In message 
          Cynic  wrote:

> Do you seriously believe that all drug users are addicted?

Depends on your definition of "addicted", but on the whole, yes.

After all, we've had a confession here in this thread from a person who was
addicted to coffee, tried to do a cold turkey and failed. 

Ken Down

-- 
================ ARCHAEOLOGICAL DIGGINGS ===============
|     Australia's premier archaeological magazine      |
|             http://www.diggingsonline.com            |
========================================================

On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 21:59:37 GMT, Kendall K. Down
 wrote:

>> > Absolutely: we regulate and control them - just like we do with drugs such
>> > as morphine and heroin by making them only available to properly qualified
>> > and licensed people.
 
>> Requiring a medical degree to self-adminster drugs is like requiring a
>> degree in automotive engineering to ride a motorcycle, i.e., grossly
>> disproportionate.

>Quite. Any fool can self-administer drugs - and do himself all sorts of harm
>by doing so inappropriately. It takes a medical degree to recognise when
>drugs are required and to guard against side effects.

In some cases, but by no means all.  Do you similarly believe that you
should consult a nutritionalist before eating food?  It is, after all,
quite apparent that many people cannot self-administer food
responsibly - do *you*?

-- 
Cynic

On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 23:11:18 GMT, Kendall K. Down
 wrote:

>In message 
>          Cynic  wrote:
>
>> >Quite. Any fool can self-administer drugs - and do himself all sorts of harm
>> >by doing so inappropriately. It takes a medical degree to recognise when
>> >drugs are required and to guard against side effects.
> 
>> In some cases, but by no means all.
>
>And oddly, the government does not legislate for those drugs - like aspirin
>- which are safe to self-administer.
>
>> Do you similarly believe that you
>> should consult a nutritionalist before eating food?  It is, after all,
>> quite apparent that many people cannot self-administer food
>> responsibly - do *you*?
>
>I certainly take nutritional advice - and can think of a lot of people who
>would be the better for doing the same. 

Not quite what I asked, is it?

-- 
Cynic

Ysgrifennodd "Kendall K. Down"

> And oddly, the government does not legislate for those drugs
> - like aspirin- which are safe to self-administer.

How about the legislation of THE MEDICINES ACT 2003 
http://www.gov.im/lib/docs/dhss/health/sd905.pdf

and, specifically for aspirin, The Medicines for Human Use (Marketing 
Authorisations Etc) Amendment Regulations 2003

http://www.pjonline.com/Editorial/20030927/society/ethics.html

Kendall K. Down wrote:
> In message 
>           Cynic  wrote:
> 
>>> Quite. Any fool can self-administer drugs - and do himself all sorts of harm
>>> by doing so inappropriately. It takes a medical degree to recognise when
>>> drugs are required and to guard against side effects.
>  
>> In some cases, but by no means all.
> 
> And oddly, the government does not legislate for those drugs - like aspirin
> - which are safe to self-administer.

	Aspirin is not safe and anyone who says so in view of the number
of problems it can cause is failing to examine the situation.  I speak
from personal experience here.

> 
>> Do you similarly believe that you
>> should consult a nutritionalist before eating food?  It is, after all,
>> quite apparent that many people cannot self-administer food
>> responsibly - do *you*?
> 
> I certainly take nutritional advice - and can think of a lot of people who
> would be the better for doing the same. 
> 
> Ken Down


    later
    bliss -- C  O C O A  Powered... (at california dot com)

--
bobbie sellers - a retired nurse in San Francisco

    Ningen banji          Human beings do
    Samazama no           Every single kind
    Baka a suru           Of stupid thing
        --- 117th edition of Haifu Yanagidaru published in 1832

On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 23:11:18 +0000, Kendall K. Down wrote:

> And oddly, the government does not legislate for those drugs - like
> aspirin - which are safe to self-administer.

http://ptcl.chem.ox.ac.uk/~hmc/hsci/chemicals/aspirin.html
http://ptcl.chem.ox.ac.uk/MSDS/AC/acetylsalicylic_acid.html

-- 
Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK

On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 06:50:57 GMT, Kendall K. Down
 wrote:

>In message 
>          bobbie sellers  wrote:
>
>> Aspirin is not safe and anyone who says so in view of the number
>> of problems it can cause is failing to examine the situation.  I speak
>> from personal experience here.
>
>When used as directed, aspirin is safe. It is only when someone takes an
>overdose that it causes harm.
Hmmm.  Very similar to heroin.

