That's 136 people whose lives have been damaged, by the immoral drug laws,
far more than they would have been by cannabis.

Also, 980 people (7.5%) were found not guilty.

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2007-11-26a.166841.h


-- 
Dr John Watson
Baker Street

"Dr John Watson"  wrote in message 
news:5r4om5F12s3c5U1@mid.individual.net...
> That's 136 people whose lives have been damaged, by the immoral drug laws,
> far more than they would have been by cannabis.
>
> Also, 980 people (7.5%) were found not guilty.
>
> http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2007-11-26a.166841.h

Yes, people shouldn't be punished for breaking laws they don't agree with.

On 28 nov, 11:48, "mentalguy2004"  wrote:
> "Dr John Watson"  wrote in messagenews:5r4om5F12s3c5U1@mid.individual.net...
>
> > That's 136 people whose lives have been damaged, by the immoral drug laws,
> > far more than they would have been by cannabis.
>
> > Also, 980 people (7.5%) were found not guilty.
>
> >http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2007-11-26a.166841.h
>
> Yes, people shouldn't be punished for breaking laws they don't agree with.

Yes, you should be locked up with rapists and murderers for your own
protection for a while.

Noticed at Wed, 28 Nov 2007 10:48:48 +0000: mentalguy2004 informed us:

> 
> "Dr John Watson"  wrote in message 
> news:5r4om5F12s3c5U1@mid.individual.net...
>> That's 136 people whose lives have been damaged, by the immoral drug laws,
>> far more than they would have been by cannabis.
>>
>> Also, 980 people (7.5%) were found not guilty.
>>
>> http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2007-11-26a.166841.h
> 
> Yes, people shouldn't be punished for breaking laws they don't agree with.

The law has no place in deciding what an adult does with his own body,
especially where the substance in question is safer than most legal
substances.

-- 
Dr John Watson
Baker Street

"Dr John Watson"  wrote in message 
news:5r581mF12k2p3U1@mid.individual.net...
> Noticed at Wed, 28 Nov 2007 10:48:48 +0000: mentalguy2004 informed us:
>
>>
>> "Dr John Watson"  wrote in message
>> news:5r4om5F12s3c5U1@mid.individual.net...
>>> That's 136 people whose lives have been damaged, by the immoral drug 
>>> laws,
>>> far more than they would have been by cannabis.
>>>
>>> Also, 980 people (7.5%) were found not guilty.
>>>
>>> http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2007-11-26a.166841.h
>>
>> Yes, people shouldn't be punished for breaking laws they don't agree 
>> with.
>
> The law has no place in deciding what an adult does with his own body,
> especially where the substance in question is safer than most legal
> substances.

Which "legal substances" would they be?

"mentalguy2004"  wrote in message 
news:X0e3j.50552$T8.36821@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...
>
> "Dr John Watson"  wrote in message 
> news:5r581mF12k2p3U1@mid.individual.net...
>> Noticed at Wed, 28 Nov 2007 10:48:48 +0000: mentalguy2004 informed us:
>>
>>>
>>> "Dr John Watson"  wrote in message
>>> news:5r4om5F12s3c5U1@mid.individual.net...
>>>> That's 136 people whose lives have been damaged, by the immoral drug 
>>>> laws,
>>>> far more than they would have been by cannabis.
>>>>
>>>> Also, 980 people (7.5%) were found not guilty.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2007-11-26a.166841.h
>>>
>>> Yes, people shouldn't be punished for breaking laws they don't agree 
>>> with.
>>
>> The law has no place in deciding what an adult does with his own body,
>> especially where the substance in question is safer than most legal
>> substances.
>
> Which "legal substances" would they be?

er, alcohol, nicotine?

"Janitor of Lunacy"  wrote in message 
news:sPe3j.138456$7_4.105257@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
> "mentalguy2004"  wrote in message 
> news:X0e3j.50552$T8.36821@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...
>>
>> "Dr John Watson"  wrote in message 
>> news:5r581mF12k2p3U1@mid.individual.net...
>>> Noticed at Wed, 28 Nov 2007 10:48:48 +0000: mentalguy2004 informed us:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Dr John Watson"  wrote in message
>>>> news:5r4om5F12s3c5U1@mid.individual.net...
>>>>> That's 136 people whose lives have been damaged, by the immoral drug 
>>>>> laws,
>>>>> far more than they would have been by cannabis.
>>>>>
>>>>> Also, 980 people (7.5%) were found not guilty.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2007-11-26a.166841.h
>>>>
>>>> Yes, people shouldn't be punished for breaking laws they don't agree 
>>>> with.
>>>
>>> The law has no place in deciding what an adult does with his own body,
>>> especially where the substance in question is safer than most legal
>>> substances.
>>
>> Which "legal substances" would they be?
>
> er, alcohol, nicotine?
>

I'd agree about alcohol. But I'm not convinced that nicotine causes 
long-term psychoses. Maybe it would be better to say "cannabis may be safer 
than alcohol" rather than "cannabis is FAR safer than MOST legal 
substances". Bit misleading.

On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 14:21:12 GMT, "Janitor of Lunacy"
 wrote:

>
>"mentalguy2004"  wrote in message 
>news:X0e3j.50552$T8.36821@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...
>>
>> "Dr John Watson"  wrote in message 
>> news:5r581mF12k2p3U1@mid.individual.net...
>>> Noticed at Wed, 28 Nov 2007 10:48:48 +0000: mentalguy2004 informed us:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Dr John Watson"  wrote in message
>>>> news:5r4om5F12s3c5U1@mid.individual.net...
>>>>> That's 136 people whose lives have been damaged, by the immoral drug 
>>>>> laws,
>>>>> far more than they would have been by cannabis.
>>>>>
>>>>> Also, 980 people (7.5%) were found not guilty.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2007-11-26a.166841.h
>>>>
>>>> Yes, people shouldn't be punished for breaking laws they don't agree 
>>>> with.
>>>
>>> The law has no place in deciding what an adult does with his own body,
>>> especially where the substance in question is safer than most legal
>>> substances.
>>
>> Which "legal substances" would they be?
>
>er, alcohol, nicotine? 

Arsenic, strychnine, cyanide?

"mentalguy2004"  wrote in message 
news:YVe3j.35670$ib1.35315@newsfe3-win.ntli.net...
>
> "Janitor of Lunacy"  wrote in message 
> news:sPe3j.138456$7_4.105257@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>>
>> "mentalguy2004"  wrote in message 
>> news:X0e3j.50552$T8.36821@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...
>>>
>>> "Dr John Watson"  wrote in message 
>>> news:5r581mF12k2p3U1@mid.individual.net...
>>>> Noticed at Wed, 28 Nov 2007 10:48:48 +0000: mentalguy2004 informed us:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Dr John Watson"  wrote in message
>>>>> news:5r4om5F12s3c5U1@mid.individual.net...
>>>>>> That's 136 people whose lives have been damaged, by the immoral drug 
>>>>>> laws,
>>>>>> far more than they would have been by cannabis.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Also, 980 people (7.5%) were found not guilty.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2007-11-26a.166841.h
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, people shouldn't be punished for breaking laws they don't agree 
>>>>> with.
>>>>
>>>> The law has no place in deciding what an adult does with his own body,
>>>> especially where the substance in question is safer than most legal
>>>> substances.
>>>
>>> Which "legal substances" would they be?
>>
>> er, alcohol, nicotine?
>>
>
> I'd agree about alcohol. But I'm not convinced that nicotine causes 
> long-term psychoses. Maybe it would be better to say "cannabis may be 
> safer than alcohol" rather than "cannabis is FAR safer than MOST legal 
> substances". Bit misleading.

I was replying to "especially where the substance in question is safer than 
most legal substances"
specifically in relation to relative costs to society caused by 
use/misuse/abuse of those substances.

Sorry if that wasn't clear.

