chemicals, some will be new strains of existing drugs, some will be newly 
synthesised.

On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 13:48:02 +0100, "Aidy" 
wrote:

>> Completely irresponsible reporting IMO.

>Tut tut....not looking to control the free press are you?

Just as I am against prohibition but am *not* against regulation, so
too am I against censorship but *not* against control of the press.

-- 
Cynic

"Aidy"  wrote in message 
news:kNydneOYw7WEud_XnZ2dnUVZ8qOdnZ2d@bt.com...
> "JohnR"  wrote in message 
> news:4a42212d$0$11263$156eb02@unlimited.newshosting.com...
>
>> What new drug Aidy?
>> What promotion and encouragement?
>>
>> Go ahead make it illegal - that'll get it all the promotion and 
>> encouragement it could ever need to become a much greater problem than 
>> the insignificant one it is now.
>
> I'm not talking about this specifically, I'm using this example to 
> highlight an on-going issue.  This is just one case...in a few months 
> there will be something else and so on.  Some drugs will be the abuse of 
> existing chemicals, some will be new strains of existing drugs, some will 
> be newly synthesised.
>
>
Strangulate the supply of much more popular and safer (or certainly would be 
in a legally regulated environment) drugs and demand will look for whatever 
else is available. I know you can't accept it but these sorts of problems 
with industrial chemicals being used as a substitute for traditional 
recreational drugs are a direct result of prohibition.

On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 13:56:18 +0100, "Aidy" 
wrote:

>> You can have the same regulations as are true of *any* commodity that
>> is designed to be imbibed.

>We usually do and drugs should be no different.

And nor would they be - *if* they were sold legally.  They would be
subject to the same regulations as anything else - complete with
government health warnings.

>  You can go to a supermarket 
>and buy any crisps you want safe in the knowledge that there isn't a certain 
>flavour that will kill you if you eat it but the g'ment don't know nor care 
>to tell you.  Even items with nut products or contamination are now 
>identified for those with nut allergies (and before you ask....yes, putting 
>"warning contains nuts" on a bag of nuts is just stupid).  So why the g'ment 
>should ignore this and say "unless it's for recreational purposes...then we 
>don't care what you eat, even if it kills you, in fact we'll even sell it to 
>you.  Not only do we not know if it will kill you we have no knowledge on 
>what it will do to your health, your mental health or if it is addictive". 

Peanuts may be sold perfectly legally even though they are deadly to
some people.  Cigarrettes are sold perfectly legally even though they
are extremely addictive and damage the health of people who use them.
Alcohol is sold even though it has a high probability of causing
people who use it to indulge in highly dangerous and/or antisocial
acts and carries a high risk of causing death.  Even fatty and sugary
foods have well known health risks for people who eat an excessive
amount - yet there is no restriction on their sale.

-- 
Cynic

On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 13:58:02 +0100, "Aidy" 
wrote:

>>> If you propose banning all substances that are able to be misused as a
>>> drug, it would have some quite damaging consequences.  We would need
>>> to ban *everything* that could produce a "high" or has a mind-altering
>>> effect.  Many common solvents, including petrol, can and have been
>>> misused to "get high".  There have been several people killed due to
>>> deliberately inhaling petrol fumes (and even drinking the stuff).

>And getting back to the original point...the dangers of those items are 
>known to the manufacturers and the public and are well communicated.  You 
>would get no such controls over "straight to market" drugs. 

If you prohibit a drug, then it will *only ever* be sold illegally
from an uncontrolled source, with no labels or health warnings.

If the drug is not illegal, then it will be sold in normal retail
outlets and will carry all the necessary quality assurances and health
warnings.

-- 
Cynic

Aidy wrote:
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/sussex/8116146.stm
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8114618.stm
> 
> First off it's funny how people only care when attractive people die :)
> 
> But I digress...
> 
> In the many "all drugs should be legal" threads on here I have stipulated to 
> some derision that if one drug is made legal then new drugs will simply come 
> along to take their place 

I wonder what the guvmint will do when people realise that 50% of wild 
plants growing at the roadside can be used to get stoned on.

"Aidy"  wrote in message 
news:Ae6dnUtefbBHv9_XnZ2dnUVZ8oadnZ2d@bt.com...
> "Aidy"  wrote in message 
> news:v4ydnS6Ka_Aevd_XnZ2dnUVZ8mydnZ2d@bt.com...
>> "Cynic"  wrote in message
>
>>> If you propose banning all substances that are able to be misused as a
>>> drug, it would have some quite damaging consequences.  We would need
>>> to ban *everything* that could produce a "high" or has a mind-altering
>>> effect.  Many common solvents, including petrol, can and have been
>>> misused to "get high".  There have been several people killed due to
>>> deliberately inhaling petrol fumes (and even drinking the stuff).
>
> And getting back to the original point...the dangers of those items are 
> known to the manufacturers and the public and are well communicated.  You 
> would get no such controls over "straight to market" drugs.
>
No they arent, the communication is well made in regard to the environment 
they are intended for use.

There is little proper information and certainly no communication made 
available about the effects of using industrial solvents as substitutes for 
currently illicit recreational drugs. Make no mistake the use of these 
chemicals is in large part a result of the restrictions and criminal 
sanction placed on some drugs by prohibition.

