Please ignore my ignorance on the subject but I seek information.  We 
are not going to stop drug abuse are we.  Any war on drugs we may have 
had was lost a long time ago.  Drug barons run their empires like Multi- 
National companies.

What then is the case for legalizing drugs.  How would we go about this 
and what would the implications be. Is it possible or is it something 
that we would live to regret.

Is it a stupid proposal or is it a reasonable proposal.

Count Baldoni

"Baldoni"  wrote in message 
news:4614e393$0$9171$88260bb3@news.teranews.com...
> Please ignore my ignorance on the subject but I seek information.  We are 
> not going to stop drug abuse are we.  Any war on drugs we may have had was 
> lost a long time ago.  Drug barons run their empires like Multi- National 
> companies.
>
> What then is the case for legalizing drugs.  How would we go about this 
> and what would the implications be. Is it possible or is it something that 
> we would live to regret.
>
> Is it a stupid proposal or is it a reasonable proposal.
>
> Count Baldoni

I've always been in favour of legalising/licensing drugs
including... infect especially heroin on health grounds
for both the users and society, but even so I am stumped
when it comes to what to do about cocaine since there doesn't
appear to a point at which a user is satisfied.

As for LSD.. at least one good dose should be a compulsory
element of any National Curriculum.

--
www.ptlslzb87.blogspot.com/

Julian wrote:

<SNIP>I am stumped
> when it comes to what to do about cocaine since there doesn't
> appear to a point at which a user is satisfied.
>

Only sell it in a dilute form.
OK nutters will end up concentrating it but 99% of folk will be happy with 
it as a good "pick-me-up".

> As for LSD.. at least one good dose should be a compulsory
> element of any National Curriculum.

To bloody right!
I Second That!

Slatts

Julian wrote:
> "Baldoni"  wrote in message 
> news:4614e393$0$9171$88260bb3@news.teranews.com...
>> Please ignore my ignorance on the subject but I seek information.  We 
>> are not going to stop drug abuse are we.  Any war on drugs we may have 
>> had was lost a long time ago.  Drug barons run their empires like 
>> Multi- National companies.
>>
>> What then is the case for legalizing drugs.  How would we go about 
>> this and what would the implications be. Is it possible or is it 
>> something that we would live to regret.
>>
>> Is it a stupid proposal or is it a reasonable proposal.
>>
>> Count Baldoni
> 
> I've always been in favour of legalising/licensing drugs
> including... infect especially heroin on health grounds
> for both the users and society, but even so I am stumped
> when it comes to what to do about cocaine since there doesn't
> appear to a point at which a user is satisfied.
> 
> As for LSD.. at least one good dose should be a compulsory
> element of any National Curriculum.

I am trying to think of all the old ones, strawberry's, purple oms ?, 
smilies, it is so long ago I can't remember.  A mate of mine was in this 
pub and he asked "would 10 have the same effect as 1".  As far as I'm 
concerned 10 is 10 X more than 1.

Anyway he swallowed about 14 of them in one go.  He was really screwed, 
I know another guy who took too many and his mother had to have him 
sectioned.  Thank God he came back down eventually, he thought he was 
Jesus and also thought he could breath underwater.

> 
> -- 
> www.ptlslzb87.blogspot.com/

Sla#s wrote:
> Julian wrote:
> 
> <SNIP>I am stumped
>> when it comes to what to do about cocaine since there doesn't
>> appear to a point at which a user is satisfied.
>>
> 
> Only sell it in a dilute form.
> OK nutters will end up concentrating it but 99% of folk will be happy with 
> it as a good "pick-me-up".
> 
>> As for LSD.. at least one good dose should be a compulsory
>> element of any National Curriculum.
> 
> To bloody right!
> I Second That!
> 
> Slatts 
> 
> 
This nutter I know was spiking us with liquid LSD the twat.  There was 
about 10 of us sat in a field all night on the side of a motorway.

Madness

CB

"Baldoni"  wrote in message
news:4614e393$0$9171$88260bb3@news.teranews.com...
> Please ignore my ignorance on the subject but I seek information.  We
> are not going to stop drug abuse are we.  Any war on drugs we may have
> had was lost a long time ago.  Drug barons run their empires like Multi-
> National companies.
>
> What then is the case for legalizing drugs.  How would we go about this
> and what would the implications be. Is it possible or is it something
> that we would live to regret.
>
> Is it a stupid proposal or is it a reasonable proposal.
>
> Count Baldoni

Legalise drugs, more of them are sold, price comes down on the street, less
theft to pay for drugs, retailers source theirs from "legal" suppliers,
drugs barons go out of business, more jobs for rehab centres, goverment can
tax druggies to the hilt, so more benefits for asylum seekers and lone
parents......everyones a winner.

"jj66"  wrote in message 
news:PfnRh.577$xT6.562@newsfe7-gui.ntli.net...
>
> "Baldoni"  wrote in message
> news:4614e393$0$9171$88260bb3@news.teranews.com...
>> Please ignore my ignorance on the subject but I seek information.  We
>> are not going to stop drug abuse are we.  Any war on drugs we may have
>> had was lost a long time ago.  Drug barons run their empires like Multi-
>> National companies.
>>
>> What then is the case for legalizing drugs.  How would we go about this
>> and what would the implications be. Is it possible or is it something
>> that we would live to regret.
>>
>> Is it a stupid proposal or is it a reasonable proposal.
>>
>> Count Baldoni
>
> Legalise drugs, more of them are sold, price comes down on the street, 
> less
> theft to pay for drugs, retailers source theirs from "legal" suppliers,
> drugs barons go out of business, more jobs for rehab centres, goverment 
> can
> tax druggies to the hilt, so more benefits for asylum seekers and lone
> parents......everyones a winner.

I agree entirely but,  in the light of experience,
(mine, acquaintances and others)
I can't see that working in the case of such
a hugely moreish delight as cocaine, particularly freebase.

--
www.ptlslzb87.blogspot.com/

On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 08:10:23 GMT, "jj66"  wrote:

>
>"Baldoni"  wrote in message
>news:4614e393$0$9171$88260bb3@news.teranews.com...
>> Please ignore my ignorance on the subject but I seek information.  We
>> are not going to stop drug abuse are we.  Any war on drugs we may have
>> had was lost a long time ago.  Drug barons run their empires like Multi-
>> National companies.
>>
>> What then is the case for legalizing drugs.  How would we go about this
>> and what would the implications be. Is it possible or is it something
>> that we would live to regret.
>>
>> Is it a stupid proposal or is it a reasonable proposal.
>>
>> Count Baldoni
>
>Legalise drugs, more of them are sold, price comes down on the street, less
>theft to pay for drugs, retailers source theirs from "legal" suppliers,
>drugs barons go out of business, more jobs for rehab centres, goverment can
>tax druggies to the hilt, so more benefits for asylum seekers and lone
>parents......everyones a winner.
>
Except all the redundant cops, customs and prison officers who will
have to find honest work

-- 
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

>Except all the redundant cops, customs and prison officers who will
>have to find honest work

They could become doctors, funeral directors and grave diggers as
their work load will increase dramatically if drugs were legal.

On Mon, 09 Apr 2007 16:17:39 GMT, Paolo  wrote:

>
>>Except all the redundant cops, customs and prison officers who will
>>have to find honest work

>They could become doctors, funeral directors and grave diggers as
>their work load will increase dramatically if drugs were legal.

Bollocks.

Clough

"Paolo"  wrote in message
news:vopk13tv3jp68vqi9t4poakr8athbgg2j5@4ax.com...
>
> >Except all the redundant cops, customs and prison officers who will
> >have to find honest work
>
> They could become doctors, funeral directors and grave diggers as
> their work load will increase dramatically if drugs were legal.
>
So utterly clueless.