On 28 Nov, 14:31, IanAl  wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 14:21:12 GMT, "Janitor of Lunacy"
>
>
>
>
>
>  wrote:
>
> >"mentalguy2004"  wrote in message
> >news:X0e3j.50552$T8.36821@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...
>
> >> "Dr John Watson"  wrote in message
> >>news:5r581mF12k2p3U1@mid.individual.net...
> >>> Noticed at Wed, 28 Nov 2007 10:48:48 +0000: mentalguy2004 informed us:
>
> >>>> "Dr John Watson"  wrote in message
> >>>>news:5r4om5F12s3c5U1@mid.individual.net...
> >>>>> That's 136 people whose lives have been damaged, by the immoral drug
> >>>>> laws,
> >>>>> far more than they would have been by cannabis.
>
> >>>>> Also, 980 people (7.5%) were found not guilty.
>
> >>>>>http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2007-11-26a.166841.h
>
> >>>> Yes, people shouldn't be punished for breaking laws they don't agree
> >>>> with.
>
> >>> The law has no place in deciding what an adult does with his own body,
> >>> especially where the substance in question is safer than most legal
> >>> substances.
>
> >> Which "legal substances" would they be?
>
> >er, alcohol, nicotine?
>
> Arsenic, strychnine, cyanide?- Hide quoted text -

The funniest thing is, AFAIAA, you can quite legally make those things
at home without the law getting involved, or caring a jot.

Which makes the "prohibition for public safety" argument look like the
crock it is.

"Janitor of Lunacy"  wrote in message 
news:_7f3j.40308$JA1.31900@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
> "mentalguy2004"  wrote in message 
> news:YVe3j.35670$ib1.35315@newsfe3-win.ntli.net...
>>
>> "Janitor of Lunacy"  wrote in message 
>> news:sPe3j.138456$7_4.105257@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>>>
>>> "mentalguy2004"  wrote in message 
>>> news:X0e3j.50552$T8.36821@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...
>>>>
>>>> "Dr John Watson"  wrote in message 
>>>> news:5r581mF12k2p3U1@mid.individual.net...
>>>>> Noticed at Wed, 28 Nov 2007 10:48:48 +0000: mentalguy2004 informed us:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Dr John Watson"  wrote in message
>>>>>> news:5r4om5F12s3c5U1@mid.individual.net...
>>>>>>> That's 136 people whose lives have been damaged, by the immoral drug 
>>>>>>> laws,
>>>>>>> far more than they would have been by cannabis.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Also, 980 people (7.5%) were found not guilty.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2007-11-26a.166841.h
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, people shouldn't be punished for breaking laws they don't agree 
>>>>>> with.
>>>>>
>>>>> The law has no place in deciding what an adult does with his own body,
>>>>> especially where the substance in question is safer than most legal
>>>>> substances.
>>>>
>>>> Which "legal substances" would they be?
>>>
>>> er, alcohol, nicotine?
>>>
>>
>> I'd agree about alcohol. But I'm not convinced that nicotine causes 
>> long-term psychoses. Maybe it would be better to say "cannabis may be 
>> safer than alcohol" rather than "cannabis is FAR safer than MOST legal 
>> substances". Bit misleading.
>
> I was replying to "especially where the substance in question is safer 
> than most legal substances"
> specifically in relation to relative costs to society caused by 
> use/misuse/abuse of those substances.
>
> Sorry if that wasn't clear.

Are there any definitive statistics on the costs to society of various 
legal/illegal substances? I'm not disputing your opinion, but I'd have 
thought that mental-health care and joblessness due to apathy linked to 
cannabis use would be significant.

On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 14:28:08 GMT, "mentalguy2004" 
wrote:

>I'd agree about alcohol. But I'm not convinced that nicotine causes 
>long-term psychoses. Maybe it would be better to say "cannabis may be safer 
>than alcohol" rather than "cannabis is FAR safer than MOST legal 
>substances". Bit misleading. 

A nicotine addiction can leave you stone cold dead or gasping
desperately for breath while fighting off lung cancer or emphysema.
Neither of those are particularly good for the psyche.

Svenne

"mentalguy2004"  wrote in message 
news:Ggf3j.35673$ib1.6345@newsfe3-win.ntli.net...
>
> "Janitor of Lunacy"  wrote in message 
> news:_7f3j.40308$JA1.31900@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>>
>> "mentalguy2004"  wrote in message 
>> news:YVe3j.35670$ib1.35315@newsfe3-win.ntli.net...
>>>
>>> "Janitor of Lunacy"  wrote in message 
>>> news:sPe3j.138456$7_4.105257@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>>>>
>>>> "mentalguy2004"  wrote in message 
>>>> news:X0e3j.50552$T8.36821@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Dr John Watson"  wrote in message 
>>>>> news:5r581mF12k2p3U1@mid.individual.net...
>>>>>> Noticed at Wed, 28 Nov 2007 10:48:48 +0000: mentalguy2004 informed 
>>>>>> us:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Dr John Watson"  wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:5r4om5F12s3c5U1@mid.individual.net...
>>>>>>>> That's 136 people whose lives have been damaged, by the immoral 
>>>>>>>> drug laws,
>>>>>>>> far more than they would have been by cannabis.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Also, 980 people (7.5%) were found not guilty.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2007-11-26a.166841.h
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, people shouldn't be punished for breaking laws they don't agree 
>>>>>>> with.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The law has no place in deciding what an adult does with his own 
>>>>>> body,
>>>>>> especially where the substance in question is safer than most legal
>>>>>> substances.
>>>>>
>>>>> Which "legal substances" would they be?
>>>>
>>>> er, alcohol, nicotine?
>>>>
>>>
>>> I'd agree about alcohol. But I'm not convinced that nicotine causes 
>>> long-term psychoses. Maybe it would be better to say "cannabis may be 
>>> safer than alcohol" rather than "cannabis is FAR safer than MOST legal 
>>> substances". Bit misleading.
>>
>> I was replying to "especially where the substance in question is safer 
>> than most legal substances"
>> specifically in relation to relative costs to society caused by 
>> use/misuse/abuse of those substances.
>>
>> Sorry if that wasn't clear.
>
> Are there any definitive statistics on the costs to society of various 
> legal/illegal substances? I'm not disputing your opinion, but I'd have 
> thought that mental-health care and joblessness due to apathy linked to 
> cannabis use would be significant.

Well, I'm no expert on health-care economics, but I would imagine that costs 
to the NHS alone as a result of drunk-driving, Friday/Saturday night fights 
and lung cancer far outweigh those from use of cannabis, on numbers of 
participants alone.

I'm sure the stats are out there but I already have enough research on my 
plate. You are welcome to try and find stats on costs due to cannabis use, 
but I really doubt they exist, simply because there aren't enough such cases 
to be statistically significant. Sure, cannabis use *may* be associated with 
mental problems, but so is alcohol use, but I'm not sure these would be 
reported in the stats primarily as mental health problems or substance abuse 
problems.

"Svenne"  wrote in message 
news:001rk3tq4ate8e7tfgdv5eikd6t358d0jo@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 14:28:08 GMT, "mentalguy2004" 
> wrote:
>
>>I'd agree about alcohol. But I'm not convinced that nicotine causes
>>long-term psychoses. Maybe it would be better to say "cannabis may be 
>>safer
>>than alcohol" rather than "cannabis is FAR safer than MOST legal
>>substances". Bit misleading.
>
> A nicotine addiction can leave you stone cold dead or gasping
> desperately for breath while fighting off lung cancer or emphysema.
> Neither of those are particularly good for the psyche.

Everyone I know that smokes pot, uses the tobacco from cigarettes to make 
their joints. I haven't seen any of them pick out the tar and other 
lung-destroying chemicals before smoking them.

"mentalguy2004"  wrote in message 
news:qBf3j.45803$9Y3.28321@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...
>
> "Svenne"  wrote in message 
> news:001rk3tq4ate8e7tfgdv5eikd6t358d0jo@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 14:28:08 GMT, "mentalguy2004" 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>I'd agree about alcohol. But I'm not convinced that nicotine causes
>>>long-term psychoses. Maybe it would be better to say "cannabis may be 
>>>safer
>>>than alcohol" rather than "cannabis is FAR safer than MOST legal
>>>substances". Bit misleading.
>>
>> A nicotine addiction can leave you stone cold dead or gasping
>> desperately for breath while fighting off lung cancer or emphysema.
>> Neither of those are particularly good for the psyche.
>
> Everyone I know that smokes pot, uses the tobacco from cigarettes to make 
> their joints. I haven't seen any of them pick out the tar and other 
> lung-destroying chemicals before smoking them.

Then you should educate them as to the "hot knives" technique, which IIRC 
does not involve tobacco, and is reportedly a better hit. Or bake it into 
cakes. I'm sure there are others.