"Gerry"  wrote in message 
news:h1t8r8$h31$1@aioe.org...
> Aidy wrote:
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/sussex/8116146.stm
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8114618.stm
>>
>> First off it's funny how people only care when attractive people die :)
>>
>> But I digress...
>>
>> In the many "all drugs should be legal" threads on here I have stipulated 
>> to some derision that if one drug is made legal then new drugs will 
>> simply come along to take their place
>
> I wonder what the guvmint will do when people realise that 50% of wild 
> plants growing at the roadside can be used to get stoned on.
>
Make the roads wider. :)

Cynic wrote:

> 
> If the drug is not illegal, then it will be sold in normal retail
> outlets and will carry all the necessary quality assurances and health
> warnings.
> 

You haven't examined many packets of Paracetamol lately have you? Freely 
available over the counter it is the drug of choice for many suicides.

"Gerry"  wrote in message 
news:h1t9qv$i3p$1@aioe.org...
> Cynic wrote:
>
>>
>> If the drug is not illegal, then it will be sold in normal retail
>> outlets and will carry all the necessary quality assurances and health
>> warnings.
>>
>
> You haven't examined many packets of Paracetamol lately have you? Freely 
> available over the counter it is the drug of choice for many suicides.
>
It has all the health warnings on the packet it could reasonably carry, if 
someone wants to commit suicide that isn't paracetamols fault. Gravity is 
all around us, completely free and is also a choice for many suicides.

On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 14:30:56 +0100, Gerry 
wrote:
 
>> If the drug is not illegal, then it will be sold in normal retail
>> outlets and will carry all the necessary quality assurances and health
>> warnings.

>You haven't examined many packets of Paracetamol lately have you? Freely 
>available over the counter it is the drug of choice for many suicides.

So?  Using a product to commit suicide is a completely different thing
to using a product to have (what you consider to be) fun.

You surely would not consider banning everything that could be used to
commit suicide?

Paracetamol is in any case a very poor method of committing suicide,
because it results in a painful and drawn-out death.  Most suicides
are looking for a quick and painless demise.

-- 
Cynic

Cynic wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 14:30:56 +0100, Gerry 
> wrote:
>  
>>> If the drug is not illegal, then it will be sold in normal retail
>>> outlets and will carry all the necessary quality assurances and health
>>> warnings.
> 
>> You haven't examined many packets of Paracetamol lately have you? Freely 
>> available over the counter it is the drug of choice for many suicides.
> 
> So?  Using a product to commit suicide is a completely different thing
> to using a product to have (what you consider to be) fun.
> 
> You surely would not consider banning everything that could be used to
> commit suicide?
> 
> Paracetamol is in any case a very poor method of committing suicide,
> because it results in a painful and drawn-out death.  Most suicides
> are looking for a quick and painless demise.
> 

	All they have to do for that is use enough alcohol fast enough. 
Several people in the USA manage to do that every year.
One of my pals tried it but gave himself away to a friend by moving
jewelry into the other person's apartment.  So that act of self
destruction was interrupted and he died in a few years of some
form of cancer.  But in the time he gained he sobered up and
reconciled with his family and even saved his father's life
before the cancer showed up.

	later
	bliss

In article  "Aidy"  writes:

>To sum up...making *current* "recreational drugs" legal won't work as new 
>ones will come along to take their place.

Which would be defacto legal.

>You can't make "all drugs" legal 
>as new ones that are potentially lethal could come along and be given to the 
>public with no knowledge of their direct affects or their side affects. 

And doing that should be illegal.

Just as I can't legally sell you drain cleaner and tell you it's snuff.

>People can always exercise free choice, you'll never stop that, you'll never 
>stop people taking substances with very little knowledge of what they're 
>taking.  It just shouldn't be promoted or encouraged by any civilised 
>society.

I'm not saying it should be promoted or encouraged.  I'm just saying that
people who take those substances shouldn't be arrested for it.

How many people who use alcohol actually have much knowledge about what
alcohol does to the body and mind?

-Pete Zakel
 (phz@seeheader.nospam)

"There is no time like the present for postponing what you ought to be doing."

"Cynic"  wrote in message 
news:t29445ddvojgc2bvotvcn16uv82fckd1kd@4ax.com...

> And nor would they be - *if* they were sold legally.

That's the thing...if under the same regulations as everything else most 
wouldn't be sold at all.

> Peanuts may be sold perfectly legally even though they are deadly to
> some people.

That's fine.  It's for people with but allergies to ensure what they eat 
won't kill them using the food guidelines to help.

> Cigarrettes are sold perfectly legally even though they
> are extremely addictive and damage the health of people who use them.

I think we all know that that is historic.  If someone "invented" cigarettes 
today the g'ment wouldn't allow them to be sold.  Two wrongs don't make a 
right.

> Alcohol is sold even though it has a high probability of causing
> people who use it to indulge in highly dangerous and/or antisocial
> acts and carries a high risk of causing death.

You over-exaggerate, and also the biggest risk is from licensed premesis who 
are actually breaking the law in what they do most of the time.  *shrug*

> Even fatty and sugary
> foods have well known health risks for people who eat an excessive
> amount - yet there is no restriction on their sale.

Because everyone knows the risks.  If you want to eat nothing but KFC, get 
fat and die I couldn't care less.