-- 
Cynic

Kendall K. Down wrote:
> In message 
>           bobbie sellers  wrote:
> 
>> Aspirin is not safe and anyone who says so in view of the number
>> of problems it can cause is failing to examine the situation.  I speak
>> from personal experience here.
> 
> When used as directed, aspirin is safe. It is only when someone takes an
> overdose that it causes harm. However, being aware that all drugs can cause
> problems, I rarely take even aspirin and would rather put up with a mild to
> moderate headache.

	I was ill over 20 years ago, having a fever and taking aspirin to help
get my temperature down.  In my fevered state I overdosed on the
aspirin and the results are tintinitis(sic) and sensitivity to the whole
damn family of salicylates.

> 
> Incidentally, did you see that a study in your part of the world has found
> that two cups of coffee per day (or their equivalent in tea and soft drinks)
> doubles a woman's risk of miscarriage?
> 
> Ken Down

	Yes I read that as a headline on the San Francisco Chronicle today.
Not terribly suprized, but then I have a caffiene sensitivity too.  Too
many Coca-colas as a kid I guess.

    later
    bliss -- C  O C O A  Powered... (at california dot com)

--
bobbie sellers - a retired nurse in San Francisco

     "It is by will alone I set my mind in motion.
     It is by the beans of cocoa that the thoughts acquire speed,
     the thighs acquire girth, the girth become a warning.
     It is by theobromine alone I set my mind in motion."
        --from Someone else's Dune spoof ripped to my taste.

On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 18:37:31 GMT, Kendall K. Down
 wrote:

>> Should the government require it? Should the government ban food
>> deemed nono-health-promoting by nutritionists?

>The government already does for certain population groups, such as children.

Really?  Please could you name the foods that children are prohibited
from eating?

-- 
Cynic

On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 06:43:07 GMT, Kendall K. Down
 wrote:

>> >When used as directed, aspirin is safe. It is only when someone takes an
>> >overdose that it causes harm.

>> Hmmm.  Very similar to heroin.

>Not at all similar - no one gets addicted to aspirin.

Plenty of people become psychologically addicted to asprin and other
OTC drugs.

-- 
Cynic

On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 06:43:58 GMT, Kendall K. Down
 wrote:

>> > When used as directed, aspirin is safe.
 
>> So let's make sure when we legalize recreational drugs that we require
>> they be sold with proper directions. No medical degree required.

>*And* make sure that we only legalise those which do not turn their users
>into addicts.

Why?  You have yet to explain why addiction is *of itself* so bad that
it should be banned.

-- 
Cynic

Kendall K. Down wrote:
> In message 
>           bobbie sellers  wrote:
> 
>> I was ill over 20 years ago, having a fever and taking aspirin to help
>> get my temperature down.  In my fevered state I overdosed on the
>> aspirin and the results are tintinitis(sic) and sensitivity to the whole
>> damn family of salicylates.
> 
> See why I prefer not to take even aspirin? If one is fevered, a cold cloth
> to the head or even a tepid bath is a far more effective way of bringing the
> temperature down - but in any case, fever is one of the body's defense
> mechanisms and quashing it seems a rather self-defeating exercise.
> 
> The trouble is that America has a drug-orientated culture, which it has
> exported to the rest of the world. I can remember my aunt and uncle
> (American citizens) writing about these exciting new discoveries of pills
> that helped you get to sleep. A month or so later a subsequent letter told
> of more exciting discoveries: pills that helped you wake up again!
> 
> Bah.
> 
>> Yes I read that as a headline on the San Francisco Chronicle today.
>> Not terribly suprized, but then I have a caffiene sensitivity too.  Too
>> many Coca-colas as a kid I guess.
> 
> And you want drug liberalisation?!?!
> 
> Ken Down

	Yes with education.  I got good education about illegal drugs in
high school and it could be done in elementary school.  But no one
educated children as to the dangers of Coke-Cola due to caffiene then
or the idea that aspirin could be deleterious in large amounts or
merely frequently.  I remember taking St.Joseph Aspirin for children.

