XPost: uk.legal, uk.politics.drugs   
   From: johs@size436464778fitter.com   
      
   Svenne wrote:   
   >   
   > On Sun, 05 Apr 2009 13:32:59 +0100, johannes   
   >  wrote:   
   >   
   > >   
   > >   
   > >Svenne wrote:   
   > >>   
   > >> On Sat, 04 Apr 2009 13:23:39 +0100, johannes   
   > >>  wrote:   
   > >>   
   > >> >Politically, it's a question of what we want. I believe that the majority   
   > >> >are happy with the prohibition, to protect the more vulnerable and to   
   maintain   
   > >> >reasonable standards of trust and well being. I would not deal   
   professionally   
   > >> >with any person if I knew that he/she was a drug taker.   
   >   
   > >> What if the drugs the person took were alcohol and tobacco, would you   
   > >> refuse to deal professionally with them then?   
   >   
   > >It depends. Smokers stink and can be a fire risk. Drinking in moderation is   
   ok,   
   > >as most people do, but uncontrolled drinking is not ok. Users of illegal   
   drugs   
   > >are acting criminally and hence not trustworthy; that alone is enough to put   
   > >me off. Then there is also the risk of instability and irrational behaviour.   
   > >This is of course prejudicial, but based on actual cases.   
   >   
   > Drinking in moderation is drug taking in moderation. So drug taking in   
   > moderation is quite normal and acceptable. Most people do it whatever   
   > the drug.   
      
   I can't argue with you when you change the definitions along the line. The   
   issue   
   for the thread is prohibited drugs under classification A,B,C.   
      
   > As for instability and irrational behaviour, I've found that tends to   
   > be most common amongst alcohol users.   
      
   As for instability and irrational behaviour, I've found that tends to   
   be most common amongst A,B,C drug users and a small number of clinical   
   alcoholics.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)