On Mon, 9 Apr 2007 18:42:49 +0100, "JohnR" 
wrote:

>
>"Paolo"  wrote in message
>news:vopk13tv3jp68vqi9t4poakr8athbgg2j5@4ax.com...
>>
>> >Except all the redundant cops, customs and prison officers who will
>> >have to find honest work

>> They could become doctors, funeral directors and grave diggers as
>> their work load will increase dramatically if drugs were legal.

>So utterly clueless.

That's why we have prohibition.

So many pig thick, ignorant dickheads.

Clough

Paolo wrote:
>> Except all the redundant cops, customs and prison officers who will
>> have to find honest work
>
> They could become doctors, funeral directors and grave diggers as
> their work load will increase dramatically if drugs were legal.

And your evidence for this is....?

BTW "Drugs" are legal! Alcohol, tobacco, caffeine, aspirin, etc.
(The first two of which are far more lethal than 90% of those that are
illegal.)

I assume you mean "Drugs that are currently prohibited from sale to the
general public in the UK"
In which case how would the sale of safer controlled dose, controlled
quality substances to those of the correct age be more dangerous that the
current situation where one hasn't a clue what one is being sold and anyone
of any age can get hold of anything?

Slatts

On Mon, 09 Apr 2007 16:53:33 GMT, Clough  wrote:

>On Mon, 09 Apr 2007 16:17:39 GMT, Paolo  wrote:
>
>>
>>>Except all the redundant cops, customs and prison officers who will
>>>have to find honest work
>
>>They could become doctors, funeral directors and grave diggers as
>>their work load will increase dramatically if drugs were legal.
>
>Bollocks.
>
Indeed.

They aren't clever enough

-- 
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

<Alang> wrote in message news:qbvk135tr5mh05480r9htf7lg284er7tbs@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 09 Apr 2007 16:53:33 GMT, Clough  wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 09 Apr 2007 16:17:39 GMT, Paolo  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>>Except all the redundant cops, customs and prison officers who will
>>>>have to find honest work
>>
>>>They could become doctors, funeral directors and grave diggers as
>>>their work load will increase dramatically if drugs were legal.
>>
>>Bollocks.
>>
> Indeed.
>
> They aren't clever enough
>
That's a little unfair, they're quite skilled at digging themselves into a 
hole.

On Mon, 09 Apr 2007 16:17:39 GMT, Paolo  wrote:

>
>>Except all the redundant cops, customs and prison officers who will
>>have to find honest work
>
>They could become doctors, funeral directors and grave diggers as
>their work load will increase dramatically if drugs were legal.

Nah.  There is more death and hospital treatment needed as a result of
prohibition than from the use of controlled and regulated drugs.

-- 
Cynic

On Mon, 09 Apr 2007 17:44:33 GMT, Clough  wrote:

>
>That's why we have prohibition.
>
>So many pig thick, ignorant dickheads.
>
>Clough


Just my opinion., so sorry to disagree with you, i'll never do it
again and now go sit back on your perch and rule the world.,

On Mon, 9 Apr 2007 18:58:40 +0100, "Sla#s" 
wrote:

>
>I assume you mean "Drugs that are currently prohibited from sale to the
>general public in the UK"
>In which case how would the sale of safer controlled dose, controlled
>quality substances to those of the correct age be more dangerous that the
>current situation where one hasn't a clue what one is being sold and anyone
>of any age can get hold of anything?
>
>Slatts

Yes, that's a good point. But the safe controlled sales, age
resitrictions and quality controls of the legal drugs that are alcohol
and  tobacco clearly don't work well in some cases, so why should they
be expected to work for these  slightly more powerful substances.

On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 17:19:10 GMT, Paolo  wrote:

>On Mon, 09 Apr 2007 17:44:33 GMT, Clough  wrote:
>
>>
>>That's why we have prohibition.

>>So many pig thick, ignorant dickheads.

>Just my opinion., so sorry to disagree with you, i'll never do it
>again and now go sit back on your perch and rule the world.,

It's prohibitionist dickheads who rule the world and want to force
their values on others.

Clough

On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 17:23:32 GMT, Paolo  wrote:

>On Mon, 9 Apr 2007 18:58:40 +0100, "Sla#s" 
>wrote:
>
>>
>>I assume you mean "Drugs that are currently prohibited from sale to the
>>general public in the UK"
>>In which case how would the sale of safer controlled dose, controlled
>>quality substances to those of the correct age be more dangerous that the
>>current situation where one hasn't a clue what one is being sold and anyone
>>of any age can get hold of anything?

>Yes, that's a good point. But the safe controlled sales, age
>resitrictions and quality controls of the legal drugs that are alcohol
>and  tobacco clearly don't work well in some cases, so why should they
>be expected to work for these  slightly more powerful substances.  

Tobacco and alcohol are more powerful and more dangerous than many
illegal drugs.

Clough

On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 17:57:31 GMT, Clough  wrote:

>
>It's prohibitionist dickheads who rule the world and want to force
>their values on others.
>
>Clough

Yes, this is what I meant, your method of rejecting my alternative
opinion seemed to suggest to me initially that you could possibly fall
into this category.

On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 17:58:44 GMT, Clough  wrote:

>>Yes, that's a good point. But the safe controlled sales, age
>>resitrictions and quality controls of the legal drugs that are alcohol
>>and  tobacco clearly don't work well in some cases, so why should they
>>be expected to work for these  slightly more powerful substances.  
>
>Tobacco and alcohol are more powerful and more dangerous than many
>illegal drugs.
>
>Clough

That's a good point, quite possibly they are. I think thier wider
availablility and widespread useage is part of the problem with those
substances and I am not convinced that expanding that problem to
include other substances is a good idea.

Paolo wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Apr 2007 18:58:40 +0100, "Sla#s" 
> wrote:
>
>>
>> I assume you mean "Drugs that are currently prohibited from sale to
>> the general public in the UK"
>> In which case how would the sale of safer controlled dose, controlled
>> quality substances to those of the correct age be more dangerous
>> that the current situation where one hasn't a clue what one is being
>> sold and anyone of any age can get hold of anything?
>>
>> Slatts
>
> Yes, that's a good point. But the safe controlled sales, age
> resitrictions and quality controls of the legal drugs that are alcohol
> and  tobacco clearly don't work well in some cases, so why should they
> be expected to work for these  slightly more powerful substances.

Could it be that the authorities spend far too much time chasing cannabis 
users whereas they should be enforcing the laws on the sale of dangerous but 
legal drugs to minors?

Slatts

On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 18:54:42 +0100, "Sla#s" 
wrote:

>
>Could it be that the authorities spend far too much time chasing cannabis 
>users whereas they should be enforcing the laws on the sale of dangerous but 
>legal drugs to minors?
>
>Slatts 

Possibly, I don't have the figures on that, and can't really guess how
police time is spent. 

But I think the argument of "the only way to bring the crime rate down
is to reduce the number of illegal things" is a bit simplistic.

On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 18:08:59 GMT, Paolo  wrote:

>On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 17:57:31 GMT, Clough  wrote:
>
>>
>>It's prohibitionist dickheads who rule the world and want to force
>>their values on others.

>Yes, this is what I meant, your method of rejecting my alternative
>opinion seemed to suggest to me initially that you could possibly fall
>into this category.

My position is one of not forcing my beliefs about personal behaviour
upon others. I respect the right of others to choose for themselves.

Your position is one of wanting to use force upon others to compel
them under threat of punishment to submit your beliefs about how they
should behave.

So, to use your words, it is you who wants to sit on a perch and rule
the world.

Clough

On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 18:10:54 GMT, Paolo  wrote:

>On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 17:58:44 GMT, Clough  wrote:
>
>>>Yes, that's a good point. But the safe controlled sales, age
>>>resitrictions and quality controls of the legal drugs that are alcohol
>>>and  tobacco clearly don't work well in some cases, so why should they
>>>be expected to work for these  slightly more powerful substances.  
>>
>>Tobacco and alcohol are more powerful and more dangerous than many
>>illegal drugs.