	We got more warning about candy causing tooth decay.

	By the way fever is the body's response to a problem all right
but when it gets high it can cause brain damage and death.  That is why
older Americans were conditioned to reduce fever.  If you are so sick
and weak you can barely make it to the bathroom you are not apt to
consider a tepid bath as one may fear not being able to get out of
the tub.  Fever by itself can induce hallucinations and delirium as well
as the confusion that permitted me to overdose myself in the Mid-1970s.

	As for caffiene I didn't know I was sensitive until I had used
coffee for a few years.  I learned I could have a headache
(migraine-form) if I missed my cuppa in 24 hours but since I had lots
of headaches even before using coffee which I didn't start until my
early 30s and so was slow to make the connection.

	On the other hand at the same time of life in an experimental
mood I sample tobacco and found nothing to recommend it aside from the
portrayal of "attitude", but I didn't develop an addiction because after
all I waited until my brain chemistry was mature though somewhat unreliable.

	I started drinking when I was 21 overseas as all the peers and the
elite were doing just that and in larger amounts than I ever was
comfortable with.  I stopped when I was about 30 as a physician told
me I had more important things to do with my liver than that particular
recreational drug.

	So I believe in full disclosure on drug labels and unless others
lives are dependent on your sobriety see no reason for moderate
indulgence in various chemicals, herbs and potions.  Along of course
with full educations as to the meaning of the words on drug labels and
on food labels too for that matter.

	After all I am semsitive to casein the solid protein in cows milk and
along with milk fat the main ingredient in cows milk based cheese.  I am
also sensitive to wheat products, but I will never assume
that due to my personal problems with these substances I should start
a drive to outlaw cheese sandwiches or even the invidious and always
seductive grilled cheese sandwich.  Goat cheese costs more than
drugs if you cannot discipline yourself to moderation and rice
crackers, aka sembei more than bread.

	Similarly I feel that alcohol is not an indulgence I might choose for
myself but other folks are free to use it sensibly.  If they
observe no discipline in the use of alcohol or any other drug they will
suffer the natural consequences and that should be the sole penalty
under law unless they foolishly injure others or others property. If
they behave so irresponsibly it is obvious that more education is needed
in the form of penalties that will lead them to take their
responsibility to others as well as themselves more seriously.  But
sober people who due the same thing need the same penalties.

	But Prohibitionist undercut the whole fabric of a free society without
a second thought for the damage their prescription of total
sobriety does.


    later
    bliss -- C  O C O A  Powered... (at california dot com)

--
bobbie sellers - a retired nurse in San Francisco

     "It is by will alone I set my mind in motion.
     It is by the beans of cocoa that the thoughts acquire speed,
     the thighs acquire girth, the girth become a warning.
     It is by theobromine alone I set my mind in motion."
        --from Someone else's Dune spoof ripped to my taste.

Cynic wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 06:43:07 GMT, Kendall K. Down
>  wrote:
> 
>>>> When used as directed, aspirin is safe. It is only when someone takes an
>>>> overdose that it causes harm.
> 
>>> Hmmm.  Very similar to heroin.
> 
>> Not at all similar - no one gets addicted to aspirin.
> 
> Plenty of people become psychologically addicted to asprin and other
> OTC drugs.
> 

	Indeed they do because they are not taught to endure pain and
as a result fear to allow themselves to feel it.  I recently stopped
using naproxen sodium in prescription strenth for my arthralgia and
myalgia (joint and muscle pains respectively) and I do have a lot more
pain but I may have picked up some endurance for my cardio-exercise,
walking with a little hustling to make the lights at corners.
	When it warms up here again I maybe able to get back to the
point of walking 40 or more blocks per day as I was able to do a few
years back but I had a lot of headaches and the other pain is annoying.

    later
    bliss -- C  O C O A  Powered... (at california dot com)

--
bobbie sellers - a retired nurse in San Francisco

     "It is by will alone I set my mind in motion.
     It is by the beans of cocoa that the thoughts acquire speed,
     the thighs acquire girth, the girth become a warning.
     It is by theobromine alone I set my mind in motion."
        --from Someone else's Dune spoof ripped to my taste.

