In article  "Aidy"  writes:

>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. 

Your conclusion does not match your premise.

If you want all risks to be known and communicated and for people to have a
choice, you *have* to support legalization.

With prohibition you guarantee that risks are unknown, uncommunicated or lied
about, and that people's choice is "don't use" or "use the riskiest possible
option".

Since we know from experience many people will ignore "don't use", you are
promoting only the riskiest possible choices.

-Pete Zakel
 (phz@seeheader.nospam)

"The sun was shining on the sea,
 Shining with all his might:
 He did his very best to make
 The billows smooth and bright --
 And this was very odd, because it was
 The middle of the night."

		-Lewis Carroll, "Through the Looking Glass"

"Pete nospam Zakel"  wrote in message 
news:4a43a76d$1@news.cadence.com...
> If you want all risks to be known and communicated and for people to have 
> a
> choice, you *have* to support legalization.

Again you miss the point.  You can't possibly legalise most recreational 
drugs.  They just wouldn't be allowed for general consumption.  It's not an 
option.

> With prohibition you guarantee that risks are unknown, uncommunicated or 
> lied
> about, and that people's choice is "don't use" or "use the riskiest 
> possible
> option".

Having no prohibition and allowing drugs to go straight to market is no 
different. The risks will still be unknown.

"Aidy"  wrote in message 
news:0aGdnRFSBLvfId7XnZ2dnUVZ8gudnZ2d@bt.com...
> "Pete nospam Zakel"  wrote in message 
> news:4a43a76d$1@news.cadence.com...
>> If you want all risks to be known and communicated and for people to have 
>> a
>> choice, you *have* to support legalization.
>
> Again you miss the point.  You can't possibly legalise most recreational 
> drugs.  They just wouldn't be allowed for general consumption.  It's not 
> an option.
>
Why not?  Many, if not most, are perfectly safe.  Of course there are some 
drugs for which this isn't an option such as crystal meth.

Mr X wrote:
> "Aidy"  wrote in message 
> news:0aGdnRFSBLvfId7XnZ2dnUVZ8gudnZ2d@bt.com...
>> "Pete nospam Zakel"  wrote in message 
>> news:4a43a76d$1@news.cadence.com...
>>> If you want all risks to be known and communicated and for people to have 
>>> a
>>> choice, you *have* to support legalization.
>> Again you miss the point.  You can't possibly legalise most recreational 
>> drugs.  They just wouldn't be allowed for general consumption.  It's not 
>> an option.
>>
> Why not?  Many, if not most, are perfectly safe.  Of course there are some 
> drugs for which this isn't an option such as crystal meth. 
> 
> 

	And crystal meth is usually these day the product of illegal
labs not produced by ethical companies except for prescription use.
Dexedrine (dextro-amphetamine sulfate) is an oral drug which used
to be widely available on prescription.  I used to use it when I
became sensitive to caffeine in the 1960s to help me stay alert on
night shifts,
	Now-a-days you might get lucky and be able to get a prescription of 
dexadrine but it will be hard to do.  That is one
reason that IV drug abuse has replaced oral use.IMO

	later
	bliss

"Mr X"  wrote in message 
news:h20etb$ci1$1@frank-exchange-of-views.oucs.ox.ac.uk...

> Why not?  Many, if not most, are perfectly safe.

How do you know?  Where are the studies?