Noticed at Wed, 28 Nov 2007 13:27:19 +0000: mentalguy2004 informed us:

> 
> "Dr John Watson"  wrote in message 
> news:5r581mF12k2p3U1@mid.individual.net...
>> Noticed at Wed, 28 Nov 2007 10:48:48 +0000: mentalguy2004 informed us:
>>
>>>
>>> "Dr John Watson"  wrote in message
>>> news:5r4om5F12s3c5U1@mid.individual.net...
>>>> That's 136 people whose lives have been damaged, by the immoral drug 
>>>> laws,
>>>> far more than they would have been by cannabis.
>>>>
>>>> Also, 980 people (7.5%) were found not guilty.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2007-11-26a.166841.h
>>>
>>> Yes, people shouldn't be punished for breaking laws they don't agree 
>>> with.
>>
>> The law has no place in deciding what an adult does with his own body,
>> especially where the substance in question is safer than most legal
>> substances.
> 
> Which "legal substances" would they be?

Alcohol, which kills 8,000 people a year and tobacco, which kills 300
people A DAY.

-- 
Dr John Watson
Baker Street

Noticed at Wed, 28 Nov 2007 14:28:08 +0000: mentalguy2004 informed us:

> I'd agree about alcohol. But I'm not convinced that nicotine causes
> long-term psychoses. Maybe it would be better to say "cannabis may be
> safer than alcohol" rather than "cannabis is FAR safer than MOST legal
> substances". Bit misleading.

Smoking tobacco was linked with schizophrenia, but research published last
week in the BJP indicates that it is not the case (the same research that
disconnected cannabis and schizophrenia).

http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/abstract/191/5/402

It still kills 300 people a day, though. Before you mention it, smoked
cannabis doesn't cause cancer:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070417193338.htm

and

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=0002491F-755F-1473-B55F83414B7F0000&modsrc=related_links

-- 
Dr John Watson
Baker Street

Noticed at Wed, 28 Nov 2007 14:52:22 +0000: mentalguy2004 informed us:

> Are there any definitive statistics on the costs to society of various 
> legal/illegal substances? I'm not disputing your opinion, but I'd have 
> thought that mental-health care and joblessness due to apathy linked to 
> cannabis use would be significant.

The Daily Wail's stereotyping of cannabis users is not true.

-- 
Dr John Watson
Baker Street

Noticed at Wed, 28 Nov 2007 15:14:30 +0000: mentalguy2004 informed us:

> Everyone I know that smokes pot, uses the tobacco from cigarettes to
> make their joints. I haven't seen any of them pick out the tar and other
> lung-destroying chemicals before smoking them.

They need educating- show them this website:

http://www.ukcia.org/activism/tokepure.htm

-- 
Dr John Watson
Baker Street

Noticed at Wed, 28 Nov 2007 15:27:01 +0000: Janitor of Lunacy informed us:

> Then you should educate them as to the "hot knives" technique, which IIRC 
> does not involve tobacco, and is reportedly a better hit. Or bake it into 
> cakes. I'm sure there are others.

If you are lucky enough to have Daily Wail super strength skunk, grind it
up and roll it in a single ultra thin cigarette paper with a filter.

If you have "soap bar" or Vietnamese glass skunk, throw it away.

-- 
Dr John Watson
Baker Street

"Dr John Watson"  wrote in message 
news:5r5ibpF12p7gtU2@mid.individual.net...
> Noticed at Wed, 28 Nov 2007 14:52:22 +0000: mentalguy2004 informed us:
>
>> Are there any definitive statistics on the costs to society of various
>> legal/illegal substances? I'm not disputing your opinion, but I'd have
>> thought that mental-health care and joblessness due to apathy linked to
>> cannabis use would be significant.
>
> The Daily Wail's stereotyping of cannabis users is not true.

I wouldn't know, I don't read it. I draw from my own experiences, and from 
that I also know that stereotyping all regular cannabis users as 
well-balanced, productive members of society isn't true either.

Noticed at Wed, 28 Nov 2007 06:45:52 -0800: Jethro informed us:

> On 28 Nov, 14:31, IanAl  wrote:
>> On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 14:21:12 GMT, "Janitor of Lunacy"
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>  wrote:
>>
>> >"mentalguy2004"  wrote in message
>> >news:X0e3j.50552$T8.36821@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...
>>
>> >> "Dr John Watson"  wrote in message
>> >>news:5r581mF12k2p3U1@mid.individual.net...
>> >>> Noticed at Wed, 28 Nov 2007 10:48:48 +0000: mentalguy2004 informed us:
>>
>> >>>> "Dr John Watson"  wrote in message
>> >>>>news:5r4om5F12s3c5U1@mid.individual.net...
>> >>>>> That's 136 people whose lives have been damaged, by the immoral drug
>> >>>>> laws,
>> >>>>> far more than they would have been by cannabis.
>>
>> >>>>> Also, 980 people (7.5%) were found not guilty.
>>
>> >>>>>http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2007-11-26a.166841.h
>>
>> >>>> Yes, people shouldn't be punished for breaking laws they don't agree
>> >>>> with.
>>
>> >>> The law has no place in deciding what an adult does with his own body,
>> >>> especially where the substance in question is safer than most legal
>> >>> substances.
>>
>> >> Which "legal substances" would they be?
>>
>> >er, alcohol, nicotine?
>>
>> Arsenic, strychnine, cyanide?- Hide quoted text -
> 
> The funniest thing is, AFAIAA, you can quite legally make those things
> at home without the law getting involved, or caring a jot.
> 
> Which makes the "prohibition for public safety" argument look like the
> crock it is.

It's legal to commit suicide with any of those drugs, but if you were to
try overdosing on heroin you'd get 7 years jail. Try overdosing on
cannabis and you'd fall asleep and wake up feeling as if nothing had
happened.

-- 
Dr John Watson
Baker Street

Noticed at Wed, 28 Nov 2007 16:24:47 +0000: mentalguy2004 informed us:

> 
> "Dr John Watson"  wrote in message 
> news:5r5ibpF12p7gtU2@mid.individual.net...
>> Noticed at Wed, 28 Nov 2007 14:52:22 +0000: mentalguy2004 informed us:
>>
>>> Are there any definitive statistics on the costs to society of various
>>> legal/illegal substances? I'm not disputing your opinion, but I'd have
>>> thought that mental-health care and joblessness due to apathy linked to
>>> cannabis use would be significant.
>>
>> The Daily Wail's stereotyping of cannabis users is not true.
> 
> I wouldn't know, I don't read it. I draw from my own experiences, and from 
> that I also know that stereotyping all regular cannabis users as 
> well-balanced, productive members of society isn't true either.

That's not true of most people :-).

-- 
Dr John Watson
Baker Street

"Dr John Watson"  wrote in message 
news:5r5j11F12pkacU1@mid.individual.net...
> Noticed at Wed, 28 Nov 2007 16:24:47 +0000: mentalguy2004 informed us:
>
>>
>> "Dr John Watson"  wrote in message
>> news:5r5ibpF12p7gtU2@mid.individual.net...
>>> Noticed at Wed, 28 Nov 2007 14:52:22 +0000: mentalguy2004 informed us:
>>>
>>>> Are there any definitive statistics on the costs to society of various
>>>> legal/illegal substances? I'm not disputing your opinion, but I'd have
>>>> thought that mental-health care and joblessness due to apathy linked to
>>>> cannabis use would be significant.
>>>
>>> The Daily Wail's stereotyping of cannabis users is not true.
>>
>> I wouldn't know, I don't read it. I draw from my own experiences, and 
>> from
>> that I also know that stereotyping all regular cannabis users as
>> well-balanced, productive members of society isn't true either.
>
> That's not true of most people :-).

Good point!

mentalguy2004 wrote:
> "Svenne"  wrote in message 
> news:001rk3tq4ate8e7tfgdv5eikd6t358d0jo@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 14:28:08 GMT, "mentalguy2004" 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I'd agree about alcohol. But I'm not convinced that nicotine causes
>>> long-term psychoses. Maybe it would be better to say "cannabis may be 
>>> safer
>>> than alcohol" rather than "cannabis is FAR safer than MOST legal
>>> substances". Bit misleading.
>> A nicotine addiction can leave you stone cold dead or gasping
>> desperately for breath while fighting off lung cancer or emphysema.
>> Neither of those are particularly good for the psyche.
> 
> Everyone I know that smokes pot, uses the tobacco from cigarettes to make 
> their joints. I haven't seen any of them pick out the tar and other 
> lung-destroying chemicals before smoking them. 