Again you are missing the point.  I'm not saying we have to eliminate all 
risk.  I'm saying that risks should be known and communicated and *then* 
people can make choices.  With blanket legislation permitting all things 
that process is not possible.

"Cynic"  wrote in message 
news:de94451uqptkb11tafbfv3fp1thtd4lhl6@4ax.com...

> If you prohibit a drug, then it will *only ever* be sold illegally
> from an uncontrolled source, with no labels or health warnings.

But will be less available, and the message will be sent out that the drug 
may well be harmful to you.  By legalising all straight-to-market drugs the 
g'ment is promoting, condoning and encouraging their use.  You'll never stop 
people taking what they want, but that doesn't mean the g'ment should 
encourage people to kill thesmelevs.

> If the drug is not illegal, then it will be sold in normal retail
> outlets and will carry all the necessary quality assurances and health
> warnings.

If it is straight to market then what warnings?  No-one knows the risks, 
no-one has done long-term studies.  Do you know how long it takes for drugs 
to get to market through the proper channels?

"Gerry"  wrote in message 
news:h1t9qv$i3p$1@aioe.org...

> Freely available over the counter it is the drug of choice for many people
> who want the attention of an attempted suicide.

IFYPFY.

"JohnR"  wrote in message 
news:4a422550$0$11264$156eb02@unlimited.newshosting.com...

> I know you can't accept it but these sorts of problems with industrial 
> chemicals being used as a substitute for traditional recreational drugs 
> are a direct result of prohibition.

So you're saying kids sniff glue because they can't get access to heroin and 
cocaine instead?  Wow...what a world we live in.  If only a bag of heroin 
was as cheap as a can of deodorant.....

"Gerry"  wrote in message 
news:h1t8r8$h31$1@aioe.org...

> I wonder what the guvmint will do when people realise that 50% of wild 
> plants growing at the roadside can be used to get stoned on.

Put up road tax?

"Aidy"  wrote in message 
news:meGdnR2eZYW5p97XnZ2dnUVZ8j6dnZ2d@bt.com...
> "JohnR"  wrote in message 
> news:4a422550$0$11264$156eb02@unlimited.newshosting.com...
>
>> I know you can't accept it but these sorts of problems with industrial 
>> chemicals being used as a substitute for traditional recreational drugs 
>> are a direct result of prohibition.
>
> So you're saying kids sniff glue because they can't get access to heroin 
> and cocaine instead?  Wow...what a world we live in.  If only a bag of 
> heroin was as cheap as a can of deodorant.....
>
What has heroin got to do with it? You just seem to pluck random elements, 
throw them together and try to form some strange analogy that makes you 
sound like you have a point. Kids will huff glue whether heroin is as cheap 
as a can of deodorant or not. The statement you made seems to make some big 
assumptions.

"Aidy"  wrote in message 
news:vuydnREGruOYpN7XnZ2dnUVZ8tydnZ2d@bt.com...
> "Cynic"  wrote in message 
> news:de94451uqptkb11tafbfv3fp1thtd4lhl6@4ax.com...
>
>> If you prohibit a drug, then it will *only ever* be sold illegally
>> from an uncontrolled source, with no labels or health warnings.
>
> But will be less available, and the message will be sent out that the drug 
> may well be harmful to you.  By legalising all straight-to-market drugs 
> the g'ment is promoting, condoning and encouraging their use.  You'll 
> never stop people taking what they want, but that doesn't mean the g'ment 
> should encourage people to kill thesmelevs.
>
Prohibition is easily the biggest killer of illicit drug users. Prohibition 
is *all* about a self righteous crusade against unapproved intoxicants and 
handing out vindictive punishment for those who dare to disobey. If you 
think it's about harm reduction in any way whatsoever you're more deluded 
than I can imagine.

>  With blanket legislation permitting all things
> that process is not possible.


Maybe this is why you always seem to get into endless arguments in
ukl.

In the UK, things are not "permitted" by legislation. They are
restricted. If there is no legislation surrouding an action or object,
it is not illegal.

"Jethro"  wrote in message 
news:c1cd59a0-b50e-4631-aca6-af6ef181ebd5@g6g2000vbr.googlegroups.com...
> In the UK, things are not "permitted" by legislation. They are
> restricted. If there is no legislation surrouding an action or object,
> it is not illegal.

So I chose my wording badly.  Who cares?  A routine policy of not 
legislating to control substances then.  Geez, you're spending too long 
reading cynic's posts.

"JohnR"  wrote in message 
news:4a4348e5$0$5483$b66e132@unlimited.newshosting.com...

> Prohibition is easily the biggest killer of illicit drug users.

And guns kill people....yes.  We've all read cynic's teachings.  It's just 
that some of us choose not to subscribe.

> Kids will huff glue whether heroin is as cheap as a can of deodorant or 
> not.

If heroin was legal do you believe that heroin would be legal to children? 
If heroin was legal and available to kids do you think kids would stop 
sniffing glue?  Sorry, I'm just trying to work out your point.  Are you 
saying that prohibition is bad, m'kay, so we should let everyone, even kids, 
take it so that they don't sniff glue instead?  Are you saying that if all 
drugs were legal no-one would abuse solvents because all people will use the 
hardest, most addictive drugs available to them?