On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 17:58:24 +0000, Kendall K. Down wrote:

> In message 
>           Cynic  wrote:
> 
>> >The government already does for certain population groups, such as
>> >children.
>  
>> Really?  Please could you name the foods that children are prohibited
>> from eating?
> 
> That orange colouring, for example.

Since when have dyes been food?

> 
> Ken Down
-- 
Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK

On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 17:58:24 GMT, Kendall K. Down
 wrote:

>> >The government already does for certain population groups, such as children.
>
>> Really?  Please could you name the foods that children are prohibited
>> from eating?

>That orange colouring, for example.

Huh?  I have not heard of any "orange colouring" that is illegal to
sell or feed to children.  Please be more specific.

-- 
Cynic

On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 17:59:56 GMT, Kendall K. Down
 wrote:

>> Second, the government has no business
>> treating adults like children.

>True, true. But when the adults behave like children and stick things in
>their mouths that shouldn't be there, what choice does the government have?

It has the choice of saying, "It's no business of the government to
interfere with the choice that an adult makes for him/herself".

What's next?  Putting people in jail because they didn't wear a coat
when going out in cold weather?

-- 
Cynic

On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 06:55:22 GMT, Kendall K. Down
 wrote:

>> Why?  You have yet to explain why addiction is *of itself* so bad that
>> it should be banned.

>Because it turns normal - even promising - individuals into zombies whose
>only concern is to get the next fix.

Bullshit.  I am a nicotine addict and I can assure you that I am far
from being a zombie.

-- 
Cynic

Kendall K. Down wrote:
> In message 
>           bobbie sellers  wrote:
> 
>> Yes with education.  I got good education about illegal drugs in
>> high school and it could be done in elementary school.  But no one
>> educated children as to the dangers of Coke-Cola due to caffiene then
>> or the idea that aspirin could be deleterious in large amounts or
>> merely frequently.  I remember taking St.Joseph Aspirin for children.
>> We got more warning about candy causing tooth decay.
> 
> Sure - because the dangers were not known back in those days. So the remedy
> is better education and regulation about those things, not abandoning
> education and regulation about illegal drugs, which is what you have been
> arguing for.

	The only difference in danger between legal and illegal drugs is the
law.  Because of the law the dangers of legalized drugs are minimized
and the illegal drugs are demonized and the dangers exaggerated.
> 
>> By the way fever is the body's response to a problem all right
>> but when it gets high it can cause brain damage and death.  That is why
>> older Americans were conditioned to reduce fever.  If you are so sick
>> and weak you can barely make it to the bathroom you are not apt to
>> consider a tepid bath as one may fear not being able to get out of
>> the tub.  Fever by itself can induce hallucinations and delirium as well
>> as the confusion that permitted me to overdose myself in the Mid-1970s.
> 
> Sure - but it is difficult to overdose on a wet cloth on the forehead.

	Yes but the effect of a wet washcloth in a high fever is remarkable
minor.  Actually in a decent world i would have been sent to
a hospital bed but I was not nor was I sent to hospital years later with
a more serious illness.
	Such are the perils of private medicine in the USA.


>> Similarly I feel that alcohol is not an indulgence I might choose for
>> myself but other folks are free to use it sensibly.  If they
>> observe no discipline in the use of alcohol or any other drug they will
>> suffer the natural consequences and that should be the sole penalty
>> under law unless they foolishly injure others or others property. If
>> they behave so irresponsibly it is obvious that more education is needed
>> in the form of penalties that will lead them to take their
>> responsibility to others as well as themselves more seriously.  But
>> sober people who due the same thing need the same penalties.
> 
> Oh great. So your answer is to wait until the alcoholic or druggie has
> injured himself or others before you do anything about it? You must have
> been a great mother!
> 
> Ken Down

	Again Kendall you ignore arguments to bring up irrelevant material.  I
have never been a mother though as a nurse I sometimes acted in that
capacity.  I never liked children because not being
a member of the in group in my childhood, moving multiple times in
elementary school due to parents trying to get ahead.  Then when
other matters came up in my mid-twenties I decided that a person
like myself subject to period episodes of depression could not be
good for children.

	There are (or were last time I paid attention) lots of
branches of the Sellers gens so my set of genes was not needed
as far as I could see.

