XPost: can.politics   
   From: sanchez_poopnutz@gringo.com   
      
   "Ivan Gowch"  wrote in message   
   news:l8q6h1pkvaaldinbtjt63t74g4b2r00jqa@4ax.com...   
   > newfysnapshot wrote:   
   > ==>> Drugs are bad for the body as well as for our children and for   
   > society in   
   > ==>> general.   
   >   
   > Bullshit.   
   >   
   > Since you care so much about society's welfare,   
   > why are you not attacking the drug that's responsible   
   > for more grief and hardship than all the illegal   
   > substances put together -- alcohol?   
   >   
   > It's alcohol that's implicated in the vast majority of   
   > drug-related accidents, crime, child-abuse, economic   
   > harm due to lost production, property damage,   
   > destroyed lives.   
   >   
   > The ONLY problem associated with illegal mood-altering   
   > substances is that they're illegal, not that they're   
   > harmful in and of themselves.   
   >   
   > Even the king of illegal drugs, heroin, presents   
   > no particular health or law-enforcement problem,   
   > except that its illegality makes it expensive, meaning   
   > that addicts must engage in crime to get enough money   
   > to feed their habits.  A heroin addict lucky enough to   
   > be rich -- and there are such -- does not rob banks or   
   > mug old ladies or go insane.  He takes his "medicine,"   
   > nods off and harms no one except, perhaps,   
   > himself, if he allows his habit to rob him of ambition   
   > or desire to be productive.   
   >   
   > It's the fact that some drugs are banned that makes   
   > them so expensive that black markets have grown up to   
   > supply users, and the vast profits to be made from   
   > such trade that sparks the turf wars, gang killings   
   > and collateral damage associated with them, as   
   > well as corruption of public officials, the   
   > overcrowding in our prisons, etc., etc.   
   >   
   > If all the prohibitions were removed today and   
   > (almost) all drugs made available at the local   
   > pharmacy, the prices would drop dramatically,   
   > the criminal gangs that now thrive by supplying   
   > them would vanish, the turf wars would end and   
   > bullets would stop flying around suburban Toronto   
   > neighbourhoods.   
   >   
   > Only three popular drugs are inherently dangerous   
   > to those who use them -- methamphetamine and   
   > PCP -- both of which are highly deleterious to the   
   > brain and can, in fact, make people crazy -- and, of   
   > course, alcohol.   
   >   
   > This cannot be said of cannabis, cocaine, heroin or   
   > any of the "psychedelics" such as LSD, mescaline,   
   > psilocybin ("magic mushrooms") or ecstasy.  Use of   
   > these does not make people insane, or turn to crime   
   > or kill their families.   
   >   
      
   I'm generally for legalization of most drugs and I agree that alcohol is the   
   biggest problem drug, but I would definately put coke and heroin on the list   
   of inherently dangerous drugs for the simple fact that an overdose can kill   
   you. Even the most hardened junkie can accidently overdose, or the novice   
   who has no idea how much they are taking. Plus all drugs cause some kind of   
   bodily harm, alcohol destroys the liver, weed damages the lungs, coke can   
   cause heart damage and nasal passage damage, etc. So while alcohol is by far   
   the drug with the worst effects on society, the use of any of them should be   
   discouraged.   
      
      
      
   > The only question remaining is whether we have the   
   > courage to demand that our legislators act rationally   
   > and wipe from the books laws that are not only   
   > unenforceable, but counter-productive.   
      
   Our current drug laws are certainly a waste of resources.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)