Just what the hell *are* you trying to say?

On 24 June, 12:51, "Aidy"  wrote:
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/sussex/8116146.stmhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8114618.stm
>
> First off it's funny how people only care when attractive people die :)
>
> But I digress...
>
> In the many "all drugs should be legal" threads on here I have stipulated to
> some derision that if one drug is made legal then new drugs will simply come
> along to take their place as for many it is the "illegal" aspect that has
> the draw.

Not for me. I indulge in a number of recreational substances, none of
them illegal. I prefer to buy from a supplier who can safely print on
the packaging exactly what is in the product I'm about to consume, and
who doesn't mix it with concrete dust/talcum powder to try and save a
few pence. Here's a run down of some of the things I've tried:

- Caffeine. Powdered, pharmaceutical grade. Can be added to drinks or
snorted. MD50 is around the 10g mark, but realistically, half a gram
is ample.

- Salvia. Depending on its use and concentration it can either have a
hallucinogenic effect reported to be similar to LSD, or relaxing and
calming as cannibas is said to be.

- Kratom. Similar to cannabis, but with a hint of caffeine - relaxed
but energetic. Also a good pizza topping.

- BZP/TFMPP - reported to be similar to ecstasy. Usually results in
chatting to random friendly people and staying awake all night.

My current supplier has stopped using BZP since it became restricted
in the UK, so I'm also trying some of the alternatives they're using
instead, with mixed results.

> To sum up...making *current* "recreational drugs" legal won't work as new
> ones will come along to take their place.  You can't make "all drugs" legal
> as new ones that are potentially lethal could come along and be given to the
> public with no knowledge of their direct affects or their side affects.
> People can always exercise free choice, you'll never stop that, you'll never
> stop people taking substances with very little knowledge of what they're
> taking.  It just shouldn't be promoted or encouraged by any civilised
> society.

I'm not quite sure what your argument is here. You seem to be implying
that making a drug legal will cause people to seek out a different,
illegal drug. I seriously doubt that if people could get, say,
ecstasy, from a controlled source whereby they know exactly what is in
it, that they would shun it for some new drug that they don't know the
contents of.

Do you drink? Smoke? Drink coffee? All are drugs, all have an effect
on your mind. The fact that you consider some legal drugs unacceptable
shouldn't mean the rest of us have to miss out.

"Aidy"  wrote in message 
news:0L2dnZAb_Nc4zd7XnZ2dnUVZ8mmdnZ2d@bt.com...
>> Kids will huff glue whether heroin is as cheap as a can of deodorant or 
>> not.
>
> If heroin was legal do you believe that heroin would be legal to children? 
> If heroin was legal and available to kids do you think kids would stop 
> sniffing glue?  Sorry, I'm just trying to work out your point.  Are you 
> saying that prohibition is bad, m'kay, so we should let everyone, even 
> kids, take it so that they don't sniff glue instead?  Are you saying that 
> if all drugs were legal no-one would abuse solvents because all people 
> will use the hardest, most addictive drugs available to them?
>
> Just what the hell *are* you trying to say?
>
I'm saying prohibition and those who support it are stupid Aidy.

"JohnR"  wrote in message 
news:4a437a80$0$15358$326e972@unlimited.newshosting.com...
>
> "Aidy"  wrote in message 
> news:0L2dnZAb_Nc4zd7XnZ2dnUVZ8mmdnZ2d@bt.com...
>>> Kids will huff glue whether heroin is as cheap as a can of deodorant or 
>>> not.
>>
>> If heroin was legal do you believe that heroin would be legal to 
>> children? If heroin was legal and available to kids do you think kids 
>> would stop sniffing glue?  Sorry, I'm just trying to work out your point. 
>> Are you saying that prohibition is bad, m'kay, so we should let everyone, 
>> even kids, take it so that they don't sniff glue instead?  Are you saying 
>> that if all drugs were legal no-one would abuse solvents because all 
>> people will use the hardest, most addictive drugs available to them?
>>
>> Just what the hell *are* you trying to say?
>>
> I'm saying prohibition and those who support it are stupid Aidy.

But you said that prohibition meant that kids were sniffing glue...by 
implication that meant that if they could take heroin legally they 
would....by implication you think this is a *good* thing?  And *I'm* the 
stupid one?

"TimB"  wrote in message 
news:6b602988-7674-4d25-9830-189dbf7affbb@l2g2000vba.googlegroups.com...

> I prefer to buy from a supplier who can safely print on
> the packaging exactly what is in the product I'm about to consume

Well say goodbye to that when all drugs go straight to market as no-one will 
know what is in them, what their active ingedients are, what safe limits 
are, what they will react to or anything.

> Caffeine

I believe there are legal limits of how much caffeine a product can contain 
in the UK.  It's why those scenes of people "hyper" after a coffee on 
American shows are quite alien to use and why "ProPlus" is little more than 
a placebo.

> You seem to be implying that making a drug legal will cause people to
> seek out a different, illegal drug.

For some people, yes.  In fact I believe cynic himself posted that when 
cannabis was dropped a classification band that use went down.

> I seriously doubt that if people could get, say, ecstasy, from a 
> controlled source
> whereby they know exactly what is in it, that they would shun it for some 
> new
> drug that they don't know the contents of.