	By the way I loved my mother dearly but was unable to get her
at any time in her life to give up the mother role and let me cook for
her or indeed do any housework when I came home. So I stayed away from
her home and took care of myself as I had been taught to do as a child
when she was busy with work.

	Someone used to a mother interfering with every exploratory movement as
a child might be happy as an adult with a nanny state interfering with
personal choices on a regular basis but that wouldn't
work for more independent parties. 	

    later
    bliss -- C  O C O A  Powered... (at california dot com)

--
bobbie sellers - a retired nurse in San Francisco

     "It is by will alone I set my mind in motion.
     It is by the beans of cocoa that the thoughts acquire speed,
     the thighs acquire girth, the girth become a warning.
     It is by theobromine alone I set my mind in motion."
        --from Someone else's Dune spoof ripped to my taste.

On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 18:53:27 GMT, Kendall K. Down
 wrote:

>> > That orange colouring, for example.
 
>> Since when have dyes been food?

>Since idiots started putting them in our food.

So please tell us what dye has been declared illegal to feed to
children - which was your original assertion.

-- 
Cynic

On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 18:55:53 GMT, Kendall K. Down
 wrote:

>> It has the choice of saying, "It's no business of the government to
>> interfere with the choice that an adult makes for him/herself".

>If someone chooses to use addictive drugs, that seems pretty clear evidence
>that he or she is not an adult.

Bollocks.  Adults do all sorts of risky things.  Mountain climbing,
bungy jumping, skydiving - and taking recreational drugs.
 
>> What's next?  Putting people in jail because they didn't wear a coat
>> when going out in cold weather?

>Perhaps not - but I could certainly see an argument for denying hospital
>treatment to those idiots of the female persuasion who wander around Rhyl,
>with a freezing cold force 9 blowing off the Irish Sea, with bare (and blue)
>midriffs. 

Right - and where does that policy stop?  Refusing to treat a broken
leg of a person who has decided to play rugby?  Refusing treatment to
a person injured in a motorcycle accident?  Disbanding mountain and
sea rescue organisations?

Is your philosophy, "If it's your own fault you don't deserve any
assistance?"

-- 
Cynic

Cynic wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 18:55:53 GMT, Kendall K. Down
>  wrote:
> 
>>> It has the choice of saying, "It's no business of the government to
>>> interfere with the choice that an adult makes for him/herself".
> 
>> If someone chooses to use addictive drugs, that seems pretty clear evidence
>> that he or she is not an adult.
> 
> Bollocks.  Adults do all sorts of risky things.  Mountain climbing,
> bungy jumping, skydiving - and taking recreational drugs.
>  
>>> What's next?  Putting people in jail because they didn't wear a coat
>>> when going out in cold weather?
> 
>> Perhaps not - but I could certainly see an argument for denying hospital
>> treatment to those idiots of the female persuasion who wander around Rhyl,
>> with a freezing cold force 9 blowing off the Irish Sea, with bare (and blue)
>> midriffs. 
> 
> Right - and where does that policy stop?  Refusing to treat a broken
> leg of a person who has decided to play rugby?  Refusing treatment to
> a person injured in a motorcycle accident?  Disbanding mountain and
> sea rescue organisations?

	We actually had a state legislator who pushed the helmet law thru who
didn't want motorcyclists(presumed to be taxpayers, all) to
receive Emergency Room treatment.  He referred to us as "Bastards" in
the hearing of the MC press.

> 
> Is your philosophy, "If it's your own fault you don't deserve any
> assistance?"


    later
    bliss -- C  O C O A  Powered... (at california dot com)

--
bobbie sellers - a retired nurse in San Francisco

     "It is by will alone I set my mind in motion.
     It is by the beans of cocoa that the thoughts acquire speed,
     the thighs acquire girth, the girth become a warning.
     It is by theobromine alone I set my mind in motion."
        --from Someone else's Dune spoof ripped to my taste.

In message 
          Cynic  wrote:

> Bollocks.  Adults do all sorts of risky things.  Mountain climbing,
> bungy jumping, skydiving - and taking recreational drugs.

Only a fool would equate hearty sports like mountain climbing with the sad
vice of drug taking.
  
