More proof that prohibition is evil beyond belief.


Two men to be hanged for trafficking in cannabis Bernama

IPOH, WED:

The High Court here today sentenced two men to death by hanging after they
were found guilty of trafficking in nearly 1kg of cannabis six years ago.

Judicial Commissioner Ridwan Ibrahim, in making the decision, said the
court had no choice but to pass the death sentence on Khairil Anuar Abdul
Rahman, 34, and Afendi Adam, 28, after the prosecution had proven their
case against the two men beyond reasonable doubt.

Ridwan, however, did not provide the grounds for his judgment.

Khairil Anuar, a restaurant worker, and Afendi, a painter, were charged in
the High Court here on March 12, 2002 with trafficking in 971gm of
cannabis in Jalan Rokam, Taman Razaki, here on Feb 28, 2002 with another
person still at large.

Deputy public prosecutor Julia Ibrahim prosecuted, while Khairil Anuar and
Afendi were represented by lawyers Manjeet Kaur and Ranjit Singh Sandhu
respectively. Manjeet and Ranjit were expected to file an appeal for their
clients against the conviction and sentence.

http://www.nst.com.my/Current_News/NST/Wednesday/NewsBreak/20081008193348/Article/index_html

-- 
Dr John Watson
Baker Street

"Dr John Watson"  wrote in message 
news:6l64q5FaqjquU1@mid.individual.net...
> More proof that prohibition is evil beyond belief.

No - it's simply proof that the judicial systems in some countries are evil 
beyond belief.

Ret.

"Dr John Watson"  wrote in message 
news:6l64q5FaqjquU1@mid.individual.net...
> More proof that prohibition is evil beyond belief.

In Iran, women are stoned to death for adultery. Does that prove that 
adultery is evil beyond belief?

Ret.

Noticed at Thu, 09 Oct 2008 13:42:03 +0100: Ret. informed us:

> 
> "Dr John Watson"  wrote in message 
> news:6l64q5FaqjquU1@mid.individual.net...
>> More proof that prohibition is evil beyond belief.
> 
> No - it's simply proof that the judicial systems in some countries are evil 
> beyond belief.

The level of evil-ness varies from country to country. But whatever the
level, it's still evil. It originated in the USA, so it's not surprising.

> 
> Ret.
-- 
Dr John Watson
Baker Street

Noticed at Thu, 09 Oct 2008 13:43:08 +0100: Ret. informed us:

> 
> "Dr John Watson"  wrote in message 
> news:6l64q5FaqjquU1@mid.individual.net...
>> More proof that prohibition is evil beyond belief.
> 
> In Iran, women are stoned to death for adultery. Does that prove that 
> adultery is evil beyond belief?

You've got it back to front.

It proves that the law against adultery is evil beyond belief.

> 
> Ret.
-- 
Dr John Watson
Baker Street

In message , Dr John Watson 
 writes
>Noticed at Thu, 09 Oct 2008 13:43:08 +0100: Ret. informed us:
>
>>
>> "Dr John Watson"  wrote in message
>> news:6l64q5FaqjquU1@mid.individual.net...
>>> More proof that prohibition is evil beyond belief.
>>
>> In Iran, women are stoned to death for adultery. Does that prove that
>> adultery is evil beyond belief?
>
>You've got it back to front.
>
>It proves that the law against adultery is evil beyond belief.
>
>>
>> Ret.

You can't really have 'evil' laws (or anything else which is inanimate). 
It's people who are evil.
-- 
Ian

On Oct 9, 2:29 pm, Dr John Watson 
wrote:
> The level of evil-ness varies from country to country. But whatever the
> level, it's still evil. It originated in the USA, so it's not surprising.
>
----------------------------------------------------

For what it's worth, the decision in USA in 1920s was democratic.

On Thu, 09 Oct 2008 11:30:29 +0100, Dr John Watson
 wrote:

>More proof that prohibition is evil beyond belief.
>
>
>Two men to be hanged for trafficking in cannabis Bernama
>
>IPOH, WED:
>
>The High Court here today sentenced two men to death by hanging after they
>were found guilty of trafficking in nearly 1kg of cannabis six years ago.
>
>Judicial Commissioner Ridwan Ibrahim, in making the decision, said the
>court had no choice but to pass the death sentence on Khairil Anuar Abdul
>Rahman, 34, and Afendi Adam, 28, after the prosecution had proven their
>case against the two men beyond reasonable doubt.
>
>Ridwan, however, did not provide the grounds for his judgment.
>
>Khairil Anuar, a restaurant worker, and Afendi, a painter, were charged in
>the High Court here on March 12, 2002 with trafficking in 971gm of
>cannabis in Jalan Rokam, Taman Razaki, here on Feb 28, 2002 with another
>person still at large.
>
>Deputy public prosecutor Julia Ibrahim prosecuted, while Khairil Anuar and
>Afendi were represented by lawyers Manjeet Kaur and Ranjit Singh Sandhu
>respectively. Manjeet and Ranjit were expected to file an appeal for their
>clients against the conviction and sentence.
>
>http://www.nst.com.my/Current_News/NST/Wednesday/NewsBreak/20081008193348/Article/index_html

I guess this is Ipoh in Malaysia ?

Noticed at Thu, 09 Oct 2008 15:54:01 +0100: Ian Jackson informed us:

> In message , Dr John Watson 
>  writes
>>Noticed at Thu, 09 Oct 2008 13:43:08 +0100: Ret. informed us:
>>
>>>
>>> "Dr John Watson"  wrote in message
>>> news:6l64q5FaqjquU1@mid.individual.net...
>>>> More proof that prohibition is evil beyond belief.
>>>
>>> In Iran, women are stoned to death for adultery. Does that prove that
>>> adultery is evil beyond belief?
>>
>>You've got it back to front.
>>
>>It proves that the law against adultery is evil beyond belief.
>>
>>>
>>> Ret.
> 
> You can't really have 'evil' laws (or anything else which is inanimate). 
> It's people who are evil.

You are, of course, correct.

-- 
Dr John Watson
Baker Street

"Special.Care"  wrote in message 
news:d0eecf41-9924-4955-96a5-a53c8d3ddca8@a2g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 9, 2:29 pm, Dr John Watson 
wrote:
> The level of evil-ness varies from country to country. But whatever the
> level, it's still evil. It originated in the USA, so it's not surprising.
>
----------------------------------------------------

For what it's worth, the decision in USA in 1920s was democratic.

----------------------

The drug war has never *ever* been democratic (voted for by the public)

Special.Care wrote:
> On Oct 9, 2:29 pm, Dr John Watson 
> wrote:
>   
>> The level of evil-ness varies from country to country. But whatever the
>> level, it's still evil. It originated in the USA, so it's not surprising.
>>
>>     
> ----------------------------------------------------
>
> For what it's worth, the decision in USA in 1920s was democratic.
>   
    Which decision?  The Harrison Tax Act happened in 1916 and
the Nation had converted to the Prohibition on Alcohol by the
time the soldiers were back from the WW I.   Which decision in
the 1920s do you refer to, after all there have been so many bad
decisions out of nearly every nation.  The bigger and more powerful
the nation the more effects and largely unintended effects were produced
by decision good or bad.  For example the decisions of the British Empire
against the advice of Lawrence(of Arabia)  to  split up the  Middle  East
among various  groups of  people was  supposed to make the ME easier
to deal with.   The decision by the USA to support the foundation of
Israel in the former Palestine was well-intentioned and seemed quite
logical  at the time especially to  Bible-studying Xians who may well
have taken it for the inerrant words of a divinity of some stature.
It seems to have caused as many deaths as it was intended to forestall.

    The level of evil is pretty constant since everyone in every nation
is a human person and generally humans especially ones absorbed in
ideals such as Xianity or Islam or Extension of Democracy or
The Revolution of the Proletariat will do anything including very bad
things to achieve their ends.
    In nations where individualism is less strong we see more communal
evil such as the plight of the outcastes in India or in Japan or in the
USA during the 19th and early 20th Century and crimes by individuals
are noteworthy because they happen. 
    In the modern USA and other nations with a strong support for
individualism we have lots of spectacular crimes against other individuals
as well as communal(USA) aggression by those who become governors
of the state.  We also have the vicious internal aggression directed against
the non-conforming individuals who dare to use illegalised drugs that the
former WASP establishment was unfamiliar with.
    So I think the level of human evil is pretty constant from nation
to nation and from people to people and from age to age.

	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, 09 Oct 2008 11:30:29 +0100, Dr John Watson
 wrote:

>More proof that prohibition is evil beyond belief.
>

It doesn't come remotely close to even suggesting such a thing, never
mind "proving" it.

All it "proves" is that in *some* states, the rules are so severe that
breaking them results in the death penalty.
-- 
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Those who can't write, write manuals.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

On 9 okt, 23:21, Alex Heney  wrote:
> On Thu, 09 Oct 2008 11:30:29 +0100, Dr John Watson
>
>  wrote:
> >More proof that prohibition is evil beyond belief.
>
> It doesn't come remotely close to even suggesting such a thing, never
> mind "proving" it.
>
> All it "proves" is that in *some* states, the rules are so severe that
> breaking them results in the death penalty.
> --
> Alex Heney, Global Villager
> Those who can't write, write manuals.
> To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

Ah.. and it doesn't really matter when they decide to impose the
deathpenalty?
They can hang people for growing flowers, hang them if they insult
some imaginary prophet,
or perhaps because their haircut is wrong.

On Thu, 9 Oct 2008 08:55:54 -0700 (PDT), "Special.Care"
 wrote:

>On Oct 9, 2:29 pm, Dr John Watson 
>wrote:
>> The level of evil-ness varies from country to country. But whatever the
>> level, it's still evil. It originated in the USA, so it's not surprising.
>>
>----------------------------------------------------
>
>For what it's worth, the decision in USA in 1920s was democratic.

The word "democratic" has been used by so many people and regimes to
mean so many things that it's pretty pointless to try to justify
something by saying "the deicsion was democratic".

In the UK we are "democratic". That's good right? Well, actually, it
means that if I want to do something, on my own, that has no impact on
anyone else, but which for some historical reason is illegal, I have
to persuade tens of millions of people to allow me to do it before I
can do it legally. IMHO, that should not be the case, and so saying,
"it's democratic, and so morally acceptable for people to be treated
this way" is nonsense. 

The idea that the people can oust the government in an election is a
fine one - but it's not all that is needed. Adults should have
autonomy - they shouldn't be punished for acts which don't direcrtly
harm others.

pj

On Thu, 9 Oct 2008 13:43:08 +0100, "Ret." <xxx> wrote:

>
>"Dr John Watson"  wrote in message 
>news:6l64q5FaqjquU1@mid.individual.net...
>> More proof that prohibition is evil beyond belief.
>
>In Iran, women are stoned to death for adultery. Does that prove that 
>adultery is evil beyond belief?

No. But executing women for adultery is evil beyond belief.

pj

On Thu, 9 Oct 2008 15:54:01 +0100, Ian Jackson
 wrote:

>In message , Dr John Watson 
> writes
>>Noticed at Thu, 09 Oct 2008 13:43:08 +0100: Ret. informed us:
>>
>>>
>>> "Dr John Watson"  wrote in message
>>> news:6l64q5FaqjquU1@mid.individual.net...
>>>> More proof that prohibition is evil beyond belief.
>>>
>>> In Iran, women are stoned to death for adultery. Does that prove that
>>> adultery is evil beyond belief?
>>
>>You've got it back to front.
>>
>>It proves that the law against adultery is evil beyond belief.
>>
>>>
>>> Ret.
>
>You can't really have 'evil' laws (or anything else which is inanimate). 
>It's people who are evil.

That depends on your definition of "evil" of course. I think a lot of
people nowadays think that to call a person "evil" is often counter
productive - it implies they are beyond redemption, that people who
are not evil won't do bad things, etc. I think it's more useful to
view acts as evil. Someone can commit an evil act. A law can be evil -
because a law is a rule which permits certain acts (i.e. the law
permitting women to be executed for adultery in Iran, or the law which
could be used to put me in gaol for life if I handed a magic mushroom
to someone else in the UK are evil laws, because they permit the state
to perform evil acts).

pj

Noticed at Thu, 09 Oct 2008 08:55:54 -0700: Special.Care informed us:

> On Oct 9, 2:29 pm, Dr John Watson 
> wrote:
>> The level of evil-ness varies from country to country. But whatever the
>> level, it's still evil. It originated in the USA, so it's not surprising.
>>
> ----------------------------------------------------
> 
> For what it's worth, the decision in USA in 1920s was democratic.

You had a referendum before prohibiting booze?

-- 
Dr John Watson
Baker Street

Noticed at Fri, 10 Oct 2008 01:48:23 +0100: pj informed us:

> The word "democratic" has been used by so many people and regimes to
> mean so many things that it's pretty pointless to try to justify
> something by saying "the deicsion was democratic".

If a country has the word "democratic" in it's name you know for certain
it's a totalitarian dictatorship.

-- 
Dr John Watson
Baker Street

"Dr John Watson"  wrote in message 
news:6l8guvFb321kU2@mid.individual.net...
> Noticed at Fri, 10 Oct 2008 01:48:23 +0100: pj informed us:
>
>> The word "democratic" has been used by so many people and regimes to
>> mean so many things that it's pretty pointless to try to justify
>> something by saying "the deicsion was democratic".
>
> If a country has the word "democratic" in it's name you know for certain
> it's a totalitarian dictatorship.
>
> -- 
> Dr John Watson
> Baker Street
>

Who's bothered about drug traffickers ?

On 10 okt, 19:03, "Airmax"  wrote:
> "Dr John Watson"  wrote in messagenews:6l8guvFb321kU2@mid.individual.net...
>
> > Noticed at Fri, 10 Oct 2008 01:48:23 +0100: pj informed us:
>
> >> The word "democratic" has been used by so many people and regimes to
> >> mean so many things that it's pretty pointless to try to justify
> >> something by saying "the deicsion was democratic".
>
> > If a country has the word "democratic" in it's name you know for certain
> > it's a totalitarian dictatorship.
>
> > --
> > Dr John Watson
> > Baker Street
>
> Who's bothered about drug traffickers ?

You mean the people who supply liquor stores or people who distribute
plants like tobacco or cannabis?

Airmax wrote:
>
> "Dr John Watson"  wrote in message 
> news:6l8guvFb321kU2@mid.individual.net...
>> Noticed at Fri, 10 Oct 2008 01:48:23 +0100: pj informed us:
>>
>>> The word "democratic" has been used by so many people and regimes to
>>> mean so many things that it's pretty pointless to try to justify
>>> something by saying "the deicsion was democratic".
>>
>> If a country has the word "democratic" in it's name you know for certain
>> it's a totalitarian dictatorship.
>>
>> -- 
>> Dr John Watson
>> Baker Street
>>
>
> Who's bothered about drug traffickers ?
    Well hanging cannabis dealers/users makes as much sense
as stringing up salesmen for chocolate or coffee companies.
Aspirin kills more people, inopportune text messaging has killed more 
innocent people,
and the daily toll of ill health from excess TV watching is greater than 
the damage
done by cannabis use.

                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 9 Oct, 18:54, "JohnR"  wrote:
> "Special.Care"  wrote in message
>
> news:d0eecf41-9924-4955-96a5-a53c8d3ddca8@a2g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 9, 2:29 pm, Dr John Watson 
> wrote:> The level of evil-ness varies from country to country. But whatever the
> > level, it's still evil. It originated in the USA, so it's not surprising.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------
>
> For what it's worth, the decision in USA in 1920s was democratic.

I take it this is the same USA that refuses to acknowledge
democratically elected governments of countries it doesn't like ?

Or the other USA ?

On Thu, 9 Oct 2008 17:45:36 -0700 (PDT), sobriquet
 wrote:

>On 9 okt, 23:21, Alex Heney  wrote:
>> On Thu, 09 Oct 2008 11:30:29 +0100, Dr John Watson
>>
>>  wrote:
>> >More proof that prohibition is evil beyond belief.
>>
>> It doesn't come remotely close to even suggesting such a thing, never
>> mind "proving" it.
>>
>> All it "proves" is that in *some* states, the rules are so severe that
>> breaking them results in the death penalty.
>> --
>> Alex Heney, Global Villager
>> Those who can't write, write manuals.
>> To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom
>
>Ah.. and it doesn't really matter when they decide to impose the
>deathpenalty?
>They can hang people for growing flowers, hang them if they insult
>some imaginary prophet,
>or perhaps because their haircut is wrong.

In some states they do all of those.
-- 
Alex Heney, Global Villager
He has Van Gogh's ear for music.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

sobriquet wrote:
> 
> On 10 okt, 19:03, "Airmax"  wrote:
> > "Dr John Watson"  wrote in messagenews:6l8guvFb321kU2@mid.individual.net...
> >
> > > Noticed at Fri, 10 Oct 2008 01:48:23 +0100: pj informed us:
> >
> > >> The word "democratic" has been used by so many people and regimes to
> > >> mean so many things that it's pretty pointless to try to justify
> > >> something by saying "the deicsion was democratic".
> >
> > > If a country has the word "democratic" in it's name you know for certain
> > > it's a totalitarian dictatorship.
> >
> > > --
> > > Dr John Watson
> > > Baker Street
> >
> > Who's bothered about drug traffickers ?
> 
> You mean the people who supply liquor stores or people who distribute
> plants like tobacco or cannabis?

No, liquor and tobacco are not 'drugs' in this context. The word 'drug' is used 
in different context and should not be mixed up.

On 9 Oct, 11:30, Dr John Watson  wrote:

> IPOH, WED:
>
> The High Court here today sentenced two men to death by hanging after they
> were found guilty of trafficking in nearly 1kg of cannabis six years ago.

That's outrageous and inappropriate. They should be stoned to death.

Ian

On 11 okt, 01:10, johannes  wrote:
> sobriquet wrote:
>
> > On 10 okt, 19:03, "Airmax"  wrote:
> > > "Dr John Watson"  wrote in messagenews:6l8guvFb321kU2@mid.individual.net...
>
> > > > Noticed at Fri, 10 Oct 2008 01:48:23 +0100: pj informed us:
>
> > > >> The word "democratic" has been used by so many people and regimes to
> > > >> mean so many things that it's pretty pointless to try to justify
> > > >> something by saying "the deicsion was democratic".
>
> > > > If a country has the word "democratic" in it's name you know for certain
> > > > it's a totalitarian dictatorship.
>
> > > > --
> > > > Dr John Watson
> > > > Baker Street
>
> > > Who's bothered about drug traffickers ?
>
> > You mean the people who supply liquor stores or people who distribute
> > plants like tobacco or cannabis?
>
> No, liquor and tobacco are not 'drugs' in this context. The word 'drug' is used
> in different context and should not be mixed up.

Alcohol and tobacco are not drugs? I think it's you who is confused
about the notion of a drug.
Anyone who claims cannabis is a drug while denying alcohol and tobacco
to be drugs, is either a nazi hypocrite who has his head stuck up his
arse or someone who is seriously misinformed about drugs. There is no
sensible definition of drug that includes cannabis while excluding
alcohol and tobacco.

"sobriquet"  wrote in message 
news:8dc58764-b3d8-4df4-85d7-f3571675af2a@f63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On 11 okt, 01:10, johannes  wrote:
>> sobriquet wrote:
>>
>> > On 10 okt, 19:03, "Airmax"  wrote:
>> > > "Dr John Watson"  wrote in 
>> > > messagenews:6l8guvFb321kU2@mid.individual.net...
>>
>> > > > Noticed at Fri, 10 Oct 2008 01:48:23 +0100: pj informed us:
>>
>> > > >> The word "democratic" has been used by so many people and regimes 
>> > > >> to
>> > > >> mean so many things that it's pretty pointless to try to justify
>> > > >> something by saying "the deicsion was democratic".
>>
>> > > > If a country has the word "democratic" in it's name you know for 
>> > > > certain
>> > > > it's a totalitarian dictatorship.
>>
>> > > > --
>> > > > Dr John Watson
>> > > > Baker Street
>>
>> > > Who's bothered about drug traffickers ?
>>
>> > You mean the people who supply liquor stores or people who distribute
>> > plants like tobacco or cannabis?
>>
>> No, liquor and tobacco are not 'drugs' in this context. The word 'drug' 
>> is used
>> in different context and should not be mixed up.
>
> Alcohol and tobacco are not drugs? I think it's you who is confused
> about the notion of a drug.
> Anyone who claims cannabis is a drug while denying alcohol and tobacco
> to be drugs, is either a nazi hypocrite who has his head stuck up his
> arse or someone who is seriously misinformed about drugs. There is no
> sensible definition of drug that includes cannabis while excluding
> alcohol and tobacco.
>
>
That depends entirely on where you stand, what you are looking at and what 
you *want* to see. I agree entirely that a rational, scientific and 
impartial view can draw no other conclusion but we are talking about "drug 
war (tm)".
These sentiments have little to do with the vindictive, hate fuelled, greedy 
and righteous crusade by religious racists that got the "drug war (tm)" 
started.

Noticed at Sat, 11 Oct 2008 00:10:24 +0100: johannes informed us:

> 
> 
> sobriquet wrote:
>> 
>> On 10 okt, 19:03, "Airmax"  wrote:
>> > "Dr John Watson"  wrote in messagenews:6l8guvFb321kU2@mid.individual.net...
>> >
>> > > Noticed at Fri, 10 Oct 2008 01:48:23 +0100: pj informed us:
>> >
>> > >> The word "democratic" has been used by so many people and regimes to
>> > >> mean so many things that it's pretty pointless to try to justify
>> > >> something by saying "the deicsion was democratic".
>> >
>> > > If a country has the word "democratic" in it's name you know for certain
>> > > it's a totalitarian dictatorship.
>> >
>> > > --
>> > > Dr John Watson
>> > > Baker Street
>> >
>> > Who's bothered about drug traffickers ?
>> 
>> You mean the people who supply liquor stores or people who distribute
>> plants like tobacco or cannabis?
> 
> No, liquor and tobacco are not 'drugs' in this context. The word 'drug' is used 
> in different context and should not be mixed up.

Ah. So obviously liquor doesn't get you intoxicated and tobacco isn't more
addictive than heroin. I'm glad we cleared that one up.

-- 
Dr John Watson
Baker Street

Noticed at Fri, 10 Oct 2008 18:03:33 +0100: Airmax informed us:

> 
> "Dr John Watson"  wrote in message 
> news:6l8guvFb321kU2@mid.individual.net...
>> Noticed at Fri, 10 Oct 2008 01:48:23 +0100: pj informed us:
>>
>>> The word "democratic" has been used by so many people and regimes to
>>> mean so many things that it's pretty pointless to try to justify
>>> something by saying "the deicsion was democratic".
>>
>> If a country has the word "democratic" in it's name you know for certain
>> it's a totalitarian dictatorship.
>>
>> -- 
>> Dr John Watson
>> Baker Street
>>
> 
> Who's bothered about drug traffickers ?

It could be you.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-512815/Briton-jailed-years-Dubai-customs-cannabis-weighing-grain-sugar-shoe.html

-- 
Dr John Watson
Baker Street

In article ,
Dr John Watson   wrote:
>Noticed at Fri, 10 Oct 2008 18:03:33 +0100: Airmax informed us:
> 
>> Who's bothered about drug traffickers ?
>
>It could be you.
>
>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-512815/Briton-jailed-years-Dubai-customs-cannabis-weighing-grain-sugar-shoe.html

It could be anyone:

http://www.alphagalileo.org/index.cfm?_rss=1&fuseaction=readrelease&releaseid=531279
a report based upon "S. Armenta, M. de la Guardia. “Analytical methods to
determine cocaine contamination of banknotes”. Trends in Analytical
Chemistry 27 (4): 344-351, 2008"

Nick
-- 
Serendipity: http://www.leverton.org/blosxom (last update 19th September 2008)
        "The Internet, a sort of ersatz counterfeit of real life"
                -- Janet Street-Porter, BBC2, 19th March 1996

sobriquet wrote:
> On 11 okt, 01:10, johannes  wrote:
>> sobriquet wrote:
>>
>>> On 10 okt, 19:03, "Airmax"  wrote:
>>>> "Dr John Watson"  wrote in messagenews:6l8guvFb321kU2@mid.individual.net...
>>>>> Noticed at Fri, 10 Oct 2008 01:48:23 +0100: pj informed us:
>>>>>> The word "democratic" has been used by so many people and regimes to
>>>>>> mean so many things that it's pretty pointless to try to justify
>>>>>> something by saying "the deicsion was democratic".
>>>>> If a country has the word "democratic" in it's name you know for certain
>>>>> it's a totalitarian dictatorship.
>>>>> --
>>>>> Dr John Watson
>>>>> Baker Street
>>>> Who's bothered about drug traffickers ?
>>> You mean the people who supply liquor stores or people who distribute
>>> plants like tobacco or cannabis?
>> No, liquor and tobacco are not 'drugs' in this context. The word 'drug' is used
>> in different context and should not be mixed up.
> 
> Alcohol and tobacco are not drugs? I think it's you who is confused
> about the notion of a drug.
> Anyone who claims cannabis is a drug while denying alcohol and tobacco
> to be drugs, is either a nazi hypocrite who has his head stuck up his
> arse or someone who is seriously misinformed about drugs. There is no
> sensible definition of drug that includes cannabis while excluding
> alcohol and tobacco.

How about "illegal drugs", "banned drugs" or "illicit drugs"?

Please don't say you thought that tea, coffee, alcohol, heroin and cannabis 
were all treated the same under the local criminal code...

On 11 okt, 16:26, JNugent  wrote:
> sobriquet wrote:
> > On 11 okt, 01:10, johannes  wrote:
> >> sobriquet wrote:
>
> >>> On 10 okt, 19:03, "Airmax"  wrote:
> >>>> "Dr John Watson"  wrote in messagenews:6l8guvFb321kU2@mid.individual.net...
> >>>>> Noticed at Fri, 10 Oct 2008 01:48:23 +0100: pj informed us:
> >>>>>> The word "democratic" has been used by so many people and regimes to
> >>>>>> mean so many things that it's pretty pointless to try to justify
> >>>>>> something by saying "the deicsion was democratic".
> >>>>> If a country has the word "democratic" in it's name you know for certain
> >>>>> it's a totalitarian dictatorship.
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> Dr John Watson
> >>>>> Baker Street
> >>>> Who's bothered about drug traffickers ?
> >>> You mean the people who supply liquor stores or people who distribute
> >>> plants like tobacco or cannabis?
> >> No, liquor and tobacco are not 'drugs' in this context. The word 'drug' is used
> >> in different context and should not be mixed up.
>
> > Alcohol and tobacco are not drugs? I think it's you who is confused
> > about the notion of a drug.
> > Anyone who claims cannabis is a drug while denying alcohol and tobacco
> > to be drugs, is either a nazi hypocrite who has his head stuck up his
> > arse or someone who is seriously misinformed about drugs. There is no
> > sensible definition of drug that includes cannabis while excluding
> > alcohol and tobacco.
>
> How about "illegal drugs", "banned drugs" or "illicit drugs"?

Yeah, at least that would constitute sensible usage of the word
'drugs'.
But that doesn't detract from the fact that such bans are fascistic
and moronic, on par
with racial segregation laws or laws against witchery.
Some of those illegal drugs are naturally occurring in your own brain
for fucks sake.
Banning plants is on par with banning numbers (look up illegal prime
in wikipedia) or banning gravity. It is incontrovertible evidence that
the people in charge who are responsible for these laws are complete
morons.

>
> Please don't say you thought that tea, coffee, alcohol, heroin and cannabis
> were all treated the same under the local criminal code...

Any sensible criminal code would treat them the same. Any sensible
criminal code would acknowledge the fundamental human right of well-
informed healthy adults to govern their own body and mind.
People have the right to eat shit, bricks, glue, heroin or whatever
they fancy, that's none of the governments business. Before the
government started to interfere with peoples freedom to govern their
own body, we had far fewer problems associated with substance abuse.
Those problems have spiraled out of control thanks to prohibition and
at this point we have state-sponsored organized crime and terrorism
thanks to those moronic prohibition laws. The government is merely the
dominant crime syndicate because they have no respect whatsoever for
human rights.

sobriquet wrote:
> 
> On 11 okt, 16:26, JNugent  wrote:
> > sobriquet wrote:
> > > On 11 okt, 01:10, johannes  wrote:
> > >> sobriquet wrote:
> >
> > >>> On 10 okt, 19:03, "Airmax"  wrote:
> > >>>> "Dr John Watson"  wrote in messagenews:6l8guvFb321kU2@mid.individual.net...
> > >>>>> Noticed at Fri, 10 Oct 2008 01:48:23 +0100: pj informed us:
> > >>>>>> The word "democratic" has been used by so many people and regimes to
> > >>>>>> mean so many things that it's pretty pointless to try to justify
> > >>>>>> something by saying "the deicsion was democratic".
> > >>>>> If a country has the word "democratic" in it's name you know for certain
> > >>>>> it's a totalitarian dictatorship.
> > >>>>> --
> > >>>>> Dr John Watson
> > >>>>> Baker Street
> > >>>> Who's bothered about drug traffickers ?
> > >>> You mean the people who supply liquor stores or people who distribute
> > >>> plants like tobacco or cannabis?
> > >> No, liquor and tobacco are not 'drugs' in this context. The word 'drug' is used
> > >> in different context and should not be mixed up.
> >
> > > Alcohol and tobacco are not drugs? I think it's you who is confused
> > > about the notion of a drug.
> > > Anyone who claims cannabis is a drug while denying alcohol and tobacco
> > > to be drugs, is either a nazi hypocrite who has his head stuck up his
> > > arse or someone who is seriously misinformed about drugs. There is no
> > > sensible definition of drug that includes cannabis while excluding
> > > alcohol and tobacco.
> >
> > How about "illegal drugs", "banned drugs" or "illicit drugs"?
> 
> Yeah, at least that would constitute sensible usage of the word
> 'drugs'.
> But that doesn't detract from the fact that such bans are fascistic
> and moronic, on par
> with racial segregation laws or laws against witchery.
> Some of those illegal drugs are naturally occurring in your own brain
> for fucks sake.
> Banning plants is on par with banning numbers (look up illegal prime
> in wikipedia) or banning gravity. It is incontrovertible evidence that
> the people in charge who are responsible for these laws are complete
> morons.
> 
> >
> > Please don't say you thought that tea, coffee, alcohol, heroin and cannabis
> > were all treated the same under the local criminal code...
> 
> Any sensible criminal code would treat them the same. Any sensible
> criminal code would acknowledge the fundamental human right of well-
> informed healthy adults to govern their own body and mind.
> People have the right to eat shit, bricks, glue, heroin or whatever
> they fancy, that's none of the governments business. Before the
> government started to interfere with peoples freedom to govern their
> own body, we had far fewer problems associated with substance abuse.
> Those problems have spiraled out of control thanks to prohibition and
> at this point we have state-sponsored organized crime and terrorism
> thanks to those moronic prohibition laws. The government is merely the
> dominant crime syndicate because they have no respect whatsoever for
> human rights.

Then why do we need any laws? Everybody could just fend for themselves,
as they used to do. Wild animals in the jungle seem to manage very well...

On 11 okt, 18:15, johannes  wrote:
> sobriquet wrote:
>
> > On 11 okt, 16:26, JNugent  wrote:
> > > sobriquet wrote:
> > > > On 11 okt, 01:10, johannes  wrote:
> > > >> sobriquet wrote:
>
> > > >>> On 10 okt, 19:03, "Airmax"  wrote:
> > > >>>> "Dr John Watson"  wrote in messagenews:6l8guvFb321kU2@mid.individual.net...
> > > >>>>> Noticed at Fri, 10 Oct 2008 01:48:23 +0100: pj informed us:
> > > >>>>>> The word "democratic" has been used by so many people and regimes to
> > > >>>>>> mean so many things that it's pretty pointless to try to justify
> > > >>>>>> something by saying "the deicsion was democratic".
> > > >>>>> If a country has the word "democratic" in it's name you know for certain
> > > >>>>> it's a totalitarian dictatorship.
> > > >>>>> --
> > > >>>>> Dr John Watson
> > > >>>>> Baker Street
> > > >>>> Who's bothered about drug traffickers ?
> > > >>> You mean the people who supply liquor stores or people who distribute
> > > >>> plants like tobacco or cannabis?
> > > >> No, liquor and tobacco are not 'drugs' in this context. The word 'drug' is used
> > > >> in different context and should not be mixed up.
>
> > > > Alcohol and tobacco are not drugs? I think it's you who is confused
> > > > about the notion of a drug.
> > > > Anyone who claims cannabis is a drug while denying alcohol and tobacco
> > > > to be drugs, is either a nazi hypocrite who has his head stuck up his
> > > > arse or someone who is seriously misinformed about drugs. There is no
> > > > sensible definition of drug that includes cannabis while excluding
> > > > alcohol and tobacco.
>
> > > How about "illegal drugs", "banned drugs" or "illicit drugs"?
>
> > Yeah, at least that would constitute sensible usage of the word
> > 'drugs'.
> > But that doesn't detract from the fact that such bans are fascistic
> > and moronic, on par
> > with racial segregation laws or laws against witchery.
> > Some of those illegal drugs are naturally occurring in your own brain
> > for fucks sake.
> > Banning plants is on par with banning numbers (look up illegal prime
> > in wikipedia) or banning gravity. It is incontrovertible evidence that
> > the people in charge who are responsible for these laws are complete
> > morons.
>
> > > Please don't say you thought that tea, coffee, alcohol, heroin and cannabis
> > > were all treated the same under the local criminal code...
>
> > Any sensible criminal code would treat them the same. Any sensible
> > criminal code would acknowledge the fundamental human right of well-
> > informed healthy adults to govern their own body and mind.
> > People have the right to eat shit, bricks, glue, heroin or whatever
> > they fancy, that's none of the governments business. Before the
> > government started to interfere with peoples freedom to govern their
> > own body, we had far fewer problems associated with substance abuse.
> > Those problems have spiraled out of control thanks to prohibition and
> > at this point we have state-sponsored organized crime and terrorism
> > thanks to those moronic prohibition laws. The government is merely the
> > dominant crime syndicate because they have no respect whatsoever for
> > human rights.
>
> Then why do we need any laws? Everybody could just fend for themselves,
> as they used to do. Wild animals in the jungle seem to manage very well...

We need laws while people have not yet reached the level of personal
development where they are able to enjoy freedom while respecting
other peoples rights.
We need a government to ensure people respect each others human rights
and not to protect adults against themselves.
We don't need a nanny government that tells people at what time to go
to bed, how often to eat pizza or whether or not to smoke pot or use
heroin or glue for that matter. When parents neglect their
responsibility to educate their kids, that's a good reason for the
government to step in and take responsibility for bringing up those
kids responsibly, but once people have reached adulthood, you should
expect them to govern their own body and mind. All you can do is help
them out making responsible decisions regarding their own life by
providing optimal education and factual information regarding various
activities that are inherently risky (driving cars, mountain climbing,
taking drugs, etc..). As soon as people start interfering with the
freedom of others, that's the point where the government should step
in to ensure everybody can enjoy maximum freedom while respecting the
freedom of others.
If I get drunk and don't bother anyone, I'm not infringing on
anybodies rights. If I would use heroin, that doesn't affect others
either. If I would rape, murder or steal, that would affect others and
I'm certainly not advocating for all laws to be abandoned overnight.
But that doesn't mean we should accept any law either. Some laws are
sensible, like laws against rape or laws against murder, but other
laws are not sensible, like racial segregation laws, laws against
witchery or prohibition laws.
I'm saying those laws should be abandoned or reformed. I'm not saying
heroin should be available in the supermarket. The sale of drugs
should be regulated, similar to how alcohol is regulated and perhaps
in case of some drugs like heroin it should be even more strictly
regulated. But ultimately adults have the right to use it if they
insist to do so. You can allow them to do so while still effectively
reducing and preventing drug abuse as much as possible by providing
factual education about drugs and letting people face the consequences
of an unhealthy lifestyle (like higher health insurance costs if they
deliberately endanger their health by an unhealthy substance abuse
habit, regardless if they destroy their body with alcohol or get
severely addicted to heroin).

sobriquet wrote:
> 
> On 11 okt, 18:15, johannes  wrote:
> > sobriquet wrote:
> >
> > > On 11 okt, 16:26, JNugent  wrote:
> > > > sobriquet wrote:
> > > > > On 11 okt, 01:10, johannes  wrote:
> > > > >> sobriquet wrote:
> >
> > > > >>> On 10 okt, 19:03, "Airmax"  wrote:
> > > > >>>> "Dr John Watson"  wrote in messagenews:6l8guvFb321kU2@mid.individual.net...
> > > > >>>>> Noticed at Fri, 10 Oct 2008 01:48:23 +0100: pj informed us:
> > > > >>>>>> The word "democratic" has been used by so many people and regimes to
> > > > >>>>>> mean so many things that it's pretty pointless to try to justify
> > > > >>>>>> something by saying "the deicsion was democratic".
> > > > >>>>> If a country has the word "democratic" in it's name you know for certain
> > > > >>>>> it's a totalitarian dictatorship.
> > > > >>>>> --
> > > > >>>>> Dr John Watson
> > > > >>>>> Baker Street
> > > > >>>> Who's bothered about drug traffickers ?
> > > > >>> You mean the people who supply liquor stores or people who distribute
> > > > >>> plants like tobacco or cannabis?
> > > > >> No, liquor and tobacco are not 'drugs' in this context. The word 'drug' is used
> > > > >> in different context and should not be mixed up.
> >
> > > > > Alcohol and tobacco are not drugs? I think it's you who is confused
> > > > > about the notion of a drug.
> > > > > Anyone who claims cannabis is a drug while denying alcohol and tobacco
> > > > > to be drugs, is either a nazi hypocrite who has his head stuck up his
> > > > > arse or someone who is seriously misinformed about drugs. There is no
> > > > > sensible definition of drug that includes cannabis while excluding
> > > > > alcohol and tobacco.
> >
> > > > How about "illegal drugs", "banned drugs" or "illicit drugs"?
> >
> > > Yeah, at least that would constitute sensible usage of the word
> > > 'drugs'.
> > > But that doesn't detract from the fact that such bans are fascistic
> > > and moronic, on par
> > > with racial segregation laws or laws against witchery.
> > > Some of those illegal drugs are naturally occurring in your own brain
> > > for fucks sake.
> > > Banning plants is on par with banning numbers (look up illegal prime
> > > in wikipedia) or banning gravity. It is incontrovertible evidence that
> > > the people in charge who are responsible for these laws are complete
> > > morons.
> >
> > > > Please don't say you thought that tea, coffee, alcohol, heroin and cannabis
> > > > were all treated the same under the local criminal code...
> >
> > > Any sensible criminal code would treat them the same. Any sensible
> > > criminal code would acknowledge the fundamental human right of well-
> > > informed healthy adults to govern their own body and mind.
> > > People have the right to eat shit, bricks, glue, heroin or whatever
> > > they fancy, that's none of the governments business. Before the
> > > government started to interfere with peoples freedom to govern their
> > > own body, we had far fewer problems associated with substance abuse.
> > > Those problems have spiraled out of control thanks to prohibition and
> > > at this point we have state-sponsored organized crime and terrorism
> > > thanks to those moronic prohibition laws. The government is merely the
> > > dominant crime syndicate because they have no respect whatsoever for
> > > human rights.
> >
> > Then why do we need any laws? Everybody could just fend for themselves,
> > as they used to do. Wild animals in the jungle seem to manage very well...
> 
> We need laws while people have not yet reached the level of personal
> development where they are able to enjoy freedom while respecting
> other peoples rights.
> We need a government to ensure people respect each others human rights
> and not to protect adults against themselves.
> We don't need a nanny government that tells people at what time to go
> to bed, how often to eat pizza or whether or not to smoke pot or use
> heroin or glue for that matter. When parents neglect their
> responsibility to educate their kids, that's a good reason for the
> government to step in and take responsibility for bringing up those
> kids responsibly, but once people have reached adulthood, you should
> expect them to govern their own body and mind. All you can do is help
> them out making responsible decisions regarding their own life by
> providing optimal education and factual information regarding various
> activities that are inherently risky (driving cars, mountain climbing,
> taking drugs, etc..). As soon as people start interfering with the
> freedom of others, that's the point where the government should step
> in to ensure everybody can enjoy maximum freedom while respecting the
> freedom of others.

Drug pushers doesn't respect the freedom of others.

> If I get drunk and don't bother anyone, I'm not infringing on
> anybodies rights. 

There are restrictions on the sale and of alcohol. If you're drunk and
responsible for the safety of others, e.g. driving, piloting; then you
are breaking the law. 

> If I would use heroin, that doesn't affect others either. 

As above. 

> If I would rape, murder or steal, that would affect others and
> I'm certainly not advocating for all laws to be abandoned overnight.
> But that doesn't mean we should accept any law either. 

We? Laws are not decided by a single person. 

> Some laws are sensible, like laws against rape or laws against murder,
> but other laws are not sensible, like racial segregation laws, laws
> against witchery or prohibition laws.

Again, different persons have different views. Hence a democratic (kind of)
procedure. Your juxtaposition of "racial segregation" with "controlled
substances" is meaningless nonsense. 
 
> I'm saying those laws should be abandoned or reformed. I'm not saying
> heroin should be available in the supermarket. The sale of drugs
> should be regulated, similar to how alcohol is regulated and perhaps
> in case of some drugs like heroin it should be even more strictly
> regulated. But ultimately adults have the right to use it if they
> insist to do so. You can allow them to do so while still effectively
> reducing and preventing drug abuse as much as possible by providing
> factual education about drugs and letting people face the consequences
> of an unhealthy lifestyle (like higher health insurance costs if they
> deliberately endanger their health by an unhealthy substance abuse
> habit, regardless if they destroy their body with alcohol or get
> severely addicted to heroin).

Now you're backtracking. I thought you wanted people to decide for
themselves? Your strict regulations will just be bypassed by unscrupulous
drug pushers. We already have factual drug education about the harm they
can do to your body. There is no such thing as 'clean' drugs. It is an
established fact that cannabis leads to schizophrenia.

Noticed at Sun, 12 Oct 2008 09:14:07 +0100: johannes informed us:

> Drug pushers doesn't respect the freedom of others.

They force people to buy their drugs?

-- 
Dr John Watson
Baker Street

Noticed at Sun, 12 Oct 2008 09:14:07 +0100: johannes informed us:

> There are restrictions on the sale and of alcohol. If you're drunk and
> responsible for the safety of others, e.g. driving, piloting; then you
> are breaking the law.

In the UK it's unfit through drink or other drugs, so the straw man of
driving under the influence of legalised cocaine etc. is already catered
for.

-- 
Dr John Watson
Baker Street

Noticed at Sun, 12 Oct 2008 09:14:07 +0100: johannes informed us:

> Now you're backtracking. I thought you wanted people to decide for
> themselves? Your strict regulations will just be bypassed by
> unscrupulous

In the UK we have drug pushers selling alcohol and tobacco. The reason for
this is the difference in price between continental cigs/booze and UK shop
prices. For example, 50g tobacco costs ~£10 UK and €6 (~£4) EUR. Drug
pushers sell tobacco for about £5-£6 in pub toilets.

> drug pushers. We already have factual drug education about the harm they
> can do to your body. There is no such thing as 'clean' drugs. It is an
> established fact that cannabis leads to schizophrenia.

It is not an established fact that cannabis leads to schizophrenia. It IS
an established fact that alcohol leads to mental health problems.

-- 
Dr John Watson
Baker Street

Noticed at Sat, 11 Oct 2008 12:14:25 +0000: Nick Leverton informed us:

> In article ,
> Dr John Watson   wrote:
>>Noticed at Fri, 10 Oct 2008 18:03:33 +0100: Airmax informed us:
>> 
>>> Who's bothered about drug traffickers ?
>>
>>It could be you.
>>
>>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-512815/Briton-jailed-years-Dubai-customs-cannabis-weighing-grain-sugar-shoe.html
> 
> It could be anyone:
> 
> http://www.alphagalileo.org/index.cfm?_rss=1&fuseaction=readrelease&releaseid=531279
> a report based upon "S. Armenta, M. de la Guardia. “Analytical methods to
> determine cocaine contamination of banknotes”. Trends in Analytical
> Chemistry 27 (4): 344-351, 2008"
> 
> Nick

True. 99% of London bank notes had traces of cocaine when BBC London
tested them some years ago. When the Sunday Times tested the toilets in
the House of Commons several cubicles had traces of cocaine on the
cisterns (people had been snorting cocaine there).

-- 
Dr John Watson
Baker Street

"johannes"  wrote in message 
news:48F1B1CF.337AC389@sizefit4364666643ter.com...
>
>
> Drug pushers doesn't respect the freedom of others.
>
>
Of course they do, prohibition and it's vindictive crusaders are the 
spiteful protagonists.

On Sat, 11 Oct 2008 12:14:25 +0000 (UTC), Nick Leverton
 wrote:

>In article ,
>Dr John Watson   wrote:
>>Noticed at Fri, 10 Oct 2008 18:03:33 +0100: Airmax informed us:
>> 
>>> Who's bothered about drug traffickers ?
>>
>>It could be you.
>>
>>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-512815/Briton-jailed-years-Dubai-customs-cannabis-weighing-grain-sugar-shoe.html
>
>It could be anyone:
>
>http://www.alphagalileo.org/index.cfm?_rss=1&fuseaction=readrelease&releaseid=531279
>a report based upon "S. Armenta, M. de la Guardia. “Analytical methods to
>determine cocaine contamination of banknotes�. Trends in Analytical
>Chemistry 27 (4): 344-351, 2008"

It would be fun watching a prohibitionist get sent down for ten years
in Singapore or Dubai or somewhere for a cocain contaminated
handkerchief or something. They could be dragged to the cells
proclaiming their support of the drug laws. That would be the laugh of
the century.

Svenne

Dr John Watson wrote:

> Noticed at Sun, 12 Oct 2008 09:14:07 +0100: johannes informed us:

>> Now you're backtracking. I thought you wanted people to decide for
>> themselves? Your strict regulations will just be bypassed by
>> unscrupulous

> In the UK we have drug pushers selling alcohol and tobacco. The reason for
> this is the difference in price between continental cigs/booze and UK shop
> prices. For example, 50g tobacco costs ~£10 UK and €6 (~£4) EUR. Drug
> pushers sell tobacco for about £5-£6 in pub toilets.

>> drug pushers. We already have factual drug education about the harm they
>> can do to your body. There is no such thing as 'clean' drugs. It is an
>> established fact that cannabis leads to schizophrenia.

> It is not an established fact that cannabis leads to schizophrenia. It IS
> an established fact that alcohol leads to mental health problems.

That latter is incorrect. It is a fact that alcohol *may* lead to problems of 
various sorts, but most users of alcohol do not encounter the problem you 
mention.

The really important established fact is that trafficking in certain 
prohibited drugs is an offence (whether it leads to schizophrenia or not), 
and that in some jurisdictions, the offence is sometimes punishable by the 
death sentence. Unless that is somehow kept a secret from those tempted to 
break that law, it's hard to see what they have to legitimately complain 
about. It's a bit like complaining about being banned from driving for 
driving with too much alcohol in the bloodstream - something easily avoided 
by not breaking the law.

johannes wrote:
> sobriquet wrote:
>   
>
Big snip
>
> We? Laws are not decided by a single person. 
>   

    In the case of cannabis law in the USA a single person Harry J. 
Anslinger
former head of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics made the decision in the
1930s, sometime after 1932 when he thought it was nothing to worry about
and 1937 that he would have if criminalized so that his FBN would not
suffer budget cuts due to the relegalization of alcoholic beverages in 
the USA.
>   
>> Some laws are sensible, like laws against rape or laws against murder,
>> but other laws are not sensible, like racial segregation laws, laws
>> against witchery or prohibition laws.
>>     
>
> Again, different persons have different views. Hence a democratic (kind of)
> procedure. Your juxtaposition of "racial segregation" with "controlled
> substances" is meaningless nonsense. 
>   

    No it is entirely appropriate as it was passed by citing the 
following to
the Congress.

      "There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the U.S., and
  most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos and entertainers. Their
  Satanic music, jazz and swing, result from marijuana use. This
  marijuana can cause white women to seek sexual relations with
  Negroes, entertainers and any others... The primary reason to
  outlaw marijuana is its effect on the degenerate races."
  -Excerpt from the testimony of Harry J. Anslinger, director at
  the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, before the U.S. Senate in
  1937.

   
    We know that the named groups were singled out for special and
very negative attention to this very day by law enforcement groups
and that during the attempts to over-throw the Sandinista government
of Nicaragua, that in order to finance the Anti-Sandinista movement
or rebels, the CIA of the USA imported cocaine into black neighborhoods
which supplied the drug gangs that controlled its distribution.

    All of the non-alcoholic prohibitory movements in the USA were
preceded by newspaper campaigns against the minority groups and
against the music played by jazz musicians, largely black men and
women.  Sexual fears of non-white men were excited as well in
these campaigns and the sexuality and intellect of women were
denigrated.

    [some further snipping]

    Race and the drug laws in the USA are tightly linked and so were the
drug laws that come from them embodied in the Single Convention on Narcotics
which the treaty nations which applied for membership to the UN had to sign.

    In the USA we know our laws do not descend from heaven written by the
almighty but are the product of political forces of all sorts.  The 
activities
of Congress in this regard have created vast criminal enterprises wielding
enormous political power as well a creating vast government agencies
wielding enormous over-reaching police powers.  Between the bureaucratic
interests and the criminal interests it will take a long time to free the
people to use less damaging substances than alcohol and tobacco.


	later
	bliss

-- 
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

"JNugent"  wrote in message 
news:yIKdnXHhxJELkm_VnZ2dnUVZ8uKdnZ2d@pipex.net...
>
> The really important established fact is that trafficking in certain 
> prohibited drugs is an offence (whether it leads to schizophrenia or not), 
> and that in some jurisdictions, the offence is sometimes punishable by the 
> death sentence. Unless that is somehow kept a secret from those tempted to 
> break that law, it's hard to see what they have to legitimately complain 
> about. It's a bit like complaining about being banned from driving for 
> driving with too much alcohol in the bloodstream - something easily 
> avoided by not breaking the law.
>
Much the same as not exceeding the speed limit would avoid any speeding 
fine.  It's amazing the number of people that don't appear to understand the 
connection between the two things.

Noticed at Sun, 12 Oct 2008 15:54:17 +0100: JNugent informed us:

> Dr John Watson wrote:
> 
>> Noticed at Sun, 12 Oct 2008 09:14:07 +0100: johannes informed us:
> 
>>> Now you're backtracking. I thought you wanted people to decide for
>>> themselves? Your strict regulations will just be bypassed by
>>> unscrupulous
> 
>> In the UK we have drug pushers selling alcohol and tobacco. The reason
>> for this is the difference in price between continental cigs/booze and
>> UK shop prices. For example, 50g tobacco costs ~£10 UK and €6 (~£4)
>> EUR. Drug pushers sell tobacco for about £5-£6 in pub toilets.
> 
>>> drug pushers. We already have factual drug education about the harm
>>> they can do to your body. There is no such thing as 'clean' drugs. It
>>> is an established fact that cannabis leads to schizophrenia.
> 
>> It is not an established fact that cannabis leads to schizophrenia. It
>> IS an established fact that alcohol leads to mental health problems.
> 
> That latter is incorrect. It is a fact that alcohol *may* lead to
> problems of various sorts, but most users of alcohol do not encounter
> the problem you mention.

Alcohol certainly does lead to many people having mental health problems,
more so per capita of users than cannabis, but you are entirely correct in
that the vast majority of boozers do not have problems.

http://www.ias.org.uk/resources/publications/alcoholalert/alert200602/al200602_p3.html


> The really important established fact is that trafficking in certain
> prohibited drugs is an offence (whether it leads to schizophrenia or
> not), and that in some jurisdictions, the offence is sometimes
> punishable by the death sentence. Unless that is somehow kept a secret
> from those tempted to break that law, it's hard to see what they have to
> legitimately complain about. It's a bit like complaining about being
> banned from driving for driving with too much alcohol in the bloodstream
> - something easily avoided by not breaking the law.

The death sentence is supposed to deter people, plainly it doesn't and nor
does class B status, which it had when the Home Secretary was equally
not deterred to break the law.

-- 
Dr John Watson
Baker Street

On 12 okt, 23:18, "Colonel Colt"  wrote:
> "JNugent"  wrote in message
>
> news:yIKdnXHhxJELkm_VnZ2dnUVZ8uKdnZ2d@pipex.net...
>
> > The really important established fact is that trafficking in certain
> > prohibited drugs is an offence (whether it leads to schizophrenia or not),
> > and that in some jurisdictions, the offence is sometimes punishable by the
> > death sentence. Unless that is somehow kept a secret from those tempted to
> > break that law, it's hard to see what they have to legitimately complain
> > about. It's a bit like complaining about being banned from driving for
> > driving with too much alcohol in the bloodstream - something easily
> > avoided by not breaking the law.
>
> Much the same as not exceeding the speed limit would avoid any speeding
> fine.  It's amazing the number of people that don't appear to understand the
> connection between the two things.

Much the same as knowing your subordinate place in society would avoid
any problems with racial segregation laws in the past, eh?

On 12 okt, 10:14, johannes  wrote:
> sobriquet wrote:
>
> > On 11 okt, 18:15, johannes  wrote:
> > > sobriquet wrote:
>
> > > > On 11 okt, 16:26, JNugent  wrote:
> > > > > sobriquet wrote:
> > > > > > On 11 okt, 01:10, johannes  wrote:
> > > > > >> sobriquet wrote:
>
> > > > > >>> On 10 okt, 19:03, "Airmax"  wrote:
> > > > > >>>> "Dr John Watson"  wrote in messagenews:6l8guvFb321kU2@mid.individual.net...
> > > > > >>>>> Noticed at Fri, 10 Oct 2008 01:48:23 +0100: pj informed us:
> > > > > >>>>>> The word "democratic" has been used by so many people and regimes to
> > > > > >>>>>> mean so many things that it's pretty pointless to try to justify
> > > > > >>>>>> something by saying "the deicsion was democratic".
> > > > > >>>>> If a country has the word "democratic" in it's name you know for certain
> > > > > >>>>> it's a totalitarian dictatorship.
> > > > > >>>>> --
> > > > > >>>>> Dr John Watson
> > > > > >>>>> Baker Street
> > > > > >>>> Who's bothered about drug traffickers ?
> > > > > >>> You mean the people who supply liquor stores or people who distribute
> > > > > >>> plants like tobacco or cannabis?
> > > > > >> No, liquor and tobacco are not 'drugs' in this context. The word 'drug' is used
> > > > > >> in different context and should not be mixed up.
>
> > > > > > Alcohol and tobacco are not drugs? I think it's you who is confused
> > > > > > about the notion of a drug.
> > > > > > Anyone who claims cannabis is a drug while denying alcohol and tobacco
> > > > > > to be drugs, is either a nazi hypocrite who has his head stuck up his
> > > > > > arse or someone who is seriously misinformed about drugs. There is no
> > > > > > sensible definition of drug that includes cannabis while excluding
> > > > > > alcohol and tobacco.
>
> > > > > How about "illegal drugs", "banned drugs" or "illicit drugs"?
>
> > > > Yeah, at least that would constitute sensible usage of the word
> > > > 'drugs'.
> > > > But that doesn't detract from the fact that such bans are fascistic
> > > > and moronic, on par
> > > > with racial segregation laws or laws against witchery.
> > > > Some of those illegal drugs are naturally occurring in your own brain
> > > > for fucks sake.
> > > > Banning plants is on par with banning numbers (look up illegal prime
> > > > in wikipedia) or banning gravity. It is incontrovertible evidence that
> > > > the people in charge who are responsible for these laws are complete
> > > > morons.
>
> > > > > Please don't say you thought that tea, coffee, alcohol, heroin and cannabis
> > > > > were all treated the same under the local criminal code...
>
> > > > Any sensible criminal code would treat them the same. Any sensible
> > > > criminal code would acknowledge the fundamental human right of well-
> > > > informed healthy adults to govern their own body and mind.
> > > > People have the right to eat shit, bricks, glue, heroin or whatever
> > > > they fancy, that's none of the governments business. Before the
> > > > government started to interfere with peoples freedom to govern their
> > > > own body, we had far fewer problems associated with substance abuse.
> > > > Those problems have spiraled out of control thanks to prohibition and
> > > > at this point we have state-sponsored organized crime and terrorism
> > > > thanks to those moronic prohibition laws. The government is merely the
> > > > dominant crime syndicate because they have no respect whatsoever for
> > > > human rights.
>
> > > Then why do we need any laws? Everybody could just fend for themselves,
> > > as they used to do. Wild animals in the jungle seem to manage very well...
>
> > We need laws while people have not yet reached the level of personal
> > development where they are able to enjoy freedom while respecting
> > other peoples rights.
> > We need a government to ensure people respect each others human rights
> > and not to protect adults against themselves.
> > We don't need a nanny government that tells people at what time to go
> > to bed, how often to eat pizza or whether or not to smoke pot or use
> > heroin or glue for that matter. When parents neglect their
> > responsibility to educate their kids, that's a good reason for the
> > government to step in and take responsibility for bringing up those
> > kids responsibly, but once people have reached adulthood, you should
> > expect them to govern their own body and mind. All you can do is help
> > them out making responsible decisions regarding their own life by
> > providing optimal education and factual information regarding various
> > activities that are inherently risky (driving cars, mountain climbing,
> > taking drugs, etc..). As soon as people start interfering with the
> > freedom of others, that's the point where the government should step
> > in to ensure everybody can enjoy maximum freedom while respecting the
> > freedom of others.
>
> Drug pushers doesn't respect the freedom of others.

Why is that? Is it simply because those drugs happen to be illegal?
If it's illegal to be gay, like in Iran, does that mean that gay
people in Iran don't
respect the freedom of others?

>
> > If I get drunk and don't bother anyone, I'm not infringing on
> > anybodies rights.
>
> There are restrictions on the sale and of alcohol. If you're drunk and
> responsible for the safety of others, e.g. driving, piloting; then you
> are breaking the law.

Right, if people smoke weed and they are so stoned that they can't
drive
a car they shouldn't be allowed to drive of course. Likewise it would
probably be a bad
idea to sell or advertise drugs like cannabis to kids, similarly to
how we don't
allow this for alcohol.

>
> > If I would use heroin, that doesn't affect others either.
>
> As above.
>
> > If I would rape, murder or steal, that would affect others and
> > I'm certainly not advocating for all laws to be abandoned overnight.
> > But that doesn't mean we should accept any law either.
>
> We? Laws are not decided by a single person.

I was talking about people in general, like in "we should not accept
murder or rape".

>
> > Some laws are sensible, like laws against rape or laws against murder,
> > but other laws are not sensible, like racial segregation laws, laws
> > against witchery or prohibition laws.
>
> Again, different persons have different views. Hence a democratic (kind of)
> procedure. Your juxtaposition of "racial segregation" with "controlled
> substances" is meaningless nonsense.

It's perfectly apt, bobbie sellers was kind enough to point out the
intimate relationship
between prohibition and racism.

>
> > I'm saying those laws should be abandoned or reformed. I'm not saying
> > heroin should be available in the supermarket. The sale of drugs
> > should be regulated, similar to how alcohol is regulated and perhaps
> > in case of some drugs like heroin it should be even more strictly
> > regulated. But ultimately adults have the right to use it if they
> > insist to do so. You can allow them to do so while still effectively
> > reducing and preventing drug abuse as much as possible by providing
> > factual education about drugs and letting people face the consequences
> > of an unhealthy lifestyle (like higher health insurance costs if they
> > deliberately endanger their health by an unhealthy substance abuse
> > habit, regardless if they destroy their body with alcohol or get
> > severely addicted to heroin).
>
> Now you're backtracking. I thought you wanted people to decide for
> themselves? Your strict regulations will just be bypassed by unscrupulous
> drug pushers.

Just like how unscrupulous corporations are bypassing government
regulations anyway, eh?
That's more like a general problem of capitalism without a transparent
government which regulates
it with a framework that ensures fair competition instead of corporate
scum conspiring to scam customers like they typically do now with
illegal price agreements and the like.

> We already have factual drug education about the harm they
> can do to your body. There is no such thing as 'clean' drugs. It is an
> established fact that cannabis leads to schizophrenia.

You've been misinformed. There is no established causal link between
cannabis
and schizophrenia. Cannabis can indeed cause symptoms can could be
described as psychotic
depending on how you define the term, but under such broad
interpretations more than half of the population
has psychotic symptoms.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/4104702.stm

"At the moment a causal link between cannabis smoking and
schizophrenia has not been established"

On Oct 12, 2:14 am, johannes  wrote:
> sobriquet wrote:
>
> > On 11 okt, 18:15, johannes  wrote:
> > > sobriquet wrote:
>
> > > > On 11 okt, 16:26, JNugent  wrote:
> > > > > sobriquet wrote:
> > > > > > On 11 okt, 01:10, johannes  wrote:
> > > > > >> sobriquet wrote:

> > We need laws while people have not yet reached the level of personal
> > development where they are able to enjoy freedom while respecting
> > other peoples rights.
> > We need a government to ensure people respect each others human rights
> > and not to protect adults against themselves.
> > We don't need a nanny government that tells people at what time to go
> > to bed, how often to eat pizza or whether or not to smoke pot or use
> > heroin or glue for that matter. When parents neglect their
> > responsibility to educate their kids, that's a good reason for the
> > government to step in and take responsibility for bringing up those
> > kids responsibly, but once people have reached adulthood, you should
> > expect them to govern their own body and mind. All you can do is help
> > them out making responsible decisions regarding their own life by
> > providing optimal education and factual information regarding various
> > activities that are inherently risky (driving cars, mountain climbing,
> > taking drugs, etc..). As soon as people start interfering with the
> > freedom of others, that's the point where the government should step
> > in to ensure everybody can enjoy maximum freedom while respecting the
> > freedom of others.
>
> Drug pushers doesn't respect the freedom of others.

In what way?

> > If I get drunk and don't bother anyone, I'm not infringing on
> > anybodies rights.
>
> There are restrictions on the sale and of alcohol. If you're drunk and
> responsible for the safety of others, e.g. driving, piloting; then you
> are breaking the law.
>
> > If I would use heroin, that doesn't affect others either.
>
> As above.

So let's have restrictions on other drugs comparable to those on
alcohol ... not a futile and counterproductive ban.

> > I'm saying those laws should be abandoned or reformed. I'm not saying
> > heroin should be available in the supermarket. The sale of drugs
> > should be regulated, similar to how alcohol is regulated and perhaps
> > in case of some drugs like heroin it should be even more strictly
> > regulated. But ultimately adults have the right to use it if they
> > insist to do so. You can allow them to do so while still effectively
> > reducing and preventing drug abuse as much as possible by providing
> > factual education about drugs and letting people face the consequences
> > of an unhealthy lifestyle (like higher health insurance costs if they
> > deliberately endanger their health by an unhealthy substance abuse
> > habit, regardless if they destroy their body with alcohol or get
> > severely addicted to heroin).
>
> Now you're backtracking. I thought you wanted people to decide for
> themselves? Your strict regulations will just be bypassed by unscrupulous
> drug pushers.

Disproved by the example of alcohol, for which there is at most a
miniscule black market.

> We already have factual drug education about the harm they
> can do to your body. There is no such thing as 'clean' drugs. It is an
> established fact that cannabis leads to schizophrenia.

False. It's an established fact that there is a correlation between
cannabis use schizophrenia; whether the former causes the latter, or
vice versa, or both are caused by some third factor, is not known.

Dr John Watson wrote:
> Noticed at Sun, 12 Oct 2008 09:14:07 +0100: johannes informed us:
> 
>> Now you're backtracking. I thought you wanted people to decide for
>> themselves? Your strict regulations will just be bypassed by
>> unscrupulous
> 
> In the UK we have drug pushers selling alcohol and tobacco. The reason for
> this is the difference in price between continental cigs/booze and UK shop
> prices. For example, 50g tobacco costs ~£10 UK and €6 (~£4) EUR. Drug
> pushers sell tobacco for about £5-£6 in pub toilets.
> 
>> drug pushers. We already have factual drug education about the harm they
>> can do to your body. There is no such thing as 'clean' drugs. It is an
>> established fact that cannabis leads to schizophrenia.
> 
> It is not an established fact that cannabis leads to schizophrenia. It IS
> an established fact that alcohol leads to mental health problems.
> 

It is an 'established fact' that smoking tobacco fucks your lungs.