>That's a good point, quite possibly they are. I think thier wider
>availablility and widespread useage is part of the problem with those
>substances and I am not convinced that expanding that problem to
>include other substances is a good idea.

The problem with argument this is that the "other substances" already
exist and are in wide circulation.

The only question is who should have control over them.

Society or organised crime?

Clough

On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 18:25:36 GMT, Paolo  wrote:

>On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 18:54:42 +0100, "Sla#s" 
>wrote:
>
>>
>>Could it be that the authorities spend far too much time chasing cannabis 
>>users whereas they should be enforcing the laws on the sale of dangerous but 
>>legal drugs to minors?
>>
>>Slatts 
>
>Possibly, I don't have the figures on that, and can't really guess how
>police time is spent. 

>But I think the argument of "the only way to bring the crime rate down
>is to reduce the number of illegal things" is a bit simplistic.

It would be a very simple person who said that.

Do you know of anyone who has?

Clough

On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 17:23:32 +0000, Paolo wrote:

> Yes, that's a good point. But the safe controlled sales, age
> resitrictions and quality controls of the legal drugs that are alcohol
> and  tobacco clearly don't work well in some cases,

That's because Plod are too busy flying in helicopters (brrm brrm wee wee)
with heat sensors (bang bang) looking for cannabis factories and busting
old ladies for cooking with prohibited plants.

<http://news.google.co.uk/news?hl=en&c2coff=1&rls=GGGL%2CGGGL%3A2006-19%2CGGGL%3Aen&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&um=1&tab=wn&q=cannabis+%28farm+or+factory%29&btnG=Search+News>
<http://tinyurl.com/2dsnb7>

> so why should they be expected
> to work for these  slightly more powerful substances.

Many of the substances are milder than booze.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6474053.stm?ls#drugs

-- 
Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK

On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 18:10:54 +0000, Paolo wrote:

> That's a good point, quite possibly they are. I think thier wider
> availablility and widespread useage is part of the problem with those
> substances and I am not convinced that expanding that problem to include
> other substances is a good idea.

I would agree with you if the other substances didn't exist. But they do,
so I don't :-).

-- 
Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK

In news:461bd575.0@entanet,
Sla#s  typed:
| Paolo wrote:
|| On Mon, 9 Apr 2007 18:58:40 +0100, "Sla#s" 
|| wrote:
||
|||
||| I assume you mean "Drugs that are currently prohibited from sale to
||| the general public in the UK"
||| In which case how would the sale of safer controlled dose,
||| controlled quality substances to those of the correct age be more
||| dangerous that the current situation where one hasn't a clue what
||| one is being sold and anyone of any age can get hold of anything?
|||
||| Slatts
||
|| Yes, that's a good point. But the safe controlled sales, age
|| resitrictions and quality controls of the legal drugs that are
|| alcohol and  tobacco clearly don't work well in some cases, so why
|| should they be expected to work for these  slightly more powerful
|| substances.
|
| Could it be that the authorities spend far too much time chasing
| cannabis users whereas they should be enforcing the laws on the sale
| of dangerous but legal drugs to minors?
|
I don't think they do and to be honest there are plenty dealing in smack on 
the open street.

They are more concerned with larger fish so to speak.


| Slatts

In news:v2kn13dn36bbecl89ee0lb9adl2u292otq@4ax.com,
Clough  typed:
| On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 17:23:32 GMT, Paolo  wrote:
|
|| On Mon, 9 Apr 2007 18:58:40 +0100, "Sla#s" 
|| wrote:
||
|||
||| I assume you mean "Drugs that are currently prohibited from sale to
||| the general public in the UK"
||| In which case how would the sale of safer controlled dose,
||| controlled quality substances to those of the correct age be more
||| dangerous that the current situation where one hasn't a clue what
||| one is being sold and anyone of any age can get hold of anything?
|
|| Yes, that's a good point. But the safe controlled sales, age
|| resitrictions and quality controls of the legal drugs that are
|| alcohol and  tobacco clearly don't work well in some cases, so why
|| should they be expected to work for these  slightly more powerful
|| substances.
|
| Tobacco and alcohol are more powerful and more dangerous than many
| illegal drugs.
|

Tobacco and alcohol most certainly ruin health and put strains on the NHS.

Alcohol is probably the most dangerous drug of them all.

Violence
Theft
Madness
Liver Disease
Broken marriages

Just a few of the consequences of alcohol abuse.
-- 
Count Baldoni

"Baldoni" <amalfi.org> wrote in message 
news:461be7ad$0$9212$88260bb3@news.teranews.com...
> In news:v2kn13dn36bbecl89ee0lb9adl2u292otq@4ax.com,
> Clough  typed:
> | On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 17:23:32 GMT, Paolo  wrote:
> |
> || On Mon, 9 Apr 2007 18:58:40 +0100, "Sla#s" 
> || wrote:
> ||
> |||
> ||| I assume you mean "Drugs that are currently prohibited from sale to
> ||| the general public in the UK"
> ||| In which case how would the sale of safer controlled dose,
> ||| controlled quality substances to those of the correct age be more
> ||| dangerous that the current situation where one hasn't a clue what
> ||| one is being sold and anyone of any age can get hold of anything?
> |
> || Yes, that's a good point. But the safe controlled sales, age
> || resitrictions and quality controls of the legal drugs that are
> || alcohol and  tobacco clearly don't work well in some cases, so why
> || should they be expected to work for these  slightly more powerful
> || substances.
> |
> | Tobacco and alcohol are more powerful and more dangerous than many
> | illegal drugs.
> |
>
> Tobacco and alcohol most certainly ruin health and put strains on the NHS.
>
> Alcohol is probably the most dangerous drug of them all.
>
> Violence
> Theft
> Madness
> Liver Disease
> Broken marriages
>
> Just a few of the consequences of alcohol abuse.

Ahem

"Baldoni" <amalfi.org> wrote in message 
news:461be7ad$0$9212$88260bb3@news.teranews.com...
> In news:v2kn13dn36bbecl89ee0lb9adl2u292otq@4ax.com,
> Clough  typed:
> | On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 17:23:32 GMT, Paolo  wrote:
> |
> || On Mon, 9 Apr 2007 18:58:40 +0100, "Sla#s" 
> || wrote:
> ||
> |||
> ||| I assume you mean "Drugs that are currently prohibited from sale to
> ||| the general public in the UK"
> ||| In which case how would the sale of safer controlled dose,
> ||| controlled quality substances to those of the correct age be more
> ||| dangerous that the current situation where one hasn't a clue what
> ||| one is being sold and anyone of any age can get hold of anything?
> |
> || Yes, that's a good point. But the safe controlled sales, age
> || resitrictions and quality controls of the legal drugs that are
> || alcohol and  tobacco clearly don't work well in some cases, so why
> || should they be expected to work for these  slightly more powerful
> || substances.
> |
> | Tobacco and alcohol are more powerful and more dangerous than many
> | illegal drugs.
> |
>
> Tobacco and alcohol most certainly ruin health and put strains on the NHS.

I suspect that more revenue is raised by taxing fags and booze
that is spent moping up afterwards.