> Right - and where does that policy stop?  Refusing to treat a broken
> leg of a person who has decided to play rugby?  Refusing treatment to
> a person injured in a motorcycle accident?  Disbanding mountain and
> sea rescue organisations?
> Is your philosophy, "If it's your own fault you don't deserve any
> assistance?"

To a certain extent: however the difference is that riding a motorbike etc
does not lead *inevitably* to disaster; taking drugs does. Even with
alcohol, I have heard experts in the field say that *anyone* can become an
alcoholic if he drinks often enough. 

Ken Down

-- 
================ ARCHAEOLOGICAL DIGGINGS ===============
|     Australia's premier archaeological magazine      |
|             http://www.diggingsonline.com            |
========================================================

In message 
          bobbie sellers  wrote:

> We actually had a state legislator who pushed the helmet law thru who
> didn't want motorcyclists(presumed to be taxpayers, all) to
> receive Emergency Room treatment.  He referred to us as "Bastards" in
> the hearing of the MC press.

Isn't that awful! You are actually forced to wear helmets, just like car
drivers are forced to wear seatbelts? What an infringement of your personal
liberty!

As I said, such laws are for the children among us. *Mature* adults wear
seatbelts and wear helmets whether or not there is a law to that effect,
just as *mature* adults don't go sticking unknown but definitely harmful
substances up their noses or in their mouths.

Ken Down

-- 
================ ARCHAEOLOGICAL DIGGINGS ===============
|     Australia's premier archaeological magazine      |
|             http://www.diggingsonline.com            |
========================================================

Kendall K. Down wrote:
> In message 
>           bobbie sellers  wrote:
> 
>> We actually had a state legislator who pushed the helmet law thru who
>> didn't want motorcyclists(presumed to be taxpayers, all) to
>> receive Emergency Room treatment.  He referred to us as "Bastards" in
>> the hearing of the MC press.
> 
> Isn't that awful! You are actually forced to wear helmets, just like car
> drivers are forced to wear seatbelts? What an infringement of your personal
> liberty!
> 
> As I said, such laws are for the children among us. *Mature* adults wear
> seatbelts and wear helmets whether or not there is a law to that effect,
> just as *mature* adults don't go sticking unknown but definitely harmful
> substances up their noses or in their mouths.
> 
> Ken Down

	 I seldom rode without a helmet but I always figured it was a fine
Darwinian mechanism to eliminate the terminally dull.  However
the legislator in question thought the Bastards would not organise
in his district to replace him.  So he wasn't so bright himself.
Oh and this was before seatbelt wearing was required for adults.

	I guess that is Darwinian selection for political office.

    later
    bliss -- C  O C O A  Powered... (at california dot com)

--
bobbie sellers - a retired nurse in San Francisco

    Ningen banji          Human beings do
    Samazama no           Every single kind
    Baka a suru           Of stupid thing
        --- 117th edition of Haifu Yanagidaru published in 1832

On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 06:44:34 GMT, Kendall K. Down
 wrote:

>> >Because it turns normal - even promising - individuals into zombies whose
>> >only concern is to get the next fix.
> 
>> Bullshit.  I am a nicotine addict and I can assure you that I am far
>> from being a zombie.
>
>Are your posts here supposed to be evidence in favour of that assertion?

A rather poor attempt at a juvenile insult that highlights your
immaturity.  Perhaps that is why you need other people to make your
choices for you?

-- 
Cynic

On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 06:52:26 GMT, Kendall K. Down
 wrote:

>> The only difference in danger between legal and illegal drugs is the
>> law.

>What nonsense you talk.

So perhaps you could explain the difference in the degree of danger
between alcohol and canabis.

-- 
Cynic

On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 18:53:59 GMT, Kendall K. Down
 wrote:

>> Huh?  I have not heard of any "orange colouring" that is illegal to
>> sell or feed to children.  Please be more specific.

>Tartrazine?

There is no law in the UK that prohibits the sale of tartrazine to
children - do you know of any country that does?  It has been banned
altogether for commercial use as a food additive in some countries,
but that is not the claim you made.  It appears to be a rather
questionable additive, given that it has no benefits other than as a
colourant and may have several undesirable effects, so I would not be
upset if it was prohibited for the *food industry* to add it to their
products.  Regulation of permitted practices by industries is a
completely different thing to prohibition of activities by
individuals.

