In message 
          Cynic  wrote:

> >Agreed - but the evidence is clear that drug abuse *does* harm other people,
> >from the idiot who runs amok with a knife to all of us who have to fork out
> >extra in the NHS budget to pay for the treatment of alcoholics, lung cancer
> >and heart disease sufferers, paranoid schizophrenics and all the rest.
 
> The flaw in that thinking is that prohibition does *more* harm that
> the effects of the drugs on the drug users.

Really? Did you hear the report this morning that 500 people are admitted to
hospital every week in the UK because of cannabis use? And that since the
relaxing of the laws against cannabis use, the number of hospital admissions
have gone up 50%?

Not only is there the human cost of all that suffering - which frankly
leaves me cold; if someone falls ill because of something they have
deliberately taken despite warnings against so doing, I feel no urge to leap
in to relieve their sufferings - there is the fact that all that money - the
hospital beds, the nurses and doctors, the medications - not only comes out
of *my* pocket, but it could be used for treating people who really are sick.

Ken Down

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

On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 20:22:10 GMT, Kendall K. Down
 wrote:

>I repeat: the only valid use for drugs is when properly prescribed as
>medicine. Any other use - whether legal or illegal - is abuse.

Do you similarly believe that the only valid use for food is when it
is used as necessary nourishment for the body, the only valid use for
books is to inform us of knowlege that is necessary to us, and that we
should not indulge in any activity for the sole purpose of giving us
pleasure or relaxation?

Many sports and hobbies carry significant risks for the participants
and some present a risk to uninvolved bystanders.  Should we therefore
ban sports and hobbies unless prescribed to a person for a good
medical reason?

-- 
Cynic

On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 18:07:32 GMT, Kendall K. Down
 wrote:

>> Do you similarly believe that the only valid use for food is when it
>> is used as necessary nourishment for the body, the only valid use for
>> books is to inform us of knowlege that is necessary to us, and that we
>> should not indulge in any activity for the sole purpose of giving us
>> pleasure or relaxation?

>The number of overweight people I see around here seem to be on my side of
>the argument, even when the irrelevant issue of food is introduced.

What business is it of yours that other people are overweight?

>> Many sports and hobbies carry significant risks for the participants
>> and some present a risk to uninvolved bystanders.  Should we therefore
>> ban sports and hobbies unless prescribed to a person for a good
>> medical reason?

>No, because harm is not the inevitable result of rock-climbing or whatever.
>As we have already agreed, however, drug taking is always and invariably
>harmful, even if the drug-taker is so far out of his head that he isn't
>aware of the harm. 

I have not agreed at all that drug taking is inevitably harmful.  Like
rock-climbing, careless or reckless indulgence is likely to cause
harm.  I have stated that on balance it would probably have been
better had many recreational drugs never existed (along with nuclear
weapons), but the genie cannot be put back in the bottle.

-- 
Cynic

On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 19:37:32 +0000, Kendall K. Down wrote:

> All drug taking is inevitably harmful (unless we are talking about doses
> too small to have any effect), it's just that the harm is usually slight
> enough to pass unnoticed.

In over 90% of cases, the harm is slight enough to pass unnoticed for
their whole life.

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

On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 19:37:32 GMT, Kendall K. Down
 wrote:

>> What business is it of yours that other people are overweight?

>None - if I didn't have to pay for the NHS.

If that's your argument, you will no doubt want to ban *any* activity
that stands a chance of leading to medical treatment.  But it is a
barren argument.  The chances are high that a person who is grossly
overweight will die younger and not require the sorts of expensive
treatment that most elderly people require.

>> I have not agreed at all that drug taking is inevitably harmful.  Like
>> rock-climbing, careless or reckless indulgence is likely to cause
>> harm.  I have stated that on balance it would probably have been
>> better had many recreational drugs never existed (along with nuclear
>> weapons), but the genie cannot be put back in the bottle.

>All drug taking is inevitably harmful (unless we are talking about doses too
>small to have any effect), it's just that the harm is usually slight enough
>to pass unnoticed. 

Total unmitigated nonsence.  Even the medical profession have said
that moderate amounts of alcohol can be beneficial to your health, and
I have not heard that caffein intake is causing any significant
medical problems.  Many of the illegal drugs (if they are not
adulterated) cause no significant harm to the user's health when used
in moderation.

-- 
Cynic

On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 11:53:09 +0000, Cynic wrote:

> Total unmitigated nonsence.  Even the medical profession have said that
> moderate amounts of alcohol can be beneficial to your health, and I have
> not heard that caffein intake is causing any significant medical problems.

The alcohol research suffered from a flaw, because the non-drinking
section also included ex-drinkers, thereby reducing the overall health
level of non-drinkers.

Caffeine can have serious effects in people with heart problems and people
have died as a result of overdose (there was one within the last six
months, IIRC).

-- 
Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK

On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 12:41:30 +0000, Phil Stovell 
wrote:

>> Total unmitigated nonsence.  Even the medical profession have said that
>> moderate amounts of alcohol can be beneficial to your health, and I have
>> not heard that caffein intake is causing any significant medical problems.

>The alcohol research suffered from a flaw, because the non-drinking
>section also included ex-drinkers, thereby reducing the overall health
>level of non-drinkers.

>Caffeine can have serious effects in people with heart problems and people
>have died as a result of overdose (there was one within the last six
>months, IIRC).

Peanuts can have a serious effect on some people as well.

-- 
Cynic

On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 13:09:23 +0000, Cynic wrote:

> Peanuts can have a serious effect on some people as well.

Kill more people than ecstasy, as Brunstrom correctly informed us.

-- 
Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK

On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 17:53:16 +0000, Kendall K. Down wrote:

> Absolutely correct - *provided* that you start drinking those moderate
> amounts of alcohol after age 56. If you start before then, even if your
> drinking is consistently moderate, the harm done by alcohol will outweight
> the potential benefit.

That's interesting. Do you have a link, Ken?

-- 
Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK

On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 17:53:16 GMT, Kendall K. Down
 wrote:

>> Total unmitigated nonsence.  Even the medical profession have said
>> that moderate amounts of alcohol can be beneficial to your health

>Absolutely correct - *provided* that you start drinking those moderate
>amounts of alcohol after age 56. If you start before then, even if your
>drinking is consistently moderate, the harm done by alcohol will outweight
>the potential benefit.

Perhaps you would like to cite proof of that assertion.  Alcohol can
provide incidental benefits that may well stave off stress-related
problems by assisting a person to relax at the end of the day.

TB, medical opinion as to the benefits and disbenefits of  alcohol has
changed so frequently that it is almost certainly made up to suit the
political climate and personal opinions of the doctors involved than
anything with a solid objective scientific basis.

Much like the opinions regarding other recreational drugs.

>> I have not heard that caffein intake is causing any significant
>> medical problems.

>I don't know whether it causes significant medical problems, but seeing
>people addicted to the stuff and suffering genuine withdrawal symptoms if
>they miss their regular cup, is enough to convince me that it isn't doing
>them any good either.

I do not see people suffering any noticable symptoms.  Again, you
ignore possible benefits and see only negatives.  A cup of coffee can
make you more alert and so you work better and are safer on the roads.
Would you rather that the driver of the car coming toward you  has
just stopped off for a coffee "fix", or that he is quietly nodding off
at the wheel?

>> Many of the illegal drugs (if they are not
>> adulterated) cause no significant harm to the user's health when used
>> in moderation.

>I remain to be convinced.

You might like to look up the medical effects of medical purity
heroin.  The biggest downside if taken in safe doses AFAICS is the
possibility of constipation.  Of course, due to prohibition the stuff
sold on the streets is *far* from pure, and is also not of consistent
strength, making accidental overdosing a real possibility.  infections
from contaminated needles is also greatly exacerbated by prohibition.

-- 
Cynic

On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 18:17:01 GMT, Kendall K. Down
 wrote:

>Yes - *safe* doses, which are probably a good deal less than are required to
>give you a "high". I've spoken to people who have had to take morphine for
>pain relief and none of them report a "high".

What they feel *is* the "high"

>> Of course, due to prohibition the stuff
>> sold on the streets is *far* from pure, and is also not of consistent
>> strength, making accidental overdosing a real possibility.  infections
>> from contaminated needles is also greatly exacerbated by prohibition.

>Fine - so don't use the stuff. Simple. You don't *need* it.

I suppose you believe that it is OK to set man traps and surround your
property with a deadly electric fence as well, and maybe shoot people
for speeding.  After all, if the activity is prohibited, it doesn't
really matter *what* artificial consequences you have imposed should
people defy the prohibition.  Your answer would always be the same -
if you tresspass/speed/litter etc. you have broken the rules and thus
deserve to die.

-- 
Cynic