On 29 nov, 01:54, px...@cadence.com (Pete nospam Zakel) wrote:
> In article <X0e3j.50552$T8.36...@newsfe5-win.ntli.net> "mentalguy2004"  writes:
>
> >"Dr John Watson"  wrote in message
> >news:5r581mF12k2p3U1@mid.individual.net...
> >> 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?
>
> Name any one, cannabis is probably safer.
>
> Potatoes, cannabis is safer.
>
> Aspirin, cannabis is safer.
>
> Alcohol, cannabis is safer.
>
> Coffee, cannabis is safer.
>
> Tea, cannabis is safer.
>
> Chainsaws, cannabis is safer.
>
> Automobiles, cannabis is safer.
>
> Water, cannabis is safer.

Eh... experts on psychoactives seem to disagree with most of the above
statements as far as they concern
substances that are ingested by humans:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6474053.stm

Or perhaps you'd claim that lsd is safer than water as well? Or maybe
you think the scheme proposed by those scientists is nonsense and
you'd like to propose an alternative classification of psychoactives
according to their associated potential for harming an individual (and
consequently society).

Some of your claims regarding cannabis are only valid with respect to
the risk of fatally overdosing on such substances. Ok, it's easier to
fatally overdose on water than on cannabis, but there are other risks
associated with substances besides the risk of a fatal overdose.
It's somewhat silly to compare stuff like cars and chainsaws to
cannabis. That's an equally meaningful statement as saying that
cannabis is safer than the sun or cannabis is safer than molecules. So
complete gibberish, basically.
People hurt themselves occasionally by using chainsaws.. ok, people
also hurt themselves by staring at the sun or ingesting molecules...

>
> -Pete Zakel
>  (p...@seeheader.nospam)
>
> UNITED KINGDOM IS SERIOUS ABOUT OPEN GOVERNMENT
>
> Minutes after the Government formally joined the Internet, the department
> responsible for Open Government was the victim of a hacker.  The Minister for
> Science said:  "Six minutes after we went live, a man from Edinburgh University
> hacked into our system, decided he didn't like the design of some of our pages
> and redesigned them.  Now, in fact, he made them better, and the people who
> designed the pages accept that.  The problem is, supposing somebody is able
> to hack into the  system, changes the information and somebody acts on that
> information.  Whose responsibility is it?  I don't know the answer.  But I
> think you will be reassured that we at least are posing that question."
>
>                                 -The Guardian, 8 Dec 1994, p.10