	This is another bad effect of the prohibition of cannabis i.e. the buds
of cannabis sativa.  The hashish you refer to is easier to smuggle than
the herb.  Thus to be used without hash pipes (an illegal instrument in
a lot of places) the crumbled hash(often crummie due to
adulterants) requires it to be mixed with an herb.  Tobacco cigarettes
are the most available source of such an herb and few people realise the
deadly and highly habituating nature of tobacco.

	Here in the USA hash is rare but giving up the use of tobacco is common
and I know people who smoke their hash on top of cannabis herb.
Very few of the people I know who happen to smoke cannabis can be termed
apathetic though some are terminal and other were.

	I think though that if you discuss drug safety you must define the term
safety.  Some over the counter drugs are far more dangerous
if the dosage limits described are exceeded than cannabis can be even in
huge oral doses.  Cannabis can put people to sleep for a day even but
aspirin and tylenol can both ensure your eternal rest in adequate
amounts and do considerable damage in smaller or treatable overdose.

    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, 28 Nov 2007 15:14:30 GMT, "mentalguy2004" 
wrote:

>Everyone I know that smokes pot, uses the tobacco from cigarettes to make 
>their joints. I haven't seen any of them pick out the tar and other 
>lung-destroying chemicals before smoking them. 

Everyone I know that smokes pot smoke it neat in small pipes so they
can avoid addictive and dangerous tobacco.

mentalguy2004 wrote:
<SNIP>
> Everyone I know that smokes pot, uses the tobacco from cigarettes to
> make their joints. I haven't seen any of them pick out the tar and
> other lung-destroying chemicals before smoking them.

There has been a campaign for some time to get UK users to stop using 
tobacco.
Alas it lacks the money to make any impact and the government don't care.

http://www.slatts.ukfsn.org/famous/cannabis-tobacco.htm

http://www.ukcia.org/activism/tokepure.htm

Slatts

mentalguy2004 wrote:
> "Dr John Watson"  wrote in message
> news:5r5ibpF12p7gtU2@mid.individual.net...
>> Noticed at Wed, 28 Nov 2007 14:52:22 +0000: mentalguy2004 informed
>> us:
>>> Are there any definitive statistics on the costs to society of
>>> various legal/illegal substances? I'm not disputing your opinion,
>>> but I'd have thought that mental-health care and joblessness due to
>>> apathy linked to cannabis use would be significant.
>>
>> The Daily Wail's stereotyping of cannabis users is not true.
>
> I wouldn't know, I don't read it. I draw from my own experiences, and
> from that I also know that stereotyping all regular cannabis users as
> well-balanced, productive members of society isn't true either.

Here is a list of some famous tokers - just see what a sad world it would be 
without (some of) them.

http://www.slatts.ukfsn.org/famous.htm

Slatts

On 28 nov, 15:31, IanAl  wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 14:21:12 GMT, "Janitor of Lunacy"
>
>
>
>
>
>  wrote:
>
> >"mentalguy2004"  wrote in message
> >news:X0e3j.50552$T8.36821@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...
>
> >> "Dr John Watson"  wrote in message
> >>news:5r581mF12k2p3U1@mid.individual.net...
> >>> Noticed at Wed, 28 Nov 2007 10:48:48 +0000: mentalguy2004 informed us:
>
> >>>> "Dr John Watson"  wrote in message
> >>>>news:5r4om5F12s3c5U1@mid.individual.net...
> >>>>> That's 136 people whose lives have been damaged, by the immoral drug
> >>>>> laws,
> >>>>> far more than they would have been by cannabis.
>
> >>>>> Also, 980 people (7.5%) were found not guilty.
>
> >>>>>http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2007-11-26a.166841.h
>
> >>>> Yes, people shouldn't be punished for breaking laws they don't agree
> >>>> with.
>
> >>> The law has no place in deciding what an adult does with his own body,
> >>> especially where the substance in question is safer than most legal
> >>> substances.
>
> >> Which "legal substances" would they be?
>
> >er, alcohol, nicotine?
>
> Arsenic, strychnine, cyanide?- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven -
>
> - Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven -

Those are not addictive though and not used for recreational purposes
as far as I know.

On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 08:54:29 +0000, Dr John Watson
 wrote:

>That's 136 people whose lives have been damaged, by the immoral drug laws,
>far more than they would have been by cannabis.
>
>Also, 980 people (7.5%) were found not guilty.
>
>http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2007-11-26a.166841.h
>
>
Did they find this cannabis or decide to fund violent organised
criminal networks instead ?

Dr John Watson wrote:
> Noticed at Wed, 28 Nov 2007 10:48:48 +0000: mentalguy2004 informed us:
> 
>> "Dr John Watson"  wrote in message 
>> news:5r4om5F12s3c5U1@mid.individual.net...
>>> That's 136 people whose lives have been damaged, by the immoral drug laws,
>>> far more than they would have been by cannabis.
>>>
>>> Also, 980 people (7.5%) were found not guilty.
>>>
>>> http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2007-11-26a.166841.h
>> Yes, people shouldn't be punished for breaking laws they don't agree with.
> 
> The law has no place in deciding what an adult does with his own body,
> especially where the substance in question is safer than most legal
> substances.
> 

Well that's what I thought as a 16 yo having discovered a whole new
exciting world of dope and acid.

And as a 55yo "straight" I remain of the same opinion.

j

 Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
    ** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------        
                http://www.usenet.com

sobriquet wrote:
<SNIP>>>
>> Arsenic, strychnine, cyanide?- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet
>> weergeven -
>>
>> - Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven -
>
> Those are not addictive though and not used for recreational purposes
> as far as I know.

Is use as a cosmetic recreational?
In the Victorian era, 'arsenic' (colourless, crystalline, soluble 'white 
arsenic') was mixed with vinegar and chalk and eaten by women to improve the 
complexion of their faces, making their skin paler to show they did not work 
in the fields. Arsenic was also rubbed into the faces and arms of women to 
'improve their complexion'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arsenic

Strychnine can be use as a stimulant.
Small doses of strychnine were once used in medications as a stimulant, a 
laxative and as a treatment for other stomach ailments. Strychnine has 
stimulant effects at low doses but because of its high toxicity and tendency 
to cause convulsions the use of strychnine in medicine was eventually 
abandoned once safer alternatives became available.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strychnine


Slatts

On 28 nov, 23:13, "Sla#s"  wrote:
> sobriquet wrote:
>
> <SNIP>>>
>
> >> Arsenic, strychnine, cyanide?- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet
> >> weergeven -
>
> >> - Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven -
>
> > Those are not addictive though and not used for recreational purposes
> > as far as I know.
>
> Is use as a cosmetic recreational?
> In the Victorian era, 'arsenic' (colourless, crystalline, soluble 'white
> arsenic') was mixed with vinegar and chalk and eaten by women to improve the
> complexion of their faces, making their skin paler to show they did not work
> in the fields. Arsenic was also rubbed into the faces and arms of women to
> 'improve their complexion'.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arsenic
>
> Strychnine can be use as a stimulant.
> Small doses of strychnine were once used in medications as a stimulant, a
> laxative and as a treatment for other stomach ailments. Strychnine has
> stimulant effects at low doses but because of its high toxicity and tendency
> to cause convulsions the use of strychnine in medicine was eventually
> abandoned once safer alternatives became available.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strychnine
>
> Slatts

Ok, I still think it would be good to restrict the discussion to
psychoactive substances used in practice for recreational purposes
though, to delineate the issue at stake most clearly.

