In article  Periander  writes:

>You're a fool if you think that by making drugs legal you'll get rid of 
>the crime associated with them. The dealers will still have a market, 
>with the young and the ones who are to far gone that even the local 
>chemist won't supply. And if the dealers remain so will the crime, the 
>only result of legalisation will be (as many others point out) a 
>situation analogous to that of tobacco, supposed control but in truth 
>available without any restriction causing illness and disability 
>wherever it touches. 

Note that when alcohol was illegal in this country, it fueled lots of crime
and corruption and helped fund organized crime.

Illegal drugs are MUCH MORE EXPENSIVE than legal drugs, and most of the
profits go into criminal enterprises.

Legalizing the drugs will reduce a LOT of crime.  It won't get rid of it,
but it will ensure that people who just buy and use won't be criminals JUST
because they buy and use.  And it will remove the "forbidden fruit" aspect
that is so appealing to teenagers looking to rebel against their parents'
generation and "the establishment".

Also, it will make the drugs far safer, so you don't get the mounting health
effects due to illegal drugs and their use.

And it will ensure all the money that currently goes into the illegal drugs
market will actually go to legal manufacturers, growers, sellers, distributers,
etc.

(And since we haven't had an abortion debate in t.p.d recently -- has anyone
else heard about the study that shows making abortion illegal doesn't in fact
keep people from getting abortions?  In fact, the abortion rate in countries
that have made abortion illegal is about the same as that in countries where
it is legal.  This actually contrasts with currently illegal drugs, where
the use rate in countries that have legalized or decriminalized drugs use
tends to be lower than in those countries that have maintained harsh penalties
for selling, buying and/or using currently illegal drugs.)

-Pete Zakel
 (phz@seeheader.nospam)

What is vice today may be virtue tomorrow.

pxhxz@cadence.com (Pete nospam Zakel) wrote in
news:470fc3e5$1@news.cadence.com: 

> In article  Periander
>  writes: 
> 
>>You're a fool if you think that by making drugs legal you'll get rid
>>of the crime associated with them. The dealers will still have a
>>market, with the young and the ones who are to far gone that even the
>>local chemist won't supply. And if the dealers remain so will the
>>crime, the only result of legalisation will be (as many others point
>>out) a situation analogous to that of tobacco, supposed control but in
>>truth available without any restriction causing illness and disability
>>wherever it touches. 
> 
> Note that when alcohol was illegal in this country, it fueled lots of
> crime and corruption and helped fund organized crime.

Try as I might I can't remember any time when alcohol was illegal "in this 
country", smoke a little less and you may learn to appreciate that you're 
posting to a UK group.


-- 
Regards or otherwise,

Periander

In article  Periander  writes:
>pxhxz@cadence.com (Pete nospam Zakel) wrote in
>news:470fc3e5$1@news.cadence.com: 

>> Note that when alcohol was illegal in this country, it fueled lots of
>> crime and corruption and helped fund organized crime.

>Try as I might I can't remember any time when alcohol was illegal "in this 
>country", smoke a little less and you may learn to appreciate that you're 
>posting to a UK group.

Actually, I'm reading in and posting to talk.politics.drugs, which is not
a UK group.  The fact that UK groups happen to be in the cross-postings
doesn't make this a UK group message.  There's nothing in any particular post
to indicate which newsgroup it originated from or is intended for, since all
newsgroups on the "Newsgroups" line are equal.

By "this country" I was refering to my country of residence, which would be
obvious to anyone with basic reading skills.  Or do you have problems with
standard grammatical constructs?

-Pete Zakel
 (phz@seeheader.nospam)

"In a five year period we can get one superb programming language.  Only
 we can't control when the five year period will begin."

pxhxz@cadence.com (Pete nospam Zakel) wrote in
news:470fdb50$1@news.cadence.com: 

>>> Note that when alcohol was illegal in this country, it fueled lots
>>> of crime and corruption and helped fund organized crime.
> 
>>Try as I might I can't remember any time when alcohol was illegal "in
>>this country", smoke a little less and you may learn to appreciate
>>that you're posting to a UK group.
> 
> Actually, I'm reading in and posting to talk.politics.drugs, which is
> not a UK group. 

So why use the phrase? 

-- 
Regards or otherwise,

Periander

On 12 Oct 2007 13:38:40 -0800, pxhxz@cadence.com (Pete nospam Zakel)
wrote:

>By "this country" I was refering to my country of residence, which would be
>obvious to anyone with basic reading skills.  Or do you have problems with
>standard grammatical constructs?

The Periander asshole has problems with thinking rationally. Standard
grammatical constructs are the least of it's worries.

Svenne

Svenne  wrote in
news:paq3h3lappfd3hjej4sktdgtlcuj3omsfm@4ax.com: 

>>By "this country" I was refering to my country of residence, which
>>would be obvious to anyone with basic reading skills.  Or do you have
>>problems with standard grammatical constructs?
> 
> The Periander asshole has problems with thinking rationally. Standard
> grammatical constructs are the least of it's worries.

I wouldn't normally, however as you've raised the subject of grammar it 
should be, "its" and not "it's".

Not that it matters much, but if you are going to try a grammar flame make 
sure you're not in the greenhouse when you throw stones, there's a good 
boy. 

-- 
Regards or otherwise,

Periander

On Sun, 14 Oct 2007 10:40:10 GMT, Periander 
wrote:

>Svenne  wrote in
>news:paq3h3lappfd3hjej4sktdgtlcuj3omsfm@4ax.com: 
>
>>>By "this country" I was refering to my country of residence, which
>>>would be obvious to anyone with basic reading skills.  Or do you have
>>>problems with standard grammatical constructs?
>> 
>> The Periander asshole has problems with thinking rationally. Standard
>> grammatical constructs are the least of it's worries.
>
>I wouldn't normally, however as you've raised the subject of grammar it 
>should be, "its" and not "it's".
>
>Not that it matters much, but if you are going to try a grammar flame make 
>sure you're not in the greenhouse when you throw stones, there's a good 
>boy. 

It's your difficulties with rationality that are your main problem. I
don't give a shit about your grammar.

Svenne

Svenne  wrote in 
news:are4h3dfqjgdsr5im53s2376ov8q2iaunf@4ax.com:

> 
> It's your difficulties with rationality ...

I take it that the irony of your statement is beyond you.

-- 
Regards or otherwise,

Periander