They have no qualms buying what they don't know the contents of as they do 
it now.  So if an "illegal version" promised a better effect who is to say 
they won't try it?  Again this is the point I'm trying to make....if you 
make one thing legal, something else just comes to fill the void.

> Do you drink? Smoke? Drink coffee?

I'm high on life :)

> The fact that you consider some legal drugs unacceptable shouldn't mean 
> the rest of us have to miss out.

It's nothing to do with what I want.  I'm just trying to explain to people 
why "make drugs legal" will never really work on a practical level.  I'm 
sure you enjoy the fact that nothing you buy from the supermarket that is 
intended for your consumption will kill you, and that if something *is* 
found to be harmful that it is pulled from the shelves.  You might not admit 
but....but I'm sure you do.

On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 15:45:23 +0100, "Aidy" 
wrote:


> I'm 
>sure you enjoy the fact that nothing you buy from the supermarket that is 
>intended for your consumption will kill you, and that if something *is* 
>found to be harmful that it is pulled from the shelves.  You might not admit 
>but....but I'm sure you do. 

I know a lot of supermarkets that sell tobacco and booze.

Svenne

On 2009-06-25, Svenne  wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 15:45:23 +0100, "Aidy" 
> wrote:
>
>
>> I'm 
>>sure you enjoy the fact that nothing you buy from the supermarket that is 
>>intended for your consumption will kill you,

Moron. Supermarkets sell vast amounts of stuff that will kill you.

>>and that if something *is* 
>>found to be harmful that it is pulled from the shelves.  You might not admit 
>>but....but I'm sure you do. 
>
> I know a lot of supermarkets that sell tobacco and booze.

Could you stop quoted Aidy's droolings? I find them offensively stupid.


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

In article  "Aidy"  writes:
>"TimB"  wrote in message 
>news:6b602988-7674-4d25-9830-189dbf7affbb@l2g2000vba.googlegroups.com...

>> I prefer to buy from a supplier who can safely print on
>> the packaging exactly what is in the product I'm about to consume

>Well say goodbye to that when all drugs go straight to market as no-one will 
>know what is in them, what their active ingedients are, what safe limits 
>are, what they will react to or anything.

Eh?  What the hell are you talking about.

If you buy drugs on the street they have no labeling at all, and you have no
idea what's in them.

If you buy drugs from a chemist they have a long list of active and inactive
ingredients and proper doses for various ages and many list possible side
effects and warnings about what sort of people should avoid taking them, etc.

At least that's true in the US.

Are you trying to tell me that packaged drugs in a UK chemist's shop have
absolutely no indication of contents, ingredients, dose, etc.?

Even packaged food here has a list of ingredients, nutrients, percentage of
saturated fat, etc.

>> Caffeine

>I believe there are legal limits of how much caffeine a product can contain 
>in the UK.  It's why those scenes of people "hyper" after a coffee on 
>American shows are quite alien to use and why "ProPlus" is little more than 
>a placebo.

You can't buy No-Doz or other caffeine pills in the UK?

>It's nothing to do with what I want.  I'm just trying to explain to people 
>why "make drugs legal" will never really work on a practical level.

And you are failing miserably.

-Pete Zakel
 (phz@seeheader.nospam)

"If, instead of 95 percent of all inmates in New York being black and
 Hispanic, half were white, somebody long ago would have said, `What are you
 doing?  You can't lock up the youth of America.'"

			-Dr. Robert Newman of Beth Israel, commenting
			 on the racism of the US war on drugs

On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 09:41:12 +0100, "Aidy" 
wrote:

>Again you are missing the point.  I'm not saying we have to eliminate all 
>risk.  I'm saying that risks should be known and communicated and *then* 
>people can make choices.  With blanket legislation permitting all things 
>that process is not possible.

That is exactly the *opposite* of reality!

When something is legal and regulated, the risks can be clearly
quantified and communicated, and advice on how to reduce the risk may
be given.

When it is an illegal substance, you firstly cannot easily quantify
the risks because you have no idea of the strength or purity of the
substance, and also because giving out advice on safe use is seen as
encouraging illegal activity and so rarely is such advice given out.

With legal substances, the manufacturers have an interest in making
the product safer, and regulations that demand certain safety features
can be incorporated.  There is no such incentive to the producers of
illicit substances, and of course no possibility of regulation.

-- 
Cynic

On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 15:45:23 +0100, "Aidy" 
wrote:

>> I prefer to buy from a supplier who can safely print on
>> the packaging exactly what is in the product I'm about to consume

>Well say goodbye to that when all drugs go straight to market as no-one will 
>know what is in them, what their active ingedients are, what safe limits 
>are, what they will react to or anything.

That is the case with *illegal* drugs.

Legal drugs are supplied with all that information (when relevant).

-- 
Cynic

"Cynic"  wrote in message 
news:55d7459c6opbsjg1hfi9ra0sbdofhig963@4ax.com...

> When something is legal and regulated, the risks can be clearly
> quantified and communicated, and advice on how to reduce the risk may
> be given.

It's like banging my head against a wall.

The only way a substance can be "legal" is if it is studied and tested and 
blah like pharmecutical drugs are.  That process would render most 
recreational drugs unsellable to the public.  Look at this instance at the 
start of the thrad...do you think the g'ment would legalise something like 
that?

