XPost: uk.legal, uk.politics.drugs   
   From: Blah@hotmail.com   
      
   JohnR wrote:   
   > "Blah"  wrote in message   
   > news:7dljrmF2apl78U1@mid.individual.net...   
   >> Svenne wrote:   
   >>> On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 14:28:09 +0100, Blah  wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>> Svenne wrote:   
   >>>>> Yes, all drugs are dangerous in themselves to varying degrees but made   
   >>>>> many magnitudes more dangerous by prohibition.   
   >>>>> An old boozer like Blah can spend his days stinking of stale alcohol   
   >>>>> and unrine and boring everyone around, but him and everyone else would   
   >>>>> be worse off if alcohol were made illegal. The knackered old fart   
   >>>>> would even be better off all prohibition were ended and he turned to   
   >>>>> something less destructive than the bottle.   
   >>>> You seem to have an obsession with me Svenne, are the voices talking to   
   >>>> you again?   
   >>>> What exactly is YOUR problem, were you beaten by an alcoholic father?   
   >>> It's the shite you write I'm commenting on, Blah. You know, the stuff   
   >>> you are posting on usenet, or have you forgotten. I think you should   
   >>> worry more about your own problems and lay off the booze for a while.   
   >>>   
   >>> Svenne   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >> So, lets sum this up - I point out that an illegal drug is causing mental   
   >> health problems, and most users are quite happy to gloss over any evidence   
   >> of a problem.   
   >>   
   >> And *you* respond with a bitter rant about *my* use of alcohol?   
   >>   
   >> How does that work then? Fuckwit.   
   >>   
   >> You definitly want to see someone about your paranoia.   
   >>   
   > Here's the flaw in your apparent support of prohibition of some drugs,   
   > presumably only the ones you don't use I might add.   
      
   I have a *particular* vested interest in skunk, since it fried the   
   missus brains (at least according to me and her shrink).   
   And not once have I mention support of prohibition, its it wonderful   
   when users read what they want from your message.   
      
   I am firmly pro *"don't let users get away with telling everyone how   
   wonderful it it"*, when it clearly *isn't*. If enough users can get   
   support for it being legalised, *so be it* - doesn't bother me the   
   slightest, *AS LONG* as the message that *makes* it happen *AND* then   
   *allowed to accompany the legalisation* is a much more *cautious* -*fine*   
      
   Pot users would have a *much* better chance of support if they *wern't*   
   so *rabid* about it being *god's gift*.   
      
   For the record, legalise Heroin and Cocaine tommorrow! There doesn't   
   seem to be any risks that a user won't already understand clearly.   
      
      
      
   > There is no evidence whatsoever that prohibition and the cretins who support   
   > it's vindictive persecution do anything but make the situation with some   
   > drugs many times worse than they would otherwise be. On the other hand there   
   > is spades of evidence that legally regulated markets and medical support   
   > where required are the way forward.   
   >   
   Possibly, have I said any different?   
   Problem you users have is that the more *excited* you get about the   
   topic, the more the government of the day is likely to point a finger   
   and say "see, thats what drugs do to you"   
      
   More research and *reasoned* argument from the drug lobby perhaps?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)