On 28 nov, 15:28, "mentalguy2004"  wrote:
> "Janitor of Lunacy"  wrote in messagenews:sPe3j.138456$7_4.105257@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "mentalguy2004"  wrote in message
> >news:X0e3j.50552$T8.36821@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...
>
> >> "Dr John Watson"  wrote in message
> >>news:5r581mF12k2p3U1@mid.individual.net...
> >>> Noticed at Wed, 28 Nov 2007 10:48:48 +0000: mentalguy2004 informed us:
>
> >>>> "Dr John Watson"  wrote in message
> >>>>news:5r4om5F12s3c5U1@mid.individual.net...
> >>>>> That's 136 people whose lives have been damaged, by the immoral drug
> >>>>> laws,
> >>>>> far more than they would have been by cannabis.
>
> >>>>> Also, 980 people (7.5%) were found not guilty.
>
> >>>>>http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2007-11-26a.166841.h
>
> >>>> Yes, people shouldn't be punished for breaking laws they don't agree
> >>>> with.
>
> >>> The law has no place in deciding what an adult does with his own body,
> >>> especially where the substance in question is safer than most legal
> >>> substances.
>
> >> Which "legal substances" would they be?
>
> > er, alcohol, nicotine?
>
> I'd agree about alcohol. But I'm not convinced that nicotine causes
> long-term psychoses. Maybe it would be better to say "cannabis may be safer
> than alcohol" rather than "cannabis is FAR safer than MOST legal
> substances". Bit misleading.

Cannabis may be safer than alcohol?! Like, uh... a pocketknife may be
safer than an bazooka?

I think first of all the word safe is inappropriate in this discussion
as far as drugs are concerned.
Drugs are inherently dangerous, so it would be more appropriate to
talk about one drug being
less dangerous than another drug as opposed to one drug being safer
than another drug.

I think it would be reasonable to claim that alcohol and tobacco
involve a greater overall risk
for people's health in comparison to cannabis.
In some respects, like the risk of a fatal overdose, cannabis is less
dangerous than just about
any substance (given that it's remarkably non-toxic). But in other
respects, cannabis is even more dangerous than tobacco (like the risk
of people behaving irrationally due to cannabis induced delusions).

Personally I think a drug like cannabis is more dangerous than a drug
like coffee, because cannabis tends to have a more dramatic effect on
people's state of mind and people can and actually do behave
erratically and irrationally under the influence of psychoactive
substances that can dramatically impact people's state of mind, which
may endanger their health. These risks can however be significantly
reduced by ensuring people are well-informed about the potential
effects and risks. One thing we don't want to do though, is give
people the misleading impression that smoking a spliff of potent bud
is somewhat similar like drinking a glass of water with respect to the
risks involved.

sobriquet wrote:
> On 28 nov, 15:28, "mentalguy2004"  wrote:
>> "Janitor of Lunacy"  wrote in messagenews:sPe3j.138456$7_4.105257@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> "mentalguy2004"  wrote in message
>>> news:X0e3j.50552$T8.36821@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...
>>>> "Dr John Watson"  wrote in message
>>>> news:5r581mF12k2p3U1@mid.individual.net...
>>>>> Noticed at Wed, 28 Nov 2007 10:48:48 +0000: mentalguy2004 informed us:
>>>>>> "Dr John Watson"  wrote in message
>>>>>> news:5r4om5F12s3c5U1@mid.individual.net...
>>>>>>> That's 136 people whose lives have been damaged, by the immoral drug
>>>>>>> laws,
>>>>>>> far more than they would have been by cannabis.
>>>>>>> Also, 980 people (7.5%) were found not guilty.
>>>>>>> http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2007-11-26a.166841.h
>>>>>> Yes, people shouldn't be punished for breaking laws they don't agree
>>>>>> with.
>>>>> The law has no place in deciding what an adult does with his own body,
>>>>> especially where the substance in question is safer than most legal
>>>>> substances.
>>>> Which "legal substances" would they be?
>>> er, alcohol, nicotine?
>> I'd agree about alcohol. But I'm not convinced that nicotine causes
>> long-term psychoses. Maybe it would be better to say "cannabis may be safer
>> than alcohol" rather than "cannabis is FAR safer than MOST legal
>> substances". Bit misleading.
> 
> Cannabis may be safer than alcohol?! Like, uh... a pocketknife may be
> safer than an bazooka?
> 
> I think first of all the word safe is inappropriate in this discussion
> as far as drugs are concerned.
> Drugs are inherently dangerous, so it would be more appropriate to
> talk about one drug being
> less dangerous than another drug as opposed to one drug being safer
> than another drug.

	Life itself is inherently dangerous and always ends in death as
far as we know.  Just because something is dangerous and may cause
illness or addiction is no reason to avoid its use if you are determined
to take the risk.

	Tobacco is mainly addictive to the younger folks who might foolishly
start to use it before their own neurochemical organs are
fully developed.  I used it after age 25 on a very occasional basis
and found no special addictive problem with stopping it.

> I think it would be reasonable to claim that alcohol and tobacco
> involve a greater overall risk
> for people's health in comparison to cannabis.
> In some respects, like the risk of a fatal overdose, cannabis is less
> dangerous than just about
> any substance (given that it's remarkably non-toxic). But in other
> respects, cannabis is even more dangerous than tobacco (like the risk
> of people behaving irrationally due to cannabis induced delusions).
> 
> Personally I think a drug like cannabis is more dangerous than a drug
> like coffee, because cannabis tends to have a more dramatic effect on
> people's state of mind and people can and actually do behave
> erratically and irrationally under the influence of psychoactive
> substances that can dramatically impact people's state of mind, which
> may endanger their health. These risks can however be significantly
> reduced by ensuring people are well-informed about the potential
> effects and risks. One thing we don't want to do though, is give
> people the misleading impression that smoking a spliff of potent bud
> is somewhat similar like drinking a glass of water with respect to the
> risks involved.


-- 


    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



     "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.


    later
    Bobbie Sellers

--
 bobbie sellers - an exhausted former nurse in San Francisco
	      bliss at california dot com

Del Mar: Where poverty is neither a philosophy nor a way of life.
But it is a misdeameanor.


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

--
 bobbie sellers - (Back to Angband) Team *AMIGA & SF-LUG*
              bliss at california dot com

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

--
bobbie sellers - (Back to Angband) Team *AMIGA & SF-LUG*
 Formerly of AWest - San Francisco's Amiga Users Group
        Your tag lines (k) were stolen! (more)
            There is a puff of smoke!

sobriquet wrote:
> On 28 nov, 15:28, "mentalguy2004"  wrote:
>> "Janitor of Lunacy"  wrote in messagenews:sPe3j.138456$7_4.105257@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...

>>> "mentalguy2004"  wrote in message
>>> news:X0e3j.50552$T8.36821@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...
>>>> "Dr John Watson"  wrote in message
>>>> news:5r581mF12k2p3U1@mid.individual.net...
>>>>> Noticed at Wed, 28 Nov 2007 10:48:48 +0000: mentalguy2004 informed us:
>>>>>> "Dr John Watson"  wrote in message
>>>>>> news:5r4om5F12s3c5U1@mid.individual.net...
>>>>>>> That's 136 people whose lives have been damaged, by the immoral drug
>>>>>>> laws,
>>>>>>> far more than they would have been by cannabis.
>>>>>>> Also, 980 people (7.5%) were found not guilty.
>>>>>>> http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2007-11-26a.166841.h
>>>>>> Yes, people shouldn't be punished for breaking laws they don't agree
>>>>>> with.
>>>>> The law has no place in deciding what an adult does with his own body,
>>>>> especially where the substance in question is safer than most legal
>>>>> substances.
>>>> Which "legal substances" would they be?
>>> er, alcohol, nicotine?
>> I'd agree about alcohol. But I'm not convinced that nicotine causes
>> long-term psychoses. Maybe it would be better to say "cannabis may be safer
>> than alcohol" rather than "cannabis is FAR safer than MOST legal
>> substances". Bit misleading.
> 
> Cannabis may be safer than alcohol?! Like, uh... a pocketknife may be
> safer than an bazooka?

	In a very similar way but as I said earlier let us define safety
before we talk very much about which drugs are the more dangerous.

> I think first of all the word safe is inappropriate in this discussion
> as far as drugs are concerned.
> Drugs are inherently dangerous, so it would be more appropriate to
> talk about one drug being
> less dangerous than another drug as opposed to one drug being safer
> than another drug.

	Life itself is inherently dangerous and always ends in death as
far as we know.  Just because something is dangerous and may cause
illness or addiction is no reason to avoid its use if you are determined
to take the risk.