Even if it *did* happen and drugs were legalised, new unregulated drugs 
would just take their place.

Allowing all drugs regardless is also not a viable option and it is 
irresponsible of the g'ment to do so.

> When it is an illegal substance, you firstly cannot easily quantify
> the risks because you have no idea of the strength or purity of the
> substance

And simply allowing all drugs to go straight to market is exactly the same.

> With legal substances, the manufacturers have an interest in making
> the product safer, and regulations that demand certain safety features
> can be incorporated.  There is no such incentive to the producers of
> illicit substances, and of course no possibility of regulation.

Even if it *did* happen and drugs were legalised, new unregulated drugs 
would just take their place.

"Aidy"  wrote in message 
news:7tKdnSPLCtbXIN7XnZ2dnUVZ8kadnZ2d@bt.com...
> "Cynic"  wrote in message 
> news:55d7459c6opbsjg1hfi9ra0sbdofhig963@4ax.com...
>
>> When something is legal and regulated, the risks can be clearly
>> quantified and communicated, and advice on how to reduce the risk may
>> be given.
>
> It's like banging my head against a wall.
>
> The only way a substance can be "legal" is if it is studied and tested and 
> blah like pharmecutical drugs are.  That process would render most 
> recreational drugs unsellable to the public.  Look at this instance at the 
> start of the thrad...do you think the g'ment would legalise something like 
> that?
>
Why couldn't they be tested like a pharmacutical drug?

> Even if it *did* happen and drugs were legalised, new unregulated drugs 
> would just take their place.
>
Then deal with them.  Having said that such arguments were used by 
prohibitionists and that never happened.

"Huge" <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote in message 
news:7ahkc8F1uoa5kU1@mid.individual.net...

>>>sure you enjoy the fact that nothing you buy from the supermarket ***that 
>>>is
>>>intended for your consumption *** will kill you,
>
> Moron. Supermarkets sell vast amounts of stuff that will kill you.

We got ourselves a reader!!

"Cynic"  wrote in message 
news:6qd7451jjt4cv7tmmcusqh06n1k1ascuia@4ax.com...

> That is the case with *illegal* drugs.

And legal drugs that go straight to market.

> Legal drugs are supplied with all that information (when relevant).

If it is straight to market who has had the time to study them to gain the 
information?

"Pete nospam Zakel"  wrote in message 
news:4a43adcc$1@news.cadence.com...
> If you buy drugs from a chemist they have a long list of active and 
> inactive
> ingredients and proper doses for various ages and many list possible side
> effects and warnings about what sort of people should avoid taking them, 
> etc.

And that has come from years of research.  If all drugs are legal, when is 
this research actually done?  If I invent someone on Monday and you're 
taking it on Friday cos there is no controls then who comes up with this 
list?

> You can't buy No-Doz or other caffeine pills in the UK?

You can, but the legal limit in the UK is a fraction of what it is in the 
US.  So small it doesn't have much affect.

> And you are failing miserably.

Only because people read but they don't comprehend.  I guess that's your 
brain on drugs.

"Aidy"  wrote in message 
news:ZoqdndU5IbwuXt7XnZ2dnUVZ8madnZ2d@bt.com...
> "Cynic"  wrote in message 
> news:6qd7451jjt4cv7tmmcusqh06n1k1ascuia@4ax.com...
>
>> That is the case with *illegal* drugs.
>
> And legal drugs that go straight to market.
>
>> Legal drugs are supplied with all that information (when relevant).
>
> If it is straight to market who has had the time to study them to gain the 
> information?
Why would it do that?  The companies making it would evaluate it properly.

On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 19:09:12 +0100, "Aidy" 
wrote:

>It's like banging my head against a wall.

Don't do that, Aidy, you'd be charged with criminal damage to a brick
wall.

Svenne

"Mr X"  wrote in message 
news:h20g8u$d2a$1@frank-exchange-of-views.oucs.ox.ac.uk...

> Why would it do that?  The companies making it would evaluate it properly.

Why would they have to?  Remember in this utopian world all recreational 
drugs are legal so why spend years and years studying when they can just get 
things out to the punters?

"Mr X"  wrote in message 
news:h20f04$ci6$1@frank-exchange-of-views.oucs.ox.ac.uk...

> Why couldn't they be tested like a pharmacutical drug?

It would eat up profits and all drugs are legal so there's no need.

"Aidy"  wrote in message 
news:Gqudndm6Id02F97XnZ2dnUVZ8nednZ2d@bt.com...
> "JohnR"  wrote in message 
> news:4a437a80$0$15358$326e972@unlimited.newshosting.com...
>>
>> "Aidy"  wrote in message 
>> news:0L2dnZAb_Nc4zd7XnZ2dnUVZ8mmdnZ2d@bt.com...
>>>> Kids will huff glue whether heroin is as cheap as a can of deodorant or 
>>>> not.
>>>
>>> If heroin was legal do you believe that heroin would be legal to 
>>> children? If heroin was legal and available to kids do you think kids 
>>> would stop sniffing glue?  Sorry, I'm just trying to work out your 
>>> point. Are you saying that prohibition is bad, m'kay, so we should let 
>>> everyone, even kids, take it so that they don't sniff glue instead?  Are 
>>> you saying that if all drugs were legal no-one would abuse solvents 
>>> because all people will use the hardest, most addictive drugs available 
>>> to them?
>>>
>>> Just what the hell *are* you trying to say?
>>>
>> I'm saying prohibition and those who support it are stupid Aidy.
>
> But you said that prohibition meant that kids were sniffing glue...by 
> implication that meant that if they could take heroin legally they 
> would....by implication you think this is a *good* thing?  And *I'm* the 
> stupid one?
>
Your powers of deduction stink.