In news:zYydneLoJeORYIbbnZ2dnUVZ8tChnZ2d@bt.com,
Julian  typed:
| "Baldoni" <amalfi.org> wrote in message
| news:461be7ad$0$9212$88260bb3@news.teranews.com...
|| In news:v2kn13dn36bbecl89ee0lb9adl2u292otq@4ax.com,
|| Clough  typed:
||| On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 17:23:32 GMT, Paolo  wrote:
|||
|||| On Mon, 9 Apr 2007 18:58:40 +0100, "Sla#s" 
|||| wrote:
||||
|||||
||||| I assume you mean "Drugs that are currently prohibited from sale
||||| to the general public in the UK"
||||| In which case how would the sale of safer controlled dose,
||||| controlled quality substances to those of the correct age be more
||||| dangerous that the current situation where one hasn't a clue what
||||| one is being sold and anyone of any age can get hold of anything?
|||
|||| Yes, that's a good point. But the safe controlled sales, age
|||| resitrictions and quality controls of the legal drugs that are
|||| alcohol and  tobacco clearly don't work well in some cases, so why
|||| should they be expected to work for these  slightly more powerful
|||| substances.
|||
||| Tobacco and alcohol are more powerful and more dangerous than many
||| illegal drugs.
|||
||
|| Tobacco and alcohol most certainly ruin health and put strains on
|| the NHS.
|
| I suspect that more revenue is raised by taxing fags and booze
| that is spent moping up afterwards.

Drum used to be the biggest selling rolling tobacco in the UK but it was not 
available on sale in shops here.  I would imagine they make well over £5 on 
a packet of B&H.  It could be more as I have no idea how much a packet is. 
Going back a while I was allowed to buy the cigs without tax for 50p when 
they were £3 a packet.

Fags were encouraged by the Government for years.  If by any chance this no 
smoking in public ban should deter people from smoking then they will make 
up the revenue from somewhere else.  Probably the hard done by honest 
motorist will have to stump up.

Ask yourself this though if as members of the EU we break down tariffs and 
encourage equal and free trade, why are the British screwed on the price of 
fags and alcohol ?

Government stick us on the petrol pumps and over the shop counter on things 
most people deem a necessity.

At least Dick Turpin had the good grace to wear a mask !!!
-- 
Count Baldoni

-- 
Count Baldoni

In news:FWSSh.60593$kF3.59646@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk,
W. Wots  typed:
| "Baldoni" <amalfi.org> wrote in message
| news:461be7ad$0$9212$88260bb3@news.teranews.com...
|| In news:v2kn13dn36bbecl89ee0lb9adl2u292otq@4ax.com,
|| Clough  typed:
||| On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 17:23:32 GMT, Paolo  wrote:
|||
|||| On Mon, 9 Apr 2007 18:58:40 +0100, "Sla#s" 
|||| wrote:
||||
|||||
||||| I assume you mean "Drugs that are currently prohibited from sale
||||| to the general public in the UK"
||||| In which case how would the sale of safer controlled dose,
||||| controlled quality substances to those of the correct age be more
||||| dangerous that the current situation where one hasn't a clue what
||||| one is being sold and anyone of any age can get hold of anything?
|||
|||| Yes, that's a good point. But the safe controlled sales, age
|||| resitrictions and quality controls of the legal drugs that are
|||| alcohol and  tobacco clearly don't work well in some cases, so why
|||| should they be expected to work for these  slightly more powerful
|||| substances.
|||
||| Tobacco and alcohol are more powerful and more dangerous than many
||| illegal drugs.
|||
||
|| Tobacco and alcohol most certainly ruin health and put strains on
|| the NHS.
||
|| Alcohol is probably the most dangerous drug of them all.
||
|| Violence
|| Theft
|| Madness
|| Liver Disease
|| Broken marriages
||
|| Just a few of the consequences of alcohol abuse.
|
| Ahem

I wrapped it in a long time ago, just a slurp of wine with food these day's.
-- 
Count Baldoni

"Baldoni"  wrote in message 
news:461c005d$0$9333$88260bb3@news.teranews.com...
> In news:zYydneLoJeORYIbbnZ2dnUVZ8tChnZ2d@bt.com,
> Julian  typed:
> | "Baldoni" <amalfi.org> wrote in message
> | news:461be7ad$0$9212$88260bb3@news.teranews.com...
> || In news:v2kn13dn36bbecl89ee0lb9adl2u292otq@4ax.com,
> || Clough  typed:
> ||| On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 17:23:32 GMT, Paolo  wrote:
> |||
> |||| On Mon, 9 Apr 2007 18:58:40 +0100, "Sla#s" 
> |||| wrote:
> ||||
> |||||
> ||||| I assume you mean "Drugs that are currently prohibited from sale
> ||||| to the general public in the UK"
> ||||| In which case how would the sale of safer controlled dose,
> ||||| controlled quality substances to those of the correct age be more
> ||||| dangerous that the current situation where one hasn't a clue what
> ||||| one is being sold and anyone of any age can get hold of anything?
> |||
> |||| Yes, that's a good point. But the safe controlled sales, age
> |||| resitrictions and quality controls of the legal drugs that are
> |||| alcohol and  tobacco clearly don't work well in some cases, so why
> |||| should they be expected to work for these  slightly more powerful
> |||| substances.
> |||
> ||| Tobacco and alcohol are more powerful and more dangerous than many
> ||| illegal drugs.
> |||
> ||
> || Tobacco and alcohol most certainly ruin health and put strains on
> || the NHS.
> |
> | I suspect that more revenue is raised by taxing fags and booze
> | that is spent moping up afterwards.
>
> Drum used to be the biggest selling rolling tobacco in the UK but it was 
> not
> available on sale in shops here.  I would imagine they make well over £5 
> on
> a packet of B&H.  It could be more as I have no idea how much a packet is.
> Going back a while I was allowed to buy the cigs without tax for 50p when
> they were £3 a packet.
>
> Fags were encouraged by the Government for years.  If by any chance this 
> no
> smoking in public ban should deter people from smoking then they will make
> up the revenue from somewhere else.  Probably the hard done by honest
> motorist will have to stump up.
>
> Ask yourself this though if as members of the EU we break down tariffs and
> encourage equal and free trade, why are the British screwed on the price 
> of
> fags and alcohol ?
>
> Government stick us on the petrol pumps and over the shop counter on 
> things
> most people deem a necessity.
>
> At least Dick Turpin had the good grace to wear a mask !!!

It's not just the gummint.

Even exclusive of tax many thing are far more expensive in the UK.

Even UK produced good are for sale in the USA for
the equivalent number of $ as £ here. What a swiz!

For instance, a $10 cd costs £10 in the UK.

Paolo wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 18:54:42 +0100, "Sla#s" 
> wrote:
>
>>
>> Could it be that the authorities spend far too much time chasing
>> cannabis users whereas they should be enforcing the laws on the sale
>> of dangerous but legal drugs to minors?
>>
>> Slatts
>
> Possibly, I don't have the figures on that, and can't really guess how
> police time is spent.
>
> But I think the argument of "the only way to bring the crime rate down
> is to reduce the number of illegal things" is a bit simplistic.

To an extent all I want is a level playing field.

It is very confusing to say on one hand, "This drug is very dangerous but 
society can in general handle the effects" Then on the other say, "Although 
this drug is far less dangerous we will put you in jail and ruin your life 
if you use it".

Slatts

Julian wrote:
<SNIP>> I suspect that more revenue is raised by taxing fags and booze
> that is spent moping up afterwards.

'According to the Office for National Statistics the UK Government collected
£8.1bn in tobacco taxes in 2002 and spent £1.5bn on smoking-related
illnesses.'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4840638.stm


Slatts

Paolo wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 17:58:44 GMT, Clough  wrote:
>
>>> Yes, that's a good point. But the safe controlled sales, age
>>> resitrictions and quality controls of the legal drugs that are
>>> alcohol and  tobacco clearly don't work well in some cases, so why
>>> should they be expected to work for these  slightly more powerful
>>> substances.
>>
>> Tobacco and alcohol are more powerful and more dangerous than many
>> illegal drugs.
>>
>> Clough
>
> That's a good point, quite possibly they are. I think thier wider
> availablility and widespread useage is part of the problem with those
> substances and I am not convinced that expanding that problem to
> include other substances is a good idea.

If just ten percent of alcohol users switched to cannabis it would save 
three thousand lives a year.

