In article  "Aidy"  writes:
>"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?

Yes, in some cases that is absolutely true.

>Wow...what a world we live in.  If only a bag of heroin 
>was as cheap as a can of deodorant..... 

It would be almost as cheap if it were legal.  And it would be safer, too.

You do know that spray deodorant has been used for inhalation?  And it makes
a dandy flame-thrower, too.  And it's legal.

-Pete Zakel
 (phz@seeheader.nospam)

"Bore: A person who talks when you wish him to listen."

"Pete nospam Zakel"  wrote in message 
news:4a43a7dc$1@news.cadence.com...

> It would be almost as cheap if it were legal.  And it would be safer, too.

In deaths per year opiates are second only to alcohol with cocaine being 
third to opiates by a fair margin (at only 15% of opiate deaths).  20 times 
more people die from opiates than solvents.  Although deaths per percentage 
of users would be a much better indicator as I doubt solvent abuse is 
particularly widespread.

On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 19:34:35 +0100, "Aidy" 
wrote:

>"Pete nospam Zakel"  wrote in message 
>news:4a43a7dc$1@news.cadence.com...
>
>> It would be almost as cheap if it were legal.  And it would be safer, too.
>
>In deaths per year opiates are second only to alcohol with cocaine being 
>third to opiates by a fair margin (at only 15% of opiate deaths).  20 times 
>more people die from opiates than solvents.  Although deaths per percentage 
>of users would be a much better indicator as I doubt solvent abuse is 
>particularly widespread. 

The main cause of deaths from illegal drugs is the fact that the drugs
have been adulterated with dangerous substances, and are of unknown
strength. Remove prohibition and you would prevent both of those
causes.

-- 
Cynic

>

"Cynic"  wrote in message 
news:4s084593i4l0tb62vuef5cf09gboti557i@4ax.com...

> The main cause of deaths from illegal drugs is the fact that the drugs
> have been adulterated with dangerous substances, and are of unknown
> strength. Remove prohibition and you would prevent both of those
> causes.

Proof?  Or are you just presenting misinformed opinion as fact again?

"Jethro"  wrote in message 
news:efd3c0cd-205e-4a9f-8ee4-51389aa43036@f30g2000vbf.googlegroups.com...

> Once prohibition is removed, then the consumer/customer has recourse
> in law against a seller.

No as substances like heroin will never be for sale for the reasons outlined 
in the initial post.  If it *was* legalised other unregulated drugs would 
take their place for sale for the reasons outlined in the initial post.  Or 
people would still buy from illegal sources as they'll always be cheaper.

When are you going to get your head out of the clouds and realise that no 
responsible government is *ever* going to sell lethal drugs to its citizens 
in an unregulated manner for recreational purposes?

"Aidy"  wrote in message 
news:udSdnYbrpKlXPtnXnZ2dnUVZ8mSdnZ2d@bt.com...
> "Cynic"  wrote in message 
> news:4s084593i4l0tb62vuef5cf09gboti557i@4ax.com...
>
>> The main cause of deaths from illegal drugs is the fact that the drugs
>> have been adulterated with dangerous substances, and are of unknown
>> strength. Remove prohibition and you would prevent both of those
>> causes.
>
> Proof?  Or are you just presenting misinformed opinion as fact again?
It is a known fact.

"Aidy"  wrote in message 
news:m9GdnSNcSsIsOdnXnZ2dnUVZ8mudnZ2d@bt.com...
> "Jethro"  wrote in message 
> news:efd3c0cd-205e-4a9f-8ee4-51389aa43036@f30g2000vbf.googlegroups.com...
>
>> Once prohibition is removed, then the consumer/customer has recourse
>> in law against a seller.
>
> No as substances like heroin will never be for sale for the reasons 
> outlined in the initial post.  If it *was* legalised other unregulated 
> drugs would take their place for sale for the reasons outlined in the 
> initial post.  Or people would still buy from illegal sources as they'll 
> always be cheaper.
>
Why not? Why would unregulated drugs be an issue?  Do you think people would 
use a back-street drugs dealer rather than drugs made by a large pharma 
company?  Is there a large trade in illegal alcohol?

On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 11:32:41 +0100, "Aidy" 
wrote:

>> The main cause of deaths from illegal drugs is the fact that the drugs
>> have been adulterated with dangerous substances, and are of unknown
>> strength. Remove prohibition and you would prevent both of those
>> causes.

>Proof?  Or are you just presenting misinformed opinion as fact again?

As you have always said to me when I have asked you to substantiate
any of your assertions, use Google.

-- 
Cynic

On 2009-06-26, Mr X  wrote:
>
> "Aidy"  wrote in message 
> news:udSdnYbrpKlXPtnXnZ2dnUVZ8mSdnZ2d@bt.com...
>> "Cynic"  wrote in message 
>> news:4s084593i4l0tb62vuef5cf09gboti557i@4ax.com...
>>
>>> The main cause of deaths from illegal drugs is the fact that the drugs
>>> have been adulterated with dangerous substances, and are of unknown
>>> strength. Remove prohibition and you would prevent both of those
>>> causes.
>>
>> Proof?  Or are you just presenting misinformed opinion as fact again?
> It is a known fact. 

Fallacious: Argument from spurious authority.


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

"Jethro"  wrote in message 
news:da589ebf-ebff-4624-acd0-1e4fa054c523@n4g2000vba.googlegroups.com...

> If you go back 100 years

...smoking was "good for you".

Because we made mistakes in the past we should continue on making them? 
Strange way of looking at things.