On Jun 24, 7:56 am, "Aidy"  wrote:
> "Cynic"  wrote in message
> news:01544558plbd0o3f16h6cuvv714peq07eh@4ax.com...

> > You can have the same regulations as are true of *any* commodity that
> > is designed to be imbibed.
>
> We usually do and drugs should be no different.  You can go to a supermarket
> and buy any crisps you want safe in the knowledge that there isn't a certain
> flavour that will kill you if you eat it but the g'ment don't know nor care
> to tell you.  Even items with nut products or contamination are now
> identified for those with nut allergies (and before you ask....yes, putting
> "warning contains nuts" on a bag of nuts is just stupid).  So why the g'ment
> should ignore this and say "unless it's for recreational purposes...then we
> don't care what you eat, even if it kills you, in fact we'll even sell it to
> you.  Not only do we not know if it will kill you we have no knowledge on
> what it will do to your health, your mental health or if it is addictive"Who exactly is calling for recreational substances to be not only
legal but unregulated? (Or are you just having fun beating straw men?)

On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 19:09:12 +0100, "Aidy" 
wrote:

>> When something is legal and regulated, the risks can be clearly
>> quantified and communicated, and advice on how to reduce the risk may
>> be given.

>It's like banging my head against a wall.

>The only way a substance can be "legal" is if it is studied and tested and 
>blah like pharmecutical drugs are.

Yes.  That's called "regulation".  It has nowhere near the same
effects as prohibition.  It would be illegal to sell substances for
human consumption that is of uncontrolled quality, but I cannot see
such products having any significant market, any more than there is a
significant market in home-made booze.

It's the same with food.  There are a huge range of onerous
regulations that must be complied with before a person is permitted to
sell food to the public.  Those regulations have not resulted in a
huge trade in illicit hot-dog vendors or backstreet sandwich sellers,
or shabby people pushing unhygenic home-made toffee apples outside the
school gates.

-- 
Cynic

On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 19:50:16 +0100, "Aidy" 
wrote:

>> Why would it do that?  The companies making it would evaluate it properly.

>Why would they have to?  Remember in this utopian world all recreational 
>drugs are legal so why spend years and years studying when they can just get 
>things out to the punters? 

Because "legal" does *not* mean "unregulated".

Alcohol is legal, but that doesn't mean you can legally sell home-made
bathtub gin with added antifreeze.

-- 
Cynic

On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 21:14:53 +0100, "JohnR" 
wrote:

>
>"Aidy"  wrote in message 


>> But you said that prohibition meant that kids were sniffing glue...by 
>> implication that meant that if they could take heroin legally they 
>> would....by implication you think this is a *good* thing?  And *I'm* the 
>> stupid one?
>>
>Your powers of deduction stink. 
>
I dunno..
He's deduced he is stupid :)

"M_P"  wrote in message 
news:e9224541-37e0-4a44-8dcc-2d4f8475092f@f10g2000vbf.googlegroups.com...

> Who exactly is calling for recreational substances to be not only
> legal but unregulated? (Or are you just having fun beating straw men?)

One more person missing the point.  Or are you just having fun beating straw 
men?

"Cynic"  wrote in message 
news:2018455mfu2tgufkgp0qn1d9g1dtvls3ld@4ax.com...

> Because "legal" does *not* mean "unregulated".

Recreational drugs would never make it through the regulation process. 
You're arguing moot points.  The only way heroin etc would be for sale is if 
the g'ment abandoned regulation or lowered the standards and that isn't ever 
going to happen.  You can't even buy decent painkillers off the shelf in 
this country.

"Aidy"  wrote in message 
news:oKmdndxvyrXZONnXnZ2dnUVZ8oKdnZ2d@bt.com...
> "Cynic"  wrote in message 
> news:2018455mfu2tgufkgp0qn1d9g1dtvls3ld@4ax.com...
>
>> Because "legal" does *not* mean "unregulated".
>
> Recreational drugs would never make it through the regulation process. 
> You're arguing moot points.  The only way heroin etc would be for sale is 
> if the g'ment abandoned regulation or lowered the standards and that isn't 
> ever going to happen.  You can't even buy decent painkillers off the shelf 
> in this country.
>
Only beacuse of governemnt policy.  In many countries you can buy many 
perscription drugs over the counter.

On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 11:38:58 +0100, "Aidy" 
wrote:

>> Because "legal" does *not* mean "unregulated".

>Recreational drugs would never make it through the regulation process. 

Right.  So the fact that both alcohol and tobacco have done just that
is a figment of my imagination, is it?

-- 
Cynic

"Mr X"  wrote in message 
news:h229il$uht$1@frank-exchange-of-views.oucs.ox.ac.uk...

> Only beacuse of governemnt policy.

Good policy, or do you think we should be selling poisoned milk to school 
children?