Slatts

"Sla#s"  wrote in message news:461c0c0f.1@entanet...
> Julian wrote:
> <SNIP>> I suspect that more revenue is raised by taxing fags and booze
>> that is spent moping up afterwards.
>
> 'According to the Office for National Statistics the UK Government 
> collected
> £8.1bn in tobacco taxes in 2002 and spent £1.5bn on smoking-related
> illnesses.'
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4840638.stm

So in this case, and probably for booze too,
drug takers are a net benefit to the common good.

Legalising cannabis et. al. would probably mean that
the poor sods in hospital wouldn't have to pay £15 per week to watch TV,
18p or some such per minute to use a phone, and an arm and a leg
to use the car park... bring it on.

(except the government couldn't be trusted with the money)

Julian wrote:
> "Sla#s"  wrote in message
> news:461c0c0f.1@entanet...
>> Julian wrote:
>> <SNIP>> I suspect that more revenue is raised by taxing fags and
>> booze
>>> that is spent moping up afterwards.
>>
>> 'According to the Office for National Statistics the UK Government
>> collected
>> £8.1bn in tobacco taxes in 2002 and spent £1.5bn on smoking-related
>> illnesses.'
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4840638.stm
>
> So in this case, and probably for booze too,
> drug takers are a net benefit to the common good.
>
> Legalising cannabis et. al. would probably mean that
> the poor sods in hospital wouldn't have to pay £15 per week to watch
> TV, 18p or some such per minute to use a phone, and an arm and a leg
> to use the car park... bring it on.
>
> (except the government couldn't be trusted with the money)

No!
The problem with cannabis from the exchequers point of view is that cannabis 
users do not die off early like tobacco and alcohol users but continue to 
collect their pensions to a ripe old age!

Slatts

"Sla#s"  wrote in message news:461c17b0.0@entanet...
> Julian wrote:
>> "Sla#s"  wrote in message
>> news:461c0c0f.1@entanet...
>>> Julian wrote:
>>> <SNIP>> I suspect that more revenue is raised by taxing fags and
>>> booze
>>>> that is spent moping up afterwards.
>>>
>>> 'According to the Office for National Statistics the UK Government
>>> collected
>>> £8.1bn in tobacco taxes in 2002 and spent £1.5bn on smoking-related
>>> illnesses.'
>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4840638.stm
>>
>> So in this case, and probably for booze too,
>> drug takers are a net benefit to the common good.
>>
>> Legalising cannabis et. al. would probably mean that
>> the poor sods in hospital wouldn't have to pay £15 per week to watch
>> TV, 18p or some such per minute to use a phone, and an arm and a leg
>> to use the car park... bring it on.
>>
>> (except the government couldn't be trusted with the money)
>
> No!
> The problem with cannabis from the exchequers point of view is that 
> cannabis users do not die off early like tobacco and alcohol users but 
> continue to collect their pensions to a ripe old age!

I'm not sure if there's any evidence for that.

I think that the number of people who have used cannabis
on a regular basis for 50 years or so, is tiny.

On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 01:51:27 +0100, Julian wrote:

> I think that the number of people who have used cannabis on a regular
> basis for 50 years or so, is tiny.

Cannabis wasn't that popular in the 1950's. However, there are some
hereabouts who can claim 40 years.

-- 
Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK

"Phil Stovell"  wrote in message 
news:pan.2007.04.11.07.23.44.926222@stovell.org.uk...
> On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 01:51:27 +0100, Julian wrote:
>
>> I think that the number of people who have used cannabis on a regular
>> basis for 50 years or so, is tiny.
>
> Cannabis wasn't that popular in the 1950's. However, there are some
> hereabouts who can claim 40 years.

Yes, but it is generally early days compared with tobacco experience.

(Also, in my experience, approximately, 99% of cannabis users smoke tobacco,
which muddies the picture somewhat.)

On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 09:05:33 +0100, Julian wrote:

> "Phil Stovell"  wrote in message
> news:pan.2007.04.11.07.23.44.926222@stovell.org.uk...
>> On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 01:51:27 +0100, Julian wrote:
>>
>>> I think that the number of people who have used cannabis on a regular
>>> basis for 50 years or so, is tiny.
>>
>> Cannabis wasn't that popular in the 1950's. However, there are some
>> hereabouts who can claim 40 years.
> 
> Yes, but it is generally early days compared with tobacco experience.

Not really. Jazz musicians used it in the 1930s and there were hashish
bars in the 19th century.

> 
> (Also, in my experience, approximately, 99% of cannabis users smoke
> tobacco, which muddies the picture somewhat.)

Yes, it does.

-- 
Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK

"Phil Stovell"  wrote in message 
news:pan.2007.04.11.09.10.57.931123@stovell.org.uk...
> On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 09:05:33 +0100, Julian wrote:
>
>> "Phil Stovell"  wrote in message
>> news:pan.2007.04.11.07.23.44.926222@stovell.org.uk...
>>> On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 01:51:27 +0100, Julian wrote:
>>>
>>>> I think that the number of people who have used cannabis on a regular
>>>> basis for 50 years or so, is tiny.
>>>
>>> Cannabis wasn't that popular in the 1950's. However, there are some
>>> hereabouts who can claim 40 years.
>>
>> Yes, but it is generally early days compared with tobacco experience.
>
> Not really. Jazz musicians used it in the 1930s

Yes, but that's a relatively small sample.

>and there were hashish
> bars in the 19th century.

Not much cannabis smoking going on though.
Cannabis tincture was wide spread (and opium and cocaine.)
Mind you... it was Gin that ruined mothers.

In news:br2dnditkc3xMoHbnZ2dnUVZ8qSnnZ2d@bt.com,
Julian  typed:
| "Phil Stovell"  wrote in message
| news:pan.2007.04.11.09.10.57.931123@stovell.org.uk...
|| On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 09:05:33 +0100, Julian wrote:
||
||| "Phil Stovell"  wrote in message
||| news:pan.2007.04.11.07.23.44.926222@stovell.org.uk...
|||| On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 01:51:27 +0100, Julian wrote:
||||
||||| I think that the number of people who have used cannabis on a
||||| regular basis for 50 years or so, is tiny.
||||
|||| Cannabis wasn't that popular in the 1950's. However, there are some
|||| hereabouts who can claim 40 years.
|||
||| Yes, but it is generally early days compared with tobacco
||| experience.
||
|| Not really. Jazz musicians used it in the 1930s
|
| Yes, but that's a relatively small sample.
|
|| and there were hashish
|| bars in the 19th century.
|
| Not much cannabis smoking going on though.
| Cannabis tincture was wide spread (and opium and cocaine.)
| Mind you... it was Gin that ruined mothers.

Gin was indeed ruination.  Well done science for developing Valium 
(Diazapam) and saving the good old Mum (Mam) and the British nuclear family!


-- 
Count Baldoni

In news:461c17b0.0@entanet,
Sla#s  typed:
| Julian wrote:
|| "Sla#s"  wrote in message
|| news:461c0c0f.1@entanet...
||| Julian wrote:
||| <SNIP>> I suspect that more revenue is raised by taxing fags and
||| booze
|||| that is spent moping up afterwards.
|||
||| 'According to the Office for National Statistics the UK Government
||| collected
||| £8.1bn in tobacco taxes in 2002 and spent £1.5bn on smoking-related
||| illnesses.'
||| http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4840638.stm
||
|| So in this case, and probably for booze too,
|| drug takers are a net benefit to the common good.
||
|| Legalising cannabis et. al. would probably mean that
|| the poor sods in hospital wouldn't have to pay £15 per week to watch
|| TV, 18p or some such per minute to use a phone, and an arm and a leg
|| to use the car park... bring it on.
||
|| (except the government couldn't be trusted with the money)
|
| No!
| The problem with cannabis from the exchequers point of view is that
| cannabis users do not die off early like tobacco and alcohol users
| but continue to collect their pensions to a ripe old age!
|
| Slatts

I know a Labour MP who does his own thing (he represents his constituents 
without poodling up to Bliar), he has campaigned long and hard for years for 
the decriminalization of cannabis.  I think he has smoked a bit himself due 
to his arthritis.  He has similar views, isn't it typical that a government 
should always make issues about those selfish bastards for daring to live 
longer.