	Tobacco is mainly addictive to the younger folks who might foolishly
start to use it before their own neuro-chemical organs are
fully developed.  I used it after age 25 on a very occasional basis
and found no special addictive problem with stopping it.

> I think it would be reasonable to claim that alcohol and tobacco
> involve a greater overall risk
> for people's health in comparison to cannabis.
> In some respects, like the risk of a fatal overdose, cannabis is less
> dangerous than just about
> any substance (given that it's remarkably non-toxic). But in other
> respects, cannabis is even more dangerous than tobacco (like the risk
> of people behaving irrationally due to cannabis induced delusions).
> 
> Personally I think a drug like cannabis is more dangerous than a drug
> like coffee, because cannabis tends to have a more dramatic effect on
> people's state of mind and people can and actually do behave
> erratically and irrationally under the influence of psychoactive
> substances that can dramatically impact people's state of mind, which
> may endanger their health. These risks can however be significantly
> reduced by ensuring people are well-informed about the potential
> effects and risks. One thing we don't want to do though, is give
> people the misleading impression that smoking a spliff of potent bud
> is somewhat similar like drinking a glass of water with respect to the
> risks involved.

	No it is more like taking an expresso coffee but longer lasting
and more frightening to the poorly educated.  On the other hand I have
done some damn stupid things fueled by coffee before I realized how bad
it was for me.  Some people will do stupid things with no substances
added to their brain chemistry and others will not realize how foolish
their stimulant fueled imaginations have made them behave.
	Our penchant for overdoing good things can make fools of us
too.
	Most of the less severe recreational drugs can be safely used
by adults whether legal or illegal but we still haven't defined
safety.   What is safe for an older person of say 30 can be very
dangerous to a child or even to a young adult who hasn't bothered
to even learn what the substances s/he may be misusing is nor what
damage it can do.

	By the way the DEA is still lying about cannabis from several
aspects of the problem and these lies are more dangerous than the
cannabis.  Because of these lies the children who believed them when
they learn better will think that the rest of the information presented
about the dangers of amphetamines and opoids are also lies and be led
to experiment with more problematic substances than cannabis.

	Sorry you got the mess I accidentally sent earlier but I have yet to
find the PC keyboard as congenial as the old Amiga.

    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 28 nov, 16:14, "mentalguy2004"  wrote:
> "Svenne"  wrote in message
>
> news:001rk3tq4ate8e7tfgdv5eikd6t358d0jo@4ax.com...
>
> > On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 14:28:08 GMT, "mentalguy2004" 
> > wrote:
>
> >>I'd agree about alcohol. But I'm not convinced that nicotine causes
> >>long-term psychoses. Maybe it would be better to say "cannabis may be
> >>safer
> >>than alcohol" rather than "cannabis is FAR safer than MOST legal
> >>substances". Bit misleading.
>
> > A nicotine addiction can leave you stone cold dead or gasping
> > desperately for breath while fighting off lung cancer or emphysema.
> > Neither of those are particularly good for the psyche.
>
> Everyone I know that smokes pot, uses the tobacco from cigarettes to make
> their joints. I haven't seen any of them pick out the tar and other
> lung-destroying chemicals before smoking them.

While I started out smoking tobacco and used to mix pot and tobacco
initially, after a while
I realized addiction sucks, especially an addiction to something
detrimental like polluting your lungs. I subsequently switched to
smoking pot pure and actually quit my nicotine dependency by
substituting pot for tobacco. I've never smoked tobacco anymore since
1999 (having smoked tobacco for 10 years or so) and since then I only
smoke pot pure, although I tend to vaporize it most of the time. I
regularly abstain completely for prolonged periods (like multiple
months) without problems and hence I no longer feel addicted to
smoking. I still smoke an occasional spliff and although I think
smoking is stupid, I think it makes a big difference if people are
smoking a pack of cigarettes a day or an occasional spliff. That
doesn't mean that people can't get addicted to smoking pot, but
compared to tobacco it's not a very addictive drug and abstaining from
regular pot use is about equally difficult as abstaining from regular
coffee use in my experience. It doesn't seem to require a lot of
willpower for the majority of people, unlike the willpower required to
abstain from frequent tobacco usage.

Noticed at Wed, 28 Nov 2007 19:35:30 +0000: Shaun informed us:

> On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 08:54:29 +0000, Dr John Watson
>  wrote:
> 
>>That's 136 people whose lives have been damaged, by the immoral drug laws,
>>far more than they would have been by cannabis.
>>
>>Also, 980 people (7.5%) were found not guilty.
>>
>>http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2007-11-26a.166841.h
>>
>>
> Did they find this cannabis or decide to fund violent organised
> criminal networks instead ?

Prohibition funds the violent criminal networks. Without prohibition, they
wouldn't exist, just as there are no longer violent criminal networks
supplying booze in the USA.

-- 
Dr John Watson
Baker Street

On Nov 29, 12:16 am, Dr John Watson 
wrote:
> Noticed at Wed, 28 Nov 2007 10:48:48 +0000: mentalguy2004 informed us:
>
>
>
> > "Dr John Watson"  wrote in message
> >news:5r4om5F12s3c5U1@mid.individual.net...
> >> That's 136 people whose lives have been damaged, by the immoral drug laws,
> >> far more than they would have been by cannabis.
>
> >> Also, 980 people (7.5%) were found not guilty.
>
> >>http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2007-11-26a.166841.h
>
> > Yes, people shouldn't be punished for breaking laws they don't agree with.
>
> The law has no place in deciding what an adult does with his own body,
> especially where the substance in question is safer than most legal
> substances.
>
> --
> Dr John Watson
> Baker Street

The Purple Circle are inviting one and all to register and sign a
peoples petition to present to the new Government to ammend the
draconian laws forced apon us by the Howard Governments alliances with
prohabitionist nations
With unity we can demand that the laws concerning pot be
reformed.These laws cleary cause unfair excessive tarrifs and over
burdon the people. WE the voters must stand up Prohabition does not
work to the help the people these Ignorant laws must be changed for
all the peoples piece of mind and welfare.

On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 07:23:08 +0000, Dr John Watson
 wrote:

>Noticed at Wed, 28 Nov 2007 19:35:30 +0000: Shaun informed us:
>
>> On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 08:54:29 +0000, Dr John Watson
>>  wrote:
>> 
>>>That's 136 people whose lives have been damaged, by the immoral drug laws,
>>>far more than they would have been by cannabis.
>>>
>>>Also, 980 people (7.5%) were found not guilty.
>>>
>>>http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2007-11-26a.166841.h
>>>
>>>
>> Did they find this cannabis or decide to fund violent organised
>> criminal networks instead ?
>
>Prohibition funds the violent criminal networks. Without prohibition, they
>wouldn't exist, just as there are no longer violent criminal networks
>supplying booze in the USA.
>
But drugs are sold by violent gangsters and the dope heads are quite
happy to buy from them. 

Don't blame the Government for their lack of morals

In message , Shaun 
 writes
>But drugs are sold by violent gangsters and the dope heads are quite 
>happy to buy from them.
>
>Don't blame the Government for their lack of morals

You can't possibly believe that everyone buys drugs directly from 
violent gangsters? Besides, give them a choice to buy it at Boots or the 
local tobacconist and they wouldn't need to go farther afield, would 
they?


-- 
Mike_B

sobriquet wrote:
<SNIP>> Ok, I still think it would be good to restrict the discussion to
> psychoactive substances used in practice for recreational purposes
> though, to delineate the issue at stake most clearly.

True - (I am a bit of a stirring bastard :-) 

Slatts

Shaun wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 07:23:08 +0000, Dr John Watson
>  wrote:
> 
>> Noticed at Wed, 28 Nov 2007 19:35:30 +0000: Shaun informed us:
>>
>>> On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 08:54:29 +0000, Dr John Watson
>>>  wrote:
>>>
>>>> That's 136 people whose lives have been damaged, by the immoral drug laws,
>>>> far more than they would have been by cannabis.
>>>>
>>>> Also, 980 people (7.5%) were found not guilty.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2007-11-26a.166841.h
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Did they find this cannabis or decide to fund violent organised
>>> criminal networks instead ?
>> Prohibition funds the violent criminal networks. Without prohibition, they
>> wouldn't exist, just as there are no longer violent criminal networks
>> supplying booze in the USA.
>>
> But drugs are sold by violent gangsters and the dope heads are quite
> happy to buy from them. 

