XPost: uk.politics.drugs, uk.legal   
   From: pxhxz@cadence.com   
      
   In article <_oydnf-d4ZQEHsHXnZ2dnUVZ8k2dnZ2d@bt.com> "Aidy"  writes:   
   >"Cynic"  wrote in message   
   >news:d7vo5516m2vppsjtet4br4e5o0veide02t@4ax.com...   
      
   >> The whole *point* of your analogy was to justify the prohibition on   
   >> drugs by claiming that things would be no different if the market were   
   >> legal.  I just pointed out a *huge* difference between the   
   >> consequences of illegal sales in an otherwise legal market and illegal   
   >> sales in a market where no legal sales are possible.  It is a   
   >> difference that is extremely relevant, as it is used to justify the   
   >> prohibition!   
      
   >As I said...irrelevant.  We're talking about if people will buy from an   
   >illegal source if a legal source is available.   
      
   Quite relevant.  Even if buying from an illegal source, in a legal climate the   
   drugs from the illegal source are much more likely to be of known purity and   
   with known contents.   
      
   -Pete Zakel   
    (phz@seeheader.nospam)   
      
   "Hackers do it with fewer instructions."   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)