-- 
Count Baldoni

In news:ldCdnU16sdsalYHbnZ2dnUVZ8sGvnZ2d@bt.com,
Julian  typed:
| "Baldoni"  wrote in message
| news:461c005d$0$9333$88260bb3@news.teranews.com...
|| In news:zYydneLoJeORYIbbnZ2dnUVZ8tChnZ2d@bt.com,
|| Julian  typed:
||| "Baldoni" <amalfi.org> wrote in message
||| news:461be7ad$0$9212$88260bb3@news.teranews.com...
|||| In news:v2kn13dn36bbecl89ee0lb9adl2u292otq@4ax.com,
|||| Clough  typed:
||||| On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 17:23:32 GMT, Paolo  wrote:
|||||
|||||| On Mon, 9 Apr 2007 18:58:40 +0100, "Sla#s" 
|||||| wrote:
||||||
|||||||
||||||| I assume you mean "Drugs that are currently prohibited from sale
||||||| to the general public in the UK"
||||||| In which case how would the sale of safer controlled dose,
||||||| controlled quality substances to those of the correct age be
||||||| more dangerous that the current situation where one hasn't a
||||||| clue what one is being sold and anyone of any age can get hold
||||||| of anything?
|||||
|||||| Yes, that's a good point. But the safe controlled sales, age
|||||| resitrictions and quality controls of the legal drugs that are
|||||| alcohol and  tobacco clearly don't work well in some cases, so
|||||| why should they be expected to work for these  slightly more
|||||| powerful substances.
|||||
||||| Tobacco and alcohol are more powerful and more dangerous than many
||||| illegal drugs.
|||||
||||
|||| Tobacco and alcohol most certainly ruin health and put strains on
|||| the NHS.
|||
||| I suspect that more revenue is raised by taxing fags and booze
||| that is spent moping up afterwards.
||
|| Drum used to be the biggest selling rolling tobacco in the UK but it
|| was not
|| available on sale in shops here.  I would imagine they make well
|| over £5 on
|| a packet of B&H.  It could be more as I have no idea how much a
|| packet is. Going back a while I was allowed to buy the cigs without
|| tax for 50p when they were £3 a packet.
||
|| Fags were encouraged by the Government for years.  If by any chance
|| this no
|| smoking in public ban should deter people from smoking then they
|| will make up the revenue from somewhere else.  Probably the hard
|| done by honest motorist will have to stump up.
||
|| Ask yourself this though if as members of the EU we break down
|| tariffs and encourage equal and free trade, why are the British
|| screwed on the price of
|| fags and alcohol ?
||
|| Government stick us on the petrol pumps and over the shop counter on
|| things
|| most people deem a necessity.
||
|| At least Dick Turpin had the good grace to wear a mask !!!
|
| It's not just the gummint.
|
| Even exclusive of tax many thing are far more expensive in the UK.
|
| Even UK produced good are for sale in the USA for
| the equivalent number of $ as £ here. What a swiz!
|
| For instance, a $10 cd costs £10 in the UK.

Same with cars and I bought a pair of Timberlands for the same in dollars as 
would have cost me £'s.

CB

In news:461c0c0f.0@entanet,
Sla#s  typed:
| Paolo wrote:
|| On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 17:58:44 GMT, Clough  wrote:
||
|||| Yes, that's a good point. But the safe controlled sales, age
|||| resitrictions and quality controls of the legal drugs that are
|||| alcohol and  tobacco clearly don't work well in some cases, so why
|||| should they be expected to work for these  slightly more powerful
|||| substances.
|||
||| Tobacco and alcohol are more powerful and more dangerous than many
||| illegal drugs.
|||
||| Clough
||
|| That's a good point, quite possibly they are. I think thier wider
|| availablility and widespread useage is part of the problem with those
|| substances and I am not convinced that expanding that problem to
|| include other substances is a good idea.
|
| If just ten percent of alcohol users switched to cannabis it would
| save three thousand lives a year.
|
| Slatts


Many say that smoking draw is less harmful than alcohol but it depends on 
the quantity.

2 or 3 joints will not do the same harm as a bottle of scotch a night.

However if people smoke like Peter Tosh used to, he used to keep weed in 
large plastic bins on tour, then it will cause mental health problems.

One also has to consider that there are people who should steer clear of 
dope and drink as it has bad effects on their mental health just by taking 
small quantities.
-- 
Count Baldoni

"Paolo"  wrote in message 
news:nokn139t50jd5urs2p2q1eq91as4nt2i1l@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 17:58:44 GMT, Clough  wrote:
>
>>>Yes, that's a good point. But the safe controlled sales, age
>>>resitrictions and quality controls of the legal drugs that are alcohol
>>>and  tobacco clearly don't work well in some cases, so why should they
>>>be expected to work for these  slightly more powerful substances.
>>
>>Tobacco and alcohol are more powerful and more dangerous than many
>>illegal drugs.
>>
>>Clough
>
> That's a good point, quite possibly they are. I think thier wider
> availablility and widespread useage is part of the problem with those
> substances and I am not convinced that expanding that problem to
> include other substances is a good idea.
>
Ah yes, the Prohibitionist's Delusion. That prohibition is somehow working 
and actually holding back the demonic tide (all you have to do is believe it 
true). That prohibition is the only stitch holding everything together and 
without it all of society would be consumed in the burning fires of hell.
The reality is that prohibition and it's childlike thickhead supporters 
simply inject a whole heap of misery and violence into the trade. Still keep 
believing in demonic drug-addled apocalyptic fantasies and prohibition seems 
quite an acceptable alternative eh?

shame about the facts but don't let those stop you.

"Baldoni"  wrote in message 
news:461c9b9f$0$9311$88260bb3@news.teranews.com...
> In news:461c0c0f.0@entanet,
> Sla#s  typed:
> | Paolo wrote:
> || On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 17:58:44 GMT, Clough  wrote:
> ||
> |||| Yes, that's a good point. But the safe controlled sales, age
> |||| resitrictions and quality controls of the legal drugs that are
> |||| alcohol and  tobacco clearly don't work well in some cases, so why
> |||| should they be expected to work for these  slightly more powerful
> |||| substances.
> |||
> ||| Tobacco and alcohol are more powerful and more dangerous than many
> ||| illegal drugs.
> |||
> ||| Clough
> ||
> || That's a good point, quite possibly they are. I think thier wider
> || availablility and widespread useage is part of the problem with those
> || substances and I am not convinced that expanding that problem to
> || include other substances is a good idea.
> |
> | If just ten percent of alcohol users switched to cannabis it would
> | save three thousand lives a year.
> |
> | Slatts
>
>
> Many say that smoking draw is less harmful than alcohol but it depends on
> the quantity.
>
> 2 or 3 joints will not do the same harm as a bottle of scotch a night.
>
> However if people smoke like Peter Tosh used to, he used to keep weed in
> large plastic bins on tour, then it will cause mental health problems.
>
> One also has to consider that there are people who should steer clear of
> dope and drink as it has bad effects on their mental health just by taking
> small quantities.
>
and prohibition stops these problems...?
Oh yeah that's right it doesn't, it adds to them and makes resolving issues 
that do arise many, many times more difficult to deal with than they 
otherwise should be.