-- 
Cynic

On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 20:45:26 GMT, Kendall K. Down
 wrote:

>To a certain extent: however the difference is that riding a motorbike etc
>does not lead *inevitably* to disaster; taking drugs does.

You are so, so sadly misinformed.

> Even with
>alcohol, I have heard experts in the field say that *anyone* can become an
>alcoholic if he drinks often enough.

Note that within that sentence is the two-letter word "if".  Do you
understand what it means?  How does it tie in to the word "inevitably"
that you used earlier?

Because I can say that a motorcycle rider will always be severely
injured or killed if he has accidents often enough.

There is a difference though - a person can choose whether to drink
often, whilst a motorist cannot choose whether or not to have an
accident.

-- 
Cynic

On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 06:52:26 +0000, Kendall K. Down wrote:

>> The only difference in danger between legal and illegal drugs is the
>> law.
> 
> What nonsense you talk.

Magic mushrooms were legal until a few years ago. The only difference
between now and then is the law.

-- 
Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK

In message 
          bobbie sellers  wrote:

> I seldom rode without a helmet but I always figured it was a fine
> Darwinian mechanism to eliminate the terminally dull.

Well that is true - and if you were to argue for drug liberalisation on the
grounds that it would remove the terminally stupid, I would be likely to
agree with you. Provided, of course, that we provided free drugs, free
needles and *no* medical treatment when the "hogs" overdosed their brainless
selves.

Ken Down

-- 
================ ARCHAEOLOGICAL DIGGINGS ===============
|     Australia's premier archaeological magazine      |
|             http://www.diggingsonline.com            |
========================================================

On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 19:34:02 +0000, Kendall K. Down wrote:

> In message 
>           Phil Stovell  wrote:
> 
>> >> The only difference in danger between legal and illegal drugs is the
>> >> law.
>  
>> > What nonsense you talk.
>  
>> Magic mushrooms were legal until a few years ago. The only difference
>> between now and then is the law.
> 
> Yes - which is a totally different statement to the first one.

No - the drug is the same the only difference is the law.

> Ken Down
-- 
Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK

On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 19:17:00 +0000, Kendall K. Down wrote:

> In message 
>           bobbie sellers  wrote:
> 
>> I seldom rode without a helmet but I always figured it was a fine
>> Darwinian mechanism to eliminate the terminally dull.
> 
> Well that is true - and if you were to argue for drug liberalisation on
> the grounds that it would remove the terminally stupid, I would be likely
> to agree with you. Provided, of course, that we provided free drugs, free
> needles and *no* medical treatment when the "hogs" overdosed their
> brainless selves.

Smokers contribute more to the NHS, on average, than they recoup. This is
because they die younger so they don't need very expensive treatment for
Alzheimer's etc.

> Ken Down
-- 
Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK

On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 19:24:20 GMT, Kendall K. Down
 wrote:

>> There is no law in the UK that prohibits the sale of tartrazine to
>> children - do you know of any country that does?  It has been banned
>> altogether for commercial use as a food additive in some countries,
>> but that is not the claim you made.

>So you agree with my statement. Thank you.

It has never been banned only for use by children as you claimed it
had been.

-- 
Cynic

In message 
          Phil Stovell  wrote:

> Smokers contribute more to the NHS, on average, than they recoup. This is
> because they die younger so they don't need very expensive treatment for
> Alzheimer's etc.

That is an old urban myth. In fact smokers are a net cost to the NHS because
of the range of debilitating diseases from which they suffer before they
die.

Ken Down

-- 
================ ARCHAEOLOGICAL DIGGINGS ===============
|     Australia's premier archaeological magazine      |
|             http://www.diggingsonline.com            |
========================================================

On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 07:15:04 +0000, Kendall K. Down wrote:

> In message 
>           Phil Stovell  wrote:
> 
>> Smokers contribute more to the NHS, on average, than they recoup. This
>> is because they die younger so they don't need very expensive treatment
>> for Alzheimer's etc.
> 
> That is an old urban myth. In fact smokers are a net cost to the NHS
> because of the range of debilitating diseases from which they suffer
> before they die.

Evidence?

> 
> Ken Down
-- 
Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK