On 7 nov, 05:44, "John H."  wrote:
> On Nov 6, 10:59 pm, Dr John Watson 
> wrote:
>
> > Noticed at Tue, 06 Nov 2007 20:50:40 +1000: John H. informed us:
>
> > > The best argument is this: most if not all prescribed psychoactive drugs
> > > have a much greater risk profile than cannabis consumption. In this regard
> > > psychiatrists are incredibly hypocritical.
>
> > A better argument is that cannabis consumption is less dangerous than
> > alcohol and tobacco consumption, so drug substitution from alcohol/tobacco
> > to cannabis would have a net improvement in health.
>
> >http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5230006.stm#drugs
>
> > --
> > Dr John Watson
> > Baker Street
>
> No, put them in a position where they have to defend the multiple side
> effects from pharma drugs and they end up being hoisted on their own
> petard. They will run to the hills to avoid this argument.
>
> The rejoinder to the less dangerous than is dead easy ... you want to
> create another huge social problem?

Prohibition causes huge social problems. Alcohol legalization has
demonstrated that regulating a drug solves these problems (breaking
the association between crime and drugs).

> Also, there is scant evidence to
> suggest that people will switch drugs just because pot becomes legally
> available.

Compare it to the hypothetical scenario that certain relatively less
dangerous means for transportation like riding a bicycle would be
illegal and the argument would be that we allow cars and they cause
traffic accidents so the advocates of bicycle prohibition would claim
legalizing the use of bicycles would only add to the current problems
of traffic accidents with cars, given that bicycles are not completely
safe.
Your claim regarding the substitution of pot for alcohol is like
claiming there is scant evidence to suggest people would switch means
for transportation if usage of bicycles would be legalized, given that
cars are legal.

> If you run this argument you are in fact admitting that
> legalising pot will result in much more people smoking now it is easy
> to see how this can used to create horror stories of stoned psychotics
> wondering the streets ....

Not if we focus on the distinction between usage and abuse. Usage
might increase after regulating a drug like cannabis, but as long as
we can avoid abuse (like minors obtaining cannabis freely from
unscrupulous dealers) this is not necessarily a problem.
Has alcohol usage increased after prohibition was repealed and is
there
any evidence there was an increase in alcohol abuse as a consequence
of regulating alcohol?

In MsgID on Thu, 08
Nov 2007 07:25:04 -0800, in uk.politics.drugs, 'sobriquet' wrote:

>Compare it to the hypothetical scenario that certain relatively less
>dangerous means for transportation like riding a bicycle would be
>illegal and the argument would be that we allow cars and they cause
>traffic accidents so the advocates of bicycle prohibition would claim
>legalizing the use of bicycles would only add to the current problems
>of traffic accidents with cars, given that bicycles are not completely
>safe.
>Your claim regarding the substitution of pot for alcohol is like
>claiming there is scant evidence to suggest people would switch means
>for transportation if usage of bicycles would be legalized, given that
>cars are legal.

Nah, this doesn't hold water. Cars versus bikes is a clearly mutually
exclusive choice (for any given journey) whereas although I personally
dislike mixing alcohol and cannabis (I'm just generally not too keen on
alcohol and it certainly spoils cannabis, although cannabis can partially
rescue a mild alcohol high) there is little evidence to suggest that
cannabis use would generally *substitute for* rather than add to alcohol.

There is a whole side argument that cannabis, as an addition, reduces the
damage done by medium term alcohol abuse but that's too deep for most
prohibitionists to follow.

Make no mistake, I know that the anti pleasure laws are all bunkum, and
I'm totally certain that general cannabis use (whether in addition to or
in partial replacement for alcohol) would have an overall positive effect
on our mindset, but I don't recommend relying on the above argument as
ammunition.

Dave J.
-- 
Freeware Open Source Internet Television / Video RSS player. Fetches Video 
  RSS feeds or retrives from regular searches on Youtube or Google video.	
    Dozens of feeds as defaults.   Science, Politics, Music, Geekery...
     Miro -> Downloadable from http://www.GetMiro.org  <- Worth a try!

In MsgID on Sun, 11
Nov 2007 10:47:16 -0800, in uk.politics.drugs, 'sobriquet' wrote:

>Potentially cannabis and alcohol could go together like coffee and
>cigarettes or alcohol and cigarettes.

IME not so, but you're right it would take proper research to ascertain if
that was a general trait.

I did fully understand the ideas over the improvement that would be
offered if there was the choice over recreational substances, I was just
commenting that they don't tend toward mutual exclusivity to anything like
the same degree as cars vs bikes. Arguments to be used as ammunition
against prohibitionists need to be fully tested before they're used :-)

Dave J.
-- 
Freeware Open Source Internet Television / Video RSS player. Fetches Video 
  RSS feeds or retrives from regular searches on Youtube or Google video.	
    Dozens of feeds as defaults.   Science, Politics, Music, Geekery...
     Miro -> Downloadable from http://www.GetMiro.org  <- Worth a try!