"Clough"  wrote in message 
news:ooln139eaukbvl8d6e59kcp7v9djv7bi0v@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 18:08:59 GMT, Paolo  wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 17:57:31 GMT, Clough  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>It's prohibitionist dickheads who rule the world and want to force
>>>their values on others.
>
>>Yes, this is what I meant, your method of rejecting my alternative
>>opinion seemed to suggest to me initially that you could possibly fall
>>into this category.
>
> My position is one of not forcing my beliefs about personal behaviour
> upon others. I respect the right of others to choose for themselves.
>
> Your position is one of wanting to use force upon others to compel
> them under threat of punishment to submit your beliefs about how they
> should behave.
>
> So, to use your words, it is you who wants to sit on a perch and rule
> the world.
>
The issue with prohibitionists is the blind solid belief in the validity of 
what they believe. The absolute fact that in almost all cases it's little 
more than ill reasoned, emotive fantasy seems not to register in their tiny 
minds.
The demons must be slain.

On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 17:23:32 GMT, Paolo  wrote:

>>I assume you mean "Drugs that are currently prohibited from sale to the
>>general public in the UK"
>>In which case how would the sale of safer controlled dose, controlled
>>quality substances to those of the correct age be more dangerous that the
>>current situation where one hasn't a clue what one is being sold and anyone
>>of any age can get hold of anything?

>Yes, that's a good point. But the safe controlled sales, age
>resitrictions and quality controls of the legal drugs that are alcohol
>and  tobacco clearly don't work well in some cases, so why should they
>be expected to work for these  slightly more powerful substances. 

Firstly, they work a darn sight better than the situation with illegal
drugs, and secondly, many illegal drugs are far *less* "powerful" than
alcohol or tobacco.

Alcohol causes more health damage and the effects of intoxication are
more antisocial and debilitating than most illegal drugs, including
heroin.

Tobacco is more addictive than most illegal drugs.

-- 
Cynic

On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 18:25:36 GMT, Paolo  wrote:

>But I think the argument of "the only way to bring the crime rate down
>is to reduce the number of illegal things" is a bit simplistic.

And if that is your interpretation of what those who are against
prohibition are saying, then you are a bit simplistic.

-- 
Cynic

In news:ejur139c32uapib4l3tlm3cpnf82fvee8f@4ax.com,
Cynic  typed:
| On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 17:23:32 GMT, Paolo  wrote:
|
||| I assume you mean "Drugs that are currently prohibited from sale to
||| the general public in the UK"
||| In which case how would the sale of safer controlled dose,
||| controlled quality substances to those of the correct age be more
||| dangerous that the current situation where one hasn't a clue what
||| one is being sold and anyone of any age can get hold of anything?
|
|| Yes, that's a good point. But the safe controlled sales, age
|| resitrictions and quality controls of the legal drugs that are
|| alcohol and  tobacco clearly don't work well in some cases, so why
|| should they be expected to work for these  slightly more powerful
|| substances.
|
| Firstly, they work a darn sight better than the situation with illegal
| drugs, and secondly, many illegal drugs are far *less* "powerful" than
| alcohol or tobacco.
|
| Alcohol causes more health damage and the effects of intoxication are
| more antisocial and debilitating than most illegal drugs, including
| heroin.
|
| Tobacco is more addictive than most illegal drugs.

That ain't no horseshit

I agree with this.
-- 
Count Baldoni

On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 10:26:45 +0100, Cynic 
wrote:

>
>And if that is your interpretation of what those who are against
>prohibition are saying, then you are a bit simplistic.
>
>-- 
>Cynic

Granted, it was a comment made against only one of the arguments I'm
seeing on here.

On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 18:13:00 +0100, "JohnR" 
wrote:

>
>"Paolo"  wrote in message 
>news:nokn139t50jd5urs2p2q1eq91as4nt2i1l@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 17:58:44 GMT, Clough  wrote:
>>
>>>>Yes, that's a good point. But the safe controlled sales, age
>>>>resitrictions and quality controls of the legal drugs that are alcohol
>>>>and  tobacco clearly don't work well in some cases, so why should they
>>>>be expected to work for these  slightly more powerful substances.
>>>
>>>Tobacco and alcohol are more powerful and more dangerous than many
>>>illegal drugs.
>>>
>>>Clough
>>
>> That's a good point, quite possibly they are. I think thier wider
>> availablility and widespread useage is part of the problem with those
>> substances and I am not convinced that expanding that problem to
>> include other substances is a good idea.
>>
>Ah yes, the Prohibitionist's Delusion. That prohibition is somehow working 
>and actually holding back the demonic tide (all you have to do is believe it 
>true). That prohibition is the only stitch holding everything together and 
>without it all of society would be consumed in the burning fires of hell.
>The reality is that prohibition and it's childlike thickhead supporters 
>simply inject a whole heap of misery and violence into the trade. Still keep 
>believing in demonic drug-addled apocalyptic fantasies and prohibition seems 
>quite an acceptable alternative eh?
>
>shame about the facts but don't let those stop you. 
>


So you'd favour a free for all where everyone was able to do
everytning they wanted?

"Paolo"  wrote in message 
news:pnqs13p79j9h412fh7emui2b7ec41rg15l@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 18:13:00 +0100, "JohnR" 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Paolo"  wrote in message
>>news:nokn139t50jd5urs2p2q1eq91as4nt2i1l@4ax.com...
>>> On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 17:58:44 GMT, Clough  wrote:
>>>
>>>>>Yes, that's a good point. But the safe controlled sales, age
>>>>>resitrictions and quality controls of the legal drugs that are alcohol
>>>>>and  tobacco clearly don't work well in some cases, so why should they
>>>>>be expected to work for these  slightly more powerful substances.
>>>>
>>>>Tobacco and alcohol are more powerful and more dangerous than many
>>>>illegal drugs.
>>>>
>>>>Clough
>>>
>>> That's a good point, quite possibly they are. I think thier wider
>>> availablility and widespread useage is part of the problem with those
>>> substances and I am not convinced that expanding that problem to
>>> include other substances is a good idea.
>>>
>>Ah yes, the Prohibitionist's Delusion. That prohibition is somehow working
>>and actually holding back the demonic tide (all you have to do is believe 
>>it
>>true). That prohibition is the only stitch holding everything together and
>>without it all of society would be consumed in the burning fires of hell.
>>The reality is that prohibition and it's childlike thickhead supporters
>>simply inject a whole heap of misery and violence into the trade. Still 
>>keep
>>believing in demonic drug-addled apocalyptic fantasies and prohibition 
>>seems
>>quite an acceptable alternative eh?
>>
>>shame about the facts but don't let those stop you.
>>
>
>
> So you'd favour a free for all where everyone was able to do
> everytning they wanted?
>
Again, the delusion that we don't have that now.

On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 17:20:31 GMT, Paolo  wrote:

>>And if that is your interpretation of what those who are against
>>prohibition are saying, then you are a bit simplistic.

>Granted, it was a comment made against only one of the arguments I'm
>seeing on here.

Strange, because I have not seen that argument presented at all in
this thread.  Would you care to point out the post in which it was
made?

-- 
Cynic

On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 17:21:53 GMT, Paolo  wrote:

>So you'd favour a free for all where everyone was able to do
>everytning they wanted?

Everything they wanted *that does not harm non-consenting people*,
yes.

What do you think would be the problem with that?

-- 
Cynic

"Baldoni"  wrote in message 
news:4614e393$0$9171$88260bb3@news.teranews.com...
> Please ignore my ignorance on the subject but I seek information.  We are 
> not going to stop drug abuse are we.  Any war on drugs we may have had was 
> lost a long time ago.  Drug barons run their empires like Multi- National 
> companies.
>
> What then is the case for legalizing drugs.  How would we go about this 
> and what would the implications be. Is it possible or is it something that 
> we would live to regret.
>
> Is it a stupid proposal or is it a reasonable proposal.
>
> Count Baldoni

I've always been in favour of legalising/licensing drugs
including... infect especially heroin on health grounds
for both the users and society, but even so I am stumped
when it comes to what to do about cocaine since there doesn't
appear to a point at which a user is satisfied.

As for LSD.. at least one good dose should be a compulsory
element of any National Curriculum.

--
www.ptlslzb87.blogspot.com/

Julian wrote:

<SNIP>I am stumped
> when it comes to what to do about cocaine since there doesn't
> appear to a point at which a user is satisfied.
>

Only sell it in a dilute form.
OK nutters will end up concentrating it but 99% of folk will be happy with 
it as a good "pick-me-up".

> As for LSD.. at least one good dose should be a compulsory
> element of any National Curriculum.

To bloody right!
I Second That!

Slatts

Julian wrote:
> "Baldoni"  wrote in message 
> news:4614e393$0$9171$88260bb3@news.teranews.com...
>> Please ignore my ignorance on the subject but I seek information.  We 
>> are not going to stop drug abuse are we.  Any war on drugs we may have 
>> had was lost a long time ago.  Drug barons run their empires like 
>> Multi- National companies.
>>
>> What then is the case for legalizing drugs.  How would we go about 
>> this and what would the implications be. Is it possible or is it 
>> something that we would live to regret.
>>
>> Is it a stupid proposal or is it a reasonable proposal.
>>
>> Count Baldoni
> 
> I've always been in favour of legalising/licensing drugs
> including... infect especially heroin on health grounds
> for both the users and society, but even so I am stumped
> when it comes to what to do about cocaine since there doesn't
> appear to a point at which a user is satisfied.
> 
> As for LSD.. at least one good dose should be a compulsory
> element of any National Curriculum.

I am trying to think of all the old ones, strawberry's, purple oms ?, 
smilies, it is so long ago I can't remember.  A mate of mine was in this 
pub and he asked "would 10 have the same effect as 1".  As far as I'm 
concerned 10 is 10 X more than 1.

Anyway he swallowed about 14 of them in one go.  He was really screwed, 
I know another guy who took too many and his mother had to have him 
sectioned.  Thank God he came back down eventually, he thought he was 
Jesus and also thought he could breath underwater.

> 
> -- 
> www.ptlslzb87.blogspot.com/

Sla#s wrote:
> Julian wrote:
> 
> <SNIP>I am stumped
>> when it comes to what to do about cocaine since there doesn't
>> appear to a point at which a user is satisfied.
>>
> 
> Only sell it in a dilute form.
> OK nutters will end up concentrating it but 99% of folk will be happy with 
> it as a good "pick-me-up".
> 
>> As for LSD.. at least one good dose should be a compulsory
>> element of any National Curriculum.
> 
> To bloody right!
> I Second That!
> 
> Slatts 
> 
> 
This nutter I know was spiking us with liquid LSD the twat.  There was 
about 10 of us sat in a field all night on the side of a motorway.

Madness

CB

"Baldoni"  wrote in message
news:4614e393$0$9171$88260bb3@news.teranews.com...
> Please ignore my ignorance on the subject but I seek information.  We
> are not going to stop drug abuse are we.  Any war on drugs we may have
> had was lost a long time ago.  Drug barons run their empires like Multi-
> National companies.
>
> What then is the case for legalizing drugs.  How would we go about this
> and what would the implications be. Is it possible or is it something
> that we would live to regret.
>
> Is it a stupid proposal or is it a reasonable proposal.
>
> Count Baldoni

Legalise drugs, more of them are sold, price comes down on the street, less
theft to pay for drugs, retailers source theirs from "legal" suppliers,
drugs barons go out of business, more jobs for rehab centres, goverment can
tax druggies to the hilt, so more benefits for asylum seekers and lone
parents......everyones a winner.

"jj66"  wrote in message 
news:PfnRh.577$xT6.562@newsfe7-gui.ntli.net...
>
> "Baldoni"  wrote in message
> news:4614e393$0$9171$88260bb3@news.teranews.com...
>> Please ignore my ignorance on the subject but I seek information.  We
>> are not going to stop drug abuse are we.  Any war on drugs we may have
>> had was lost a long time ago.  Drug barons run their empires like Multi-
>> National companies.
>>
>> What then is the case for legalizing drugs.  How would we go about this
>> and what would the implications be. Is it possible or is it something
>> that we would live to regret.
>>
>> Is it a stupid proposal or is it a reasonable proposal.
>>
>> Count Baldoni
>
> Legalise drugs, more of them are sold, price comes down on the street, 
> less
> theft to pay for drugs, retailers source theirs from "legal" suppliers,
> drugs barons go out of business, more jobs for rehab centres, goverment 
> can
> tax druggies to the hilt, so more benefits for asylum seekers and lone
> parents......everyones a winner.

I agree entirely but,  in the light of experience,
(mine, acquaintances and others)
I can't see that working in the case of such
a hugely moreish delight as cocaine, particularly freebase.

--
www.ptlslzb87.blogspot.com/

On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 08:10:23 GMT, "jj66"  wrote:

>
>"Baldoni"  wrote in message
>news:4614e393$0$9171$88260bb3@news.teranews.com...
>> Please ignore my ignorance on the subject but I seek information.  We
>> are not going to stop drug abuse are we.  Any war on drugs we may have
>> had was lost a long time ago.  Drug barons run their empires like Multi-
>> National companies.
>>
>> What then is the case for legalizing drugs.  How would we go about this
>> and what would the implications be. Is it possible or is it something
>> that we would live to regret.
>>
>> Is it a stupid proposal or is it a reasonable proposal.
>>
>> Count Baldoni
>
>Legalise drugs, more of them are sold, price comes down on the street, less
>theft to pay for drugs, retailers source theirs from "legal" suppliers,
>drugs barons go out of business, more jobs for rehab centres, goverment can
>tax druggies to the hilt, so more benefits for asylum seekers and lone
>parents......everyones a winner.
>
Except all the redundant cops, customs and prison officers who will
have to find honest work

-- 
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

>Except all the redundant cops, customs and prison officers who will
>have to find honest work

They could become doctors, funeral directors and grave diggers as
their work load will increase dramatically if drugs were legal.

On Mon, 09 Apr 2007 16:17:39 GMT, Paolo  wrote:

>
>>Except all the redundant cops, customs and prison officers who will
>>have to find honest work

>They could become doctors, funeral directors and grave diggers as
>their work load will increase dramatically if drugs were legal.

Bollocks.

Clough

"Paolo"  wrote in message
news:vopk13tv3jp68vqi9t4poakr8athbgg2j5@4ax.com...
>
> >Except all the redundant cops, customs and prison officers who will
> >have to find honest work
>
> They could become doctors, funeral directors and grave diggers as
> their work load will increase dramatically if drugs were legal.
>
So utterly clueless.

On Mon, 9 Apr 2007 18:42:49 +0100, "JohnR" 
wrote:

>
>"Paolo"  wrote in message
>news:vopk13tv3jp68vqi9t4poakr8athbgg2j5@4ax.com...
>>
>> >Except all the redundant cops, customs and prison officers who will
>> >have to find honest work

>> They could become doctors, funeral directors and grave diggers as
>> their work load will increase dramatically if drugs were legal.

>So utterly clueless.

That's why we have prohibition.

So many pig thick, ignorant dickheads.

Clough

Paolo wrote:
>> Except all the redundant cops, customs and prison officers who will
>> have to find honest work
>
> They could become doctors, funeral directors and grave diggers as
> their work load will increase dramatically if drugs were legal.

And your evidence for this is....?

BTW "Drugs" are legal! Alcohol, tobacco, caffeine, aspirin, etc.
(The first two of which are far more lethal than 90% of those that are
illegal.)

I assume you mean "Drugs that are currently prohibited from sale to the
general public in the UK"
In which case how would the sale of safer controlled dose, controlled
quality substances to those of the correct age be more dangerous that the
current situation where one hasn't a clue what one is being sold and anyone
of any age can get hold of anything?

Slatts