> using your favourite debating trick of anecdotal evidence

My favourite?  Oh no....comparing today with 100 years ago (like you just 
did) is anecdotal evidence.  Saying "blah blah blah prohibition in America's 
20s blah blah" is anecdotal evidence.

"Mr X"  wrote in message 
news:h229go$uhn$1@frank-exchange-of-views.oucs.ox.ac.uk...

> Why not? Why would unregulated drugs be an issue?

Look at the substance in question.  Do you *seriously* think a g'ment is 
going to green-light such a thing?

> Do you think people would use a back-street drugs dealer rather than drugs 
> made by a large pharma company?

Do people buy pirate DVDs?  Bootleg cigs?  Bootleg booze?  Conterfeit 
perfume?  Yes.  Why?  Even though the quality is not the same and often 
unknown people just care that it is cheaper.

> Is there a large trade in illegal alcohol?

Yes.  Now run along and come back when you have the first clue of what 
you're talking about.

"Mr X"  wrote in message 
news:h229e6$uhf$1@frank-exchange-of-views.oucs.ox.ac.uk...

> It is a known fact.

So you can provide the proof then?

"Cynic"  wrote in message 
news:uba945hjvg95fn31vp088qlksruh76dujn@4ax.com...

> As you have always said to me when I have asked you to substantiate
> any of your assertions, use Google.

Logical fallacy....you can't prove a negative.  Grasping at straws, eh?

"Aidy"  wrote in message 
news:u8udnSRBhKvSV9nXnZ2dnUVZ8mWdnZ2d@bt.com...
> "Cynic"  wrote in message 
> news:uba945hjvg95fn31vp088qlksruh76dujn@4ax.com...
>
>> As you have always said to me when I have asked you to substantiate
>> any of your assertions, use Google.
>
> Logical fallacy....you can't prove a negative.  Grasping at straws, eh?
>
>
Meaning all your assertions are false, yeah I see that.

"Aidy"  wrote in message 
news:1IqdnTW4NPmMV9nXnZ2dnUVZ8tudnZ2d@bt.com...
>
> "Mr X"  wrote in message 
> news:h229e6$uhf$1@frank-exchange-of-views.oucs.ox.ac.uk...
>
>> It is a known fact.
>
> So you can provide the proof then?
>
You aren't the least little bit interested in proof or any facts. But here 
they are.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10080

"Aidy"  wrote in message 
news:APmdnR-PHrhwVNnXnZ2dnUVZ8iKdnZ2d@bt.com...
> "Mr X"  wrote in message 
> news:h229go$uhn$1@frank-exchange-of-views.oucs.ox.ac.uk...
>
>> Why not? Why would unregulated drugs be an issue?
>
> Look at the substance in question.  Do you *seriously* think a g'ment is 
> going to green-light such a thing?
>
I don't see why not.  It was legal in the past without the country falling 
apart.

>> Do you think people would use a back-street drugs dealer rather than 
>> drugs made by a large pharma company?
>
> Do people buy pirate DVDs?  Bootleg cigs?  Bootleg booze?  Conterfeit 
> perfume?  Yes.  Why?  Even though the quality is not the same and often 
> unknown people just care that it is cheaper.
>
That is a tiny percentage of the market.  Many of these items are made by 
the same companies but have been illegally imported.  The number of people 
buying counterfiet cigarettes or alchol is vanishingly small.  How many 
people are treated in hospital for methanol poisoning from illegal alcohol?

>> Is there a large trade in illegal alcohol?
>
> Yes.  Now run along and come back when you have the first clue of what 
> you're talking about.
>
See above.

"JohnR"  wrote in message 
news:4a44d459$0$19627$706ed52@unlimited.newshosting.com...
> You aren't the least little bit interested in proof or any facts. But here 
> they are.
>
> http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10080

It mentioned about HIV going down but that's about the only vaguely relevant 
thing I saw.

"Aidy"  wrote in message 
news:jqqdneCdPeGIeNnXnZ2dnUVZ8tudnZ2d@bt.com...
> "JohnR"  wrote in message 
> news:4a44d459$0$19627$706ed52@unlimited.newshosting.com...
>> You aren't the least little bit interested in proof or any facts. But 
>> here they are.
>>
>> http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10080
>
> It mentioned about HIV going down but that's about the only vaguely 
> relevant thing I saw.
>
That explains a great deal more about you than anything the report says, 
spending 20 seconds scanning quickly through seems about your level on this 
subject.

You, like all prohibitionists, aren't the least bit interested in facts or 
data because they simply don't fit your demonic drug apocalypse fantasies.

"JohnR"  wrote in message 
news:4a4547e3$0$22642$396e9c2@unlimited.newshosting.com...
> That explains a great deal more about you than anything the report says, 
> spending 20 seconds scanning quickly through seems about your level on 
> this subject.

I'm not going to sit and read a 38 page document, no.  The easy solution 
would be for you to explicitly point out where the info is, but you don't 
*really* want to do that as it's easier slinging accusations around instead.

"Aidy"  wrote in message 
news:n9CdnfzrwZzc5trXnZ2dnUVZ8hydnZ2d@bt.com...
> "JohnR"  wrote in message 
> news:4a4547e3$0$22642$396e9c2@unlimited.newshosting.com...
>> That explains a great deal more about you than anything the report says, 
>> spending 20 seconds scanning quickly through seems about your level on 
>> this subject.
>
> I'm not going to sit and read a 38 page document, no.  The easy solution 
> would be for you to explicitly point out where the info is, but you don't 
> *really* want to do that as it's easier slinging accusations around 
> instead.
>
page 17 and 18 for a start you lazy sod.