	Not all drugs are sold by violent gangsters but violent gangster
may run the other dealers out of business if they seem to be taking away
business.  One way of looking at it is that the government acts as
enforcers for the drugs they have chosen to permit and use violence
against anyone who dares to contravene their desires to collect taxes
on alcohol and tobacco

> Don't blame the Government for their lack of morals
	
	I blame Governments very much for their institutionalized
immorality. If you don't think the Governments are immoral then why
have they not restricted the bad behavior of capital markets, property
speculators and such types.  These do immeasurably harm to society and
so does the mass use of petroleum as fuel.

	Politicians' individual bad morals are frequent inspirations for bad
morals among the citizens.  The politicians are always willing to
break basic law to impress a voter block which is where the very
problematical drug laws come from as well as other laws intruding on
private consentual behavior among adults.

	"It ain't nobody's business" what you do so long as you don't
hurt others by doing so.  Which is also the title of a libertarian
biblical exegesis by a cannabis martyr who died at the hands of a
Federal judge who presumed to proscribe the use of cannabis by this man
a few years ago.  "It ain't nobody's business" is also the title of
a popular song of some years ago.   But Peter McWilliams was the name
of the martyr on June 22, 2000.  He was a prolific author.  I had to
go back to my Amiga and take some time looking up the facts.

	But consider the insanity of attempting to control each person's
choices in food or in recreation.  It would take a policeman for each
person and a policeman for each policeman to make sure corruption is
not happening.  Such supervision is impossible because there can never
be enough police.  It is also impossibly expensive.  To attempt such
supervision is to choose failure for the sake of increasing the size of
the police forces and prison facilities.
	Prohibition of drugs from coffee to tobacco and the attempt to
limit the use of chocolate by the Spanish church have all failed.  All
the authorities which have tried to prohibit such use have since fallen
and their histories are poorly remembered but we are left with the
tyrants of bureaucratic agencies attempting the same folly again and
again at the tax payers expense and the users lives.

    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, 29 Nov 2007 13:56:34 GMT, Mike_B 
wrote:

>In message , Shaun 
> writes
>>But drugs are sold by violent gangsters and the dope heads are quite 
>>happy to buy from them.
>>
>>Don't blame the Government for their lack of morals
>
>You can't possibly believe that everyone buys drugs directly from 
>violent gangsters? Besides, give them a choice to buy it at Boots or the 
>local tobacconist and they wouldn't need to go farther afield, would 
>they?
>
>
The dope heads have a choice now: 

Either supporting organised crime or not supporting it.

They choose to support scum who help destroy communities

On Nov 28, 2:28 pm, "mentalguy2004"  wrote:
> "Janitor of Lunacy"  wrote in messagenews:sPe3j.138456$7_4.105257@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
>
>
>
>
> > "mentalguy2004"  wrote in message
> >news:X0e3j.50552$T8.36821@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...
>
> >> "Dr John Watson"  wrote in message
> >>news:5r581mF12k2p3U1@mid.individual.net...
> >>> Noticed at Wed, 28 Nov 2007 10:48:48 +0000: mentalguy2004 informed us:
>
> >>>> "Dr John Watson"  wrote in message
> >>>>news:5r4om5F12s3c5U1@mid.individual.net...
> >>>>> That's 136 people whose lives have been damaged, by the immoral drug
> >>>>> laws,
> >>>>> far more than they would have been by cannabis.
>
> >>>>> Also, 980 people (7.5%) were found not guilty.
>
> >>>>>http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2007-11-26a.166841.h
>
> >>>> Yes, people shouldn't be punished for breaking laws they don't agree
> >>>> with.
>
> >>> The law has no place in deciding what an adult does with his own body,
> >>> especially where the substance in question is safer than most legal
> >>> substances.
>
> >> Which "legal substances" would they be?
>
> > er, alcohol, nicotine?
>
> I'd agree about alcohol. But I'm not convinced that nicotine causes
> long-term psychoses. Maybe it would be better to say "cannabis may be safer
> than alcohol" rather than "cannabis is FAR safer than MOST legal
> substances". Bit misleading.

Illegality cause pyscosis

On Nov 28, 6:28 am, "mentalguy2004"  wrote:
> "Janitor of Lunacy"  wrote in messagenews:sPe3j.138456$7_4.105257@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "mentalguy2004"  wrote in message
> >news:X0e3j.50552$T8.36821@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...
>
> >> "Dr John Watson"  wrote in message
> >>news:5r581mF12k2p3U1@mid.individual.net...
> >>> Noticed at Wed, 28 Nov 2007 10:48:48 +0000: mentalguy2004 informed us:
>
> >>>> "Dr John Watson"  wrote in message
> >>>>news:5r4om5F12s3c5U1@mid.individual.net...
> >>>>> That's 136 people whose lives have been damaged, by the immoral drug
> >>>>> laws,
> >>>>> far more than they would have been by cannabis.
>
> >>>>> Also, 980 people (7.5%) were found not guilty.
>
> >>>>>http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2007-11-26a.166841.h
>
> >>>> Yes, people shouldn't be punished for breaking laws they don't agree
> >>>> with.
>
> >>> The law has no place in deciding what an adult does with his own body,
> >>> especially where the substance in question is safer than most legal
> >>> substances.
>
> >> Which "legal substances" would they be?
>
> > er, alcohol, nicotine?
>
> I'd agree about alcohol. But I'm not convinced that nicotine causes
> long-term psychoses. Maybe it would be better to say "cannabis may be safer
> than alcohol" rather than "cannabis is FAR safer than MOST legal
> substances". Bit misleading.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Wouldn't/Shouldn't Law Enforcement be a BETTER SERVANT of the public
if they'd concentrate on hard drugs like meth???? Trouble is the meth
heads know how to work the system and will try to talk their way out
of anything,pot heads usually won't.The only clear answer is to
legalize marijuana because it would reduce the price and remove the
criminal aspect...I had a poll posted as to whether non-violent
marrijuana arrest should result in incarceration and it was
OVERWHELMINGLY NO!!!

On Nov 28, 7:54 pm, Dr John Watson 
wrote:
> That's 136 people whose lives have been damaged, by the immoral drug laws,
> far more than they would have been by cannabis.
>
> Also, 980 people (7.5%) were found not guilty.
>
> http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2007-11-26a.166841.h
>
> --
> Dr John Watson
> Baker Street
 I total agreeance dont suppose you are an influential citizen of our
free NATION  that is able to fill exective position
on a law reform commity ?

On 29 nov, 21:52, shaun.jame...@spam.ntlworld.com (Shaun) wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 13:56:34 GMT, Mike_B 
> wrote:
>
> >In message , Shaun
> > writes
> >>But drugs are sold by violent gangsters and the dope heads are quite
> >>happy to buy from them.
>
> >>Don't blame the Government for their lack of morals
>
> >You can't possibly believe that everyone buys drugs directly from
> >violent gangsters? Besides, give them a choice to buy it at Boots or the
> >local tobacconist and they wouldn't need to go farther afield, would
> >they?
>
> The dope heads have a choice now:
>
> Either supporting organised crime or not supporting it.
>
> They choose to support scum who help destroy communities

You have it backwards. It's the government policy of prohibition that
effectively sponsors organized crime. Anybody who is rational would
prefer drugs that have lower associated healthrisks, regardless of the
legality. If laws are unfair and irrational, you shouldn't blame
people for breaking those laws but blame the criminal scum in
government that are responsible for those unfair and irrational laws.
A government that enforces unfair and irrational laws amounts to
little more than the dominant crime syndicate.

Noticed at Thu, 29 Nov 2007 13:10:21 +0000: Shaun informed us:

> But drugs are sold by violent gangsters and the dope heads are quite
> happy to buy from them.
> 
> Don't blame the Government for their lack of morals

Before governments unilaterally criminalised cannabis in the 1920s it was
sold by respectable businesspeople. It's the governments that caused the
problems.

-- 
Dr John Watson
Baker Street

Noticed at Thu, 29 Nov 2007 20:52:46 +0000: Shaun informed us:

> The dope heads have a choice now:
> 
> Either supporting organised crime or not supporting it.
> 
> They choose to support scum who help destroy communities

Granny Patricia Tabram, and others, who are being persecuted for growing
their own cannabis, do not support organised crime. The penalties for
growing cannabis are the same as dealing, 14 years in jail, so in this
respect the law supports organised crime (because simple possession is
more or less decriminalised).

-- 
Dr John Watson
Baker Street

In message , Shaun 
 writes
>On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 13:56:34 GMT, Mike_B 
>wrote:
>
>>In message , Shaun
>> writes
>>>But drugs are sold by violent gangsters and the dope heads are quite
>>>happy to buy from them.
>>>
>>>Don't blame the Government for their lack of morals
>>
>>You can't possibly believe that everyone buys drugs directly from
>>violent gangsters? Besides, give them a choice to buy it at Boots or the
>>local tobacconist and they wouldn't need to go farther afield, would
>>they?
>>
>>
>The dope heads have a choice now:
>
>Either supporting organised crime or not supporting it.
>
>They choose to support scum who help destroy communities

Alternatively, the government could recognise that when people are 
determined to have something, then they will have it one way or another 
and that it is therefore the government's attempts to stop them having 
it that creates a market for scum and violent gangsters.  You might have 
read that this is a lesson learned by the USA in the 20s. These days, 
they don't seem to have nearly as much trouble with people going to 
gangsters to buy illegal booze. Why would they when they can buy it at 
their local supermarket?

-- 
Mike_B

Shaun wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 13:56:34 GMT, Mike_B 
> wrote:
> 
>> In message , Shaun 
>>  writes
>>> But drugs are sold by violent gangsters and the dope heads are quite 
>>> happy to buy from them.
>>>
>>> Don't blame the Government for their lack of morals
>> You can't possibly believe that everyone buys drugs directly from 
>> violent gangsters? Besides, give them a choice to buy it at Boots or the 
>> local tobacconist and they wouldn't need to go farther afield, would 
>> they?
>>
>>
> The dope heads have a choice now: 
> 
> Either supporting organised crime or not supporting it.
> 
> They choose to support scum who help destroy communities

Surely they can't all be labour or tory party voters

Dr John Watson wrote:
> Noticed at Thu, 29 Nov 2007 13:10:21 +0000: Shaun informed us:
> 
>> But drugs are sold by violent gangsters and the dope heads are quite
>> happy to buy from them.
>>
>> Don't blame the Government for their lack of morals
> 
> Before governments unilaterally criminalised cannabis in the 1920s it was
> sold by respectable businesspeople. It's the governments that caused the
> problems.
> 
Actually 1930s and only in USofA

Here's the bastard wot done it
http://www.heartbone.com/no_thugs/hja.htm

Noticed at Fri, 30 Nov 2007 15:12:39 +0000: alang informed us:

> Dr John Watson wrote:
>> Noticed at Thu, 29 Nov 2007 13:10:21 +0000: Shaun informed us:
>> 
>>> But drugs are sold by violent gangsters and the dope heads are quite
>>> happy to buy from them.
>>>
>>> Don't blame the Government for their lack of morals
>> 
>> Before governments unilaterally criminalised cannabis in the 1920s it was
>> sold by respectable businesspeople. It's the governments that caused the
>> problems.
>> 
> Actually 1930s and only in USofA
> 
> Here's the bastard wot done it
> http://www.heartbone.com/no_thugs/hja.htm

I understand he turned into a bat and flew into an inkwell, as you do.

-- 
Dr John Watson
Baker Street

On 1 dec, 02:20, Dr John Watson  wrote:
> Noticed at Fri, 30 Nov 2007 15:12:39 +0000: alang informed us:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Dr John Watson wrote:
> >> Noticed at Thu, 29 Nov 2007 13:10:21 +0000: Shaun informed us:
>
> >>> But drugs are sold by violent gangsters and the dope heads are quite
> >>> happy to buy from them.
>
> >>> Don't blame the Government for their lack of morals
>
> >> Before governments unilaterally criminalised cannabis in the 1920s it was
> >> sold by respectable businesspeople. It's the governments that caused the
> >> problems.
>
> > Actually 1930s and only in USofA
>
> > Here's the bastard wot done it
> >http://www.heartbone.com/no_thugs/hja.htm
>
> I understand he turned into a bat and flew into an inkwell, as you do.
>
> --
> Dr John Watson
> Baker Street- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven -
>
> - Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven -

Not Anslinger... some pharmacologist that testified in a murder trial.

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/History/whiteb1.htm

In the most famous of these trials, what happened was two women jumped
on a Newark, New Jersey bus and shot and killed and robbed the bus
driver. They put on the marijuana insanity defense. The defense called
the pharmacologist, and of course, you know how to do this now, you
put the expert on, you say "Doctor, did you do all of this
experimentation and so on?" You qualify your expert. "Did you write
all about it?" "Yes, and I did the dogs" and now he is an expert. Now
you ask him what? You ask the doctor "What have you done with the
drug?" And he said, and I quote, "I've experimented with the dogs, I
have written something about it and" -- are you ready -- "I have used
the drug myself."

What do you ask him next? "Doctor, when you used the drug, what
happened?"

With all the press present at this flamboyant murder trial in Newark
New Jersey, in 1938, the pharmacologist said, and I quote, in response
to the question "When you used the drug, what happened?", his exact
response was: "After two puffs on a marijuana cigarette, I was turned
into a bat."

He wasn't done yet. He testified that he flew around the room for
fifteen minutes and then found himself at the bottom of a two-hundred-
foot high ink well

On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 01:20:20 +0000, Dr John Watson
 wrote:

>Noticed at Fri, 30 Nov 2007 15:12:39 +0000: alang informed us:
>
>> Dr John Watson wrote:
>>> Noticed at Thu, 29 Nov 2007 13:10:21 +0000: Shaun informed us:
>>> 
>>>> But drugs are sold by violent gangsters and the dope heads are quite
>>>> happy to buy from them.
>>>>
>>>> Don't blame the Government for their lack of morals
>>> 
>>> Before governments unilaterally criminalised cannabis in the 1920s it was
>>> sold by respectable businesspeople. It's the governments that caused the
>>> problems.
>>> 
>> Actually 1930s and only in USofA
>> 
>> Here's the bastard wot done it
>> http://www.heartbone.com/no_thugs/hja.htm
>
>I understand he turned into a bat and flew into an inkwell, as you do.

I understand the twat lived a long and happy life. 
A pity considering how much misery he fostered on the world.

"mentalguy2004"  wrote in message 
news:YVe3j.35670$ib1.35315@newsfe3-win.ntli.net...
>
> "Janitor of Lunacy"  wrote in message 
> news:sPe3j.138456$7_4.105257@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>>
>> "mentalguy2004"  wrote in message 
>> news:X0e3j.50552$T8.36821@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...
>>>
>>> "Dr John Watson"  wrote in message 
>>> news:5r581mF12k2p3U1@mid.individual.net...
>>>> Noticed at Wed, 28 Nov 2007 10:48:48 +0000: mentalguy2004 informed us:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Dr John Watson"  wrote in message
>>>>> news:5r4om5F12s3c5U1@mid.individual.net...
>>>>>> That's 136 people whose lives have been damaged, by the immoral drug 
>>>>>> laws,
>>>>>> far more than they would have been by cannabis.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Also, 980 people (7.5%) were found not guilty.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2007-11-26a.166841.h
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, people shouldn't be punished for breaking laws they don't agree 
>>>>> with.
>>>>
>>>> The law has no place in deciding what an adult does with his own body,
>>>> especially where the substance in question is safer than most legal
>>>> substances.
>>>
>>> Which "legal substances" would they be?
>>
>> er, alcohol, nicotine?
>>
>
> I'd agree about alcohol. But I'm not convinced that nicotine causes 
> long-term psychoses. Maybe it would be better to say "cannabis may be 
> safer than alcohol" rather than "cannabis is FAR safer than MOST legal 
> substances". Bit misleading.
But Cannabis is. It's safer than say rat poison which I believe is legal, 
paint thinner, anti freeze etc. It's perfectly lega for me to drink anti 
freeze if I want.
Cheers
james
>

In article ,
 Dr John Watson  wrote:

> 
> Alcohol, which kills 8,000 people a year and tobacco, which kills 300
> people A DAY.

Hey, they were going to die anyway, those agents merely hastened the 
inevitable.