> In many countries you can buy many perscription drugs over the counter.

In many countries women are stoned to death for being raped.  So?

"Cynic"  wrote in message 
news:1ea945hmec4nr3cspgk14p0vgbhbarpak3@4ax.com...

> Right.  So the fact that both alcohol and tobacco have done just that
> is a figment of my imagination, is it?

I've already said that is historical and political.  It is my belief that 
cigarettes, if "invented" today, would not be legalised.  Still, rather than 
keeping your opinions to a single strand why not multiple post them?

"Aidy"  wrote in message 
news:RP6dnfRqwJ8FV9nXnZ2dnUVZ8gmdnZ2d@bt.com...
> "Mr X"  wrote in message 
> news:h229il$uht$1@frank-exchange-of-views.oucs.ox.ac.uk...
>
>> Only beacuse of governemnt policy.
>
> Good policy, or do you think we should be selling poisoned milk to school 
> children?
>
No, but who would sell poisoned LSD or any other drug?

>> In many countries you can buy many perscription drugs over the counter.
>
> In many countries women are stoned to death for being raped.  So?
Not in Spain they don't.

Cynic wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 11:38:58 +0100, "Aidy" 
> wrote:
> 
>>> Because "legal" does *not* mean "unregulated".
> 
>> Recreational drugs would never make it through the regulation process. 
> 
> Right.  So the fact that both alcohol and tobacco have done just that
> is a figment of my imagination, is it?
> 

	Actually if alcohol and tobacco had been subjected to a
review neither would be legal except perhaps alcohol in ale and
unfortified wine.
	Certainly the monarchies of the past floundered trying
to prohibit tobacco, coffee and I am not sure if they ever tried
with distilled alcohol aside from customs duty. See "Gin Lane"
by Hogarth which shows how badly the wave of alcoholism that
came with distillation affected the people of the time.
	The church tried to prohibit chocolate use by the laity
in Spain.
	Coffee was frowned upon because the Coffee Houses were
hotbeds of anti-monarchial, anti-clerial, anti-whoever was in
charge, full-blown revolutionary sentiment.  Makes you think
of the 1960s when the revolutionary sentiments and the drugs
they were fond of were suppressed?

	But these are the embedded drugs of the ruling classes
(White Anglo-Saxons at the time) and the  attempt to prohibit
alcohol led to violence, widespread disregard for the law and
enriched those who catered to the crowd's demands.  It was
abandoned as socially deleterious after less than 20 years.
Of course the market crash in 1929 may have cut the funds
available for futile efforts.

	later
	bliss

On Jun 26, 5:29 am, "Aidy"  wrote:
> "M_P"  wrote in message
> news:e9224541-37e0-4a44-8dcc-2d4f8475092f@f10g2000vbf.googlegroups.com...

> > Who exactly is calling for recreational substances to be not only
> > legal but unregulated? (Or are you just having fun beating straw men?)
>
> One more person missing the point.

So you claim ... after deleting the context that would support or
refute your claim.

I wonder why?

No, I don't really.

"B Sellers"  wrote in message 
news:7ak6hqF1ucv68U1@mid.individual.net...
> Actually if alcohol and tobacco had been subjected to a
> review neither would be legal except perhaps alcohol in ale and
> unfortified wine.

The thing about cigs is that there is no positive side to the drug 
whatsoever.  At least with alcohol (and many other drugs) there is something 
to be got from taking it.  Tobacco is wholly without merit.

Noticed at Sun, 28 Jun 2009 15:18:01 +0100: Aidy informed us:

> "B Sellers"  wrote in message 
> news:7ak6hqF1ucv68U1@mid.individual.net...
>> Actually if alcohol and tobacco had been subjected to a
>> review neither would be legal except perhaps alcohol in ale and
>> unfortified wine.
> 
> The thing about cigs is that there is no positive side to the drug 
> whatsoever.  At least with alcohol (and many other drugs) there is something 
> to be got from taking it.  Tobacco is wholly without merit.

As always, you are wrong.

http://www.forces.org/evidence/evid/therap.htm

-- 
Dr John Watson
Baker Street

"Dr John Watson"  wrote in message 
news:7arg1qF206i0hU1@mid.individual.net...
>> The thing about cigs is that there is no positive side to the drug
>> whatsoever.  At least with alcohol (and many other drugs) there is 
>> something
>> to be got from taking it.  Tobacco is wholly without merit.
>
> As always, you are wrong.

I meant in terms of immediate sensation, not trivial and unnoticed health 
benefits.

Noticed at Mon, 29 Jun 2009 10:51:45 +0100: Aidy informed us:

> "Dr John Watson"  wrote in message 
> news:7arg1qF206i0hU1@mid.individual.net...
>>> The thing about cigs is that there is no positive side to the drug
>>> whatsoever.  At least with alcohol (and many other drugs) there is 
>>> something
>>> to be got from taking it.  Tobacco is wholly without merit.
>>
>> As always, you are wrong.
> 
> I meant in terms of immediate sensation, not trivial and unnoticed health 
> benefits.

Inhaled drugs are effective in about 10 seconds, the time it takes for
blood to get from the lungs to the brain and then effect the dopamine,
anandamide etc. systems.

-- 
Dr John Watson
Baker Street